The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, July 18, 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, and Di Peppe

Members Absent: Rhodes

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Ennis, Hornung, Schulte, Schultis and Gregori

Declarations of Disqualification

None

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE:

1. Life Care/Retirement Community Zoning Districts

Brice Hendrick, Smith Packet, stated lifecare was full continuum care and he would like to introduce some language to the proposed Ordinance. He stated Smith Packet had been developing lifecare facilities for 25 years and had developed 150 long term communities. He stated the communities could consist of cottages, duplexes, condominiums, and apartments. He stated the residents could progress through the levels of care as their needs change. He stated the average age of a resident was 78 years old and the average age of a nursing home resident was 83 years old.

Mrs. Kirby asked the location of the closest facility.

Mr. Hendrick stated there were 2 facilities in Richmond, Crossing at Bon Air and University Park. He stated residents preferred the lifecare facilities because of the efficiencies of the services and additional amenities. He stated currently there was one nursing home in Stafford County and the state recently said there needed to be 350 nursing home beds available in the County. He stated residents would have to leave the County in order to find care and it was difficult on extended family to travel to visit relatives. He stated couples with different care needs could reside on the same campus to support each other. He stated lifecare facilities usually have no impact on schools or parks and recreation and minimal impact of emergency services since there would be medical staff on site. He stated lifecare facilities were low traffic generators, except for visitors and the site would be pedestrian friendly. He showed the Commission pictures of other facilities. He stated he appreciated staff’s help and the Planning Commission’s input.

Mrs. Carlone asked if there would be high rise buildings.

Mr. Hendrick stated the largest building was four stories.

Mrs. Carlone stated the Ordinance read the maximum height would be 75 feet.

Mr. Judy stated this was nothing more than a proposal.

Mrs. Carlone asked if there would be a non-denominational place of worship.

Mr. Hendrick stated there were some faith based lifecare facilities.

Mr. Judy stated they were trying to be broad.

Mrs. Carlone asked if some residents would be driving cars.

Mr. Stepowany stated there were 3 different levels of care so some residents may have cars. He stated the residents would not own the cottages or duplexes, but would rent or lease them.

Mr. Di Peppe stated it would be a co-op situation.

Mr. Judy stated the residents could own the condominiums. He stated 55 and older communities were growing.

Mr. Pitzel asked if onsite housing would be available to the staff.

Mr. Hendrick stated the staff would live off site and drive to work.

Mr. Stepowany stated there would need to be special regulations for signs and how it related to landscaping.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the medical offices were for emergency medical care.

Jay McManus, engineer stated none of the condominiums were offices.

Mr. Hendrick stated any offices for staff would be on an out parcel.

Mr. Stepowany stated offices were not permitted on the use table.

Mrs. Kirby asked what the general price range was.

Mr. Hendrick stated the prices vary, but cottages usually go for 250,000 to 500,000 dollars and apartments were generally 180,000 – 275,000 dollars. He stated residents would purchase a life long lease.

Mrs. Kirby asked what happened to a resident who started off in a cottage but a few years later needed to be in the nursing home.

Mr. Hendrick stated lifecare facilities were an upfront investment, than the residents pay a monthly maintenance fee.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned about a fire in a tall building.

Mr. Hendrick stated the buildings would be fully sprinkled.

Mr. Judy stated he thought Mrs. Carlone was concerned that Stafford County did not have sufficient rescue apparatus for taller buildings.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was thinking of the safety of the residents.

Mr. Judy asked Mrs. Carlone if she was suggesting the 75 feet maximum height be reduced.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Ordinance would be brought back to Committee for further discussion regarding signs, landscaping, and loading issues.

Mr. Di Peppe stated Mrs. Carlone had a legitimate question.

Mrs. Carlone stated elevators in the buildings could not be used during a fire.

Mr. Pitzel stated he would like limited on site residency for staff because lifecare facilities had 24 hour functions.

Mrs. Kirby stated hospitals were 24 hour businesses.

Mr. Pitzel stated lifecare facilities already had residential components.

Mr. Di Peppe asked Mr. Stepowany if he could research the possibility of on site residences for the staff.

Mr. Judy stated it could possibly be done under a special exception.

The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Hendrick for his presentation.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he would like to recognize Mr. Stepowany for writing the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Ordinance. He stated at the July 17, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting Mr. Dan Sloan, who helped write the Smart Code, stated the Smart Code was a template and localities could modify it. He stated Mr. Sloan told the Board that Mr. Stepowany did exactly what he was supposed to do with the Smart Code and it would be an excellent service for Stafford County.

ITEM 2:

Mr. Stepowany stated the Board of Supervisors recommended Resolution R07-305 changes to the TND Ordinance.

Mrs. Kirby asked why special exceptions would be given to certain groups.

Mr. Stepowany stated in order to receive a variance; the owner had to claim a hardship. He stated Mt. Ararat Baptist Church was denied.

Mr. Harvey stated it was deferred, not denied.

Mrs. Kirby stated the Eagles Lodge did not ask for a special exception.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Eagles Lodge had a lower open space ratio. He stated Agricultural Zoning District have higher open space ratios. He stated the justification for the special exception was parking.

Mr. Judy stated institutions can grow.

Mrs. Kirby stated in residential areas.

Mr. Judy stated they were expanding within their property.

Mr. Pitzel stated Bethel Baptist Church received a special exception when they expanded their building. He stated each case could be examined on its own merit.

Mr. Cook made a motion to set Item 2 for Public Hearing. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

Mr. Judy stated Item 3 was initiated by a resolution from the Board of Supervisors, so no motion from Mr. Di Peppe, the Ordinance Committee Chairman, was required.

IITEM 3:

Mr. Stepowany stated the Board of Supervisors had 4 amendments to the TND Ordinance which were the maximum height requirement, density in the T-6, Transect Zone, minimum tract size, and a provision to not require residential units. He stated the Planning Commission had 120 days to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Cook stated he would like staff to present the recommended changes and the Planning Commission could have an opportunity to study the changes. He stated he would like to have a public information hearing in September for public comment. He stated the Ordinance could be set for Public Hearing possibly in October. He stated, in his opinion, he did not want to rush the Ordinance and he would like good input from staff.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if there would be any recommendations from the Planning Commission prior to the public information meeting.

Mr. Cook stated yes. He stated staff should provide their recommendations on the changes at the first meeting in September.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the public should be able to provide comment prior to staff’s recommendations.

Mr. Cook stated the Planning Commission was going to make 4 changes recommended by the Board of Supervisors. He stated, in his opinion, removing residential development from the Ordinance was not the best idea.

Mr. Di Peppe asked Mr. Stepowany if he had any other comments for the Planning Commission.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Private Access Easement (PAE) Ordinance had to be re-advertised because the section on the number of allowable PAE’s in a Minor Subdivision was inadvertently left out of the advertisement.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the two issues could be separated. He stated, in his opinion, the width issue was separate from the number issue.

Mr. Stepowany asked if it would be possible to still forward the width of the easements to the Board of Supervisors and only advertise and hold a public hearing on the number of PAE’s allowed in a Minor Subdivision.

Mr. Judy stated, in his opinion, as long as the public hearing only addressed the part that deals with the width of PAE’s, but he was not sure if the County wanted to go down that road. He stated, in his opinion, even if it was split into two Ordinances, both should be advertised and sent to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Di Peppe asked why there were so many requests for PAE’s recently.

Mrs. Kirby stated there were people who would try to circumvent the Subdivision Ordinance.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the Ordinance Committee was complete and he would give the gavel back to Mr. Cook.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

2. PAE2700372; Bennett Division, Private Access Easement – A private access easement to serve one lot located on the west side of New Hope Church Road between Rabbit Road and Camp Selden Road on Assessor’s Parcel 55N-2, within the George Washington Election District. (Time Limit: September 3, 2007) (Deferred to July 18, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Cook stated the request meets all regulations.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, just because it meets all regulations does not mean it is a good idea.

Mr. Harvey stated the PAE meets the Ordinance requirements. He stated PAE’s were an administrative action by the Planning Commission. He stated the best way to remedy the situation would be to amend the code.

Mrs. Kirby stated she would vote no.

Mr. Cook stated Mr. McAllister purchased the property and was creating 3 lots.

Mrs. Ennis stated a Minor Subdivision was 5 lots or less.


Mr. Judy stated the Ordinance says “approval of such subdivision and access easement shall not be construed to approve any further use of said easement or further subdivision of the land.”

Mr. Pitzel made a motion for approval. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

3. PAE2700373; Roundtree Division, Private Access Easement – Two private access easements to serve one lot each located on the east side of Belle Plains Road north of Newton Road on Assessor’s Parcel 56-78, within the George Washington Election District. (Time Limit: September 3, 2007) (Deferred to July 18, 200 Work Session)

Mr. Judy asked if there was a minimum Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) width between the easements.

Mrs. Ennis stated she checked with VDOT and they were okay with the location of the PAE’s.

Mr. Pitzel made a motion for approval. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

4. PAE2700375; Kensington Division, Private Access Easement – Two private access easements to serve one lot each located on the east side of Storck Road south of Hartwood Road on Assessor’s Parcel 25-34B, within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: September 3, 2007) (Deferred to July 18, 2007 Work Session)

Mrs. Carlone made a motion for approval. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

5. PAE2700377; Tacketts Mill Division, Private Access Easement – Two private access easements to serve one lot each located on the east side of Tacketts Mill Road at Walnut Ridge Drive Assessor’s Parcel 8-15, within the Rock Hill Election District. (Time Limit: September 3, 2007) (Deferred to July 18, 2007 Work Session)

Mrs. Carlone made a motion for approval. Mr. Mitchell seconded. The motion passed 6-0 (Mr. Rhodes was absent).

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 6:54 p.m.