|
01-23-08 Work Session
STAFFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES January 23, 2008 The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, January 23, 2008, was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman Peter Fields in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the County Administrative Center. Members Present: Fields, Di Peppe, Mitchell, Rhodes, Carlone, Kirkman and Howard Members Absent: Staff Present: Harvey, Judy, Stepowany, Baker, Hess, Hamock Declarations of Disqualification None UNIFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. COM2700669; Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Stafford County Courthouse Redevelopment Area - A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan map component of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Amendment would redesignate Assessor’s Parcels 29-92A, 92B, 93A, 93C and 93D; 29A-1-1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 8A, 8B, 10A, 11, 12, 13 and 14; 30-53, 53E, 53F, 53G, 54 and 54A; 38-73, 74A, 76, 76A, 76B, 76C, 76D, 76E, 76F, 76G, 76H, 76J, 77, 80, 80A, 81, 81A, 82, 83A, 83B, 83C, 83D, 83E, 83F, 83G, 83H, 83J, 83K, 86L, 84, 84A, 85, 85A, 86A, 86B, 86C, 87, 92, 92A, 92B, 93, 93A, 94C, 95, and 96; 39-1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 8, 9, 10, 16, 16A, 16B, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 16G, 16H, 16J, 16K, 16L, 56A, 56B, 56C, 56D, 56E, 57, 57A, 57B, 57C, 57D, 57E, 57F, 62, 62A, 63, 64, 64A, 66, 66A, 68A, 71 and 71A from Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial to Urban Commercial. The affected properties are all located in the general vicinity of the Stafford County Courthouse, in an area bound from the south by Accokeek Creek, to the north by Courthouse Road, to the west by interstate 95, and the east by Stafford Middle School. The proposed amendment would be for the purpose of courthouse area redevelopment and construction of future county courthouse projects. (Time Limit: February 3, 2008) (Deferred to January 23, 2008 Work Session) 2. RC2700668; Reclassification – Stafford County Courthouse Redevelopment Area - A proposed Reclassification from R-1, Suburban Residential Zoning to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on Assessor’s Parcels 30-50 and 53 and M-1, Light Industrial Zoning to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on Assessor’s Parcels 29-93A, 93C, 93D, 30-56, 38-77, 80, 80A, 81, 81A, 82, 83B, 83C, 83D, 83E, 83F, 83G, 83H, 83J, 83K, 83L, 86A, 86B, 86C, 92 (portion), 92A, 39-1 (portion), 4, 4A, 16, 16H, 16L and 56D and M-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning District to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on Assessor’s Parcels 29-92A, 92B, 29A-1-9A, 38-84, 85 and 85A and M-1, Light Industrial and B-1, Convenience Commercial to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on Assessor’s Parcels 38-95 and 96 and M-1, Light Industrial M-2, Heavy Industrial Zoning District to B-2, Urban Commercial Zoning District on Assessor’s Parcel 38-83A with all properties within an area in close proximity of the Stafford County Courthouse, bound to the south by Accokeek Creek (property containing the creek), to the north by Courthouse Road, to the west by Interstate 95, and to the east by Stafford Middle School. These properties include industrial zoned properties on either side of Wyche Road and along Jefferson Davis Highway. The purpose of the proposed reclassification is to allow for the Courthouse area redevelopment and construction of future county Courthouse projects consisting of approximately 489 acres, located on the south side of Courthouse Road within the Aquia Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the properties for Urban Commercial, Office, Light and Heavy Industrial and Resource Protection uses. The Urban Commercial designation would allow development of commercial retail and office uses. The Office designation would allow the development of professional offices and office parks. The Light Industrial designation would allow light industrial, light manufacturing and office uses. The Heavy Industrial designation would allow warehouses and the development of industrial parks. The Resource Protection designation would allow open space and conservation. See Section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a full listing of permitted used in the B-2 Zoning District. (Time Limit: March 7, 2008) (Deferred to January 23, 2008 Work Session) Mr. Harvey stated Kathy Baker would provide a summary to date of the project. Kathy Baker presented a staff report for COM2700669 and RC2700668. She stated the Public Hearings were held at the December 5, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. She stated there were 43 parcels and 493 acres that would be potentially rezoned. She provided a map for the Commission and showed the current land use and proposed land use. She showed an aerial photograph of the affected area and stated the 2006 Economic Plan included a vision for the Courthouse Area as pedestrian friendly mixed use and development. She stated redevelopment administrator was negotiating with a consultant that would be looking the entire area and three (3) other redevelopment areas in the county and should be on board this spring. She stated there were no in-depth impact studies and staff noted potential impacts to existing properties if converted to B-2 zoning becoming non-conforming uses. She stated six (6) properties were assessed with the potential to become non-conforming under those circumstance and three (3) site plans in the affected area that could also become non-conforming. Mr. Fields asked if the time limit on the report was requested form the Board. Mr. Harvey stated Comprehensive Plan Amendments have 60 days. Mr. Fields asked if the Commission could request an extension. Mr. Harvey stated yes. Mrs. Carlone stated this project was premature until reviewed by consultants. She stated the Commission does not have any information regarding the benefits and all of the concerns from the public were valid.
Ms. Kirkman asked if the Board referred the Economic Development Plan back to the Commission. Mr. Harvey stated the Board wanted to get more feedback form the Commission members on the Plan and their recommendations regarding initiating the redevelopment areas with redevelopment visions in the plan. Mr. Fields asked if this was for the collective redevelopment areas Boswells Corner, Courthouse Area, Falmouth and Southern Gateway. Mr. Harvey stated that was part of the plan and the plan also addresses broader economic issues in the county. Mrs. Carlone stated, in her opinion, the Commission should ask for a deferral from the Board. Mr. Fields stated there were three areas of concerns and the first concern was the public information meeting which had not been conducted. Mr. Harvey stated there was a general discussion with the community regarding the overall vision document for the Courthouse area. Mr. Fields stated the second concern was with the county initiating the rezoning and loosing the ability to obtain proffers for the Commercial uses. Mr. Harvey stated the proffers only apply to floating zones where property owners request a zoning change on there own action. Mr. Fields stated his third concern would be asking for approval prior to the completion of the Comprehensive Plan seems to be premature. Mrs. Kirkman stated her concerns were that there had not been any impact study conducted on the proposed redevelopment area. She stated, in her opinion, the study would be an important part based on the size and scope of the project particularly, the traffic impacts. She stated the Commission would need to know the full scope of those impacts. Mr. Fields stated to give away the ability to have proffers, in his opinion, the tax payers would foot the entire bill for infrastructure for the development. He stated there would be a severe restriction of the property owners land and viable business opportunities. He asked if the new B-2 zoning would be able to be used or would it be usable only after the new courthouse interchange. Mr. Harvey stated he could not speak to future actions in real estate. Mr. Fields asked if the Flex Office was permitted by right in the B-2 zoning district.
Mr. Harvey stated yes. Mr. Harvey stated he did not believe there were restrictions and stated some of the differences would be commercial zones would not allow outdoor storage where industrial zones do allow outdoor storage. He stated Commercial zones had a higher Floor Area Ratio (FAR) then Industrial and less Open Space Ratio. He stated setbacks were not as rigorous with Commercial as they were with Industrial. Ms. Kirkman stated she was concerned with the impacts. She asked staff if the area of Courthouse Road would be upgraded to four lanes, and if the rezoning was approved would the county have to pay for the acquisition of additional right of way to expand Courthouse Road. Mr. Harvey stated fortunately most of the frontage was owned by the county so most of the Right of Way Dedication would be taken care of as the buildings were built. Mr. Howard asked what were the four areas targeted for redevelopment. Mr. Harvey stated Boswells Corner, Courthouse Area, Falmouth and Southern Gateway which was the intersection of Interstate 95 and Route 17. Mr. Fields stated the Falmouth was geared more towards tourism and historical aspect and the three remaining areas would be very similar. Mr. Howard stated he shared the concerns regarding the proffers and asked if it would lure significant businesses in the area as a possible opportunity to get into an expanding county. Mr. Fields stated once a property was rezoned the effort to ask for proffers would be lost. Mr. Mitchell made a motion to request an extension of time from the Board of Supervisors for COM2700669. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Ms. Kirkman asked Mr. Mitchell to consider an amendment to request a postponement until the Commission would receive impact statements. Mr. Mitchell stated he would like to request an extension first. Mr. Fields asked if a list of concerns could be provided to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Harvey stated that could be part of the motion to ask for additional time. Mr. Fields asked Ms. Kirkman about the specific nature of the impact analysis she envisioned. Ms. Kirkman stated in 2006 the General Assembly passed senate bill 699 and stated there was discussion of whether that applied to applications in process, but in Chapter 527 which requires all land use decisions to be reviewed by VDOT and specific requirements about traffic impacts and modeling would have to be completed based on the maximum build out proposed zoning classification. She stated the Commission needed that so the taxpayers do not end up paying for the infrastructure. She asked if staff would be in a better position to do some of the impact analysis once the Transportation Department has completed the traffic demand model. Mr. Harvey stated there would be more information once the Transportation model was up and running. He stated part of the issue would be the interchange which would have a dramatic impact. He stated the unknown of the interchange was part of the reason staff would not have many answers and may be a year before there would be a concept that the county could comment on. Mrs. Carlone stated the County needed to enumerate concerns. Mr. Fields stated if the Commission enumerates the concerns without making them conditional. Mr. Mitchell stated he would have no problem enumerating the concerns and asked Mr. Harvey to list the concerns discussed at the meeting. Ms. Kirkman asked that the reclassification be included in the request for an extension. Mr. Fields stated that would be fine. Mr. Mitchell made a motion for an extension from the Board of Supervisors on RC2700668. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 7-0. Mrs. Baker asked if the Commission had a date in mind to bring back to the Planning Commission, if the Board were to grant the extension. Mr. Fields stated the first available date at which staff would be able to address the concerns expressed. Mr. Harvey summarized the points which were a community meeting, inability to get proffers which staff would not be able to address and need for more detailed impacts studies which with the broad nature of the impact there may not be a traffic study done that would satisfy the needs of the community and waiting for Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Kirkman stated she also would like to have the Economic Plan which had been referred back to the Commission. Mr. Harvey stated putting a timeframe around that may be difficult. Mr. Fields stated setting up a public information meeting would have to occur before the Commission would discuss this project again. Mrs. Carlone stated a community meeting would be regarding a more defined area and asked what the scope of the area would be. Mr. Harvey stated notices would have to be sent to all of people affected by the Comprehensive Plan Change and general meeting information to the newspaper. Mrs. Baker asked if the public information session should be specific to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning or the overall area. Mr. Fields stated the public should be informed of the overall area. Mr. Di Peppe asked if the Commission would need the information from the impact study prior to the public meeting. Mr. Harvey stated there was no impact study being done at this time. Ms. Kirkman asked if there could be model using the most intensive use within the proposed classification so the Commission could at least know the maximum impacts. Mr. Harvey stated that could be done and staff could put together ranges of traffic on Route 1, Wyche Road and Courthouse Road. He stated there could also be the same model for sewer and water. Mr. Mitchell stated right now the extension was most important and other issues could be resolved once the extension was granted. Mr. Howard asked how the Commission could give a value of the potential loss in proffers. Mr. Harvey stated financially there would be no way to quantify the loss. Mrs. Baker stated there were other options to proffers such as design guidelines, overlay district regulations and consultant study. Mr. Howard stated there were ways to offset the cost for the community. Mr. Harvey stated the consultant that was looking at the four redevelopment areas. He stated they were looking at ways to offset the cost and talk with the community. He stated each area would be different and unique.
3. COM2700707; Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Stafford Nursing Home and Retirement Community – A proposed amendment to the Land Use Plan map component of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment would redesignate Assessor’s Parcel’s 44-119M and 44-106C (portion) and 44-107 (portion) consisting of 22.69 acres Light Industrial and Resource Protection Land Use to Urban Residential and Resource Protection Land Use, located on the east side of Berea Church Road between Stafford Industrial Park and England Run within the Falmouth Election District. The proposed amendment would be for the purpose of developing a Life Care/Retirement Community (LC). (Time Limit: February 16, 2008) (Deferred to January 23, 2008 Work Session) James Stepowany presented the staff report. He stated revised proffers and a revised General Development Plan (GDP) were being passed out. He stated this project went to public hearing December 19, 2007 and was deferred to the work session to try to work out some issues. He stated he would make a detailed presentation for the benefit of the new Commission members. He stated the rezoning proposal was for 240 independent units, 76 assisted living beds and 120 nursing home beds. He stated the full development potential based on the density of the zoning district would allow up to 340 dwelling units at a density of 15 units per acre. He stated one of the reasons the application was deferred was based on the initial land use recommendation. He stated staff supports the request with the new proffer limiting the use of the area south of the RPA. He stated the rezoning would rezone M-1, Light Industrial and A-1, Agricultural to LC, Life Care Retirement Zoning District. He gave a brief description of the Life Care Retirement Zoning District regulations. He stated the revised GDP shows the relocation of the nursing home and the applicant has proffered the architectural elevations, minimum and maximum beds for the assisted living and nursing home. He stated they do have cash proffers with contributions to Parks and Recreation. He the transportation consultant would address the interchange concerns from the December meeting. He stated with the revised proffers and GDP staff supports the request. John Riley, Kimley-Horn and Associates, stated he would like to give the Commission two presentations. He stated the first would be the presentation was shown to the Commission at the December meeting and the second presentation would show the revision made by the applicant. He stated overall the emphasis of this project was on safety and mobility for the users, not only of the proposed community but everyone who uses Berea Church Road. He stated in working with staff, it was believed adding an additional lane of pavement between Fleet Road and U. S. Route 17, would allow the applicant to take the existing turn lane and split the right turns and if approved by VDOT install lighting. Ms. Kirkman asked Mr. Riley why he would be going out on Berea Church Road instead of Brandywine Court to International Parkway.
Mr. Riley stated in separating the two uses, which are very distinct, the preference was to have residential have its own access. Mr. Riley stated he would have Mr. Bruce Hedrick, Stafford Health Investors, LLC, answer. Mr. Hedrick stated because of the compatibility of uses of the residential and the industrial park, the applicant felt having the entrance/exit on a residential road instead of an industrial park that would have tractor trailers, would be a better choice. He stated the applicant would keep the Brandywine Court entrance open for emergencies. Ms. Kirkman stated the traffic analysis was based on 96 detached dwelling units, 168 congregate care facility dwelling units, 52 assisted living beds and 120 nursing home beds. She asked if the applicant if they have proffered to build no more than each of those types of units. Mr. Hedrick stated the proffer statement shown the number of units/beds proffered. Mr. Howard asked if the applicant looked at Fleet Road as the access. Mr. Riley stated Fleet Road only had right in and right out, so it was not considered. He stated there was currently a signal at the U. S. Route 17 intersection. Mrs. Carlone asked about the ages of the citizens for the development. Mr. Hedrick stated the average age across the campus would be 82 to 84 years old. Mrs. Carlone stated the shuttle bus proffer states the applicant may transfer the responsibility for the operations of the shuttle bus to the Homeowners Association (HOA). She asked if the buses would be purchased. Mr. Hedrick stated each of the levels of care would have a shuttle bus, to provide transportation to shopping or appointments, etc. Mrs. Carlone stated the purchased vehicles would be turned over to the HOA and drivers would be provided. Mr. Hedrick stated yes. Mr. Di Peppe stated was looking for something more secure than split rail fence, which was listed. Mr. Hedrick stated it would be a three rail fence with wire approximately eight feet in height. Mr. Fields asked about the exemption of the proffers guidelines.
Mr. Hedrick stated the community was not a multi family project with children going to schools, parks or libraries. He stated they were contributing to the general fund, transportation and libraries. Mr. Judy stated all proffers are voluntary. Mr. Hedrick stated they were not impacting the schools system and it was their understanding of the proffers was only if you were impacting the services. Mr. Fields stated that was not his understanding of how proffer guidelines work. He stated if in fact this type of housing does not fit within the guidelines, then proffers guidelines would need to be established for this housing type. Ms. Kirkman asked if the Comprehensive Plan calls for a figure of .70 school children as an average across all housing types. Mr. Harvey stated that follows what the school board has set when you look at the entire county, and they break it down further based on different types of housing. He stated the project at Aquia Towne Center proposed condo units, and the school board staff did their analysis and condo units generates 1/10 of a student, and some neighborhood have more that 1 student per household based on the type of house or the type of community. Ms. Kirkman asked when applications come in that have two students per household, are more proffers paid because they generate more students. She stated if we are allowing applicants to pay less because their housing type would generate fewer students, are we asking applicants to pay more if we know their housing type would generate more students. Mr. Harvey stated so far we have not gone to that level of review. He stated the guidelines are based on a countywide example. Ms. Kirkman stated if we agree to lower the proffer amount more will come out of the taxpayer’s pocket. Mr. Harvey stated that was where the Commission and the Board of Supervisors would have to look at each case by case basis for each zoning application to see if they have mitigated their impacts with their project. Mr. Hedrick stated seventy five to eighty percent of the residents would come from eight to ten miles around the site, so those are folks that have been contributing to the tax system and with the 62 and older in the buildings, there will be no children. He stated if the community was impacting county services they are willing to contribute. Mr. Harvey stated he would like to bring the Commissions attention to the time and stated a break between sessions. He asked if the Commission would like to continue this item at the 7:30 session. Ms. Kirkman asked if moved to the 7:30 meeting would it be moved out of the committee. Mr. Di Peppe stated he would like to make a motion to continue this item to the regular session to allow time for more discussion. Mr. Howard seconded. The motion to continue passed 7-0. ORDINANACE COMMITTEE 1. Ordinance O08-02 – Heritage Protection District Mr. Fields stated this item would be moved the evening session because of the time. ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m. |
|
Send this to a friend |