The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, November 28, 2007, was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman William Cook in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the County Administrative Center.

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

Members Absent:

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Zuraf, Stepowany, Schultis and Hamock

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNIFINISHED BUSINESS:

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) (Deferred to November 28, 2007 Work Session)

Jon Schultis presented staff report. He went over the new elevations provided by the applicant and stated the materials that would be used.

Mrs. Kirby asked about the location of the gas station.

Mr. Schultis stated the gas station would be a 10 feet by 6 feet kiosk.

Mrs. Kirby asked if there would only be a kiosk and no building.

Mr. Schultis stated that was correct and stated the kiosk would be made partly out of brick and metal.

Brian Johnson, VHB, stated he would answer any questions.

Mrs. Kirby stated she thought there was a building with metal.

Mr. Johnson stated the only building would be a 1 person 10 foot by 6 foot kiosk.

Mr. Pitzel asked where the vending machines would be located.

Mr. Johnson stated they would be located between the Gas Station and Giant and would be surrounded by PVC fence with gaps.

Mrs. Carlone asked about the voltage of the lighting and wanted to have less light.

Mr. Johnson stated there were light poles includes on the revised plans provided.

Mr. Di Peppe stated originally there were no poles and thought the lighting would be provided from the canopy. He asked where the light poles would be located.

Mr. Johnson stated the canopy lighting itself would not be adequate and there would be light poles would be needed.

Mr. Di Peppe asked what the height of the light poles would be.

Mr. Johnson stated he could not remember what the maximum height would be.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the building across White Oak Road would shield that area he was concerned with the height and description of the light poles.

Mr. Johnson stated the building in front was 20 feet and the roof peaks are 26 feet.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the light poles would be shorter then the building in front of them.

Mr. Johnson stated there was no detail of the lights yet.

Mrs. Kirby asked what the candle power would be.

Mr. Johnson stated no but normally the power would match the shopping center.

Mrs. Kirby stated under Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) Principles there was an amount required.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he would not like to see light poles taller then the building in front of them and recommended a proffer stating the light would have to be shorter then the building in front.

Mr. Johnson stated the light poles should be adequate at 20 feet and would be shielded.

Mr. Pitzel stated if they light poles were no higher then 20 feet that should be sufficient and would like to see a detailed description of the light poles with the canopy. He stated he would not like to have light poles towering over the building in front of them.

Mr. Cook asked about the height of the canopy and building.

Mr. Johnson stated the height of the canopy would be 18 feet 6 inches.

Mr. Cook stated if the light poles did not exceed 24 feet that would be lower then the building and higher then the canopy.

Mr. Harvey stated this application was a Conditional Use Permit and the county would impose the conditions and would work with the applicant.

Mr. Cook stated the light poles could be 24 feet which would be 6 feet higher then the canopy and stipulate that the light to be behind the highest part of the building in front. He stated the side lights would be seen and asked at what elevation should the side lights be.

After a brief discussion the commission decided the light poles would be 20 feet.

Mr. Johnson agreed 20 feet would be acceptable for the applicant.

Mr. Pitzel stated the canopy has straight downward lighting and the light poles would provide lighting around the gas station with very little spillover. He stated 20 feet would be the height agreed to by the commission.

Mrs. Kirby asked Mr. Johnson to check on the candle power.

Mr. Johnson stated he would check for the canopy and light poles.

Mr. Di Peppe asked Mr. Pitzel if there would be bleed over of light to any properties from the gas station.

Mr. Pitzel stated no the bleed over would be from the medical center.

Mr. Mitchell asked what the vending machines would provide.

Mr. Johnson stated there would be water and soft drinks provided.

Mr. Mitchell stated he would like to see a light over the vending machines.

Mr. Di Peppe stated maybe a 15 foot light by the vending machines would be good to have.

Mrs. Kirby how tall the fence around the vending would be.

Mr. Johnson stated 6 feet the height of the vending machines.

Mrs. Kirby stated she was concerned because customers would not be able to see between the fence because of the vending machines.

Mr. Johnson stated the fence would be on three sides.

Mr. Cook stated Mr. Johnson would come back on December 5, 2007 with changes the commission required.

Mr. Johnson summarized what he would bring to the next meeting.

Mr. Harvey confirmed whether this should come back to the Work Session or Regular Meeting.

Mr. Cook stated this would go to the December 5, 2007 regular meeting.

2. RC2700501; Reclassification - Aquia Auto Mall - A proposed amendment to proffered conditions to allow motor vehicle sales and rental with automotive repair and service on a portion of Assessor's Parcel 21-51, zoned B-2, Urban Commercial, consisting of 5.31 acres, located on the east side of Jefferson Davis Highway approximately 2,000 feet north of Garrisonville Road within the Aquia Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Urban Commercial use. The Urban Commercial designation would allow commercial retail and offices uses. (Time Limit: February 17, 2008) (Deferred to November 28, 2007 Work Session)

3. CUP27000502; Conditional Use Permit - Aquia Auto Mall - A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow motor vehicle sales and rentals with automobile repair and service in a B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on a portion of Assessor's Parcel 21-51 consisting of 5.31 acres, located on the east side of Jefferson Davis Highway approximately 2,000 feet north of Garrisonville Road within the Aquia Election District. (Time Limit: February 17, 2008) (Deferred to November 28, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Cook stated item 2 and 3 would be presented together.

Mr. Zuraf presented the staff report. He briefly summarized the development plan and presented the revised elevations to incorporate more brick and pitched roof into the design, as well as elevations for 7-Eleven and Staybridge Suites to see how the buildings would blend. He stated he would answer any questions.

Clark Leming, Leming and Healy, stated he had the applicant, Clay Huber and the architect, James McGhee available for questions if needed. He briefly walked the commission through changes that had been made to the proffers since the application had started.

James McGhee stated a majority of the building had a sloped roof. He stated the brick may not mask the larger building around it. He stated Aquia Church which was a square and roof pops out and wanted to make sure there would not be another big box. He stated the applicant the roof would be broken into three (3) sections for equipment. He stated the applicant would like to soften the curb.

Mr. Leming stated the applicant went back to Nissan twice with the design and has been approved. He stated with Mr. McGhee’s statement he hopes the Commission judges the design appropriately.

Mrs. Carlone stated the design looked much better but asked if the bay area could be moved around back.
Mr. Leming stated those were service doors.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the service doors could be in the back.

Mr. McGhee stated those were the service doors that provided shelter while vehicle wait to be serviced.

Mr. Leming stated the service doors are on the side.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the doors would be closed once the vehicle enters for service.

Mr. Leming stated that was correct. He stated the dealership would not be visible from Route 1. He stated the bay doors would not be seen from Route 1 and the retaining wall hides the building.

Mrs. Kirby asked how tall the retaining wall would be.

Mr. Leming stated on one side the wall was 8 feet and on the other side 3 feet.

The Planning Commissioners looked over a cross section elevation.

Mr. Proctor gave a description of the cross section.

Mr. Kirby asked again if the bay doors could be moved to the back of the building.

The Planning Commission and the applicant discussed possible design options for the building.

Mr. Di Peppe asked who was paying for the traffic light study.

Mr. Leming referred to Mr. Harvey and stated the county would need to ask for the study.

Mr. Harvey stated the applicant may need to have a bond.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the county would pay for the study.

Mr. Harvey the county would not pay for the warrant study.

Mr. Mitchell stated he was concerned with the amount of traffic lights on Route 1 in such a short distance and asked about coordinating signalization.

Mr. Cook stated that would be a VDOT determination.

Mrs. Kirby asked where the condition was located preventing vehicles from being elevated.

Mr. Leming stated that would be condition 13.

Mr. Kirby asked about the sign style and height out front.

Mr. Leming stated the sign would be an 8 foot brick style sign.

Mr. Kirby stated she did not want to have ramps that would elevate vehicles.

Mr. Di Peppe stated there should be a restriction concerning carnival style balloons and banners.

Mr. Cook stated a condition should be included to state no vehicle would be parked on grass, only impervious services.

Mr. Leming stated that would be added to condition 13.

Mr. Harvey summarized the revised conditions.

Mr. Zuraf read the revised condition.

After a brief discussion the Planning Commission agreed the roofs of the Auto Mall, 7-Eleven and Staybridge Suites should match.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion for approval of item 2, RC2700501. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Cook clarified the motion for approval was to send to full commission.

Mr. Mitchell stated yes.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion for CUP2700502 for the Conditional Use Permit for Aquia Auto Mall with the changes. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 PM.