The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, December 19, 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, Stepowany, Hess, Hamock

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNIFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. COM2700688 - Comprehensive Plan Amendment – North Stafford Center for Business and Technology – A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan map component of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would redesignate Assessor’s Parcel’s 19U-1, 19U-2, 19U-3, 19U-4, 19U-5, 19U-A, 19-50, and 19-57B from Suburban Residential, Rural Residential and Resource Protection to Suburban Commercial, Office, and Resource Protection Land Use and extend the Urban Services Area to comprise the above referenced parcels. The proposed amendment would be for the purpose of expansion of an existing office and retail development. (Time Limit: March 4, 2008) (Deferred to December 19, 2007 Work Session)

2. RC2700545; Reclassification – North Stafford Center for Business and Technology – A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural Zoning District and B-3, Office Zoning District to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District and an amendment to proffered conditions to allow the expansion of an existing office park to include an additional office building and a bank on Assessor’s Parcels 19-57B and 19U-5 consisting of 6.07 acres, located on the northeast intersection of Garrisonville Road and Tech Parkway within the Rock Hill Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Suburban Residential use. The Suburban Residential designation would allow residential development at a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre. See the Zoning Ordinance for a full listing of permitted uses in the B-2 Zoning District. (Time Limit: March 4, 2008) (Deferred to December 19, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Hess gave a summary of the application to date. He stated some issues that were discussed the Public Hearing on December 5, 2007 had been addressed. He stated he spoke with the historic preservation planner and she recommended that there be no phase one archeological. He stated the issue of the inter-parcel connector was addressed. He stated staff had received a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and issues regarding transportation would be addressed at site plan. He stated VDOT was encouraging the applicant to have a taxing district and provide a Fredericksburg Regional Transit (FRED) bus stop located at the site. He stated he would answer any questions.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the phase one would find out if there was any other historic resources at the site besides the home already located there.

Mr. Hess stated he had a meeting with Ms. Wheatcraft and she stated there was nothing that needed to be done.

Mrs. Kirby mentioned the request for VDOT to have the applicant set up a taxing district.

Darrell Caldwell, representative for the applicant, stated he no knowledge regarding taxing districts. He stated many of the properties had already been sold and the new businesses could have a taxing district but the building that was already built would have been sold to an investor.

Mr. Judy stated the Planning Commission should not take on the issue of tax districts. He stated the issue was for parcels of land that need to be rezoned. He stated he was concerned that VDOT would tell the county when to use tax districts.

Mr. Harvey stated the Planning Commission may not be aware that the Board approved a transportation service district earlier in the year for the Garrisonville area. He stated the Board would create a tax district to tax commercial properties to help pay for the widening of Garrisonville Road. He stated properties once rezoned would have to be brought back to the Commission to be brought into the taxing district.

Mrs. Kirby stated her concern with the widening of Garrisonville Road was it needed to be done 9 years ago. She asked how far the taxing district goes out now from Onville Road to Mine Road.

Mr. Harvey stated that was the current limits of the project. He stated the properties paying into the project go further west.

Mr. Judy stated he agreed with planning for the future but questioned who would pay for it.

Mr. Kirby stated this could have been taken care of 7 years ago. She asked Mr. Caldwell about a site design to accommodate FRED.

Mr. Caldwell stated he was not aware FRED extended that far. He stated he did not know where the best location would be but it would be a great idea. He stated there may need to be a more central location further away from the buildings. He asked if the applicant would agree to the bus stop, would the Commission care where the stop would be located.

Mrs. Kirby stated she would like it near Garrisonville Road.

Mr. Caldwell stated the best area may be an area already there. He gave a description of how the bus stop would look.

Mrs. Carlone asked if this could be added to the proffers.

Mr. Caldwell stated that should not be a problem because there was a nice area already available and will discuss this option with the applicant.
Mrs. Kirby stated staff mentioned the development would be required to join the Homeowners Association (HOA) but the Commission cannot make it mandatory to join.

Mr. Caldwell stated the project was not cheap and there would be a lot of maintenance required on the private road.

Mrs. Kirby stated the commission cannot force the owner to join an HOA. She stated an inter-parcel connection would be required.

Mr. Caldwell stated there would be a cost associated with the inter-parcel connector.

Mr. Cook stated the cost would come from the applicant on one side the adjoining property it connects to.

Mr. Caldwell stated by making the owner a member of the HOA any damaged that may happen would be covered by the association.

Mrs. Kirby stated she cannot support this project without the inter-parcel connector.

Mr. Caldwell asked how many properties would have access to the connector and stated it would be overwhelming.

Mr. Cooks stated the ordinance required the inter-parcel connector and cannot make the owner join the HOA. He stated the inter-parcel connector would be made or would have to be denied.

Mr. Caldwell stated there would be no need for the proffer anyway.

Mr. Harvey stated this property was not located in a Highway Corridor Overlay District (HCOD). He stated a proffer would be appropriate.

Mrs. Carlone stated all the businesses in that area would benefit from an inter-parcel connector and should not be an issue.

Mr. Judy stated it would be appropriate to have the inter-parcel connector and the HOA membership would not be legally enforceable. He stated proffers can only be place upon the property owner applying for the Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Harvey suggested the proffer be modified to state the owner of this property would construct the inter-parcel connector to the property line and when the adjacent owner comes into connect they would need to work out the issue of easement agreements.
Mr. Caldwell stated there should be no problem with that. He stated this may not be the most appropriate place and the proffer would need to be revised.

Mrs. Carlone asked that everything after proffer 9 be removed.

Mr. Harvey suggested taking out the language and stated the applicant would construct to the property line as shown on the GDP.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there was a Right of Way (ROW) when Garrisonville would be widened.

Mr. Harvey stated with the previous rezoning and site plan there was ROW dedication. He stated there would already be three lanes in the front of the property.

Mr. Caldwell stated there were 4 lanes.

Mr. Rhodes stated in the long term there should be 3 through lanes and this does not address the issue of additional ROW.

Mr. Harvey stated the transportation plan has 4 lanes out to Joshua Road.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to keep item 1 & 2 in committee. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Harvey asked which date this should be sent to.

Mr. Cook stated this could go to the January 23, 2008 Work Session.

Mr. Caldwell asked other then the inter-parcel connector were all conditions agreed to.

Mr. Rhodes stated ROW needed to be addressed as well.

Mrs. Kirby asked Mr. Caldwell review the comments from VDOT and address any issues. She mentioned the FRED bus stop.

Mrs. Carlone stated a space would be added to accommodate the FRED bus stop.

Mr. Di Peppe asked Mr. Caldwell to review the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA).

ORDINANACE COMMITTEE

1. Reverse Frontage

James Stepowany presented the staff report. He stated this Ordinance was coming back to the Commission with modification after concerns were raised by Mrs. Carlone. He stated the first and second paragraph were similar to the Ordinance presented in 2005 and stayed on unfinished business for the entire year of 2005. He discussed the changed to the Ordinance in detail and the roads that would be affected. He stated shared driveways would be the option if reverse frontage was not allowed. He stated the second paragraph was in the landscape manual and would not need to be included in the ordinance. He asked for clarification regarding primary or secondary roads.

Mr. Harvey stated the subdivision ordinance did not classify street as listed in the code currently and the zoning specifies street, collector streets, or arterial streets. He stated there was no primary street in the zoning ordinance. He stated VDOT classification was local, secondary, arterial, primary and interstate.

A discussion ensued between staff and the Commission regarding the detailed changes of the ordinance before sending to public hearing.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send to public hearing. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

2. Nonconformities – 2 year discontinued

James Stepowany stated this Ordinance got lost in the shuffle and the original ordinance O05-24 that went to the Commission and received approval. He stated the Ordinance went to the Board and dealt with public concerns regarding residential homes that were non-conforming and would not be able to expand the residential home. He stated the Board directed the Commission to create another ordinance dealing with residential homes and non-conformity of residential homes. He discussed the proposed ordinance in detail.

Mrs. Carlone stated this was a great ordinance.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if Mr. Stepowany suggestion would be to retain the ordinance in committee and discuss with Mr. Judy.

Mr. Stepowany stated his recommendation would be to send it forward to public hearing.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to move to public hearing. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

3. Ordinance O08-02

Mr. Stepowany stated the request to the Heritage Protection Ordinance to Ordinance Committee on January 23, 2008. He stated this item was submitted to the Commission by resolution at the December 18, 2007 Board of Supervisors Meeting. He stated the Planning Commission had 60 days to respond.

Mr. Cook made a motion to send this to the January 23, 2008 Ordinance Committee. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 PM.