|
2-2107
STAFFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 21, 2007 The regular meeting of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, February 21, 2007, was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman William Cook in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the Stafford County Administration Center. MEMBERS PRESENT: Cook, Kirby, Pitzel, Mitchell, Carlone, Di Peppe, and Rhodes MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Harvey, Judy, Baker, Hornung, Gregori, and Schultis DECLARATIONS OF DISQUALIFICATIONS: None PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. RC2700079; Reclassification – Stafford County Board of Supervisors - A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural and A-2, Rural Residential Zoning Districts to M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District on Assessor's Parcels 37-66 and 37-71 (portion) consisting of 590 acres, located on the west side of Centerport Parkway, south of Ramoth Church Road within the Hartwood Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Light Industrial use. The Light Industrial designation would allow light industrial, light manufacturing and office uses. The purpose of this reclassification is to allow for airport compatible uses on the properties. (Time Limit: April 28, 2007) Mrs. Baker presented the staff report. She stated the Economic Development Authority (EDA) owned parcel 37-66. She stated the M-1; Light Industrial designation would allow for facilities to support the airport but the A-1, Agricultural designation would place limitations on airport related facilities. She stated the Board of Supervisors authorized the rezoning. She stated creating a new zoning district for airport uses would be the best option. Mrs. Carlone asked if the Board of Supervisors wanted to extend the runway at the airport. Mr. Harvey stated the rezoning would allow for additional funding for hangers. Mr. Pitzel asked if airports were by-right in the A-1 zone. Mrs. Baker stated airports were public facilities. Mr. Di Peppe asked why not pursue the option of creating a zoning district for airports. Mrs. Baker stated there would have to be an Ordinance to create a new zoning district for airports and that would take time. Mr. Cook opened the Public Hearing. Kelley Patterson, Chestnut Airpark, stated the Stafford Regional Airport was an excellent adjacent property. He stated by granting the rezoning, there would be more places to work in Stafford County and in his opinion the rezoning would create better jobs for Stafford County. With no one else coming forward the Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Carlone asked the Airport Authority to address the extension of the runway. T. Campbell, Stafford Regional Airport Authority, stated extending the runway was in the ten year plan because of safety, noise, weather, and emergency breaking. He stated they were not intending to extend the runway to allow for larger aircraft because the runway could only handle 73,000 pounds. Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned about employees working near the runway. Mr. Campbell stated that on the airport proper there would be aviation related businesses and aircraft storage. Mrs. Carlone stated paragraph 3 read “building height generated by the door height required by the type of aircraft we would like to entice.” She asked what type of aircraft the airport was hoping to entice. Mr. Campbell stated a lot of the jet aircrafts have high vertical stabilizers and they need clearance to get that in. He stated right now they are restricted to residential building heights. He stated he did not understand why the parcels were not zoned M-1 to begin with. He stated the current zoning was not applicable to an airport. He stated landscaping and sidewalks were not beneficial near runways. Mr. Harvey stated the EDA owned parcel 66 and Tim Baroody could answer what sort of development was planned. Tim Baroody, Director of Economic Development stated the EDA currently has no plans for parcel 66. Mrs. Kirby stated they were looking to put in T-hangers to help generate revenue. Ed Wallis, Stafford County Regional Airport, stated there would be corporate hangers going in and the height requirements really restrict these aircraft.
Mrs. Carlone made a motion for approval. Mr. Rhodes seconded the motion. The motion passed
Mrs. Baker presented the staff report. She stated the property was currently undeveloped. She stated there would be 25 lots served by the proposed sewer extension. She stated the limits of the Urban Service Area extend to the eastern line of the parcel. She stated the Utilities Department has stated the site could be served by gravity sewer and connect to the existing pump station which is at limited capacity. She stated the Utilities Department recommended the southern portion of the property not connect because there would be no gravity flow. She stated the Land Use Plan does not recommend sewer be extended outside of the Urban Services Area. She stated staff recommends approval. Mr. Pitzel stated the only access would be through Stafford Town Station and the lots back up to the Potomac Creek. He stated this proposal would put only those properties on sewer which were in the sewer shed. Mrs. Baker stated all the properties would be in the sewer shed. Mrs. Kirby asked which lots were along the orange line located on the map. Mrs. Baker stated lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 16. Mrs. Kirby stated the homeowners would not be able to put a deck, pool, or shed on their houses. Mr. Rhodes stated every lot touches a gravity flow area except lots 11 and 21. Mrs. Baker stated lots 11 and 21 were fronting on a cul-de-sac. Mr. Di Peppe stated the Planning Commission tried to write an Ordinance guaranteeing a thirty-five foot buffer. He stated the Resource Protection Area (RPA) would be disturbed. Mrs. Kirby asked how far the cemetery was from the site. She asked who Elm Street Development was. Clark Leming, representing the applicant, stated this was a two stage process. He stated a significant portion of the parcel was in the Urban Service Area. He stated they were not asking for a pump station and they all would be on gravity sewer. He stated this would not permit more density. He stated the applicant would not be adverse to dropping lots 11 and 21. Rob Brooks, Elm Street Development, stated the business builds residential developments in D.C., Baltimore, and Richmond. He stated this is the first project they have developed in Stafford County as they have worked primarily in Prince William County. He stated they would be willing to consolidate some of the lots.
Mr. Leming stated lots 11 and 21 were the most serious. Mrs. Kirby asked if the applicant was willing to consolidate lots 11 and 21 into one lot. Mr. Brooks stated that was correct, this was just a preliminary drawing and it was not a final site plan. Mrs. Kirby stated she could not vote on something that may or may not be. She stated, in her opinion, she would hold Item 2 in committee until the preliminary plan was received. Mr. Cook stated that the Planning Commission was being asked to vote on whether or not to extend sewer based on a drawing that could change. Mr. Leming stated the Planning Commission was being asked to extend sewer. Mr. Judy stated lots were already in the Urban Service Area and they did not fall in the Comprehensive Plan Review. Mrs. Carlone asked if there was on site soil testing. Mr. Leming stated there was some preliminary soil work. Terry Yates, Dewberry, stated lot 16 had an asterisk on it which stated there was no direct access to Laramie River Lane. Mr. Rhodes asked why there was a statement under lot 3 when there was no asterisk. Mr. Yates stated the building restriction does apply to lot 3. Mr. Di Peppe stated on lot 15 the wetlands were close to the house site. He stated there has only been one preliminary plan turned down in Stafford County. Mr. Leming stated there was more than one preliminary plan turned down in Stafford County. Mr. Di Peppe stated there were some streams running along lots 8, 9, and 12. Mr. Leming stated the wetlands could not be disturbed. Mr. Di Peppe stated if you put the lots too close people will disturb the RPA. Mr. Leming stated they could place marks on the ground showing the RPA. Mr. Di Peppe stated the Planning Commission attempted to pass an Ordinance to protect the citizens’ yards and the RPA.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the client would be willing to put up signs and have something in the deed to address the RPA. He stated he would rather see a gravity sewer than a septic system. Mr. Leming stated he agreed with that. Mr. Mitchell stated he would like to have the applicant work with staff for a better rendition. Mr. Cook stated the preliminary plan was not acceptable. Mr. Leming stated he was happy to work with staff in committee. Mr. Cook opened the Public Hearing. With no one coming forward the Public Hearing was closed. Mrs. Carlone asked if lots 2 and 3 could be worked on. Mr. Pitzel stated the Planning Commission has gotten wrapped up in preliminary plan instead of the actual Comprehensive Plan Compliance review. Mr. Rhodes stated, in his opinion, the Planning Commission attempts to be conservative on the extension of sewer outside of the Urban Services Area. Mr. Di Peppe stated there would always be sewer lines next to someone’s property. Mr. Mitchell made a motion to put Item 2 in committee. Mrs. Kirby seconded. Mr. Judy stated the lot size has no bearing on the extension of the Urban Service Area. Mr. Pitzel asked Mr. Judy if the Planning Commission could defer the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Review based on the preliminary plan. Mr. Judy stated the issue at hand was the Comprehensive Plan Compliance Review, not the preliminary plan. Mr. Mitchell asked if the applicant could come back with a different drawing that consolidated lots 11 and 21 and placed signage along the RPA. Mr. Leming stated the applicant would agree to consolidate lots 11 and 21 and put up signage and covenants. Mr. Mitchell withdrew his motion. Mrs. Kirby withdrew her motion.
Mr. Judy stated the language should read the application was within general conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and not in compliance. Mr. Di Peppe stated the application was not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan because it was outside of the Urban Service Area. The motion passed 4-3 (Mr. Di Peppe, Mrs. Kirby, and Mrs. Carlone were opposed.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
3. Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance - Amendment to Section 22-153, Lots for Water and Mr. Harvey stated staff requested Item 3 be withdrawn from the agenda. The Planning Commission agreed to remove Item 3 from the agenda. 4. 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) Mr. Mitchell made a motion to deny. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
5. RC2501249; Reclassification – Onville Estates - A proposed reclassification from A-2, Mr. Cook stated Item 5 was deferred to the March 21, 2007 Work Session.
Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit with conditions as presented. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0.
7. RC2600559; Reclassification - Fairfield Inn & Suites - A proposed reclassification from Mr. Cook stated Item 7 was deferred to the March 7, 2007 Work Session. 8. CUP2600560; Conditional Use Permit - Fairfield Inn & Suites - A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of two hotels within the Highway Corridor Overlay Zoning District on Assessor's Parcel 30-2C, 30-2D, and 30-5 consisting of 5.34 acres, located on the east side of Jefferson Davis Highway, just south of Derrick Lane within the Aquia Election District. (Time Limit: March 7, 2007) (Deferred to March 7, 2007 Work Session) Mr. Cook stated Item 8 was deferred to the March 7, 2007 Work Session. 9. SUB2501278; Kings Crossing, Preliminary Subdivision Plan – A preliminary subdivision plan for 15 single family residential lots, zoned A-1, Agricultural consisting of 66.21 acres, located on the southwestern corner of Shelton Shop Road and Courthouse Road on Assessor’s Parcel 28-2B, within the Rock Hill Election District. (Time Limit: May 2, 2007)(Deferred to April 18, 2007 Regular Meeting) Mr. Cook stated Item 9 was deferred to the April 18, 2007 Regular Meeting.
10. SUB2600625; Williams Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A preliminary Mr. Cook stated Item 10 was deferred to the May 2, 2007 Regular Meeting at the applicants request.
11. PAE2700023; Curtis Woods Subdivision, Private Access Easement - A Private Access Easement serving 2 lots (15 acres) on Assessor’s Parcel 34-59A, zoned A-1, Agricultural, northwest of Richards Ferry Road between Gold Mine Road to the south and Grinnan Road to the northeast within the Hartwood Election and Magisterial district. Mr. Schultis presented the staff report. He stated the Private Access Easement (PAE) would serve 2 lots and would be 800 feet in length and forty-three feet in width. He stated staff recommends approval. Mrs. Carlone asked if there would be any further development. Scott Ross, the applicant, stated the topography and wetlands on the property would prevent development. Mr. Pitzel asked what happened to the fifty foot requirement for the width of PAE’s. Mr. Harvey stated it was reduced. Mrs. Carlone made a motion for approval. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0. MINUTES None PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT Mr. Harvey stated at the March 7, 2007 Work Session there would be an Ordinance Committee Meeting and discussion of the Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit for Fairfield Inn and Suites. He stated the joint work session with the Board of Supervisors concerning the Reservoir Overlay Protection District was cancelled and had not been rescheduled at this time. He stated the Board had rescheduled the hearing on the Cemetery Ordinance to discuss the issue of ownership of the cemetery. He stated the Board approved the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR).
Mr. Judy stated a funding source had not been identified because there were many possible sources of funding for the PDR. SECRETARY/TREASURER REPORT No report STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Pitzel showed the Planning Commission a map with low, medium, and high intensity. He stated the layout was sent to the consultant, Peter J. Smith. He stated on February 12, 2007 mixed use and Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) was discussed. He stated on February 26, 2007 there would be a discussion of the Economic Development Perception in Stafford County. He stated the final meetings would take place in March and there were no specific topics for discussion at this time. Mr. Rhodes stated the public always has a chance to speak but sometimes there simply is not an answer to their questions. CONSENT AGENDA SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS No report CHAIRMAN’S REPORT No report ADJOURNMENT Mr. Rhodes made a motion for adjournment. With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. |
|
Send this to a friend |