The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, September 5, 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:

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Zuraf, Schultis, Stepowany, Knighting

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNIFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan – Centreport Gateway – A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan map component of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would redesignate Assessor’s Parcel 37-25 from Light Industrial, Suburban Residential, and Resource Protection land use to Urban Commercial and Resource Protection land use consisting of 51.25 acres, located on the west side of Interstate 95 separated in two parts by Centerport Parkway within the Hartwood Election District. The Urban Commercial designation would allow development of commercial retail and office uses. (Time Limit: October 16, 2007)(Deferred to the September 5, 2007 Work Session)

2. RC2700199; Reclassification – Centreport Gateway - A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District to allow for the development of a commercial office park to include a mix of offices, retail commercial uses, and a hotel on Assessor's Parcel 37-25 consisting of 51.25 acres, located on the west side of Interstate 95 separated in two parts by Centreport Parkway within the Hartwood Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Light Industrial, Suburban Residential, and Resource Protection uses. The Light Industrial designation would allow light industrial, light manufacturing and office uses. The Suburban Residential use would permit single family residential development at a density of three (3) dwelling units per acre. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a full listing of permitted uses in the B-2 Zoning District. (Time Limit: September 18, 2007) (Deferred to the September 5, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Zuraf gave a brief summary of the changes to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Reclassification applications.

Mike Finner, The Cox Company, stated the access to the property was changed and three additional proffers have been added. He stated proffer 3 discussed the signalization of the Mine Road intersection and the applicant would work with the County and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on the through lanes and turn lanes. He stated proffer 5 affirmed pedestrian pathways would consist of a permeable or porous paving material. He stated the applicant tried to provide the Planning Commission with suitable design guidelines. He stated the design would be a traditional Virginia town, with

architectural streetscape designs. He stated they proffered a maximum height limitation on the buildings, which would not exceed 4 stories and the building materials would be brick, stucco, glass, and painted services with a traditional architectural scheme. He stated they have not received any feedback from VDOT on the change of access.

Mrs. Carlone stated she welcomed the architecture and building materials based on what was shown tonight. She stated she was concerned about the abutting property owners who will be faced with traffic coming into the site.

Doug Darling, G & G Centreport Gateway, stated they had spoken to the property owners, who indicated they were not planning to stay there long term and would probably move in 2 or 3 years.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the parcel across the street considered spot zoning.

Mr. Darling stated they were not separate parcels.

Mr. Pitzel stated the trail was still shown to go right to the edge of Centreport Parkway.

Mr. Darling stated that was a road which provided access to the VDOT Stormwater Management Pond.

Mr. Pitzel asked what kind of signage was proposed along Centreport Parkway.

Mr. Darling stated they would hope to put a low key monument to indicate the name of the development.

Mr. Finner stated they would not do anything that was not consistent with design guidelines.

Mrs. Kirby stated she wanted to see a package that identified, architecturally, each building as it would be built.

Mr. Finner stated they were not at the point where they have full architecture.

Mr. Di Peppe stated it would be nice if there were some benches along the sidewalks and trails.

Mr. Finner stated that could be put into the proffers.

Mrs. Kirby stated she wanted assurances that there would not be a nail salon, video stores, and cleaners. She stated there would have to be subsidiary uses for the people there.

Mr. Finner stated proffer 2c deleted some items that were by-right in the B-2 Zoning District.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the applicant really wanted to proffer out a theater with fewer than 3500 seats.

Mr. Finner stated the site was for a conference center and hotel.

Mr. Cook stated the VDOT assessment was still not complete and, in his opinion, Items 1 and 2 should remain in committee.

Mr. Harvey stated the time limit was September 18, 2007 and the Planning Commission would have to ask the applicant to extend the time limit.

Mr. Cook asked the applicant to extend the reclassification time limit to October 16, 2007.

Mr. Darling stated he would extend the time limit to October 16, 2007 and provide a written statement to Mr. Harvey.

Mrs. Kirby made a motion to put Items 1 and 2 in committee. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

3. SUB2700091; Woodlands at Berea Section Two, Revalidation, Preliminary Subdivision Plan – A revalidation of an approved preliminary plan for 27 single family residential lots, zoned A-1 and A-2 consisting of 51.03 acres located on the north side of Sanford Road approximately 1,600 feet east of Greenbank Road on Assessor's Parcel 44-87A within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: October 15, 2007)(Deferred to September 5, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Schultis stated at the previous meeting the Planning Commissioners were concerned about how the houses would fit on the lots. He stated he had a sketch of the subdivision showing spot locations of the houses.

Mr. Harvey stated the Planning Commission was concerned about the location of the homes and drainfields on all lots.

Mrs. Kirby stated the drainfield on lot 115 was next to Resource Protection Area (RPA).

Larry Caruthers stated the drawing showed a 100 scale and there would be 5 feet between the RPA and drainfield.

Mr. Schultis stated the Environmental Planners had approved their review on the application.

Mrs. Kirby asked what it means to revalidate.

Mr. Judy stated the preliminary plan was approved and for some reason the applicant did not pursue the plan further, which means the preliminary plan was no longer valid, which means the plan had to be revalidated under the new rules.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the applicant had to show due diligence in order to revalidate.

Mr. Judy stated the applicant was starting just like anyone doing a site plan.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he was concerned about the drainfield on lot 115 being too close to the RPA.

Mr. Caruthers stated the soil scientist had looked the site over thoroughly.

Mrs. Carlone asked if metal markers could be placed at the RPA.

Mr. Caruthers stated the applicant agreed to do that.

Mrs. Kirby asked if there was something from the Health Department stating 5 feet between the drainfield and RPA was acceptable.

Mr. Judy stated the Health Department did not set the requirements for how close a drainfield would be to the RPA. He stated the RPA was established under the Chesapeake Bay Protection Act. He stated, to the best of his knowledge, there was no minimum separation between the drainfield and the RPA.

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

4. Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance - Amendments to Section 22-5, Family and Minor Subdivisions; and Section 22-176, Private Access Easement, of the Subdivision Ordinance, pursuant to O07-58. The amendment shall require all lots including lots in a family subdivision and less than five (5) acres to be served by private ingress/egress easement at least twenty (20) feet wide, clear of any structures and vegetation. Lots being served by a Private Access Easement (PAE) five (5) acres or larger shall be served by an ingress/egress easement at least fifty (50) feet wide, clear of any structures and vegetation. The amendment limits a minor subdivision to no more than one (1) PAE per parent parcel. (Deferred to September 5, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Stepowany gave a brief review of the status of the Ordinance.

Mr. Pitzel presented an illustration of 10 foot easement. He stated the Ordinance would require the Private Access Easement (PAE) have 20 feet area clear of obstacles, which was also required in the current Fire Code.

Mr. Cook stated a 20 foot wide easement would work with any size lot. He stated there were roads in Aquia Harbor, Stefaniga Road, and Mountain View Road which were not 50 feet wide.

Mr. Pitzel stated the slides would show why the easements should be more than 10 feet. He stated the need for 20 feet clear of obstacles was to allow emergency vehicles could travel down the easement.

Mr. Stepowany stated Sections 22-5 and 22.176 would be modified. He stated the Ordinance currently required an easement 50 feet wide for lots 5 acres or larger. He stated staff would be willing to modify the Ordinance to require a minimum 20 feet for the roadway, clear of any vegetation or obstacles.

Mr. Judy stated the reason the Ordinance needed to be written was in the event of future development.

Mr. Stepowany stated he was not asking to amend the 50 foot easement.

Mr. Judy stated there would need to be a 50 feet easement on paper, which would not require a 50 feet clear area on the property. He stated in addition to that, Mr. Pitzel was indicating that 20 feet should be clear of any obstruction, but not necessarily 20 feet width of pavement or gravel.

Mr. Stepowany stated Mr. Harvey had expressed concerns about enforcement. He stated new Planning and Zoning applications would take effect on Monday, September 10, 2007. He stated the Stormwater Management team raised concerns about private driveways being constructed without the building permit and not being reviewed for stormwater management. He stated the new applications include infrastructure plans for Stormwater Management review. He stated the 50 foot easement was with 20 feet clear and the minimum width of the travel way was 10 feet. He stated staff’s recommendation would be to add the modification for the 50 feet easement, that there be 20 feet clear of vegetation for the travel way.

Thomas Cropp stated the 50 feet easement had never been a problem. He stated the Ordinance read that 50 feet had to be cleared of vegetation. He stated there were still properties in the Agricultural Zoning Districts that had deeded right of ways which were only 10 feet wide. He stated the Ordinance also specified no more than 2 divisions per PAE, anything greater than that would be in the state system.

Mr. Stepowany stated he would be happy to make modifications and bring it back to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Cropp stated he was also concerned about only allowing one PAE off of a parent parcel. He stated there were circumstances when a family may want to give a piece of land to a child.

Mr. Stepowany stated family subdivisions would not be subject to those regulations, just minor subdivisions.

Mr. Cook made a motion to amend and rewrite the Ordinance. Mrs. Rhodes seconded.

Mr. Harvey stated the staff was willing to rewrite and present the Ordinance at the next meeting.

Mr. Pitzel stated, in his opinion, the Ordinance should be split, forming two Ordinances.

Mr. Stepowany stated both Ordinances would have to be re-advertised.

Mr. Cook made a motion for staff to rewrite the Ordinance creating two separate Ordinances. He withdrew his first motion.

Mr. Rhodes withdrew his second.

Mr. Stepowany stated he was concerned about splitting the Ordinance.

Mr. Pitzel stated he would like the public to have input. He stated from the beginning he wanted two separate Ordinances. He seconded the motion. The motion passed 7-0.

ADJOURNMENT

With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 6:33 p.m.