The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, March 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, Hornung 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. (Time Limit: January 31, 2007)(Deferred to March 21, 2007 Work Session)

Marne Sherman, Garrett Development, stated she met with Mr. Di Peppe and Mrs. Carlone to discuss the project and there was a request for full cash proffers on all 60 lots. She stated after a discussion with the property seller it was decided that full cash proffers would not be offered. She stated two General Development Plans (GDP) were presented, one with 60 cluster units and one with 40 by-right units with water and sewer. She stated the cluster plan would preserve 50 percent open space and all the streams on the property and in her opinion the cluster plan would be the best environmentally. She stated that full cash proffers did not make sense economically.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was disappointed about the full cash proffers.

Mrs. Sherman stated the contract with the property owner was entered into 2 or 3 years ago.

Mr. Pitzel stated the 40 lots could be built by-right as long as the preliminary plan was approved.

Mrs. Kirby asked how the cemetery would be preserved.

Mrs. Sherman stated if the reclassification was approved then it would be preserved.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the cemetery would not be preserved if the reclassification was denied.

Mrs. Sherman stated the cemetery would not be located on open space. She stated the cemetery would be noted in the deed but there would be no fence, just designation of the site.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the cemetery could be designated by a sign.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the Planning Commission asked for full cash proffers on all houses. He stated, in his opinion, the Planning Commission was adamant about full cash proffers. He stated without the full cash proffers he could not vote for the project.

Mr. Rhodes asked about the slope of the ridgeline.

Bob Burner, Garrett Development, stated the slope was going up. He stated the reason full cash proffers were not offered was due to the radical decline in market value.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the full cash proffers would be passed on to the homeowner.

Mr. Burner stated yes.

Mrs. Sherman stated, in her opinion, the full cash proffers seemed to be a big deal.

Mr. Pitzel stated if the 40 lot, by-right, plan meets all the regulations, then the preliminary plan would have to be passed.

Mr. Di Peppe stated Garrett Development had proffered to build the pump station which was already paid for by developers.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to deny the reclassification. Mr. Di Peppe seconded.
The motion passed 7-0.

2. RC2600936; Reclassification – Telecom Cox Communications Facility Brickert Street - A proposed reclassification from R-1, Suburban Residential Zoning District to A-2, Rural Residential Zoning District to allow building modifications to an existing communication facility on Assessor's Parcel 54-117A consisting of 1.54 acres, located on the west side of Brickert Street approximately 1,100 feet north of White Oak Road within the George Washington Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Suburban Residential use. The Suburban Residential use would permit single family residential development at a density of three (3) dwelling units per acre. The Rural Residential use permits single family residential development at a density of one (1) dwelling unit per three (3) acres. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a complete listing of permitted uses in the A-2 Zoning District. (Time Limit: June 5, 2007) (Deferred to March 21, 2007 Work Session)

3. CUP2600937; Conditional Use Permit – Telecom Cox Communications Facility Brickert Street - A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a telecommunications facility in an A-2, Rural Residential Zoning District on Assessor's Parcel 54-117A consisting of 1.54 acres, located on the west side of Brickert Street approximately 1,100 feet north of White Oak Road within the George Washington Election District. (Time Limit: June 5, 2007) (Deferred to March 21, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Harvey stated at the March 7, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission requested colored elevations of the new building and proffers to the community.

Mike Bell, Bell Mejia Engineering, showed a rendering of the new building from all four sides. He stated there would be a peaked roof with shingles and a vinyl fence with evergreen landscaping around the complex. He stated he spoke with the Commissioner of Revenue office and the reclassification would not affect the property values. He stated Cox Communications provided a list of charitable organizations to which they currently contribute and they would make a $1,000 donation to a historical society.

Mr. Di Peppe commended Mr. Mitchell for addressing the charitable donation.

Mr. Mitchell stated he appreciated Cox Communications addressing the concerns of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Cook thanked Mr. Bell for his hard work.

Mr. Bell stated Cox Communications liked to work with the County.

Mr. Pitzel made a motion for approval of the reclassification. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Pitzel made a motion for approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

MEMBERS PRESENT: Cook, Kirby, Pitzel, Mitchell, Carlone, Rhodes, Di Peppe and Ingalls.

1. Changeable copy/internal illuminated signs

Mr. Stepowany stated he spoke with Alan Griffith, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), concerning the electronic signs. He stated Mr. Griffith had a list of signs which were conforming or non-conforming. He stated non-conforming signs could only be upgraded to 50 percent of the value of the sign and the upgrades were then sent to a state building official.

Mrs. Kirby stated the billboard at the U.S. 17 and U.S. 1 intersection was plain with no lights and now it was electronic with changeable copy but there was no application for the upgrades.

Mr. Judy stated in Virginia Beach a company applied to repair a sign and based on the information submitted the sign repairs were approved. He stated the costs to repair the sign exceeded what was submitted and the City of Virginia Beach took the company to court. He stated the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City.

Mr. Stepowany stated he was working with Rachael Hudson, Code Administration, to compile a list of non-conforming signs.

Mrs. Carlone stated all three signs were owned by the same company.

Mr. Di Peppe asked what the criteria were for a non-conforming sign.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, the signs were a safety issue.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Zoning Ordinance allowed changeable copy signs for time and temperature only at an interval of 5 seconds. He stated the County could control the intervals, illumination, and the size of the sign.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, electronic signs were distracting for young drivers.

Mr. Stepowany stated the color of the sign could be controlled through the Ordinance.

Mr. Judy stated the State Code controlled the brightness and intensity of the lights. He stated Stafford County may be the first locality to address electronic signs.

Mr. Pitzel stated, in his opinion, time and temperature signs could be distracting depending on the background.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, the Ordinance should be as restrictive as possible.

The Planning Commission asked Mr. Stepowany to draft an Ordinance regarding Changeable copy/internal illuminated signs.

2. Primary roads being dedicated to VDOT

Mr. Stepowany stated primary roads needed to be dedicated to the State of Virginia.

Mrs. Kirby stated this was brought up at every Technical Review Committee (TRC).

Mr. Ingalls stated the word “shall” should be used in place of the word “may”.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send Item 2 to the full commission. Mr. Cook seconded.
The motion passed 8-0.

3. Vesting of preliminary plans

Mr. Stepowany stated the word “may” needed to be replaced with the word “shall”.

Mr. Ingalls made a motion to send Item 3 to the full commission. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 8-0.

4. Definition of family

Mr. Stepowany stated Item 4 was a revision to the definition of immediate family.

Mrs. Kirby asked who requested the revision.

Mr. Stepowany stated staff, County Administration and a Board of Supervisors member had requested the change.

Mr. Judy stated it needed to be in compliance with state code 15.2-22-44.

Mr. Stepowany stated he was adding section 15.2-22-44.1 which states the property has been owned for at least 15 consecutive years by the current owner or a member of the immediate family and property owner agrees to place a restrictive covenance on the subdivided property which would prohibit the transfer of the property to a non member of the immediate family for a period of 15 years. He stated they needed to add that the owner of the property would have to retain the property for 15 years before they could convey it to an immediate family member. He stated then the immediate family member would have to retain the property for 15 years before it could be sold to a non-immediate member.

Mr. Judy stated if the property was sold to a non-family member then building permits would not be issued.

Mr. Cook made a motion to send Item 4 to the full commission. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 8-0.

5. Final Plat submission requirements

Mr. Stepowany stated the mylars were scratching the scanner glass. He stated the mylar submission requirement needed to be removed from Section 22.86 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send Item 5 to the full commission. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 8-0.

6. Number of lots per plat

Mr. Stepowany stated an applicant has one year from the date of approval of the preliminary plan to submit the final plat. He stated if the preliminary plan had less than 100 lots, the final plat would have to contain 10 or more lots for vesting purposes.

Mr. Ingalls asked if there could be a percentage of the lots required, if less than 10.

Mr. Cook made a motion to send Item 6 to the full commission. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-1 (Mr. Ingalls was opposed).

7. Single pipe-stem lots

Mr. Stepowany stated there were no standards for one, single pipe stem lot.

Mrs. Kirby stated there were jurisdictions which prohibited pipe stems.

Mr. Stepowany stated that would have to be researched.

Mr. Cook made a motion to send Item 7 to the full commission. Mr. Pitzel seconded. The motion passed 7-1 (Mr. Mitchell was opposed).

ADJOURNMENT

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