03-05-08 Regular Meeting

03-05-08 Regular Meeting

STAFFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
March 5, 2008

The regular meeting of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, March 5, 2008, was called to order at 7:31 p.m. by Chairman Peter Fields in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the Stafford County Administration Center.

MEMBERS PRESENT: Fields, Di Peppe, Mitchell, Rhodes, Carlone, Kirkman and Howard

MEMBERS ABSENT:

STAFF PRESENT: Harvey, Judy, Hamock, Knighting, Stinnette, Zuraf, Hess, Hornung, Schulte and Stepowany

DECLARATIONS OF DISQUALIFICATIONS:

None

PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS:

Patricia Kurpiel thanked the Commission for considering the Levels of Service and agreed in stating it would be one of the most important elements of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated the proffer guidelines referenced one student per house and the information the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee received was 0.67 students per house and recently had seen that number as low as 0.3 students per house. She stated the Commission needs to give thought to the direction given to the schools in terms of data received from the schools. She stated the Steering Committee asked for a number that would be good for 20 years and Level of Service (LOS) would be a critical piece of the Comprehensive Plan.

Dana Brown stated she wanted to discuss the Secondary Six Year Road Plan (SSYP), specifically the Garrisonville/Joshua Road project. She stated this project had been on the SSYP for several years and the total project cost would be approximately $8.4 million and final $3.3 million allocated in Fiscal Year 2009. She stated if the Commission recommends the project at this time the residents would ask that Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) review the current preliminary engineering plan. She stated the plan was outdated and did not take into account the new developments and improvements constructed along that area since conceived. She stated it would be ½ mile widening project that would greatly impact two (2) of the three (3) subdivisions along that route. She stated the neighborhoods would have their left turn lane access removed and would cut off the main entrances of the subdivisions which would reroute residents to get home. She showed a map of the current area and showed the proposed development with the median strip starting at Tech Parkway to Joshua Road. She stated it would be a severe inconvenience to the residences of these subdivisions.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. Index of Official Road Names – Whether to amend the Street Addressing Ordinance as follows:

Location Current Road Name New Road Name

From Dogwood Air Park Jefferson Davis Hwy Cambridge Street
2100 feet north to intersection
of Enon Road

From the intersection of Layhill Layhill Road Primmer House Road
Road and Cambridge Street, 850
feet east of the intersection of
Layhill Road and Forbes Street

From the intersection of Forbes Forbes Street Primmer House Road
Street and Layhill Road, 1,700
feet south, to the intersection of
Forbes Street and Morton Road

From the intersection of Forbes Morton Road Primmer House Road
Street and Morton Road, 1,600
feet east, to the intersection of
Morton Road and Primmer House
Road.

From the intersection of Forbes Forbes Street Forbes Court
Street and Layhill Road, 3000
feet north to the terminus of
Forbes Street

Mike Zuraf presented the Staff Report. He stated this request was initiated by the Board of Supervisors at the February 5, 2008 meeting. He showed a map of the affected areas and a map of the proposed changes. He stated the new bridge over the CSX rail line creates a continuous road and along that stretch of road there would be four (4) different road names. He stated staff recommended naming the northern portion of Forbes Street to impact fewer properties and the southern portion goes down into Falmouth and connects with Cambridge Street. He stated the other portion of the request would be to rename a portion of Jefferson Davis Highway to Cambridge Street which would extend from Dogwood Air Park to Enon Road. He noted there were two (2) separate ordinances for Primmer House Road and Forbes and the second referring to Cambridge Street. He stated staff recommended approval of this Street Addressing Ordinance.

Mr. Howard asked how many residences would be affected by the change.

Mr. Zuraf stated he did not have the specific information.

Mr. Howard asked if the origin of the change was due to public safety.

Mr. Zuraf stated yes. He stated the construction of Leeland Station and the CSX Bridge resulted in there being a continuous road from Route 1 to Leeland Road.

Mrs. Carlone stated this came before the Planning Commission in the past and it would be a good idea.

Mr. Rhodes asked if this was a different proposal then what came before the Commission.

Mr. Zuraf stated the last proposal was to change the name to Layhill Road and the current request was to change the name to Primmer House Road.

Mr. Fields confirmed that the first proposal was the same road segments and asked why the name changed from the first request of Layhill Road to Primmer House Road.

Mr. Harvey stated previously the Commission did not support the proposed street name and in discussion with Mr. Schwartz he stated if he had to choose between Layhill Road and Primmer House Road he would choose Primmer House Road which has historic meaning for the area.

Mr. Fields opened the public hearing.

John McQuiddy, McQue Inc., stated he owns a business on Forbes Street and urged the Commission to keep the road name the same. He stated he has 50 employees and had been at that location for over 20 years. He stated the impact costs would be roughly $100,000 to change the address on materials alone. He stated the company received over 1,000 pieces of mail a week and there would be a significant impact on the company. He stated he was in opposition of the name change.

With no one else coming forward, Mr. Fields closed the public hearing.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he had lived in the county for a long time and drove these roads often. He stated there would be an unnecessary burden on the residents who live along these roads as well as the business owners that would have a significant cost. He stated this would be inconvenient to the residents and, in his opinion, would be a bad idea. He stated the same turns would still be there whether the road name was changed or not. He made a recommendation for denial of Amendment to rename these streets. Mr. Howard seconded.

Mr. Rhodes asked if the flow of traffic on Morton Road going east from Forbes Street joining Primmer House would stop or be a continuous through movement.

Mr. Zuraf stated it would be a continuous through movement without a stop sign for Morton Road into Primmer House Road.

Mr. Di Peppe stated he did not think anyone would be impacted on Layhill Road.

Mr. Zuraf stated no.

The motion for denial passed 7-0.

Ms. Kirkman requested a clarification from Mr. Judy and asked since this request was sent from the Board of Supervisors it could not be changed but the Commission could make a recommendation.

Mr. Judy stated any reasonable recommendation could be made to pass onto the Board.

Ms. Kirkman asked if one of the Commissioners would like to make the suggestion about the section of Morton Road being renamed to Primmer House Road.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the Commission would not gain anything with that suggestion as it would not address the problem.

Ms. Kirkman stated it would eliminate one less confusing turn although it would not eliminate the problem.

Mr. Di Peppe stated when the road was driven it was not confusing. He stated he would rather have the county solve the problem with signage.

Mr. Fields stated there was still a vote to be made on Ordinance O08-32.

Mr. Di Peppe asked how many people would be affected by the Cambridge Street change.

Mr. Zuraf stated there would be few properties affected.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if all properties were notified.

Mr. Zuraf stated yes.

Mr. Harvey stated the current VDOT signs were confusing at the intersection of Layhill and Route 1, the sign stated Route 1 was Jefferson Davis Highway which actually was Cambridge Street.

Mr. Fields stated if the name of a portion of Route 1 was changed from Jefferson Davis Highway to Cambridge Street the designation would still be U.S. Route 1 regardless.

Mr. Judy stated localities may change the name of the road but it would still be U.S. Route 1.

Mr. Zuraf stated there would be one active business in this section that would be impacted.

Mr. Judy stated Ruby Church was located on the western side of Route 1.

Mr. Harvey stated he spoke with the Fire Chief and for 911 purposes he stated if the Sheriff’s Office could make the decision Route 1 would only have one name in the county. He stated it would make sense if there were a clearly delineated line where Cambridge Street and Jefferson Davis Highway start and stop.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion for approval of O08-32. Mrs. Carlone seconded. The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Rhodes was opposed)

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

2. SUB2600625; Williams Subdivision, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A preliminary subdivision plan for 13 single family residential lots, zoned A-2, Rural Residential, consisting of 14.55 acres located on the north side of Enon Road approximately 1,500 feet west of Wyatt Lane on Assessor's Parcels 45-125 and 45-125B within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: March 19, 2008) (Deferred to March 19, 2008 Regular Meeting at the applicant’s request)
Mr. Fields stated this item was deferred to the March 19, 2008 Regular Meeting.

3. SUB2700649; Poplar Hills Section 5, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A revalidation of an approved preliminary subdivision plan (220331) for 39 single family residential lots on well and septic, zoned A-1 and A-2 consisting of 182.99 acres, located on the north side of Brooke Road approximately 100 feet west of Marlborough Point Road on Assessor's Parcel 40-57 within the Aquia Election District. (Time Limit: April 14, 2008) (Deferred to March 5, 2008 Work Session) (Withdrawn by applicant)

Mr. Fields stated this item was withdrawn by the applicant.

4. SUB2600045; Beck Ridge, Preliminary Subdivision Plan - A preliminary subdivision plan for 12 single family residential lots, zoned A-1, Agricultural, consisting of 39.39 acres located on the east side of Richards Ferry Road approximately 4,000 feet southwest of Warrenton Road on Assessor's Parcel 35-16 within the Hartwood Election District. (Time Limit: May 6, 2008) (Deferred to March 19, 2008 Work Session)

Mr. Fields stated this item was deferred to the March 19, 2008 Work Session.

5. FY2009 to FY2014 Secondary Road 6 Year Plan (SSYP) – A recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding future funding of secondary roads in the county.

Ms. Kirkman stated that the Transportation Committee met on March 3, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. She state they began by acknowledging the limitations they are operating under which was having short time limits and not enough data to drive a rational decision-making process. She stated that they also acknowledged to get through all this because there was a deadline on it, with the thinking that over the next year they are going to be paying more attention to those things and also that the recognition of the funding situation was quite fluid. She stated that she got one indication that the secondary road year allocation for Fiscal Year 2009 may be as low as $1.4 million. She stated that they tried to address several different issues, the first was to make a recommendation regarding the revenue sharing program, as originally proposed, this included two projects. She stated one was for the Quantico Corporate Center which we all supported and the second was to apply for some funds to supplement but not complete the Juggins Road Connector. She stated it was the recommendation of the Transportation Committee that rather than engaging in allocating funds for a project for which there was not a clear funding source to complete it, in light of a number of questions regarding the project itself, that their recommendation to the Planning Commission was that for the purposes of the FY09 Revenue Sharing Application, that they consider submitting for the Quantico Road Center and a section of Mountain View Road from Rose Hill Farm up to Joshua Road, near Joshua Road which was a project that came off of the Youth Driver Task Force List. She stated that they chose that one because they were informed by staff that because of their time limitations they would not have time to prepare an application for more than one project so they were looking at what project on the Driver Task Force List met the financial requirements. She stated they also wanted to make a recommendation that, in future years, whenever there was money left over in the transportation fund that the county use those funds to apply for the revenue sharing program in order to specifically fund projects from the hot spot list. She stated that her suggestion would be to discuss that set of recommendations and then move on to looking at the Secondary Road Plan.

Mr. Fields stated that was a unanimous recommendation on those issues. He asked if there were any discussion, questions or comments.

Mrs. Carlone stated that she had taken a tour of Garrisonville Road and the proposal there. She stated that she thought earlier they had mentioned putting funds towards that project and asked if that was correct.

Ms. Kirkman stated that should be discussed with the Secondary Road Plan.

Mrs. Carlone stated that she felt Juggins was not a priority and should be eliminated.

Ms. Kirkman stated they discussed in terms of whether it should stay on the Secondary Road Plan or not and that was different than whether or not they submit an application for revenue sharing. She stated they should talk about the Secondary Road Plan separately.

Mr. Fields stated he would like to reiterate the tiering system of allocation of revenue sharing. He stated that everybody that asks for revenue sharing does not get it and that any amount that ultimately gets appropriated was competed for across the entire Commonwealth. The tiering system has to do with the more you are willing to commit as a locality, the higher your priority was and the more willing VDOT was to look at your application. He stated that by submitting the approximately $850,000 for Mountain View Road, and combined with the Quantico Corporate Center, that puts them in the over $1 million category which was the category that VDOT was going to look very seriously at the application. He stated that they felt that rather than apply for $150,000 or some more money for Juggins Road, which they all felt was not as high a priority certainly as other secondary road projects and certainly not as high a priority as some of the safety issues from hot spots, they felt that would be better use of revenue sharing. He stated that if there was no further comment they could move to the SSYP recommendations.

Ms. Kirkman acknowledged that there was a point when they are not under time constraints where a policy decision needs to be made. She stated that what they discussed in the Committee was the fact that, in the foreseeable future, there will never be large enough secondary year road allocations from the State to complete any of the large multi-million dollar secondary road projects. She stated they find themselves at a fork in the road in terms of should they continue to put those kinds of projects on the Secondary Road Plan when they know that the chances of completing them with existing road allocations are not very realistic or feasible. She stated that instead should they focus their small and limited secondary road allocations to undertaking smaller projects that make an immediate difference and can be completed within a quick timeframe. She stated the Youth Driver Task Force list serves as a starting point, not an exclusive list. She stated that the unanimous recommendations from the Transportation Committee for Fiscal Year 2009 were to allocate all the available secondary road funds to completion of Garrisonville Road Project UPC51919 and, if necessary, continue the allocations into Fiscal Year 2010 for this project. She stated for Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014 allocate all the available secondary road funds to Courthouse Road UPC4632, for all years remove any funding for Juggins Road until such time as there was data that substantiates the impact this project will have given the high cost, and for all future years use any remaining transportation fund dollars as match for revenue sharing funds to complete hot spot projects. She stated that two members of the Committee supported and one member abstained from the recommendation that UPC73555, the “New” Andrew Chapel Road, be removed from the Secondary Road Plan and that the Board of Supervisors request that FAMPO re-allocate any anticipated CMAC funds to the Falmouth Intersection Project. She stated that they also agreed that they need further information to determine if the same recommendation should be made for UPC15458, the Courthouse Road bridge over CSX.

Mr. Rhodes stated he concurred and highlighted a couple points, the first being the Garrisonville Road Project 51919, brought up earlier, and there being a public input opportunity with VDOT from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. on March 13, 2008, at Moncure Elementary School.

Mr. deLamorton stated the hearing was an open forum.

Mr. Rhodes stated that people should go and make sure their feelings known for VDOT to make considerations. He stated for that project that the county had as a higher priority and had been allocating funds to, they have almost 65 percent of the funds allocated towards the cost of the project, that they are just continuing and completing the process they had been on for a couple years. The other, since he was the abstainer, the project on Andrew Chapel Road and the potential bridge, was just a desire for more information to make sure they fully understand the ramifications or implications of making a change associated with that project. He stated there are projects on the list but not enough money to go around so they need to focus on one at a time.

Ms. Kirkman stated that with the public hearing for VDOT, what that meant was that they had not finalized the preliminary engineering on that project and that they would take into consideration in finalizing the design the comments of the public.

Mr. deLamorton stated that was correct, that this public hearing was a design public hearing where the citizens can take a look at the design aspects of the project. He stated that the location was already locked down, however, VDOT was open to comments. He stated there will be a ten (10) day comment period following the public hearing.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if he knew what VDOT’s problems were with maintaining left-hand lane turns on Garrisonville Road.

Mr. deLamorton stated no.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that he was concerned about voting for that aspect of the SSYP and he was not ready to support the money going for it until the concerns of the neighborhood are addressed. He stated he felt it would create a dangerous situation and he would like to know how they were going to solve it before they vote for any money for it.

Mrs. Carlone asked Mr. deLamorton if he could visually show the two crossovers that would be blocked by cement.

Mr. deLamorton stated that he has not reviewed the plans for Garrisonville Road, that it was a VDOT project and he could do his best to speak to their design features for this project but that he may be in error.

Mrs. Carlone stated that she was also concerned with how good the job was to notify the people in the neighborhoods since there was approximately 300 homes and so few people know about this, and the fact that the design hearing with be after-the-fact after they have already made their recommendation.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that it was interesting that the public hearing was coming after they made their recommendation.

Mrs. Carlone stated that she felt VDOT should be answering these questions concerning site distance.

Mr. deLamorton stated that the Board of Supervisors has the discretion to allocate the funding that comes from the Commonwealth of Virginia any way they desire and that would be with input from VDOT and, if it were removed up to the acquisition of right-of-way, the county would need to reimburse VDOT for that.

Mr. Howard asked if he knew how much VDOT has spent to date.

Mr. deLamorton stated no.

Ms. Kirkman stated that $5 million had already been allocated to that project in previous years and asked if that was correct.

Mr. deLamorton stated that was correct and that accrues toward right-of-way acquisition, utility relocation and construction.

Ms. Kirkman stated that she was a little hesitant to start getting into the level of design without knowing all the considerations.

Mrs. Carlone stated that she just wished that people had done a tour of that and going on that road was the best thing to see what happens when two crossovers are closed off.

Mr. deLamorton stated that some years ago his first position with VDOT in Richmond was with the Public Involvement Section in their Location and Design Division. He stated that the Public Involvement Section was in charge of helping the districts set up the public hearings, they would receive the comments either orally or in writing as a result of that public hearing, and they would assemble those comments into a package that went to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. He stated that most comments need to be addressed by VDOT. He stated if there was a comment that questions a design aspect VDOT needs to respond, not necessarily to that citizen, but in the package that goes to the CTB. He stated that they need to respond if they cannot fix it, why not, or if they could or if they did, but that was part of the entire package and the CTB sees all of the comments. He stated that this would eventually go to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for design approval, and that was why he encouraged everybody to attend the public hearing and make their comments known because they would be addressed and they would be read by the VDOT staff.

Mr. Fields stated those were good comments.
Mrs. Carlone stated that unfortunately, it was after-the-fact for them to make a recommendation that night or to go ahead and approve. She stated she felt there was a little lapse in the loop of information to the people.

Mr. Rhodes stated that was to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors would also have public hearing opportunities on this as well to take inputs. He stated that VDOT would not start design work until they are somewhere near 60 percent funded. He stated he thought there were other opportunities for public comment, and there was an opportunity for the Board of Supervisors to still act on it. He stated that usually they are making recommendations and allocations of these funds generally never on the design associated with it, but that it was always on the requirement associated with the county.

Mrs. Carlone stated that she felt the priority was not there for this over some of the other roads that are more important and more in need.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that they have showed a preliminary design which shows no left-hand turns and it was a great concern to people who live in that area. He stated that he was afraid to vote for that project and he hoped they put the right design elements in later because it had been identified that what they are proposing has problems with it and there are people that have to live with it on a day-to-day basis. He stated he did not know if they could defer this or if it had to be voted on that night, but he would like to hear whether those design changes can be done because he would vote no if they cannot be done.

Ms. Kirkman clarified the timelines and tasks at hand were. She stated what was being voted on that night was not their recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, but what the plan was that they were going to put forward for the public to comment on at the public hearing which was scheduled for next Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Fields stated he would remind everyone that it was worth noting that the gentleman that represents that area on the Board of Supervisors also happens to sit on the Commonwealth Transportation Board. He stated that he does not know of a better convergence of decision-making to protect the interests of that area than that the CTB member lives near where that intersection was or close to it and having an intimate knowledge of it. He stated that when choices are made, all choices will have consequences and, from a transportation standpoint, every additional movement you make on a road will slow the level of service down on that road. He stated that if that was the choice of the community, all factors being equal, it was a choice that would have to be made consciously. He stated that if the overwhelming public interest of this area was to have left turn movements in and out of St. Christopher Drive and Woodleigh Road, that the more left turns you have or the more movements you have, the more reduced level of service you have. He stated that the interconnection of subdivisions also reduces volume on arterial roads and if they want these major arterial roads to function as highly efficient high level of service movers of traffic across these certain sections of the county, then every way that they can pull movement and traffic off of those roads will increase their level of service. He stated that it was important that it was part of the discussion to understand that every multiple movement that you make on a road has an effect of the level of service, and we are living with reduced level of service in exchange for the interest of these people that access the road. He stated they need to make a vote to send this recommendation forward for the public input session on March 19. He stated that nothing was final and that the Planning Commission’s final recommendation will emerge post the March 19 meeting. He asked if there was a motion to move this as presented.

Ms. Kirkman asked if a motion on all the recommendations was being requested or one by one.

Mr. Fields asked if there was a general consensus of a plan that they could move forward.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that he had no problem moving forward to a public hearing and all at once.

Mr. Fields stated that he would prefer to take the general set of recommendations forward all at once to the public input session.

Mr. Rhodes clarified that there were actually three pieces that were mentioned, the revenue sharing recommendation, the six year road improvement program which actually needs to hit a certain timeline for the Board of Supervisors and for the joint hearing with VDOT, and he asked if Andrew Chapel was embedded anywhere.

Ms. Kirkman stated yes, however, the Commission needed to make a final decision on their recommendation for the Fiscal Year 09 Revenue Sharing Program because the Board had deferred action to their next meeting.

Mr. Rhodes stated he thought they should talk about the revenue sharing independently, then talk about the 09 allocations associated with the six year secondary road plan as another component as that one was really for the public hearing piece and for discussion and for forwarding to the Board in a subsequent cycle of time.

Mr. Fields asked if the revenue sharing had them applying for $850,000.

Mr. deLamorton clarified that the $300,000 for the Quantico Corporate Center would be revenue sharing, $700,000 would be towards the Youth Driver Task Force Project on Mountain View Road, that would get them to the $1 million VDOT match, and then $150,000 above $1 million would be unmatched, just a local contribution to get into tier one.

Ms. Kirkman stated just to clarify it would actually be more than $150,000, it would be $300,000 for the completion of that project.

Mr. deLamorton stated he was referring to Mr. Fields’ email to Mr. Swartz and looking back, he probably would have requested of the committee to round it to $2 million to call it $1 million in revenue sharing and then they could get the match.

Mr. Fields stated that he was using the $850,000 combined with the Quantico Corporate Center to get over the $1 million.

Ms. Kirkman asked what the total cost of the project was.

Mr. deLamorton stated that the total cost of the project was $1.91 million and fifty percent of that was more like $950,000.
Ms. Kirkman stated that Mr. deLamorton was suggesting they estimate that project to be $2 million.

Mr. deLamorton stated yes.

Ms. Kirkman asked if they were trying to get tier one just for this project.

Mr. deLamorton stated that were trying to get tier one for revenue sharing. He stated that was a good question as far as how VDOT would treat the combined projects but he assumed the package would be treated as tier one.

Ms. Kirkman stated that they have $300,000 from the Quantico Corporate Center and a minimum of $700,000 for this project but it was going to take roughly $2 million to complete it. She stated that if they put up $700,000 and draw down $700,000 from revenue sharing, that puts them at $1.4 million which leaves it unfunded for $600,000.

Mr. Rhodes asked the status of the $600,000 that was currently allocated against the Juggins Road project.

Mr. deLamorton stated it was $300,000, that was $150,000 in revenue times two which was the match and VDOT was moving ahead with a design on that and they are looking at an advertisement date of late 2009.

Ms. Kirkman stated they could get another $300,000 from that if it was reallocated.

Mr. Rhodes stated that they have probably done some expenses against that.

Mr. deLamorton stated yes.

Mr. Mitchell stated that he did not attend the meetings when the committee worked on the transportation issues and then he was handed this document and given a very Reader’s Digest condensed version of it. He stated at this point he was not comfortable supporting this issue because it was all being thrown at him at once. He stated that he just received the document tonight for the first time so he would be voting against it, but did not have a problem with that as he has been on the losing end many times on this Commission.

Mr. Howard asked if there was any way something could be put together in writing to have in front of everyone right then so it would be understood what they would be voting on because there has been so much that has been mentioned he was not sure he understood exactly what it was they were trying to advance.

Ms. Kirkman stated that she wanted to remind the Commission that the document received was almost identical to documents they had been receiving copies of at the joint work session with the Board of Supervisors and at the session that staff did just for the Planning Commission in this matter.

Mr. Rhodes stated that he agreed except for the fact that the numbers had been updated because numbers have changed especially for the SSYP. He stated that the revenue sharing was a bit of a newer dynamic and the one with the tightest timeline.

Mr. Fields stated that there was a hard deadline of March 20 for this revenue sharing application and the Transportation Committee was not thrilled with having to make a last minute decision, however, to not apply would be to lose another entire year’s worth of revenue sharing money. He stated that if they do not make March 20, there was nothing until the next cycle comes around in 2009. He stated that was the concern and apologized for the rapidness in this issue. The addition of the Youth Driver Task Force project originated because of the discussion of revenue sharing and Juggins Road specifically, which generated a lot of the discussion about the nature of revenue sharing, and how come they only have $150,000 and that they missed the deadline last year in applying for revenue sharing. He stated he didn’t know how that happened but it was done and they missed their chance so they asked when the deadline was this year and was told March 20. He stated that initially the discussion was that given the March 20 deadline there was absolutely no way they could change the revenue sharing request, that it had to be $150,000 for Juggins Road, that that was the only thing applied for, and that they did not even think that that project was particularly viable or certainly not the highest priority. He asked if one of the most appropriate uses of local transportation money and ultimately revenue sharing be the implementation of the safety issues as outlined in the Youth Driver Task Force. He stated the discussion then followed that there was not enough time to put together an assemblage of projects, scope them out, identify, etc., so there was no way they could put the Youth Driver Task Force hot spots into this year’s March 20 deadline
Revenue Sharing Plan. He stated that finally they decided that the Mountain View Road project was $1.91 million and if they did half of that combined with the $300,000 they know that are going to apply for with the Quantico Corporate Center, it would get them into the tier 1 level and get them a serious amount of revenue sharing money flowing into the county for the Youth Driver Task Force. He stated that if they do not get the application and they do not request the funds, they will certainly not get them. He stated that the other thing was that if they do not get into the million plus tier 1 category, particularly in a sinking revenue picture, it was even less likely that they will get them. He stated that they feel that the revenue sharing for the Quantico Corporate Center was very important for that piece of vital economic development. He stated that to help ensure that revenue sharing they feel that the equally important safety issues in the Youth Driver Task Force in the aggregate will get them into (a) to make sure that they get their application in for what they feel was their fair share of revenue sharing from the Commonwealth and (b) ensure that they have some success with it. He stated that this was all evolved completely in the context of the meeting on Monday where they went into the meeting with no preconceived idea that that was where they would even end up and that to the best of his ability he tried to reconstruct exactly the sequence and the logic of how they got to where they are. He then asked staff if it was possible to generate a quick document outlining what they had discussed.

Mr. Harvey stated yes.

Mr. Rhodes stated that on the SSYP that was handed out was the same form that has been seen on a couple different variations except for with the latest numbers based on the latest projections from the State as to how much will be able to be applied and it was reflective of the dollars continuing to go towards the one project that was spoken on tonight. He stated we are just suggesting that we continue to fund against the one we have been funding the last couple of years.

Mr. Fields stated that there does seem to be a fair amount of unanimity that the improvement of Courthouse Road west of the courthouse was probably the road that has such a significant role to play that was seriously under-constructed for what it was doing right now. He stated that they all realize that this was only a component of it and the reality of it was, also in the discussion of the Transportation Commission, that everything that was given to them last year with the economy was just taken away and the amount of funding now is even worse than it was before. He stated that none of these projects were going to get done unless additional funds from many different sources were applied. He stated he did not know whether that meant the change in funding from Formula 896, if some sections of these become local roads and/or local money through bond referendum or other types of release. He stated that he thought it was clear that VDOT alone was never going to finish the Courthouse Road project, that applying at all was just a piece of the puzzle, regrettably. He stated that the one question that was in the SSYP that was not unanimous was whether the Andrew Chapel Road Project was a viable use of funds, but to reiterate Ms. Kirkman’s point, remember that the Andrew Chapel Road Project was currently being funded with Congested Mitigation Air Quality funds, known as CMAQ funds, which are a specific set of funds that have to apply to basically as the name applies, they have to show that they create a mitigation of traffic congestion and an improvement of air quality. He stated that these are not general secondary road funds that can be applied to a project that would not qualify under CMAQ. He stated that on Andrew Chapel Road, the reconstruction was not simply improving the existing Andrew Chapel Road, it was building a brand new road in a different location and it primarily serves the access to the Brook VRE station.

Mr. Rhodes stated that the general issue for him was that a good degree of new information, new dynamics being put in and we are talking about taking one thing out of one program and making requests to put it into another, there was no guarantee the funding will be applied in the other because that was a regional funding application. He stated that was very different than just continuing down on the existing prioritization of an SSYP that the county has been going towards and so he was very comfortable with going forward on that. He stated the other one was just a lot of new dynamics, he did not know what deadlines may be associated with this and he just was not comfortable moving forward on it at that point.

Mr. Fields stated that if they moved forward that night for public hearing, they would be moving forward to gather more public input and that they acknowledge that there was an idea out there of removing Andrew Chapel Road, that was one of the suggestions, but a vote to move this forward to March 19 was neither an endorsement nor denial.

Mr. Rhodes stated that it was really just about the 09 allocation resources to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors at the core of it.

Mr. Mitchell stated that basically they were taking out Andrew Chapel and taking out Courthouse Road.

Ms. Kirkman stated no. She reiterated there are two pieces of that and why they are talking about it now rather than when or if we are asked to comment on the primary roads or on CMAQ or on any of those things is because the CMAQ funds are currently employed in the SSYP. She stated it was actually very rare to see CMAQ funds applied to any secondary road project and, in fact, the last time she looked, Stafford County was the only locality in the entire State that was doing that. She stated it was a series of projects starting with the Courthouse Road realignment that was just finished and originally the reasoning for this nearly $20 million in total project was to improve access to the Brooke VRE Station. She stated as it stands, the most that the capacity of Brooke can serve was an additional two hundred commuters and that was only if they spend an additional $1.5 to $1.8 million to expand the parking lot. She stated what they were talking about was spending millions and millions of dollars to get two hundred more commuters to the Brooke VRE and the sense was that nearly $9 million that the locality is currently in discussions with FAMPO about getting allocated to the “new” Andrew Chapel Road would be much better spent reallocated to the Falmouth interchange fix and they are only about $15 or $16 million away from what they need for that. She stated it was a little less clear on the bridge replacement project and they were waiting on some information from staff to make any decisions about that. She stated she thought they were recommending that consideration be given taking Andrew Chapel off. She stated they also need to look at the bridge thing but that they do not have enough information to make a decision about that.

Mr. Fields stated that voting yes or no on those issues had nothing to do with their vote that night to move forward to March 19, that those were just items that were there as part of the dynamic and as part of the dialogue and the and consideration. He stated they were not voting to take this plan as presented but, as Mr. Rhodes pointed out, to recommend the 09 allocation of funds to the Board of Supervisors. He stated while they have an SSYP ultimately the next fiscal year is the only thing that they could recommend with any degree of certainty.

Mr. Mitchell stated with regards to what Ms. Kirkman said about 630, he sat on the Board when they started 630 and that the real concept was not the VRE, the real concept was Brooke Point High School being built on a single lane road. He stated his daughter was on the bus when the two bus’s mirrors hit each other going around circles has nothing to do with commuters, has a fantastic amount to do with two or three thousand high school students going down a single lane road. He stated the school should never have been built there which was a whole other subject. He stated he fought hard to get the money to widen 630 east for the school, not for the commuter side of it. He stated he thought they were short-changing the dollar amount spent on the road saying it was spent for the commuters, it was spent for the students, for the staff, for the faculty, for the maintenance people at Brooke Point High School and he was proud that they have a nice road to get to Brooke Point High School because he drove that road taking his son and daughter to school when it was a lousy road.

Ms. Kirkman asked that at least one slide be brought up because there was a misunderstanding of the section of Courthouse Road that she was discussing. She provided a slide depicting the portion of road in that discussion.

Mr. Mitchell stated he was not talking the section past Brooke Point High School, he was talking about the money that was allocated to get the road up to Brooke Point High School.

Mr. Rhodes asked if they really needed to do that and were they making the recommendation of the hand-out that was provided to the Planning Commissioners. He stated if so, it had the projects on there, it had the 09 allocation and that is all that they really need to vote on at that point in time.

Ms. Kirkman stated she understood that Mr. Rhodes abstained from the vote, but that two members of the Transportation Committee did recommend that the Andrew Chapel Road project be reroofed. She asked to show the slide. She stated the section being talked about, going to Brooke Point High School, was Phase 1 and she thought everybody agreed that because of the safety of students that was definitely needed and that it had been done for a long, long time. She stated Phase 2 which was the section past the Brooke Point High School to just past Andrew Chapel Road was just recently completed. She stated Phase 3 included a new bridge over the CSX railroad track. She stated Phase 4 was a brand new connector between Courthouse Road and Brooke Road. She stated what was important was that Mr. Mitchell did not want to say too loudly that these three sections do not have anything to do with getting commuters to the VRE parking lot because then they would owe the Feds some money because that was the rationale used to get the CMAQ funds. She stated everything from Phase 2, Phase 3 and Phase 4 was being justified for the sole purpose of getting those commuters to Brooke VRE Station. She asked if their recommendation to the Board that they go to FAMPO and ask for CMAQ funds to do Phase 3 and Phase 4, or do they ask them to take the money that would go into Phase 4 and put it towards the Falmouth intersection. She stated that was really the policy question they were looking at. She stated just to reassure Mr. Mitchell, she was not in any way commenting on the need for Phase 1 and she thought everyone would agree that they needed to get that road safe for the teens going to the high school.

Mr. Mitchell stated Phase 1 has nothing to do with Brooke and that when he fought for Phase 1, he was not looking at commuters.

Mr. Fields stated they all understood her point. He stated he thought they should vote to move this plan as presented, draft number 6 dated March 5, to the Public Input Session on March 19. He stated they were neither implying endorsement of nor alternate recommendations by that vote, simply voting to move this process forward. He stated unless there was a major flaw in it that they thought would completely destroy the entire fabric of the SSYP, he would hope they could move this forward to the public comment because they were hoping to have that further public input in to finally make this recommendation to the Board on March 19, that they were not making that recommendation tonight.

Mr. Rhodes made a motion to move the SSYP forward to the Public Input Session. Ms. Kirkman seconded. The motion passed 6-1 (Mr. Mitchell opposed).

Mr. Fields stated that Draft Number 6 will be what they discuss and receive input on at the public meeting.

Ms. Kirkman asked if staff got a chance to write something about the revenue sharing.

Mr. deLamorton discussed the three projects and presented a word document for the FY 2009 VDOT revenue sharing program for Stafford County. He stated the VDOT revenue sharing match cap per locality is $1 million and this was the Transportation Committee’s recommendation. He stated the first project was improvements to US 1 and George Mason Drive and this was in conjunction with the Quantico Corporate Center in Stafford, their southern entrance. He stated the local match for the revenue sharing would be $300,000 and that this local match was actually paid by the Economic Development Authority a couple years ago. He stated project number 2 was Mountain View Road, Route 627, from Rose Hill Farm Drive to Joshua Road and this was two-lane reconstruction. He stated two-lane reconstruction basically was reconstructing the existing two-lane road to current day standards and the total estimated costs was just under $2 million, $1.91 million. He stated the revenue sharing allocation, and this was where they could discuss, would be $700,000, the unmatched local fund contribution would be $150,000, for a total of $850,000, therefore, the total revenue sharing allocation would be $1 million with unmatched local funds of $150,000. He stated this puts the application in the first tier of consideration by VDOT as they look at the revenue sharing requests statewide. He stated there were four tiers and that tier one was if the locality applies $1 million to revenue sharing and tosses in some money above that that would be unmatched by VDOT.

Mr. Fields asked if that helped clarify the issues and if any more clarification was need to meet the June 20 deadline. He stated knowing what they know now they could start developing a timeline for next year so for that their revenue sharing program for 2009 they start talking in August. He stated they are stuck with a timeline and stuck with a presentation that they did not know about until Monday and that they are trying to hopefully get the county on the right track. He stated that was their only motivation.

Ms. Kirkman stated the second motivation was that they lost $1 million in secondary road funds last year when they did not apply and missed the deadline for revenue sharing. She stated they did not want to miss that opportunity again.

Mr. Rhodes made a motion that they approve that recommendation and request that staff take the necessary actions to put the application together so that it can get to the Board of Supervisors for the next session and, therefore, down to Richmond by June 20. Mr. Di Peppe seconded.

Mr. Mitchell stated he appreciated Mr. Fields’ comments that they need to look at it by August of this year for next year and he was concerned about things being thrown at them so quickly. He stated he was supporting the issue but he was supporting the issue only on the proviso that they start in August of this coming year and look at the coming calendar year and, as mentioned, that they do not lose additional revenue sharing money.

The motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Howard asked if they could get a copy of the document Mr. deLamorton typed.

Mrs. Carlone asked if they could type up a timeline concerning the transportation decisions.

Mr. deLamorton stated the Planning Commission’s Transportation Committee met this past Monday, March 3, that they were meeting March 5 where the Transportation Committee presents to the full Planning Commission their recommendations and then the Planning Commission advertises a Public Input Session for March 19. He stated on Wednesday, March 19, the Planning Commission holds its Public Input Session, by Tuesday, April 1, the Planning Commission would present its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, on Tuesday, April 15, the Board authorizes its joint public hearing with VDOT on the SSYP and that public hearing would be held on Tuesday, May 20, when they would consider a resolution adopting the six year plan for 2009 to 2014.

NEW BUSINESS:

None

MINUTES:

None

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Mr. Harvey stated the Board of Supervisors took action on a number of items that had previously gone before the Planning Commission. He stated they approved the Conditional Use Permit for the Fairhavens Floodzone Encroachment in the Hartwood District. He stated a somewhat related issue that would be coming before the Planning Commission in the future was a Zoning Administrator’s determination regarding proffers for a project called Westlake in the Hartwood District of the county. He stated the proponent for that project has agreed with the Zoning Administrator and filed an appeal and the Board held a discussion of that appeal and upheld the Zoning Administrator’s determination. He stated that determination affected what types of units would be allowed in that development project and they will all be single-family detached. He stated the applicant had previously submitted a preliminary subdivision plan with the department that showed townhomes and they told the applicant that the plan had been rejected, but it would be back for single-family homes. He stated the Board also held a public hearing on Onville Estates which most of the Planning Commissioners probably do not know about that project because it went to the Commission in early 2007 for a public hearing. He stated they recommended denial, that it was a residential rezoning near Quantico Marine Corps Base on Onville Road. He stated they took up the Life Care Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning and approved those applications, and the Board has referred to the Planning Commission an ordinance to revert back to the way they had previously done business with regard to flood zone studies. He stated prior to last year flood zone studies went to the Board of Zoning Appeals if there was an encroachment into the floodway, then the ordinance was changed to require it by conditional use permit. He stated the Board deferred that it go back to the Board of Zoning Appeals as a special exception and they will be presenting an ordinance in the Ordinance Committee to repeal what they had previously done.

COUNTY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

No report

SECRETARY/TREASURER REPORT

No report

STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mr. Di Peppe stated they wanted to set a date for the subcommittee of the comprehensive plan. He stated they would have to give a five (5) day notice and they could meet at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 12, if that was convenient. He stated he did not anticipate it being a very long meeting.

Mr. Zuraf stated they could get geared up as far as what issues need to be discussed and that it sounded like more frequent meetings need to be scheduled.

Mr. Di Peppe stated that could be discussed, especially since they were under a timeline of July. He mentioned that other Planning Commission members, even if not on the subcommittee, are welcome to come to the meeting and the public was welcome as well.

Mr. Fields stated he would be having a meeting to start setting up the Chapter 896. He stated with the impending Senate Bill 768 there was a lull on that. He stated if that had passed, that would have taken away essentially all local government authority for all intents and purposes on land use decisions in terms of being able to mitigate the impacts and costs of development. He stated it has been held up for a year and he thought that if they assume they can be pro-active on 896 that the value of 896 might prove to be potentially an effective counterweight to the ultimate energy behind Senate Bill 768.

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Mr. Stepowany stated that he passed out the final version to be forwarded to public hearing for the buildable area, and made the changes that Ms. Kirkman requested. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if those were the changes that were referred to earlier.

Mr. Stepowany stated yes.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion for approval for a public hearing with the Planning Commission for an ordinance to amend Sections 28-24, Measurements, and 28-25, Definitions of specific terms of the Zoning Ordinance and Sections 22-4, Definitions, 22-143, Shape, and 22-146, Side lot lines of the Subdivision Ordinance. The amendment establishes regulations pertaining to buildable area and peculiarly shaped, elongated areas of lots. The Planning Commission finds that public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning and subdivision practice requires the governing body to consider an ordinance to amend the regulations. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion passed 7-0.