The Special Work Session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, September 6, 2007, was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman William Cook in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the County Administrative Center.

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

Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Zuraf, Stepowany, Woolfenden, and Knighting

Members Absent: None

Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Stafford Town Station – A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan map component of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would redesignate Assessor’s Parcel’s 38-29, 38-29A, 38-121, 38-121A, 38-122, 38-122A and 38-124 from Light Industrial, Rural Residential, and Resource Protection to Urban Commercial, Urban Residential, and Resource Protection Land Use and extend the Urban Services Area to comprise the above referenced parcels. The proposed amendment would be for the purpose of developing a P-TND, Planned Traditional Neighborhood Development. (Time Limit: November 13, 2007) (Deferred to October 11, 2007 Work Session)

RC2700296; Reclassification - Stafford Town Station - A proposed reclassification from A-1, Agricultural Zoning District and B-1, Convenience Commercial Zoning District to P-TND, Planned Traditional Neighborhood Development Zoning District on Assessor's Parcels 38-29, 38-29A, 38-121, 38-121A, 38-122, 38-122A and 38-124 consisting of 562.58 acres, located on the east side of Jefferson Davis Highway approximately 300 feet south of American Legion Road and Eskimo Hill Road within the Aquia Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Light Industrial use which would allow a variety of industrial manufacturing and office uses. The Rural Residential designation would allow development of three (3) acre lots for single family residential use. The Resource Protection designation would require stream protection buffers along all streams that exhibit perennial flow characteristics. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a complete listing of permitted uses in the P-TND Zoning District. (Time Limit: November 13, 2007) (Deferred to October 11, 2007 Work Session)

Mr. Cook explained the purpose of the meeting was strictly to discuss Stafford Town Station with the applicants, staff and the Planning Commission.

Mr. Harvey stated staff would give a brief overview of the application and then turn the presentation over to the applicant.

Mr. Zuraf stated there were two applications for Stafford Town Station, one for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a second for a reclassification. He stated the site was along Jefferson Davis Highway and Eskimo Hill Road and was primarily forested. He stated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be to redesignate the parcels to Urban Commercial, Urban Residential, and Resource Protection. He stated the reclassification request was to P-TND, Planned Traditional

Neighborhood Development. He stated the proposal would include 1,740 homes with a mix of dwelling types, 750,000 square feet of commercial space, active and passive recreation, civic space and a school site.

Clark Leming, Leming and Healy, stated he would like to thank the Planning Commission for having the Special Work Session. He stated there were revisions to some of the proffers and clarified proffer 17 regarding the elementary school site. He stated the Fiscal Impact Analysis would be provided to the Planning Commission by the end of the week and would show economic value to the County based on the commercial space. He stated Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) comments were received and the issues could be worked through. He stated the engineers and architects were present to answer any questions the Planning Commission had.

Mr. Cook stated he would like to recognize Eric Vogel from VDOT and Scott Horan from Stafford County Schools. He asked Mr. Vogel to come to the microphone.

Eric Vogel, VDOT, stated he apologized for the comments being late. He stated the first page contained a summary of the project and Chapter 5 Guidelines. He stated a portion of Route 628 contains Bike Route 1 and hopefully the development would accommodate the bike route better than currently proposed. He stated any improvements to state maintained roads should include pedestrian and bicycle accommodations. He stated Stafford County had strong proffer guidelines for transportation impacts and Route 1 and Centerport Parkway interchange were two areas in which VDOT would like to assure good conformance. He stated VDOT has the Courthouse interchange on the books, but did not have a start date.

Mrs. Carlone asked what was taken into consideration for Route 1.

Mr. Vogel stated an annual 4% growth rate was added to the traffic study. He stated it was an evolving process.

Mr. Pitzel stated there was double the traffic going north and only half the traffic going south from the proposed site.

Mr. Vogel stated that was correct. He stated most of the distribution of traffic would be addressed when the Courthouse interchange was completed.

Mr. Pitzel stated under the Centerport Parkway section, it says there was a Level of Service “F” under planned building.

Mr. Vogel stated there were a couple of Level of Service “F” places and VDOT tried to address those in the comments.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the Home Owner’s Association (HOA) would be able to enforce the restriction on senior restrictions because of the deed.

Mr. Vogel stated this was a new approach he had not seen before. He stated VDOT’s concern was senior communities built as seasonal housing or vacation homes with limited use.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if there was a study to see how the traffic would be affected above the airport interchange.

Mr. Vogel stated there was a study completed with the Traffic Impact Analysis.

Mr. Di Peppe asked what the affect on traffic would be.

Mr. Vogel stated there were some poor service areas.

Mr. Cook thanked Mr. Vogel for his comments. He asked Scott Horan, Stafford County Public Schools, to address the Commission.

Mr. Horan stated the size of the development would impact the schools in different ways and a letter was drafted stating those impacts. He stated there was a second letter which identified potential candidates to the developer to help alleviate the impact. He stated it was his understanding that the TND promoted self contained activity, business, residential, walking, and pedestrian traffic and so school activity in the development would be a positive. He stated he was not real keen on the location of the development and were concerned it was close to the juvenile detention facility, the landfill, and the airport. He stated the applicant found a site and alleviated to the maximum extent our concerns with all three of those issues. He stated if the applicant found a site at another location in the County that met a lot of school’s site needs, they would like to consider that but the applicant, assuming this was the only site, had based a lot of their comments on that school site. He stated he wanted the Planning Commission to know the school system had a lot of concerns about putting a school in proximity to those three areas; however the size of the development and the number of students the development would bring to the area would impact the school system.

Mrs. Carlone stated she did remember the letters which were dated May 24, 2007 and May 29, 2007, and the proffer for the school was right on the border of the landfill and the schools said no. She asked if the schools would prefer an off site location.

Mr. Horan stated they tend to like elementary and middle schools placed inside a development.

Mrs. Carlone asked if there was an area where a school site was needed.

Mr. Horan stated the current needs were being reevaluated right now. He stated it would depend on how the County grows.

Mrs. Carlone asked what the enrollment for this year was.

Mr. Horan stated he was not at liberty to release that information, but it would probably be less than what was projected.

Mr. Pitzel stated 1/ 2 elementary. 1/3 middle, and 1/6 high school were the current projections. He asked for a map of the school site location.

Debrarae Karnes, Leming & Healy, showed the location of the school.

Mr. Pitzel asked if that location was considered too close to the landfill.

Mr. Horan stated no, but the site still has some concerns. He stated, out of any location, this was the best site for a school in the development.

Mr. Pitzel stated the new site reflects the concerns with the old site.

Mr. Horan stated he did not want the Planning Commission to take away the wrong message, but if the school could get another location within the County they would like to consider that. He stated this was the optimal site within the development.

Mr. Pitzel stated even with the new site the School Board still had concerns with the landfill, juvenile center, and airport.

Mrs. Kirby stated one of her concerns would be the ability of the students to walk to school.

Mr. Horan stated when a new school was opened it had walking zones and after the first years the walking zones were reevaluated. He stated there would be walking zones in this development. He stated there were concerns about co-locating a library within the school. He stated the intermixing of the public and the school children was not part of what was trying to be achieved as far as security.

Mr. Di Peppe asked where the proposed elementary school was in relation to the new high school.

Mr. Horan stated the school was closer to Interstate 95 and Route 1, so it would be much further west than the high school site.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if an elementary school was built, would it alleviate the impact to Falmouth Elementary.

Mr. Horan stated enrollment was not what the School Board projected. He stated Falmouth Elementary Conway Elementary, and Rocky Run Elementary would be impacted positively.

Mrs. Carlone stated there was 60 acres for a shooting range on the property per the landfill and the shooting range at the juvenile center.

Rob Gollahon, Stafford Town Station, asked if Mrs. Carlone was referring to the hunt club which uses the property.

Mr. Leming, Leming & Healy, stated the old prison work camp was now the juvenile detention center.

Mrs. Carlone stated another concern was the high tension wires. She stated there were a lot of seagulls at the landfill. She asked how high the fence would be.

Mr. Leming stated 6 feet.

Mrs. Carlone stated the landfill was concerned about security with kids possibly messing with the equipment. She stated there was a concern about the sludge and smell at the landfill. She stated methane migration was a concern when it rains heavily.

Mr. Leming stated methane detectors were proffered.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the homes near the landfill were on slabs. She asked how the home owners would know what the alarm was for.

Mr. Leming stated that was proffer 18 required written notice to all homeowners.

Mrs. Carlone stated she was concerned about the number of trucks going through the proposed realignment.

Mr. Leming stated they did look at the current traffic counts of trucks going to the landfill.

Mr. Gollahon stated the trucks would not come through the subdivision, but would come down the southern boundary.

Mr. Pitzel asked if there was a map which showed the bypass for the trucks.

Mr. Gollahon showed a map with the bypass.

Mr. Pitzel asked how affordable housing would be distributed.

Mr. Leming stated there was no proffer, but it would be market driven.

Craig Johnson, CT Park, stated the carriage houses would be spread through out the community with access off of the alley.

Mr. Pitzel asked which transect zone carriage houses would locate in.

Mr. Leming stated transect zone 4.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the number of carriage homes were proffered.

Mr. Leming stated yes.

Mr. Pitzel stated someone who owned a main house could have a workforce house or accessory unit behind them.

Mrs. Carlone asked if a homeowner decided not to have a workforce house behind them, how would that affect the number of affordable housing.

Mr. Gollahon stated the number of workforce housing was proffered. He stated those numbers would have to be reached.

Mr. Pitzel asked how many main houses which could have workforce housing or accessory dwellings were proposed.

Mr. Leming stated 300 homes would be eligible.

Mr. Pitzel asked if there was any incentive to put workforce housing in the back of the main house.

Mr. Johnson stated there would be a discount for the main house to market the workforce housing.

Mr. Gollahon stated there would be more useable space.

Mr. Pitzel stated he was trying to figure out the opportunities for workforce housing.

Mr. Leming stated it was an original concept and you would not want only one section to be affordable housing.

Mrs. Kirby asked if some of the homes could be fit for Universal Design.

Mr. Johnson stated Universal Design was offered as an option in the homes CT Park designs.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion, a grab bar could be put in every shower or a roll in shower. She stated she wanted to make sure bus service was provided shortly after opening.

Mr. Gollahon asked if the Planning Commission wanted to proffer more units before the bus service was turned over to the HOA.

Mrs. Kirby asked about having a Fredericksburg Transit System (FRED) stop in the development.

Mr. Johnson stated they were in discussions and would continue to discuss the options for a FRED stop.

Mrs. Kirby stated she had some concerns about the retail commercial, would they be high end stores which could provide higher salaries.

Mr. Leming stated he did not know how that could be proffered. He stated it was the intent to bring in the best users possible. He stated, in his best guess, an anchor store for a shopping center this size would be a grocery store.

Mrs. Kirby stated the proposed project was in an aquifer recharge area and needs some serious thought.

Mr. Leming stated there was 40% open space and the areas being preserved were those which would work best for the discharge, like streams where water collects.

Mrs. Kirby stated she was thinking in terms of the green space along the Route 1 corridor.

Mr. Harvey stated staff looked at the Groundwater Management Plan and the whole County was a recharge area for points east. He stated this was not an area with high groundwater pollution potential.

Mrs. Kirby asked how many roads would cross streams.

Mr. Gollahon stated two.

Mrs. Kirby asked if all the slopes would be graded.

Mr. Harvey stated the Board had not adopted a policy or Ordinance pertaining to that. He stated the state felt there was no firm footing to require that at this time and should pursue changes to state legislation.

Mr. Judy stated the applicant could proffer construction phasing.

Mr. Gollahon stated large areas would need to be graded to have workforce and general housing. He stated there would not be area for scattered topography because everything was put into a small space.

Mrs. Kirby asked if there was any idea what percentage would be graded.

Mr. Johnson stated the project was market driven but there would need to be significant grading to have commercial, utility, and road infrastructure. He stated the intent was to start at Eskimo Hill Road and move towards Route 1. He stated the grading would be completed in phases.

Mrs. Kirby asked if there was a soil test.

Mr. Johnson stated there was a soil test, but not on top soil.

Mrs. Kirby asked about the acidity of the soil.

Mr. Gollahon stated no such test was done.

Mrs. Kirby asked why the site had 3 swimming pools.

Mr. Leming stated there was a swimming pool for the retirement community, one for the homeowners, and one for the Aquatic Center which was open to the public. He stated the public may not want to pay for the Aquatic Center, but the Department of Parks and Recreation said they needed the center.

Mr. Mitchell stated he was a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Director, Assistant Director, and Parks and Recreation Commissioners told him the Aquatic Center was their number one issue.

Mr. Leming stated he had a recent letter from the Parks and Recreation Commission. He stated the applicant did not have a problem with proffering the Aquatic Center or cash.

Mr. Di Peppe stated Shawn Lawrence provided the Planning Commission with a compact disc on Universal Design and there were certain design concepts which would allow modifications to be made to homes which would help homeowners as they age.

Mr. Johnson stated his apprehension in doing this was most of the public did not want these features but he would consider the options and speak with Shawn Lawrence.

Mr. Di Peppe asked about the location of the landfill border.

Mr. Gollahon stated the landfill location was about ½ what would be the northeast corner.

Mr. Leming stated the nearest reclaimed area was approximately 500 feet.

Mr. Di Peppe stated there was a 100 foot buffer on the proposed site and there was 400 feet of wooded area on the County property.

Mr. Gollahon stated the landfill property was going in the opposite direction.

Mr. Di Peppe asked where the Stafford Regional Airport runway was located in relation to the proposed TND.

Mr. Johnson stated the runway was a little over a half mile from the proposed site.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the elementary school was not in the flight path.

Mr. Leming stated that was correct.

Mr. Di Peppe asked where the power lines would be located.

Ms. Karnes showed the power lines on a map.

Mr. Di Peppe asked where the proposed civic buildings would be located.

Ms. Karnes showed the Aquatic Center, shopping center, community picnic area, historic site, soccer field, and the multi-purpose field on a map.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if there was a town hall center. He stated it was extremely important for any community to have a meeting space with a stage and seating indoors.

Mr. Johnson stated there were two community centers, one for the retirement village and another for the balance of the community.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he wanted to see a room with a meeting hall.

Mr. Cook stated he did not see a problem with the lay out of the community centers.

Mr. Leming stated they could arrange to have a meeting center within the community.

Brian Harris stated Area 5 was a space for something like Bluemont Concert series and Area 8 was a Farmer’s Market with shelters.

Mr. Di Peppe stated 4 months out of the year outside space was not usable.

Mr. Leming stated the applicant agreed and the proffer would be changed.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if there could be a proffer for at least 150 affordable homes.

Mr. Leming stated the proffer was for 100 to 200 affordable homes.

Mr. Gollahon stated 1740 homes included some affordable housing.

Mr. Johnson stated the proffer was for 100 to 200 affordable homes which would make 7% to 14% of the homes in the community affordable housing.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he would be happy with 10% affordable housing. He stated there were mature trees on the site and he would prefer the applicant not clear cut and incorporate the trees into the site.

Mr. Gollahon stated there was a high amount of open space with over 100 acres of undisturbed land.

Mr. Di Peppe stated connectivity of the green space was important in preserving green space.

Mr. Cook asked the applicant if they could look at Mr. Vogel’s recommendation to connect the commuter parking lot with the VDOT lot nearby.

Mr. Leming stated they would look at it. He stated he wanted to clarify that the applicant would proffer to age restrict the units to state and federal law and the only way he knew how to enforce the age restriction was through the HOA. He stated there was a deed restriction for the age restriction houses. He stated the covenants run with the land.

Mrs. Kirby asked who would be building the houses on the lots.

Mr. Gollahon stated there would be several builders on the project and Mr. Johnson would hopefully be one of them.

Mrs. Carlone stated she had some concerns about the rotary near the shopping center and asked if there would be a traffic signal.

Mr. Leming stated the objective of the rotary is to slow the traffic down. He stated there would be a signalized crosswalk.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the houses along the landfill would cost less.

Mr. Leming stated they were not anticipating those houses to be less than anywhere else on the property.

Mr. Pitzel stated if there was a community center which could hold 300 people, then have dividers so it could be divided into smaller sections. He stated since the library would no longer be on the property, a community center with indoor meeting space could be in the proffers.

Mrs. Kirby asked if the library could have a store front with children’s books and best sellers.

Mr. Leming stated there was never any intent for the elementary school and library to be in the same building. He stated the idea was to have two separate buildings on the same parcel but not the same facility at all.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the applicant would pay for a traffic signal at the rotary.

Mr. Leming stated the rotary would have to be approved by VDOT. He stated to cross the road there would have to be some kind of signal.

Mr. Harvey stated there was a revised Fiscal Impact Analysis and Bill Hamrick was available.

Mr. Hamrick stated residential does not cover cost but it was close, the losers in residential development were single family homes and only half of the units were single family. He stated there were a lot of units which had few school children. He stated the commercial development would allow for a surplus of 3 million dollars per year. He stated there needed to be some grammatical changes to the report and once those were made it would be sent to the Planning Commissioners.

Mr. Leming stated the Fiscal Impact Analysis was based solely on tax revenue and did not include the cash proffers.

Mr. Pitzel asked if the Fiscal Impact Analysis could be posted on the website so the community could have access to it.

Mr. Leming stated it was a public document.

Mrs. Kirby stated she would like to know what the Fiscal Impact would be prior to build out.

Mr. Hamrick stated they did not phase out the impact.

Mr. Leming stated Mr. Hamrick indicated the relationship between the residential and commercial.

Mr. Cook asked if the Commission would like to schedule a second special work session.

Mrs. Kirby stated, in her opinion that would be a good idea.

Mr. Cook asked staff to book a room for the second week of October.

With no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 8:55.