The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, February 21, 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, Mitchell, Carlone, Rhodes and Di Peppe.

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Baker, and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

None

OLD BUSINESS:

1. RC2501249; Reclassification – Onville Estates - A proposed reclassification from A-2,
Rural Residential Zoning District to R-1, Suburban Residential Zoning District, on Assessor's Parcel 20-49J consisting of 59.13 acres, located on the west side of Onville Road approximately 300 feet north of Ebenezer Church Road within the Griffis-Widewater Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Rural Residential use. The Rural Residential designation would allow residential development at a maximum density of one dwelling unit per three acres. This request would allow single family detached or duplex dwellings at a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a full listing of permitted uses in the R-1 zoning district. (Time Limit: January 31, 2007)(Deferred to the February 21, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Cook stated Garrett Development requested the Onville Estates reclassification be rescheduled to the March 21, 2007 Planning Commission Work Session. He stated the representatives of the Sydney Hastings Conditional Use Permit (CUP) agreed to discuss the application now instead of at the regular meeting.

2. CUP2600130; Conditional Use Permit – Suh Gas Station - A request for a conditional use permit to allow vehicle fuel sales in a B-2 Zoning District on Assessor's Parcels 29-90A and 96 consisting of 3.2 acres, located on the north side of Courthouse Road at the intersection with Wyche Road within the Aquia Election District. (Time Limit: December 19, 2006)(Deferred to the February 21, 2007 Work Session)

Bruce Landis, Landmark Fleet Engineering, stated he was available to answer questions on
behalf of the applicant.

Mr. Harvey stated the proposed gas station was located on Courthouse Road east of the
government center and the property was zoned for commercial use. He stated the CUP would be for the vehicle fuel sales. He stated there had been some questions regarding the General Development Plan (GDP) and the architectural renderings.

Mr. Landis stated the second building at the back of the property would have office space on the first
floor and storage on the second floor.

Mrs. Kirby asked what sort of business would operate in the second building. She asked why someone would put office and storage space behind a gas station.

Mr. Landis stated it would be related to whatever business is renting the property. He stated the second building would be a future use.

Mr. Cook stated there were no changes to the architectural rendering of the first building.

Mrs. Kirby stated she wanted to see exactly what the building would look like.

Mr. Landis stated Williamsburg brick, not a veneer, would be used on the building.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the building was still intended to be a gas station or a multipurpose building.

Mr. Landis stated the building would be a convenience store with vehicle fuel sales and a car wash.

Mrs. Kirby stated she was concerned about the language which reads “all drainage easements shall be cleared and graded to the satisfaction of the owner.”

Mr. Harvey stated the County has minimum drainage standards but they would be maintained privately.

Mrs. Kirby stated this language did not address the maintenance but the standards of drainage and grading. She stated there were currently four gas stations on Courthouse Road.

Mrs. Carlone stated she would rather see dental or medical offices on the property due to the large amount of residential properties along the back of the property.

Mr. Pitzel stated the side view showed the canopy but front view did not show the canopy, and he would like to see perspective views.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there would be a fence behind the building.

Mr. Landis stated there would be a transitional buffer.

Mr. Rhodes asked about the second fence along the property.

Mr. Landis stated there was an existing fence behind the residential lots.

Mr. Mitchell stated he was uncomfortable with the concept.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he had a problem putting a gas station at this location. He stated there were complaints by the neighbor about grading on the site.

Mrs. Kirby stated this area was at the Interstate 95 interchange and a gateway into the County.

Mr. Rhodes asked how the right of way dedication would affect the widening of Courthouse Road.

Mr. Harvey stated this would allow for a median but there would be a problem with the I-95 overpass which would only be wide enough for 3 lanes.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there would be a vote on the second building at the back of the property.

Mr. Harvey stated that would be a by-right use.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to deny the CUP. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion to deny passed
7-0.

3. CUP2501638; Conditional Use Permit; Sydney Hastings Commons 7-11 - A request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow a convenience store with vehicle fuel sales in the Highway Corridor Overlay Zoning District on Assessor's Parcel 45-92C consisting of 2.42 acres, located on the northwest corner of Warrenton Road and Melchers Drive within the Falmouth Election District. (Time Limit: February 13, 2007)(Deferred to February 21, 2007 Regular Meeting)

Maynard Sipe, representing the applicant, stated there were several disadvantages to flipping the store 180 degrees. He stated flipping the store would violate standard crime prevention tactics and raise issues for the internal flow on the site. He stated the building was turned 90 degrees which would screen the canopy from traffic coming off I-95, assist with crime prevention, help circulation of the site, and provide more area between the building and Warrenton Road for landscaping and buffering. He stated the height of the light poles would be limited and a historical marker would be placed on the site.

Mrs. Carlone thanked Mr. Sipe for the work.

Mr. Pitzel stated he was happy the stripes were removed from the building.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the applicant would purchase and install the marker.

Mr. Sipe stated yes.

Mrs. Kirby commended Mr. Sipe for the changes.

Mr. Rhodes stated he was concerned with people backing out where vehicles would be pulling into the site.

Mr. Sipe stated the second street provided only for a right in/right out.

Mr. Di Peppe asked how it was better to have the gas canopy on the side.

Mr. Sipe stated the canopy would not be the first impression on vehicles exiting I-95 and traveling east bound.

Mr. Di Peppe asked about the size of evergreens to be planted.

Mr. Sipe stated they would be a minimum height of ten feet.

Mr. Cook stated the 90 degree turn was a good answer and he appreciated the applicant’s hard work on revising the site.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion for approval with conditions as presented. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Mr. Stepowany stated his intent was to discuss the Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance (TND) but the sub-committee still had issues which needed to be addressed. He presented a list of new items for possible ordinances. He stated the Board of Supervisors would be discussing electronic signs at the March 6, 2007 meeting.

Mr. Harvey stated the Board asked that item to be placed on the agenda.

Mrs. Kirby stated there were many electronic signs in the County. She stated the billboard was not repaired; it was a whole new billboard.

Mr. Harvey stated billboards were regulated by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the State as far as what level of improvements was allowed. He stated in Stafford County billboards were a non-conforming structure. He stated VDOT can determine whether the proposed improvement exceeds 50% of the value of the billboard and if so can deny the improvements.

Mr. Cook stated the billboard on Route 610 was a two sided wooded structure and now was V-shaped and electronic. He stated it would have had to cost over 50% of the value of the billboard.

Mrs. Carlone stated that someone should have had to coordinate with the Planning Department before approval.

Mr. Stepowany stated they may go through Code Administration.

Mr. Cook asked how this billboard was approved through Code Administration.

Mr. Harvey stated he would check with Code Administration.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the current electronic signs would be grandfathered since they were already in place.

Mr. Cook asked how the cost of an electronic billboard be 50% of the value of an old wooden billboard.

Mr. Stepowany stated the assessed value or the revenue generated by the sign could be considered part of the value.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the Planning Commission could write a letter to Code Administration and VDOT asking for an explanation of how the billboards value was assessed.

Mr. Cook asked Mr. Harvey to request the information from Code Administration.

Mr. Stepowany stated electronic signs were the wave of the future. He stated they can be measured by foot candles and not glare.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, there were two things citizens hated, dog kennels and billboards.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the ordinance would apply to the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) or just signs visible from the road.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) was not really involved in the Street Ordinance. He stated directional signs were only 2.5 feet in height and the Stafford Hospital Center would need taller signs. He stated the Board would like a CUP to allow schools in the M-2 Zoning District. He stated drainfields would be required on all types of plats, not just major plats. He stated the submission of mylars would be removed from the Zoning Ordinance.

Mrs. Carlone stated she would like the metal signs along the Resource Protection Area (RPA) to be written into an ordinance.

Mr. Stepowany stated that could be addressed.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned about clear stripping on properties being called silva-culture.

Mr. Harvey stated that was an erosion control issue.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he was concerned about the safety issue of storage refrigerators and freezers outside.

Mr. Harvey stated federal law regulated outside refrigerators and freezers.

Mrs. Kirby stated the federal law on refrigerators required them to be locked or have the door removed.

Mr. Cook suggested an ordinance prohibiting large trucks with changeable side advertisements to park in the R-1 Zoning District.

Mr. Stepowany asked if this was a concern about R-1 Zoning Districts or signs.

Mr. Harvey stated commercial vehicles were permitted on commercial and industrial properties. He stated the truck could be parked in the R-1 zone as long as it belongs to the owner of the property where it is parked.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.