|
2007
The
regular meeting of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, October
17, 2007, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman William Cook in the Board
of Supervisors Chambers of the 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 DISQUALIFICATIONS:
None
PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. CUP2700511; Conditional Use Permit - Town & Country Marketplace Outparcel 2 - A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow vehicle fuel sales in a B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on Assessor’s Parcel 54SS-2 consisting of 0.97 acres located on the south side of White Oak Road approximately 2,200 feet east of Town and Country Drive within the George Washington Election District. (Time Limit: January 15, 2008)
Jon
Schultis presented the staff report. He stated the property was undeveloped and
the adjacent use would include a site plan submitted for retail, Medical Office,
Warehouse, 7-Eleven and Giant. He provided pictures of the existing conditions
and proposed the vehicle fueling station was capable of servicing vehicles and
fuel trucks. He stated the primary access would be from Town and
Mrs. Carlone stated she was not thrilled with the style of canopy.
Mr. Schultis stated there were pictures provided by the applicant to show what the canopy may look like.
Mrs. Kirby asked what materials were being used.
Mr. Schultis deferred to the applicant.
Brian Johnson, Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin Inc., stated he would answer any questions.
Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned with the lighting.
Mr. Johnson stated there would be recessed lighting in the canopy as part of the conditions. Mrs. Kirby asked about the building materials.
Mr. Johnson stated it was mostly aluminum with steel columns.
Mrs. Kirby asked about the colors of the building.
Mr. Johnson stated the colors would match the shopping center.
Mrs. Kirby stated she would like to see something classier.
Mr. Johnson stated it would not be an architectural feature.
Mrs. Kirby stated she would like to see a quality product that would be timeless and not use aluminum.
Mr. Johnson agreed.
Mr. Di Peppe stated he agreed with Mrs. Kirby and required a General Development Plan (GDP). He stated the Commission would like to know exactly what the county would be getting.
Mr. Cook opened the public hearing.
Keith Angstadt stated he owns a home directly across the street and feels this would be a bad idea for the area. He stated he requested the property across the street be rezoned for his office and was denied. He stated the Commission suggested going to the Board of Zoning Appeals and that was also denied. He stated it would be difficult to sell his property as a residential property because of the gas station and the gas trucks that would be coming through the area on a regular basis. He asked that the Commission deny the Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
With no one else coming forward, Mr. Cook closed the public hearing.
Mr. Johnson stated he did not know the history of the property or street and stated there would be no major impacts.
Mr. Pitzel asked if the gas station would be behind the medical center.
Mr. Johnson stated yes.
Mr. Di Peppe stated there was a closed gas station to the left of this property.
Mr. Johnson stated the gas station that was closed may be changing uses and the current gas station would be servicing the shopping center and incentive for customer to use shopping center.
Mr. Pitzel asked the Commissioners what issues were there with the appearance.
Mrs. Kirby stated the county deserves a better design that would be more appealing.
Mrs. Carlone stated, in her opinion, the design was not attractive and she would like to see a better rendering from the applicant. Mr. Di Peppe stated he also would like to see a better rendering and would like a proffer stating if the gas station was not in use for a certain amount of time that it would be torn down.
Mr. Pitzel agreed with Mr. Di Peppe
Mr. Harvey stated since this was a CUP the county would impose the conditions and could make a resolution as needed.
Mr. Pitzel made a motion to put Item 1 in committee to consider some changes in appearance and add to the CUP the removal of the gas station if out of service. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 6-0. (Mr. Rhodes was absent)
Mr. Di Peppe requested a rendering.
Mr. Pitzel summarized what the Commission was looking for a rendering, a materials statement and an addition of a sunset clause.
2. Index of Official Road Names – Amend the Addressing Ordinance as follows:
Location
At the intersection with Stanstead Road South Gateway Drive
from a point 1,000 feet northwest of Warrenton Road to its terminus
From a point 10,000 feet Auction Drive South Gateway Drive northwest of Warrenton
Road to Falls
From Falls to the eastern terminus of Tomorrow Street
From the eastern terminus Tomorrow Street South Gateway Drive of Tomorrow Street to
Jamie
Stepowany presented staff report and gave a brief description as to why
this item was before the Commission for a third time. He stated the first time was May 2,
2007, requesting the current name of
Mr. Pitzel confirmed the roads to be renamed and asked how many businesses would be affected.
Mr. Stepowany stated there are currently six businesses that would be affected by the change to South Gateway Drive He stated there were no businesses on Tomorrow Street that would be affected.
Mrs. Kirby stated she thought the County had a policy of not using North, South, East, or West in street names.
Mr. Stepowany stated it was not a policy but an ordinance. He clarified stating there was an ordinance in 2005, but it did not state Cardinal Points were prohibited and was deleted from the ordinance.
Mrs. Kirby stated there were three large businesses that would require changing letterhead, federal tax forms, employee information, and order forms.
Mr. Mitchell stated he has problem with the ordinance and previously voted against it. He stated he had a problem with changing the Auto Auction which had been there for many years and hundreds, possibly thousands of companies deal with the Auto Auction. He stated it would be a large problem to notify up to 1000 companies, changing invoices, letterhead, and anything additional required would be a tremendous cost to any company.
Mr. Di Peppe stated the last time this item came before the Planning Commission the Auto Auction came in and explained in great detail all the changes and the burden this would cause the Auto Auction. He stated he did not see the benefit with changing the street name.
Mr.
Stepowany stated the Board requested the road to be renamed to
Mr. Di
Peppe stated there are hundreds of people coming into the county for the Auto
Auction and in his opinion, it would only make sense to keep the road named
Mr. Cook stated at the last public hearing that this item was presented, the Auto Auction mentioned the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to change the name.
Mr. Cook opened public hearing.
Cliff
Carney, Blue Beacon Truck
With on one else coming forward Mr. Cook closed the public hearing.
Mr. Di
Peppe made a motion to recommend denial of the Street Addressing Ordinance and
rename the entire road to
3.
Index of
Location
Northeast
side of Lane approximately 1000 feet southeast of
Jon
Schultis presented staff report. He stated the street in question was to name an
easement
Mr. Cook opened public hearing.
With no one coming forward Mr. Cook closed public hearing.
Mr.
Mitchell made a motion to amend the Street Addressing Ordinance to name an
unnamed road to
James Stepowany presented staff report.
Mrs. Carlone asked if there were 130 children in the residences provided where would the children play.
Mr. Stepowany stated an urban park would be provided as a multi-use area.
Mrs. Carlone asked about the safety of the children.
Mr. Stepowany stated there would be a lot of eyes and general public watching the children.
Mrs. Carlone asked about transportation. Mr.
Pitzel asked if there were 3 access points into the
Mr. Stepowany stated yes, 1 full entrance and 2 right in right out entrances.
Mr. Pitzel asked about the traffic service was.
Mr. Stepowany referenced page 6 of the staff report under Traffic Impact Study.
Mrs. Kirby asked if a Fiscal Impact Statement was provided.
Mr. Stepowany stated yes.
Mrs. Kirby stated she would like to have a copy for herself. She stated she was taken back to hear there were no Historical sites and asked where that information was obtained. She stated the church was around before the Urban Service Area.
Mr. Mitchell stated the county encouraged the developer to go with the Traditional Neighborhood Development.
Mr. Stepowany asked Mr. Mitchell to define encourage.
Mr.
Mitchell stated the applicant had a meeting with staff and discussed the
existing in
Mr.
Stepowany state when staff had the first discussions, the proposal requested a
B-2 Zoning District for use the TND because it fit the development better. Mr. Di Peppe asked why this project was being heard by the Commission if there was no report from VDOT.
Mr. Stepowany stated the state does not require comments from VDOT for Planning Commission and VDOT has 120 days to review from receipt.
Mr. Di Peppe asked for 60 foot building without architectural features and now the building could be as high as 96 feet.
Mr. Stepowany stated the proffer stated 90 feet was the highest a building could be.
Mr.
Leming, Leming and Healy, stated this redevelopment was the first type in
Dean Bellas, Urban Analytics, Inc. went through portions of the Fiscal Impact Study in great detail. He spoke about the economic development within the county. He discussed jobs in the county and revenue brought into the county by residents who would live in the county.
Mr.
Leming discussed some of the architectural aspects that would be provided within
the
Bryce Turner stated the elevations provided were not in stone. He stated the main street leads to Route 1. He stated there would be 2, 3, or 4 levels above retail and there would be apartments on either side. He stated he was looking to have 3 or 4 levels above retail that lined the street.
Mrs. Kirby questioned who stated the site was not historical.
Mr. Leming stated that was partially staff and the applicant.
Mrs. Kirby stated there were artifacts that were located in that area and the church had been around before the county was established.
Mr. Leming stated the applicant was not there when the original shopping center went in.
Mrs. Kirby stated just because there was pavement there did not mean it was no historical resource. She stated she was concerned about phasing and wanted to see want the residential looked liked. She stated originally the agreement was the applicant would proffer to pay for the units and now there was a Community Development Authority (CDA).
Mr. Leming stated the CDA would not be responsible for paying the proffers but was necessary for some of the infrastructure on site.
Mrs. Kirby stated she was excited about this project, however, did not like to hear the applicant was going to start as of January 1, 2008.
Mr. Leming stated he wanted to be as candid and upfront as possible.
Mr. Di Peppe stated he would like to see the design of the urban park and find out more about the dwellings. He stated he would like to know if the housing would be apartments or condos and if there were condos, having a percentage being work force housing.
Mr. Leming stated the applicant could give additional details about the park. He stated the applicant does not know anymore about the residential until a residential developer was identified.
Mr. Di Peppe asked if the deadline was January 15, 2008.
Mr. Leming stated that was correct.
Mr. Di Peppe stated the Commission was to make a decision without knowing what they were getting.
Mr. Leming stated once the residential developer was identified, the applicant may have more information for the Commission. Mr. Cook stated the application was incomplete with no transportation data and would have to continue the public hearing at a later date when the Commission has more facts.
Mr. Cook opened the public hearing.
Reverend
Cuthbert Mandel, Aquia Episcopal Church, stated he was overwhelmed because the
church was not included in anything that was presented by the applicant. He
stated the church was built in 1878 and there was a grave yard dating back to
1600. He stated Aquia Episcopal Church was the most historic site in
Bob Woodson stated he would reserve his comments until the next public hearing.
Frank
Adams stated he moved to Stafford to get away form
John
Dileo stated he has lived in
Karl
Johnson stated there would be a 3 level parking garage that he could see from
his deck. He stated the garage would be painted white and with the lights on
would not be able to see the stars. He stated currently his property was a cut
through for teenagers going to
Pamela
Haines stated
Dave
Mitchell stated drains in
Melissa Dileo asked if the architectural were available for public viewing and stated the residents do not know what they are getting.
Mr. Cook stated they should be available at the next meeting.
Connie
King stated she has lived in James Koonz stated the applicant would be putting a development into an already existent development. He stated the county should take into account the effects on the environment.
Walter
Kriter stated he has lived in
Erin
Welch stated she was glad to see development but the county should ask what the
development would do and what effect it would have on the county. She stated the
people of
With no one else coming forward, Mr. Cook closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Kirby made a motion to continue and extend the public hearing. Mr. Pitzel seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes absent)
Mr. Cook stated there would be a work session before the next public hearing and would be announced in the newspaper.
Mr. Leming stated the objective was to do something nice and redevelop a shopping center in need of it. He stated there was no intent to have a 90 foot garage and the applicant would be happy to meet with representatives of the church. He stated residential units are part of the TND and would be upscale and not for large families. He stated having the CDA in place would help the applicants with the roofs. He stated most development would be similar to what was proposed in the TND with no handbook. He asked the church to schedule meeting as soon as possible.
Ed Wizner stated he felt this was a partnership and would meet with the church soon. He stated the applicant was trying to develop a high class neighborhood.
Mr. Cook stated he asked staff to find dates to meet for a public work session and the date chosen was November 1, 2007. He stated the work session would be open to the public and televised.
Mr. Harvey clarified the continuation of the public hearing would be held on November 28, 2007 and would be re-advertised.
James Stepowany presented staff report. He stated this Ordinance was held in Public Hearing previously and there was a modification to require and show the building structures for firefighter and rescue apparatus have a fire lane with a width of 20 feet clear of any vegetation and structures for any PAE or ingress/egress easements for family subdivisions. He stated the Ordinance had been revised to state each lot of property 5 acres or greater in an area shall front on a road which was part of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) road systems, or be served by an ingress/ egress easement of not less then fifty (50) feet in width, with a minimum width of twenty (20) feet for the roadway clear of any structures or vegetation, to a road which is part of VDOT road system. He stated the roadway within the ingress/egress easement shall be no less than ten (10) feet in width which was also carried in the provisions for the PAE.
Mrs. Kirby stated the information states for a width of 10 feet with a Private Access Easement (PAE).
Mr. Stepowany stated that had always been the requirement and the road way itself had always been a minimum of 10 feet.
Mrs. Kirby asked if that would be 10 feet clear.
Mr. Stepowany stated the road way was 10 feet and if on less then 5 acre the easement width would be 20 feet. He stated the purpose of this Ordinance was because there was never a minimum width requirement for easement, there was only a minimum width for the roadway.
Mr. Judy stated there needed to be a clarification to state a minimum width of 20 feet in width clear of any structure or vegetation and take the word (roadway) out. He stated the Ordinance suggests there needed to be a twenty (20) foot wide paved or gravel roadway and that was not the intent. He stated cart path was a better word to use.
Mr. Cook opened the public hearing.
Tom Cropp stated he supported the amendment.
With no one else coming forward Mr. Cook closed the public hearing.
Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to approve the proposed Ordinance O07-58 with the recommended changes. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent)
6. Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance - Amendments to Section 22-5, Family and Minor Subdivisions, of the Subdivision Ordinance, pursuant to O07-71. The amendment limits a minor subdivision to no more than one (1) PAE per parent parcel.
Jamie Stepowany presented the staff report. He stated a minor subdivision shall not contain more than one (1) PAE. He stated this had been presented to the Planning Commission on numerous occasions. He stated a minor subdivision would come in with four (4) lots, there had been several application that would come in requesting 2 PAE’s. He stated staff was concerned because applicants would request PAE in lieu of the process to have a public road.
Mr. Cook opened the public hearing.
Tom Cropp stated he was opposed to this ordinance. He stated 3 years earlier applicants would be able to have four (4) to five (5) lots on a PAE. He stated staff advised VDOT does not want the county to have more then two (2) lots on a PAE and if there were 3 or more houses the applicant would have to apply with VDOT to get the road in the state system and VDOT does not want roads with 3 or 4 houses. He stated he would like to see VDOT efforts on arterial roads than on a road that would have three (3) or four (4) houses on it.
With no one else coming forward Mr. Cook closed the public hearing.
Mr. Judy stated VDOT has a rule that there has to be at least (4) residences on a road before they will take into the system. He stated the roads do not have to be VDOT roads but they have to be VDOT compliant. He stated if there were three (3) or more homes on a road there would have to be fifty (50) feet Right of Way (ROW) and constructed to VDOT standards under the private street regulation. He stated the issue would be in the future if the residents on the street demand VDOT to take in that it would be VDOT compliant.
Mr. Pitzel stated he thought the intent was once there were three (3) houses there would be a certain standard required so there would not be narrow roads serving three (3) or four (4) lots.
Mr. Stepowany stated that was correct because applicants are requesting two (2) PAE’s side by side in lieu of building a road to VDOT standards.
Mr. Di Peppe made a motion for approval for Ordinance O07-71. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 5-1 (Mr. Cook was opposed) (Mr. Rhodes absent)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
7.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment -
Mr. Cook stated this item was deferred to the November 7, 2007, Regular Meeting.
8.
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
Mr. Cook stated this item was deferred to the November 7, 2007, Regular Meeting.
9. SUB2600625; Williams Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A preliminary subdivision plan for 13 single family residential lots, zoned A-2, Rural Residential, consisting of 14.55 acres located on the north side of Enon Road approximately 1,500 feet west of Wyatt Lane on Assessor's Parcels 45-125 and 45-125B within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: February 28, 2007)(Deferred to January 9, 2008 Regular Meeting at the applicant’s request)
Mr. Cook stated this item was deferred to the January 9, 2008, Regular Meeting.
10. 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 this item was deferred to the November 7, 2007 Regular Meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
None
MINUTES
None
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Harvey stated there was a press release sent out stating three commissioners would participate on Monday, October 22, 2007 staff and these Commissioners would be touring the Kentland’s in Maryland to look at the Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) and get a better idea of how it exists. He stated the Board approved the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the road crossing in the flood hazard zone for Vulcan Quarry and accepted the CUP with all conditions recommended by staff and the Commission. He stated the Board indefinitely deferred the building height for the High School and felt it would be premature to approve at this time. He stated the Board referred to the Commission a change to the Comprehensive Plan for the Courthouse Area and recommended Board initiated zoning on several properties in the area. He stated the Board had discussion about mandatory water and sewer inside of the Urban Service Area and deferred to a new public hearing on November 20, 2007.
|
|
Send this to a friend |