The regular meeting of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, March 7, 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, Hornung, Gregori, and Stepowany

DECLARATIONS OF DISQUALIFICATIONS:

None

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:

None

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. 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)

2. 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)

Mr. Harvey asked that Items 1 and 2 be presented together.

Mr. Stepowany presented the staff report. He stated the property was non-conforming because a communications facility was not permitted in the R-1, Suburban Residential Zoning District. He stated a Special Use Permit was granted in 1984 and currently the facility has ten satellite dishes, two sheds, and one lattice tower. He stated one building would be demolished and a new building would be built in its place. He stated the Land Use Plan recommends single family residential for the parcel. He stated there would be a metal, rust resistant sign on the gate with an emergency contact number. He stated there would be no increase to the height of the tower, no lights or signs

on the tower, and the applicant would post a 125% credit of the cost of removing the tower. He stated the compound would be screened in accordance with the Landscape Manual with four options for screening: a 15 foot wide evergreen screen, an 8 foot high solid wall, an 8 foot high board on board sight tight fence, or a 5 foot high berm with 20 evergreens and 50 shrubs per every 100 linear feet. He stated the trash dumpster has to be kept inside the fenced compound or screened with an 8 foot tall privacy fence if kept outside the fence. He stated storage and supplies would not be visible from adjacent properties and there would be no fleet parking. He stated Cox Communications would have to acquire the building permit within 5 years or the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) expires. He stated staff recommends approval of the reclassification and CUP.

Mr. Pitzel asked if this could be considered spot zoning.

Mr. Harvey stated spot zoning was when the zoning classification was not consistent with the character of the area.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the provision requiring the removal of outdated equipment applied to the tower. He asked if the tower was a radio transmission tower.

Mr. Stepowany stated the facility was not a radio transmission tower but a communication facility, but there was a radio transmission tower in the area.

Mrs. Kirby stated this was a commercial enterprise, not residential. She stated it was a non-conforming use and by approving it, the Planning Commission would just be adding to the non-conformity.

Mr. Harvey stated without changing the zoning they would not be able to put in the new building to provide the cable service.

Mr. Stepowany stated the upgrades would allow Cox to provide telephone service through the cable service.

Mr. Di Peppe asked about the landscaping on the front of the site.

Mr. Stepowany stated the applicant would have to screen the entire compound using one of the four methods described in the presentation.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the County would have any say in which design Cox Communications selected.

Mr. Stepowany stated the standards were set in the Landscape Manual.

Mr. Mitchell stated the ten satellite dishes would be leased out, therefore Cox Communications would be drawing rent. He stated there were no monetary proffers with the application. He stated in the north end of the County, the cable was received through a dish and transmitted through fiber optics.

Mr. Stepowany stated the facility would allow the company to receive the transmission from the satellites, which is sent out through fiber optics to the homes.

Mr. Rhodes asked about the height of the single story building.

Mr. Stepowany stated the building was eight feet tall.

Mr. Rhodes asked what style and material were the homes across the street from the facility.

Mr. Stepowany stated the homes were white, vinyl siding.

Mr. Cook asked what the reclassification would do to the property values.

Mr. Stepowany stated he could not answer that question.

Mike Bell, Bell-Mejia Engineering, stated Cox Communications would like to improve the aesthetics of the site and increase screening. He stated currently there were two buildings, one was new and the other was an old cinder block building not usable for communications. He stated the new building would go exactly where the old building was currently located and the upgrades to the site would allow Cox to provide additional services to the citizens of Stafford County. He stated the tower served internal communications for Cox employees and would not be leased out for commercial use. He stated they would be glad to work with the County on the landscaping. He stated the satellite dishes were used to receive different stations.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the tower was a radio tower.

Mr. Bell stated no, but there was a radio tower in the area.

Mr. Pitzel asked what increased capabilities would be provided by upgrading the site.

Mr. Bell stated telephone service could be provided, as well as high definition television.

Mrs. Kirby asked why the facility had not been cleaned up prior to the reclassification.

Mr. Bell stated the facility was in disrepair and upgrades would allow Cox Communications to function adequately.

Mrs. Carlone asked how tall the current tower was.

Mr. Bell stated it was 90 feet.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there was a chain link fence on the property.

Mr. Bell stated yes.

Mr. Rhodes asked which of the four screening options the applicant intended to pursue.

Mr. Bell stated he was open to suggestions from the Planning Commission. He stated the applicant liked the landscaping option because it was a softer more aesthetic appeal.

Mr. Rhodes asked if there was a pitched roof.

Mr. Bell stated there was a pitched roof with parapet.

Mr. Mitchell stated public water and sewer would have to be extended to the site.

Mr. Bell stated when the public water and sewer was extended to the adjacent subdivision; the County had the foresight to put a stub into a meter pit.

Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a connection fee.

Mr. Bell stated yes.

Mr. Mitchell stated the reclassification benefited the applicant.

Mr. Bell stated the applicant was proposing some proffers. He stated Cox Communications looked at the reclassification as an opportunity to add aesthetics to the site and offer services to the County. He stated they could continue operating as a non-conforming use.

Mr. Mitchell stated there were no monetary proffers to the County and the facility was not compatible with the surrounding zoning.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the lattice tower was still needed because of technological advances in communication.

Kathy Cleaver, Bagby and Caldwell, stated the lattice tower receives signals from Richmond for the local television stations.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the upgraded facility would increase internet speeds above the current 15 mega bites per second.

Jabo Johnson, Cox Communications, stated the new building would hopefully provide High Definition Channels and help speed up the internet service.

Mr. Cook opened the Public Hearing. With no one coming forward, the Public Hearing was closed.

Mr. Pitzel stated he would like to see an elevation view of the building.

Mr. Mitchell asked if Cox Communications would entertain a stipulation to proffer monetary contributions to the County, the schools, or a historic society.

Mr. Pitzel made a motion to send Items 1 and 2 to the March 21, 2007 Work Session and have Cox Communications bring in an elevation of the building and a monetary contribution to a historic society in the proffers. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

3. 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)

Mr. Cook stated Item 3 was deferred to the March 21, 2007 Planning Commission Work Session.

4. 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 March 7, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Mitchell made a motion for approval. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 5-2. (Mr. Di Peppe and Mrs. Kirby were opposed)

5. 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. Mitchell made a motion for approval. Mr. Rhodes seconded.

Mrs. Carlone stated she spoke with Mr. Leming and the applicant in the hallway and asked for baffles on the air conditioning units and evergreens, instead of spirea, in the landscape buffering.

Mrs. Kirby stated they agreed to do a Phase I Study on the site.

Mr. Cook asked Mr. Mitchell if he would modify his motion to include baffling of air conditioners, replace the spirea with evergreens, and do a Phase I Study.

Mr. Rhodes stated they agreed to have 12 foot canopy trees

Mr. Mitchell stated this would set a precedent for discussing an application in the hallway and renegotiating conditions. He amended his motion to include the conditions stated by Mr. Cook.

Mr. Rhodes stated his second would include the conditions stated by Mr. Cook.

Mr. Judy stated he was concerned about the conditions being discussed in the hallway.

Mr. Cook stated he agreed with Mr. Judy.

The motion passed 4-3. (Mrs. Kirby, Mr. Di Peppe, and Mr. Cook were opposed)

6. 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)

Mr. Cook stated Item 6 was deferred to the April 18, 2007 Regular Meeting.

NEW BUSINESS:

7. SUB2600625; Williams Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A preliminary
subdivision plan for 13 single family residential lots, zoned A-2, Rural Residential, consisting of 14.55 acres located on the north side of Enon Road approximately 1,500 feet west of Wyatt Lane on Assessor's Parcels 45-125 and 45-125B within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: February 28, 2007)(Deferred to May 2, 2007 Regular Meeting at the applicants request)

Mr. Cook stated Item 7 was deferred to the May 2, 2007 Planning Commission Regular Meeting.

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to send the Flood Hazard Overlay District Ordinance to Public Hearing on April 4, 2007. Mr. Pitzel seconded. The motion passed 6-1. (Mrs. Carlone was opposed)

Item 1 – Electronic Signs

Mr. Stepowany stated staff was looking for guidance on electronic signs. He stated there would need to be some input from County Attorney and research on how other localities have dealt with the issue. He stated he spoke with Rachael Hudson in Code Administration regarding an application which was being appealed and the state code does allow a billboard to change its content as long as the interval was no faster than 4 seconds.

Mrs. Kirby stated the electronic signs were distracting, especially for young drivers.

Mr. Stepowany asked what was distracting about the signs.

Mrs. Kirby stated the context in which the signs changed was distracting.

Mr. Stepowany stated regulations could be provided for businesses and general advertisement signs.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, any electronic sign visible from the road was very distracting.

Mr. Cook stated he would like to know the formula used by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to calculate the value of the signs.

Mr. Stepowany stated the future income value was calculated to determine the value of the sign.

Mr. Harvey stated he would speak with Code Administration and contact VDOT.

Mr. Cook made a motion to discuss the issue at the next Ordinance Committee meeting. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Item 2 – Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)

Mr. Stepowany stated the latest version to the Zoning Ordinance Amendment had been emailed to the Planning Commissioners and the Appendix to the Comprehensive Plan was provided. He stated members of the sub-committee were in the audience.

Mr. Cook asked if kennels and grain storage were really necessary and asked that they be removed from the Ordinance.

Mr. Stepowany stated he would remove kennels and grain storage from the use table.

Mrs. Kirby stated she would like stables removed.

Mr. Stepowany stated there may be an equestrian area. He stated Aquia Harbor had stables and a bridle path.

Mr. Pitzel stated stables could be in the T-1 and T-2 zones. He asked why a place of worship would have to be detached only.

Mr. Stepowany stated from an Economic Development standpoint “detached only” would be the best situation for a place of worship.

Mrs. Carlone asked if there was a limitation on the number of places of worship.

Mr. Stepowany stated there was no limitation on the number of places of worship.

Mr. Cook suggested taking out the words “detached only”.

Mr. Judy stated there were reasonable zoning requirements, but the County would not want to zone places of worship into a box. He stated telling people the only place they could worship was on a detached parcel may violate the First Amendment.

Mr. Stepowany stated “detached only” would be removed.

Mr. Judy stated architectural standards should be removed from the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Stepowany stated he would remove the architectural standards.

Mr. Judy stated there was no enabling law which would allow the County to enact a zoning regulation to provide for aesthetic features.

Mrs. Kirby asked if you had 400 acres and 230 of it were historic, could you regulate the whole 400 acres.

Mr. Judy stated if the property was in a Historic Overlay District.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if architectural standards would be proffered with the reclassification application.

Mr. Judy stated yes.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned about communication antennas.

Mr. Stepowany stated antennae panels were a by-right use.

Mr. Cook made a motion to send the TND to the full commission on April 4, 2007. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Harvey stated Mr. Judy did not have adequate time to fully review the Ordinance and requested the motion be withdrawn.

Mr. Cook rescinded his motion. Mrs. Kirby rescinded her second.

MINUTES

February 7, 2007 Work Session

Mr. Pitzel stated on Page 2, Paragraph 4, the applicant stated “the elevation difference between the building and Derrick Lane was 30 feet.” He stated on Page 3, back flow protection was independent of the battery back up system.

Mr. Mitchell made a motion for approval with changes. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

February 7, 2007 Regular Meeting

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

February 21, 2007 Work Session

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

February 21, 2007 Regular Meeting

Mr. Pitzel stated on Page 9 the minutes should read “Mr. Pitzel showed the Planning Commission a map with low, medium, and high intensive development intensities.”

Mr. Rhodes made a motion for approval with the changes. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Harvey stated the Board of Supervisors approved the Pohanka CUP and the Bird/Cook reclassification was deferred. He stated the Board changed the fees on the Architectural Review Board Certificate of Appropriateness.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

No report

SECRETARY/TREASURER REPORT

No report

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Pitzel stated there was a meeting held on February 26, 2007 which discussed Economic Development perceptions of Stafford County. He stated at the March 5, 2007 meeting there was a presentation by the Stafford Regional Airport Authority and the Steering Committee completed 2 policy statements. He stated the next meeting was scheduled for March 12, 2007 at the Rowser Building and they were hoping to complete 4 more policy statements and may have input back concerning the build out analysis from Peter J. Smith. He stated if there was enough time the committee may start the public input analysis and on March 19, 2007 the committee would focus on the remainder of the public input analysis. He stated the Transportation and Level of Service (LOS) data would not be ready until the end of March as the Land Use and Transportation policies still needed work.

CONSENT AGENDA

SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORTS

No report

CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

No report

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Rhodes made a motion for adjournment. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.