The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, May 2, 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, Schulte, Hornung, and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

None

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Members Present: Cook, Kirby, Pitzel, Mitchell, Carlone, Rhodes, Di Peppe and Ingalls.

Mr. Cook stated there would be an Ordinance Committee meeting until 6:50 p.m. He stated Item 2 would be a discussion of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats to the Zoning Ordinance.

Item 1 - Conditional Use Permit to increase the FAR for all buildings

Mr. Stepowany stated the Board of Supervisors recommend the Ordinance to amend Section 28-38 of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the Board may modify the floor area ratio (FAR) requirements in any district for a hotel by review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He stated the Board desires to allow a modification of the floor area ratio in any district for any building or structure by review and approval of a conditional use permit.

Mrs. Kirby asked why the Board wanted the change.

Mr. Stepowany stated there were no regulations under the density requirements.

Mrs. Kirby asked why the FAR was being changed.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Board would like more than just hotels to apply for CUP’s to modify the FAR.

Mrs. Kirby asked why the Board wanted to amend the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Stepowany stated he would be happy to research the issue.

Mrs. Kirby stated the Planning Commission spends a lot of time going over Ordinances to make sure they are first-rate.

Mr. Cook stated the Board was trying to generalize the Ordinance.

Mrs. Carlone stated the language “buildings and structures” was broad.

Mr. Mitchell stated each one of the Planning Commissioners had direct communication with their Board member and could direct questions or concerns to their Board member.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to put Item 1 in committee. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

Item 2 - SWOT; Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

Mr. Harvey stated this was staff’s first input meeting concerning the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the last update was thirteen years ago and the current update would take about a year to complete. He stated staff would like input from the Planning Commission, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and the Zoning staff in Code Administration.

Mrs. Kirby stated the Planning Commission spends hours writing Ordinances, but Code does not enforce the Ordinances.

Mrs. Hornung stated the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance was a weakness. She stated the Design Standards were also being evaluated.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the Comprehensive Plan from 1988 had 25 items under “Environment” and 14 of the items were never addressed or implemented. He stated the Zoning Ordinance needed to have a better connection with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the electronic signs issue stemmed from a lack of communication between departments.

Mrs. Kirby stated there was not a connection between Planning, Code Administration, and Economic Development.

Mrs. Hornung stated the Planning Department was working with Code to examine the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Rhodes arrived at 5:50 p.m.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the main concern was Code not enforcing the Ordinances. He stated every time he has been at the Planning Department counter staff has been cordial, helpful and courteous.

Mrs. Carlone stated the Planning Commission was willing to be innovative.

Mrs. Hornung stated perhaps this could be an opportunity to better educate the citizens of Stafford County on the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Di Peppe stated, in his opinion, the Ordinance needed to spell out the regulations for the Design Standards.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, a Low Impact Development (LID) manual was needed.

Mrs. Hornung stated there was a draft Storm Water Management manual.

Mrs. Kirby stated prospective homeowners could not depend on developers or real estate agents for information pertaining to their homes, roads, or schools.

Mr. Di Peppe stated there should be a pamphlet on the Resource Protection Area (RPA) and septic tanks. He stated the Planning Department was under staffed and in his opinion that was a threat.

Mr. Stepowany stated an example of a threat to the Zoning Ordinance would be a change to the State Code.

Mrs. Hornung stated when there was a change to the State Code, sometimes localities were only given a year to be in compliance. She asked the Commission if the Zoning Ordinance was easy to follow.

Mrs. Kirby stated sometimes different Sections of the Zoning Ordinance tie together, but a citizen doesn’t t always know that.

Mr. Pitzel stated, in his opinion, the Municipal Code website was very easy to use.

Mrs. Kirby stated not all citizens have internet access.

Mr. Pitzel stated computer terminals should be available for public use at the Planning Department or at the Citizens Assistance kiosk.

Mr. Ingalls stated the Zoning Ordinance needed to be better organized. He stated there should be an index to direct citizens through the Ordinance. He stated no two sites were the same and there needed to be some flexibility in the Ordinance.

Mr. Pitzel stated there should be a list of frequently asked questions.

Mrs. Carlone stated there should be a time limit reference for applications.

Mr. Stepowany stated Prince William County has a timeline for projects in the applications.

Mrs. Kirby suggested there be a 48 hour hold on demolition permits until Wendy Wheatcraft, Historic Preservationist Planner, can review the building being demolished.

Mr. Harvey stated any property in the Historic Overlay District would be protected. He stated the regulations in the International Building Code may tie the County’s hands on a 48 hour waiting period for demolition permits.

Mr. Ingalls stated, in his opinion, it was hard to determine the height of a building and perhaps there could be more clarification in the Zoning Ordinance.

Mrs. Kirby stated there should be definitions of open space and green space.

Mr. Di Peppe stated steep slopes and grading were an issue. He asked about a possible tree ordinance.

Mr. Harvey stated there had been several attempts at a tree ordinance.

Mr. Di Peppe stated Ordinances needed to be enforced.

Mrs. Kirby stated there needed to be fines for violations.

Mr. Di Peppe stated staff should discuss ideas regarding the Zoning Ordinance at staff meetings and address any ideas about the Zoning Ordinance to the Planning Commission.

Mrs. Kirby asked Mr. Harvey about the status of the Water Resource Protection Overlay District.

Mr. Harvey stated it was still in committee with the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Stepowany asked if the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process was a strength.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, TRC was a strength because a developer can come in and within an hour meet with transportation, environmental, landscaping, fire and rescue, and Utilities.

Mr. Pitzel stated he would like to eliminate the A-2 Zoning District because it did not make sense to have a 1 acre lot usually outside the Urban Service Area required to be on public water and sewer.

Mrs. Hornung suggested reviewing the minimum acreage for the A-2 zone.

Mrs. Schulte stated there needed to be an evaluation of rural versus residential.

Mr. Pitzel stated, in his opinion, the A-2 Zoning District was neither rural nor residential.

Mr. Stepowany asked how the Planning Commission felt about clustering in the A- Zone.

Mr. Pitzel stated, in his opinion, clustering in the R-zone did not work very well.

Mr. Stepowany asked if clustering could be done without increasing the density.

Mr. Cook stated, in his opinion that would never pass the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Judy stated Virginia now required clustering in the Agricultural Zoning District. He stated agricultural clustering becomes an economic problem for the developers and there was no incentive. He stated one of the benefits of clustering was reducing the linear length of streets, but if the lots were already small, then there really was not a benefit.

Mrs. Hornung stated a developer needs incentive to cluster in the different Zoning Districts.

Mrs. Kirby stated after the Comprehensive Plan passes maybe there would be some new ideas about clustering.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the time was 6:50 p.m. and Ordinance Committee would adjourn.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m.