The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, February 7, 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, Kaminsky and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

None

OLD BUSINESS:

1. RC2600559; Reclassification - Fairfield Inn & Suites - A proposed reclassification from R-1, Suburban Residential to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District to allow the construction of a hotel on Assessor's Parcels 30-2C and 30-2D consisting of 1.48 acres, located on the south side of Derrick Lane approximately 400 feet east of Jefferson Davis Highway within the Aquia Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Urban Residential use, which would allow development of a variety of residential uses up to fifteen (15) dwelling units per acre. This request would allow development of commercial retail and office uses. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a full listing of permitted uses in the B-2 Zoning District. (Time Limit: March 7, 2007) (Deferred to February 7, 2007 Work Session)

2. 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 February 7, 2007 Work Session)

Mrs. Baker stated the applicant met with the residents of Derrick Lane regarding the proposed reclassification and Condition Use Permit.

Debrarae Karnes, Leming and Healy, representing the applicant, stated the design of the hotel had been changed. She stated the hotel was moved forward and the height was reduced from four levels to three levels. She stated Derrick Lane sits higher than the hotel and a six foot privacy fence would be constructed along Derrick Lane. She stated the residents still opposed the construction of the hotel but did provide suggestions on how to mitigate the site, they suggested a landscape buffer. She stated the fence would have to be closest to the property line unless the applicant could get a waiver to allow the landscape buffer to be closest to the property. She stated the landscaping would be proffered. She stated the residents were concerned

about the car lot, which was a non-conforming use. She stated the applicant would replace the fence which runs behind the car lot and along Derrick Lane. She stated the community asked that the interparcel connection be removed. She stated the proffers would commit to the revised architectural scheme. She stated, in her opinion, areas within major transportation corridors should be Urban Commercial.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the height of the roof pitch was necessary.

Clark Leming, representing applicant, stated the roof pitch provided room for the air conditioning ducts.

Mr. Pitzel asked about the elevation of the building was.

Gary Nicely, Dewberry, the engineering firm, stated the front elevation was 30 feet from the parking lot and the rear elevation was 60 feet from Derrick Lane.

Mr. Pitzel stated the interparcel connector would have to climb a hill.

Mr. Nicely stated it was a very steep hill which would not hold up as a travel way.

Mrs. Kirby stated she was concerned that the applicant had not addressed any historic resources on the site. She states she believed this was the site of Grape Hill. She asked about the size of the trees to be installed.

Mr. Nicely stated the trees would be 10 feet tall and 3 inches in diameter.

Mrs. Kirby stated the interparcel connector could not be safely utilized.

Mr. Di Peppe stated a home is a large investment and he was moved by the large number of residents who addressed the Planning Commission at the public hearing.

Mr. Cook stated he echoed the concerns of Mrs. Kirby and Mrs. Carlone. He asked if mature trees could be proffered for the landscape buffer.

Mr. Mitchell stated he agreed with Mr. Cook.

Mr. Leming stated there would have to be a study of the rate of growth of the trees.

Mr. Mitchell stated he would like the interparcel connector to be proffered out.

Mr. Harvey stated the Highway Corridor Overlay District required an interparcel connector.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion to retain Item 1 in committee until a better rendition of the site was provided. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 4-3 (Mr. Pitzel, Mrs. Kirby, and Mr. Di Peppe were opposed.)

Mr. Cook stated Fairfield Inn and Suites would be discussed at the March 7, 2007 Planning Commission Work Session.

3. SUB2501051; Lake View Estates, Preliminary Subdivision Plan – A preliminary subdivision plan for 22 single family residential lots, zoned A-1, Agricultural consisting of 87.53 acres, located on the west side of Rocky Run Road approximately 2,700 feet south of Warrenton Road on Assessor’s Parcels 44-12 and 44-13, within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: February 27, 2007) (Deferred to February 7, 2007 Work Session)

Brian Harris, Bowman Consulting, stated the primary drainfield on lot 11 had been relocated and the drainfield on lot 12 was 221 feet from the reservoir and the drainfield on lot 13 was beyond 200 feet from the reservoir. He stated they were unable to relocate the drainfield on lot 14. He stated the cemetery would be placed on its own parcel with a 50 foot buffer and there would be one plaque per lot identifying Critical Resource Protection Areas (CRPA). He stated there would be a battery back up for sewer systems.

Mrs. Carlone thanked the applicant for their responsiveness to the Planning Commission concerns. She asked about the power lines.

Mr. Harris stated the power lines were serving an existing house.

Mr. Pitzel asked about the battery backing for the sewer systems.

Mr. Harris stated there would be battery back up and back flow protection.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the residents would lose water service when the power went out.

Mr. Harris stated the back up system would hold 200 to 300 gallons which would last about 2 days.

Mrs. Kirby stated she appreciated the applicants work protecting the cemetery.

Mr. Di Peppe thanked the applicant for addressing the Planning Commissions concerns.

Mrs. Carlone made a motion for approval. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE – Reservoir Protection Overlay District

Mr. Harvey stated the Board of Supervisors would like to hold a joint work session with the Planning Commission on February 20, 2007.

Mrs. Kirby stated she was concerned that staff had not mentioned this before.

Mr. Harvey stated staff thinks it would be a good idea. He stated the public hearing would require a large mailing.

Mr. Cook asked Mr. Harvey if the Board of Supervisors would consider a 5:30 p.m. work session.

Mr. Stepowany stated there would be four zones within each overlay district. He stated there would be a reservoir zone, a 220 foot buffer zone, a 2,000 foot proximity zone, and a watershed zone. He stated Rocky Pen would get most of its water from the River. He stated there would be a five acre minimum for properties which abut or adjoin the reservoir. He stated in 1988 the Comprehensive Plan recommended five acre lots.

Mr. Mitchell asked if the County had a right to control firearms, duck lines, and fishing.

Mr. Judy stated the reservoir was a County water supply and therefore the County has the right to determine the uses permitted on or around the reservoir.

Mr. Mitchell asked if it was possible to regulate frogging and catching turtles on the reservoir.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the wounds on the shells of turtles in the Rappahannock River helped show the quality of water.

Mr. Judy stated part of this was a continued attempt to prevent people from engaging in water contact activities in the reservoir.

Mr. Mitchell stated no county in Virginia had a cat leash law. He asked if staff had been in contact with the Termite Board regarding insect control, termites, and chemical liquids prohibited in the Reservoir Protection Overlay District (RPOD).

Mr. Judy stated the Ordinance was referring to people within the areas controlled by the County within the 200 foot buffer around the reservoir. He stated that area would need to be kept in a natural state.

Mr. Mitchell asked if twenty-percent of the County was in the RPOD.

Mr. Stepowany stated twenty-five percent of the County was in the RPOD.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the distance from the intake valve was 100 feet or 200 feet.

Mr. Stepowany stated the number was 100 feet.

Mr. Cook stated he did not agree with going out further than 200 feet.

Mrs. Kirby stated the County has until 2010 to get ready for Chesapeake Bay Regulations. She stated there was not an alternative water source.

Mr. Pitzel asked what regulations refer to the watershed zone.

Mr. Judy stated none of the Utility Ordinance would have any bearing on the entire watershed. He stated there was very limited restriction in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated some commercial businesses, such as hair salons or dry cleaners, which use certain dangerous chemicals, would have to go through a certain process but federal law already has requirements for those businesses.

Mr. Di Peppe stated these restrictions were common sense and in his opinion, this was a very good Ordinance.

Mrs. Carlone stated she would look forward to the meeting on February 20, 2007. She stated, in her opinion, it was a very good Ordinance.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.