Members Present:         Cook, Kirby, Pitzel, Mitchell, Carlone, and Rhodes

Members Absent:         Di Peppe

Staff Present:                Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Zuraf, Kaminsky, Hamock, and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1.         Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan – Centreport Gateway – A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan map component of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would redesignate Assessor’s Parcel 37-25 from Light Industrial, Suburban Residential, and Resource Protection land use to Urban Commercial and Resource Protection land use consisting of 51.25 acres, located on the west side of Interstate 95 separated in two parts by Centerport Parkway within the Hartwood Election District. The Urban Commercial designation would allow development of commercial retail and office uses. (Time Limit: October 16, 2007)(Deferred to the October 3, 2007 Work Session)

2.                  RC2700199; Reclassification – Centreport Gateway - A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District to allow for the development of a commercial office park to include a mix of offices, retail commercial uses, and a hotel on Assessor's Parcel 37-25 consisting of 51.25 acres, located on the west side of Interstate 95 separated in two parts by Centreport Parkway within the Hartwood Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Light Industrial, Suburban Residential, and Resource Protection uses. The Light Industrial designation would allow light industrial, light manufacturing and office uses. The Suburban Residential use would permit single family residential development at a density of three (3) dwelling units per acre. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a full listing of permitted uses in the B-2 Zoning District. (Time Limit: September 18, 2007) (Deferred to the October 3, 2007 Work Session) 

Mr. Cook asked that items 1 and 2 be discussed together.

Mr. Harvey stated there were a number of discussions in reference to Centerport Gateway and there were new proffers submitted by the applicant. He stated the applicant was available to go over the changes.

Mr. Cook stated the applicant met with two of the Planning Commissioners, Ruth Carlone and Barbara Kirby.

Mrs. Kirby stated she and Mrs. Carlone met with Mr. Darling and his attorney. She stated the items discussed referenced the building design so the people in the community would know what they were getting. She stated six different building elevations were presented and she and Mrs. Carlone, thought two or three buildings were of nice quality.

Mrs. Carlone stated there was information that was delayed from VDOT.

Mr. Cook stated he thought VDOT was taken care when the entrances were changed.

Debrarae Karnes, Leming and Healy, stated she spoke with Harry Lee with VDOT in reference to this proposal which involved two separate entrances. She stated Mr. Lee works on the technical aspects of site plans, which was ok in concept. She stated the applicant originally came in seeking access to the project through Centerport Parkway with two entrances.

Mr. Zuraf stated the changes in the revised proffers were addressed and corrected.

Mr. Judy stated on page 6, Regional Transportation Improvements A states “this proffer subject to the provision of the necessary right of way for the proposed by the County of Stafford.” He asked what happens if the county does not provide Right of Way (ROW).  

Ms. Karnes stated the road would not be built and the applicant cannot build his project.

Mr. Judy stated he was not sure the County should be responsible for providing ROW, and stated he did not feel it should be in the proffers as written. 

Clark Leming, Leming and Healy, stated that portion of the proffer was contingent on the availability of ROW. He stated if there was no ROW, the road could not be built. He stated he was not sure if this should be a burden on the county, but the ROW does have to be obtained.

Mr. Judy asked if Mr. Leming’s client was suggesting the county obtain and pay for the ROW.

Mr. Leming stated no, if the county was willing to obtain the ROW, then the applicant would pay for it.

Mr. Judy stated pay for the condemnation process.

Mr. Leming stated that was correct.

Ms. Karnes stated she would make a proffer correction stating it was contingent on the acquisition of the ROW.

Mr. Leming stated at the applicant expense.

Mr. Zuraf stated for clarification, at the end of each statement they would replace “by the County of Stafford” with the verbiage discussed.

Mr. Cook asked if that would meet Mr. Judy’s approval.

Mr. Judy stated yes. He stated in section 2A, Maximum Development Density, it states parking structures are excluded from the calculation of floor area ratio. He started looking at the Zoning Ordinance in reference to a parking garage, he was not sure if that could be excluded.

Mr. Leming stated the garages would be open and multi-level.

Mrs. Carlone stated based on the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) the garage should be kept open.

Mr. Kirby stated if there was going to be an elevator it should be a glass elevator to allow Deputies to see the occupants.

Mr. Judy asked whether it should be excluded.

Mr. Leming stated the applicant was proffering to a stricter standard then the Ordinance requires and for purposes under the proffer the garage would be excluded. He asked what the Ordinance requires for floor area ratio.  

Mr. Harvey stated the definition of floor area ratio was “the total floor area of a building or buildings on a lot divided by gross area of the lot or site.” He also stated the definition for floor area was the sum of the gross horizontal areas of each story of all buildings on a site or lot.

Mr. Leming asked what the floor area ratio was in a B-2 Zoning District.

Mr. Harvey stated the floor area ratio was 0.4.

Mr. Judy stated on page 10 the applicant agrees to upgrade and oversize capacity and construct onsite utilities and off-site utilities as may be necessary and sufficient to serve, both the subject property and other properties in the immediate service area, provided the County of Stafford shall facilitate and approve a pro rata share cost reimbursement plan. 

Ms. Karnes clarified by stating the applicant would construct on-site utilities without a pro rata agreement. She stated on page 10 the applicant agrees to upgrade and oversize with a pro rata agreement provided it was subject to approval by the county. She stated, as she understands, the county cannot approve a pro rata agreement for something not on the Comprehensive Sewer Plan and this improvement was not currently shown.

Mrs. Carlone asked Mr. Zuraf if the requirements for the perennial stream had been met.

Mr. Zuraf stated staff spoke with the applicant earlier and had mentioned the pond may be a difficult feature to have because of the permitting requirements. He stated applicant wanted to keep on the general plan, there was no proffer stating the pond would be built and he does not think the rezoning approved the location of the pond. He stated the applicant was aware of the strict process they may need to go through to have the pond.

Mr. Pitzel stated as discussed earlier there would be no interconnection across Centreport parkway, and on page 9 it states they shall include pedestrian connections to adjoining properties. He asked for a definition of adjoining properties.

Ms. Karnes stated the properties were adjacent properties and not across the road.  

Mr. Pitzel stated the proffer clearly states there were no crossings going across Centreport Parkway. He stated the proffer may need to be reworded to clearly state the properties are next to each other and not across the road. He stated on page 4, outdoor flea market came up as a CUP.

Ms. Karnes stated that would be taken out.

Mrs. Carlone made a motion to recommend item 1 to full commission to recommend approval to the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 6-0. (Mr. Di Peppe was absent)

Mrs. Carlone made a motion to recommend item 2 to full commission to recommend approval of  Reclassification 2700199. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 6-0. (Mr. Di Peppe was absent)

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Planned-Traditional Neighborhood Development (P-TND) Zoning District.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Commission discussed the modifications to the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Zoning District and it was suggested that all corrections be listed on one document. He discussed the revisions in detail and stated he would prepare an Ordinance to go to public hearing.

Mr. Cook stated he received several calls regarding golf courses and asked if golf courses should be allowed under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

Mr. Rhodes agreed.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned with the water usage with a golf course.

Mrs. Kirby asked what the acreage was on a golf course.

Mr. Stepowany stated the minimum acreage would be 150 acres and could include practice tees and driving range as an accessory use.

Mrs. Carlone did not agree with having a golf course. She asked if golf courses constitute open space.

Mr. Stepowany stated yes.

Mr. Pitzel stated he would want to keep the golf course out.

Mrs. Kirby stated she would vote against the golf course.

Mr. Mitchell stated he would agree with Mr. Rhodes.

After a brief discussion concerning golf courses Mrs. Carlone made a motion to remove golf course as a normal by right use. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion failed 3-3. (Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Cook opposed) (Mr. Di Peppe was absent)

Mr. Rhodes made a motion to list the golf course as a right with a CUP. Mr. Mitchell seconded.

Mr. Pitzel stated an amendment should state there would be a maximum of 18 holes.

Mr. Rhodes agreed.

Mrs. Carlone stated there would be a maximum capacity of 18 holes.

The motion passed 4-2. (Mrs. Carlone and Mrs. Kirby opposed) (Mr. Di Peppe was absent)

Mr. Cook asked Mr. Stepowany to add golf course with the inclusion of practice tees and driving ranges only permitted under CUP.

Mr. Stepowany stated the public facility and water tank was added and green houses and stables would be removed. He stated telecommunication facility would need a CUP.

Mr. Judy asked which source the definition for redevelopment came from.

Mr. Stepowany stated it cam from the Code Administration Dictionary of definitions.

Mrs. Kirby asked why parking lots were included.

Mr. Stepowany stated waivers would be needed to have certain activity within a Reservoir Protection Area (RPA).

Mrs. Carlone stated parking lots should not be included.

Mr. Stepowany stated this was an example as a type of activity in the RPA with approval by certain offices.

Mr. Harvey stated parking lots would be a bad example and would not be permitted except by variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated there were strict regulations of what would be permitted in the RPA.

Mr. Judy asked if those potential uses would be specified in the Stated and Federal Standards.

Mr. Harvey stated the Chesapeake Bay Act was a state legislation passed to the locality and the county adopted the model ordinance and adjusted it to our county. He stated the State looks at the county to ensure the proper job was being done.

Mr. Judy asked if the potential uses that could be made in the RPA or any buffer referred to fully described in State standards.

Mr. Harvey stated the Zoning Ordinance specifies what activity would be provided in the RPA.

Mr. Judy stated it should be removed to resolve the issue.

The Commission agreed that statement should be removed.

Mr. Stepowany discussed the revisions in table 3.4B and 3.5D.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned with the building height and residential density.

Mr. Stepowany stated the density in the Transect Zone had no bearing on the overall density. He stated it controls the intensity of the development.

Mrs. Kirby mentioned this should be included in the new Comprehensive plan.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Plan Development (PD) Zoning District which gives directions and recommendations within the current Comprehensive Plan which was why there were no revisions.

Mr. Zuraf stated there was a section of the Comprehensive Plan that refers to Planned Development as well.

Mr. Stepowany stated suburban residential would be for 3 units or less and urban residential would for any kind of PD for more than 3 units up to 15 units. He stated the Comprehensive Plan mentions what would be preferred in a Planned Development.

Mr. Cook stated the Board was considering Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) and stated there had been $300,000 allotted.

Mrs. Kirby asked if $300,000 would purchase anything in Stafford.

Mr. Harvey stated there were grant programs and the County would utilize what we have and move forward.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the County had applied for any grants yet.

Mr. Harvey stated a letter of intent had already been submitted to the State and the County would be interested in pursuing the grant funds.

Mrs. Kirby asked if that would be advertised.

Mr. Harvey stated the PDR meeting would be scheduled just like Planning Commission.

Mr. Pitzel stated funeral homes and dormitory schools were taken out by right but he feels it should be left in, particularly funeral home.

Mr. Stepowany stated, in his opinion, funeral homes are mainly a service to local residents.

Mr. Pitzel made motion to restore by right in T-4, T-5, T-6 and SDC. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 4-2. (Mrs. Carlone and Mrs. Kirby opposed) (Mr. Di Peppe was absent)

Mr. Pitzel made a motion for dormitory schools to be restored. Mr. Mitchell seconded.

Mrs. Kirby asked for an explanation why it should be restored.

Mr. Pitzel stated the County would try to concentrate and if there were schools with a student population and gave examples of schools.

Mr. Stepowany stated Mary Washington College was looking for an additional location to have dorms from where students could be bused.   He stated there may be a need to have a dorm in the community.

Mr. Pitzel reiterated what Mr. Stepowany stated.

Mrs. Kirby stated if that was the case this should be called just Neighborhood Design versus Traditional Neighborhood Design.

The motion passed 4-2. (Mrs. Carlone and Mrs. Kirby opposed) (Mr. Di Peppe was absent)

Mr. Judy stated in Table 3.5, under number of stories, it stated none for minimum should be one.

Mr. Cook agreed with Mr. Judy.

Mr. Stepowany stated he would change it to reflect at least one story building.

Mr. Cook asked what the normal height for a one story with a roof.

Mr. Stepowany deferred to Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Harvey stated it depended on the type of construction and the pitch of the roof.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there should be a maximum height and stated if there was no maximum height then the market would determine how tall the floors would be.

Mr. Stepowany stated that was correct.

Mr. Judy stated he was concerned with the table.

Mr. Cook confirmed that in a T-1 there would be no buildings and in T-2, T-3 and T-4 change the building height maximum to no higher than 75 feet.

Mrs. Carlone stated there would have to be a maximum height and felt 75 feet was a bit high.

Mr. Stepowany stated the issue was the diversity of different types of buildings. He stated this to encourage changes horizontally and vertically.

Mr. Cook asked if maximum feet would be 55 more feasible.

Mrs. Carlone stated that at 65 feet Geico and the hospital was now five stories and should really be looked at to determine the height of the buildings.

Mr. Pitzel stated the stories of a building would be limited.

Mr. Judy stated at some point in the future there would be taller building within the County and did want developers to interpret anything.

Mr. Stepowany stated the limit would be three stories and the height street ratio requirements.

Mr. Judy reiterated there needed to be an upward limit.

Mr. Stepowany agreed and would agree with the Commissions decision.

Mrs. Carlone stated there would need to be a maximum height.

Mr. Rhodes made a motion to have a maximum height currently in the T-5, T-6 and SDC carry across for table 3.5F so there would be some maximum listed. Mr. Mitchell seconded.

Mr. Cook stated the motion would be to have a 75 feet finished floor level extend back through T-2, T-3, and T-4.

Mr. Pitzel stated he would remind the Commission that even with the maximum height there would still be a limit on the number of floors.

The motion passed 4-2. (Mrs. Carlone and Mrs. Kirby opposed) (Mr. Di Peppe was absent)

Mr. Cook asked for a motion to carry forward to public hearing with changes to the TND

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to carry forward to the full board. Mr. Rhodes seconded.

Mr. Cook stated there was a motion and second to carry recommended changes as outlined by Mr. Stepowany and modified by the Commission to date forward to the full Commission for approval and advertisement for changes to the TND.

The motion passed 6-0. (Mr. Di Peppe was absent)

Mr. Stepowany confirmed the meeting would be the first meeting in November.

Mr. Cook stated that was correct and would make a motion at the 7:30 Meeting.

Mr. Harvey requested a modification to the Ordinance Committee agenda and stated at the October 2, 2007 meeting the Board passed a resolution referring an ordinance amendment to the Planning Commission to rehear an ordinance previously adopted in 2006 dealing with the definitions pertaining to industrial schools and vocational schools. He stated the Board requested the Commission take action and have the item go back to the Board for their December meeting. He stated staff would request that be forwarded to public hearing.

Mr. Cook asked if the action could be taken in the regular meeting. He asked if this would need to be modified or just re-advertised.

Mr. Judy stated he the Commission needs to be on the agenda as soon as possible.

Mr. Cook stated he would put on the agenda tonight.

Mr. Stepowany requested item 2 and 3 be retained in committee until further notice. 

Mrs. Carlone asked about a new Ordinance for reverse frontage.

Mr. Stepowany stated he had researched and would need to get with Mr. Harvey as to the status. He stated Ordinance O04-13 on reverse frontage for lots greater than three acres. He stated this item had been deferred back to Planning Commission from the Board.

Mr. Harvey stated this item was not an item on the deferred item list and was not likely adopted. He stated the Planning Commission would need to take action.

Mr. Carlone gave examples of reverse frontage and why she felt the Ordinance would be needed.

Mr. Cook asked Mr. Stepowany to prepare this Ordinance to come before the Commission.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:54 PM.