The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, June 20, 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, Ennis, Hornung, and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Review – Living Hope Lutheran Church - A request for review to determine compliance with the Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Section 15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, for the extension of public sewer service outside of the County’s designated Urban Service Area, to Assessor’s Parcel 28-117 within the Rock Hill Election District. (Time Limit: August 7, 2007)(Deferred to June 20, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Cook stated there was a request from the applicant to defer the Comprehensive Plan Compliance
Review for Living Hope Lutheran Church to September 20, 2007.

2. SUB2500762; Potomac Creek Overlook, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A preliminary subdivision plan for 25 single family residential lots, zoned A-1 consisting of 97.38 acres located approximately 2,700 feet east of Jefferson Davis Highway and 1,500 feet south of Eskimo Hill Road on Assessor's Parcels 38-126 within the Aquia Election District.
(Time Limit: July 18, 2007)(Deferred to June 20, 2007 Work Session)

Debrarae Karnes, Leming & Healy, stated a revised General Development Plan (GDP) was submitted to the Planning Commission. She stated the Commission was concerned about the 2 lots which Resource Protection Area (RPA) was shown and the extant of the cemetery boundaries on the site. She stated the plan was redrawn and the RPA no longer needed to be crossed to reach the home on lot 2. She stated there were now 24 units and every home site was at least 35 feet away from the RPA buffer.

Mrs. Kirby asked if there were pictures of the cemetery.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the site was so heavily wooded that visibility was difficult. He read the report from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in the 1930’s stated a large storm came through and knocked over the headstones and it looked as if there had been some vandalism. He stated he was surprised the site was not as hilly as expected. He stated he was pleasantly surprised that everything was moved away from the RPA.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the cemetery would have its own site.

Mrs. Ennis stated the cemetery was fenced off.

Mrs. Kirby stated it should be on a plot of its own.

Mrs. Ennis stated there was a 20 foot ingress/egress.

Ms. Karnes stated the applicant agreed to do a Phase I Survey and a cemetery delineation. She stated the size of the cemetery would not be known until the cemetery delineation was complete. She stated the developer attached a note to the plan on sheet 2 that states “the applicant agrees to conduct a Phase I Archeological Report for the site which includes delineation of the boundaries of the cemetery and to furnish this report to Stafford County as a condition of the approval of the construction plan.” She stated the applicant further agrees that “lots lines will be redrawn if necessary to avoid disturbance of any portion of the cemetery in the professional delineation or any other historic site recommended for additional study recommended by the Phase I.”

Mrs. Kirby stated her concern was if utilities would be in the way after the lot lines were redrawn.

Ms. Karnes stated the Virginia State Law prohibits disturbances of the cemetery with utility lines.

Joe Jacobs, Vice President of Elm Street Development, stated the property was farm land and it would not be good business sense to do a survey of a tree farm. He stated if the County approved the preliminary plan then that would spur the developer to do more studies.

Mrs. Kirby stated Mr. Jacobs was asking for approval tonight.

Mr. Jacobs stated he was willing to put a note on the plan.

Mr. Cook stated the applicant’s note on the plan would mean if the Planning Commission approved the application tonight then the applicant would do a Phase I Survey and Cemetery Delineation prior to disturbance.

Ms. Karnes stated that was correct.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Board of Supervisors recently approved the Cemetery Ordinance.

Mr. Judy stated “parcels containing cemeteries that are not separately platted or established by an easement within the boundaries of such parcels or not otherwise clearly delineated within the limits of burials shall be required at the time of site or subdivision plan review to have a professional prepared archeological delineation of the limits of burials within the cemetery.”

Ms. Karnes stated the Ordinance applied to applications submitted after July 1, 2007.

Mr. Judy stated that was correct.

Mrs. Kirby asked if a Phase 2 Survey could be included.

Ms. Karnes stated if anything was found to justify a Phase 2 Survey then those areas would not be disturbed.

Mr. Cook stated lots 1 and 2 were unusually shaped and asked if they met the Subdivision Ordinance.

Mrs. Ennis stated the lots do meet the requirements.

Mrs. Carlone stated the developer should think about the people who would live on the lots. She stated there was unusable area. She stated even though lot 2 was 6 acres, most of it was RPA.

Ms. Karnes stated there were not many people in the market for 6 acre subdivision lots and there was adequate living and usable space outside of the RPA.

Mrs. Carlone stated people would be buying unusable lots.

Mr. Cook stated most of the lot space would remain natural

Mrs. Kirby asked where the name Laramie River Lane came from.

Terry Yates, Dewberry, stated it was a continuation of the Stafford Town Station preliminary plan.

Mr. Jacobs stated he would be happy to name the roadways after the family.

Ms. Karnes stated access was contingent on Stafford Town Station.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the Planning Commission attempted to write an Ordinance for an additional 35 feet of buffer from the RPA and he appreciated all the developer did to mitigate the impacts to the RPA.

Mr. Mitchell thanked the developer for taking the extra steps. He made a motion for approval. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 6-1 (Mrs. Carlone was opposed).

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Item 1

Mr. Stepowany stated he met with Jim Barrett of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) who said the Stafford County Zoning Ordinance had to be certified before VDOT would recognize any non-conforming billboard in the Ordinance. He stated once the billboard had been deemed non-conforming by VDOT, than they would be subject to the limits of the 50% upgrades. He stated Mr. Barrett sent a letter to Rachael Hudson of Code Administration stating he was concerned the Ordinance permitted general advertising signs in the A-1, A-2, and R-1 and model home signs in the A-1, A-2, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, PD-1, and PD-2 Zoning Districts. He stated because of this the Ordinance could not be certified to the Federal Highway Administration at the present time. He stated at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commission made a motion to send the Electronic Signs Ordinance to the July 18, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. He stated staff would like the Planning Commission to approve a revised Ordinance which addressed Mr. Barrett’s concerns. He stated model home signs “shall only be located on the lot or premise in which the model home being advertised is located.” He stated the definition of a model home sign was “a sign that identifies a dwelling as a model home” unless the Planning Commission wanted to expand on the definition.

Mrs. Kirby asked how this Ordinance would affect the popsicle signs.

Mr. Stepowany stated those would be under a separate regulation.

Mr. Judy stated the County Attorney’s office was preparing a resolution and an agreement with VDOT which would allow the County to enforce the regulations which were already in the Code. He stated VDOT had the authority to remove the signs which were in the right of way, if there was an appropriate agreement in place the County could be VDOT’s agent to enforce the Ordinance. He stated his recommendation would be to have someone take pictures of the signs, if you were going to prosecute someone for violating the Ordinance. He stated VDOT would have to assist the County in determining if the sign was actually in the right of way or on private property.

Mrs. Kirby stated popsicle signs pop up everywhere.

Mr. Judy stated, in his opinion, Mr. Barrett was suggesting if the sign was not sitting on the actual lot or parcel where the model home was, than the sign constitutes a form of general advertisement off site.

Mr. Pitzel stated when the County seeks to regulate signs they need to be regulated across the board.

Mr. Cook stated he agreed and commended staff on their hard work.

Mr. Judy stated he had a few grammatical changes which he addressed to the Planning Commission and staff.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if it would be possible to request temporary signs be removed after a week.

Mr. Cook stated 72 hours would provide enough time to remove a temporary sign.

Mr. Stepowany stated he would make the changes.

Mr. Cook stated all the items on the Ordinance Committee Agenda would be scheduled for Public Hearing on July 18, 2007.

Item 2

Mr. Stepowany stated Items 2 and 3 could be added into Item 1, but Items 2 and 3 needed to be discussed. He stated Item 2 was concerned with the RBC, Recreational Business Community Zoning District which did not have provisions for model home signs.

Mrs. Kirby stated she thought the RBC was a business district.

Mr. Stepowany stated there were retirement homes and single family dwellings in the RBC. He stated the majority of the district was residential and wants to be able to advertise the model homes in that district.

Mr. Cook stated the Planning Commission approved the amendment to executive style homes and the retirement community.

Mrs. Kirby stated it was not a business community, it was a residential community.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the Planning Commission did not approve the model home signs in the RBC then would builders or realtors not be able to use model home signs in the RBC.

Mr. Stepowany stated they would have to be temporary advertising signs which could be used for up to 6 months.

Mr. Pitzel stated he did not want to weaken the Ordinance but it would be interesting if the RBC could not use model home signs.

Mr. Harvey stated subsection F was not complete and there needed to be something describing what was being limited to the RBC district.

Mr. Judy stated the Section should read “the lot upon which the model home sign is located is in the RBC Zoning District only.”

Mrs. Kirby stated she would not vote for of Item 2.

Item 3

Mr. Stepowany stated Item 3 discussed the issue of signs at the entrance of subdivisions. He stated occasionally subdivision sections have different access points or even different names, yet they were permitted only one sign.

Mrs. Kirby stated Officer James Hamilton asks that each section of a subdivision have its own sign so rescue services know exactly where the location is.

Mr. Judy stated he had a grammatical change which he addressed to the Planning Commission and staff. He asked what happened if the subdivision did not have a Home Owner’s Association (HOA).

Mr. Stepowany stated if the subdivision had a sign, then there had to be an HOA for maintenance and liability purposes.

Mr. Pitzel stated if a developer were to put the subdivision sign on the corner of a lot, then whoever bought the lot could take down the sign.

Mr. Stepowany stated yes.

Mr. Judy stated the sign would have to be on property controlled by the HOA, either owned out right or on an easement. He asked if the Ordinance was restricting subdivisions which do not have an HOA from having a sign.

Mr. Mitchell asked if signs which were larger than 60 square feet would become non-conforming.

Mr. Stepowany stated they would be non-conforming.

Mr. Mitchell asked what happened if a non-conforming sign fell down.

Mr. Stepowany stated non-conforming signs could be repaired or modified as long as the non-conformity was not increased.

Mr. Mitchell stated he could not read a sign near Bells Hill Road because the sign was small.

Mr. Stepowany stated the whole structure was not regulated to 60 square feet; just the sign face could not exceed 60 square feet.

Mr. Cook made a motion to set Item 1 for Public Hearing. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Cook made a motion to set Item 2 for Public Hearing. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 6-1 (Mrs. Kirby was opposed).

Mr. Cook made a motion to set Item 3 for Public Hearing. Mrs. Kirby seconded. The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Mitchell was opposed).

Mr. Cook made a motion to combine Items 1, 2, and 3 to set as one Ordinance for Public Hearing. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 5-2 (Mr. Mitchell and Mrs. Kirby were opposed).

Item 4

Mr. Stepowany stated Item 4 was Lifecare facilities. He stated the parking requirements were referred to as independent living unit. He stated the form of ownership was condominiums, which would be rented, leased, or owned, so they would be referred to as independent living unit. He stated a dwelling unit was any unit which provides permanent provisions for cooking, sleeping, and sanitary. He stated he would like to request time in an upcoming work session to discuss the Ordinance.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to put Item 4 in committee. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

ADJOURNMENT

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