The work session of the Stafford County Planning Commission of Wednesday, February 6, 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 and Hamock

Declarations of Disqualification

None

UNIFINISHED BUSINESS:

1. 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 February 6, 2008 Work Session)

2. RC2700639; Reclassification - Stafford Nursing Home and Retirement Community - A proposed reclassification from M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District and A-1, Agricultural Zoning Districts to LC, Life Care/Retirement Community Zoning District to allow for the development of a retirement community that includes a nursing home, independent living units and assisted living facility on Assessor's Parcels 44-119M and 44-106C (portion) and 44-107 (portion) consisting of 22.69 acres, located on the east side of Berea Church Road between Stafford Industrial Park and England Run within the Falmouth Election District. The Comprehensive Plan recommends the property for Light Industrial and Resource Protection uses. The Light Industrial designation would allow light industrial, light manufacturing and office uses. The Life Care/Retirement Community designation would allow a continuous care retirement community. See section 28-35 of the Zoning Ordinance for a full listing of permitted used in the LC Community Zoning District. (Time Limit: March 17, 2008) (Deferred to February 6, 2008 Work Session)

Mr. Stepowany presented the staff report. He stated revised proffers have been submitted and the Commission should have received a copy along with owner affidavits for each of the three owners of the property.

Mr. Fields asked if any of the owners were partners of Smith-Packett.

Mr. Stepowany stated no, they are the current owners of the property. He stated Smith-Packett was the contract purchaser. He reviewed each of the proffer changes with the Commission, and discussed each change. He stated the applicant was present to answer questions.

Mrs. Carlone stated the proffer concerning transportation, which was item five on page three, was in her opinion, something the county should not be responsible for. She stated she did not feel the county should be responsible to obtain right-of-way for the applicant.

Mr. Fields stated he did not think the county should condemn land in order to acquire right-of-way for private individuals. He asked if the county has condemned land for obtaining right-of-way.

Mr. Harvey stated the county started obtaining land for Garrisonville Road, but VDOT staff acquired the right-of-way.

Mr. Judy stated it would be necessary to indicate that the authority may be the county or it may be the Commonwealth through VDOT. He stated Berea Church Road was a prescriptive easement which means VDOT does not necessarily own the right-of-way, it may be owned by the adjoining properties. He stated in order to effectuate the condemnation, to increase the right-of-way, the property would have to be purchased.

John Riley, Kimley-Horn, stated his company did the traffic analysis for the applicant. He stated the additional lane off of Route 17 would only affect one property owner, and no discussions with that property owner have taken place. He stated there are a number of other improvements that are being proposed, such as stripping, milling and overlay, stop sign relocation and overhead lighting, are all part of the proposal. He stated the proffer was written with a dollar amount in mind and it was the intent to provide that dollar amount to the county.

Mrs. Carlone stated she did not feel the county should get into the condemnation process.

Mr. Rhodes asked Mrs. Carlone if she would suggest there not be anything in proffer five and leave the transportation proffer as an aggregate amount.

Mrs. Carlone stated she does not feel the county should get into condemnation.

Mr. Stepowany stated the primary intent was to have the applicant do the work themselves, but if the applicant could not satisfy the proffer, the money would be set aside for the county to do such work, if it was deemed necessary.

Mr. Di Peppe stated there were two scenarios presented and it was his understanding that the best possible improvement was to install the additional lane, but the fall back was the applicant would move ahead with the second scenario.

Mr. Riley stated that was correct. He stated the lane would help smooth out the jog in the intersection. He stated VDOT did not ask the applicant to look at the intersection, that was a concern by county staff.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the dollar amount of the proffer would cover either option.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Office of Transportation has confirmed the cost estimates that were submitted.

Mr. Fields asked when the $1.4 million was due, and in what kind of increment.

Mr. Riley stated the proffers were to be paid as the building permits were pulled for the independent living units.

Mr. Fields stated the proffer states “acquire the right-of-way within one year”, and stated he does not feel the applicant would be building the 240 units within one year.

Mr. Riley stated that would be a credit toward the total proffers.

Mr. Fields stated that was not spelled out in the proffers.

Charlie Payne, attorney for the applicant, asked Mr. Fields if the question could be clarified.

Mr. Fields stated what he was reading states the proffers would be paid at $7,995 per unit as the building permit for each unit was pulled. He stated however, it is implied that Smith-Packett may use their own funds in order to obtain the right-of-way and then obtain a credit against the proffer. He asked where that was spelled out in the proffer. He stated he has seen things that are not spelled out in the proffers, sometimes fall through the cracks. He asked how do we credit them on the proffer and how are they sure that they are getting properly credited.

Mr. Harvey stated Mr. Fields was correct, it was implied, but not stated there was a credit.

Mr. Payne stated they would be happy to add the credit language to the proffer.

Mr. Di Peppe stated his concern was to have the road improvement before the additional traffic. He asked if there was anyway to tie the proffer money to the occupancy of the independent living area.

Mr. Payne stated the proffer language was not at the certificate of occupancy.

Mr. Rhodes stated proffer five seems to indicate the improvements would start almost immediately, because it states the right-of-way within the year of the rezoning and that would be all the transportation improvements. He stated it was implied the applicant would do the road improvements within the first year of the rezoning.

Mr. Payne stated the applicant would obtain the right-of-way within the first year, and the road improvements would come with the proffers. He stated the proffers would be paid with the building permits issued not the occupancy permits.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if there was enough money for the improvements with the first section.

Mr. Fields stated the building permits are strictly market driven. He stated there was no guarantee those proffers will accrue in any sort of a timely fashion.

Mr. Riley stated they have committed to do the right-of-way improvements with the $582,000 upfront and receive a credit as building permits are pulled for the independent living units.

Mr. Fields stated the language needs to be crafted better.

Mr. Payne stated Mr. Fields was correct, the proffers were not written that way, but he would make a change to the proffers to state the applicant would make $582,000 of improvements upfront. The others are covered by proffers.

Mr. Judy stated there was no proffer to do the actual road improvements, and he felt that was what the Commission was looking for.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the applicant would phase the assisted living and the Alzheimer nursing home.

Mr. Riley stated that was correct. He stated all levels of care would be offered. He stated it would be probably two to three years before a building permit was pulled, based on the process.

Mrs. Carlone stated there are several independent living facilities in the area, but there was an immediate need for the Alzheimer units. She stated she would like to see it in the proffers that the project be phased.

Ms. Kirkman stated the Certificate of Public Needs (COPN) for the nursing facility beds was obtained through an emergency process. She stated she had concerns if the nursing home was not built first to preserve placement for the thirty-three residents of Brooke Nursing Home, and those residents have already been disrupted.

After a brief discussion between Mr. Riley and Ms. Kirkman concerning Medicaid and Medicare and the financial responsibility of each, Mr. Riley stated he could not commit to the nursing home being built first.

Ms. Kirkman stated when the COPN was issued to relocate beds, it was for a project located in Celebrate Virginia, she asked if the applicant had obtained a Significant Request change.

Mr. Riley stated it has been approved at the Health Planning Agency, and it was before the State to be approved.

Ms. Kirkman stated there are at least four letters of intent filed with the Department of Health to relocate 90 beds to various counties. She asked if there was any intent to relocate any of the beds from Stafford.

Mr. Riley stated he was referring to the Seven Hill Facility in Richmond, Virginia which was closed approximately sixty days ago. He stated Smith-Packett applied for several letters of intent to locate

beds to other parts of planning District 15, which was Richmond. He stated this was planning District 16 and you cannot cross the planning district lines.

Ms. Kirkman asked if the applicant would proffer that they would not relocate the ninety beds outside of Stafford County.

Mr. Riley stated the Certificate of Need was issued for Stafford County, and the State approved the Certificates of Need for relocation of beds. He stated the beds can not be moved unless approved by the State.

Ms. Kirkman stated the applicant has filed four letters of intent with the idea of moving from one county to another in the same planning district. She asked again if the applicant would proffer that the ninety beds remain in Stafford County.

Mr. Riley stated yes.

Mrs. Carlone stated there was a problem with dementia or Alzheimer patients wandering. She asked if there could be some type of security for the fencing area.

Mr. Riley stated he thought Mrs. Carlone was referring to the Alzheimer’s wing, within the assisted living area and having a secure courtyard. He stated that area has a fence that would be eight feet high and something the residents can not get out of. He stated her concern has been addressed.

Mrs. Carlone stated on 24A it should read “will be designed”, not “shall be designed”.

Ms. Kirkman asked if the impact analysis was done to the maximum use of the property.

Mr. Stepowany stated the Zoning Ordinance permits fifteen units per acre.

Mr. Zuraf stated it appears that the traffic study was based on the development proposal.

Mr. Payne stated the study conducted was for the proffered units.

Ms. Kirkman stated a traffic impact analysis should be based on the maximum use of the land.

Mr. Zuraf stated the proffers limit the maximum use of the land.

Mr. Judy stated the proffer has created the maximum use. He stated if there was a proffer amendment a new traffic impact study would have to be submitted and that would reflect a higher use of the property. He stated if the proffer states the maximum use of this property now was 240 units, then they have met the intent of the law if that was what their report was based on.

Mr. Fields stated he had a concern regarding proffer six, shuttle bus service. He stated the applicant may transfer responsibility for operation to the Homeowners Association (HOA) for the retirement community. He stated he thought that was a large responsibility for a Homeowners Association of

240 senior individuals to maintain. He asked if Smith-Packett was the operator of the three units or were they different entities.

Mr. Hedrick stated it was not unusual for properties that they have done to have the condo association have a budget for different service provided. He stated Smith-Packett as the residual owner would fund the shortfall until the condo units were filled.

Mr. Fields asked how many vehicles would be needed.

Mr. Hedrick stated the condo units would have one and each of the other buildings would have their own.

Mrs. Carlone asked if all of the units were rental or leased units.

Mr. Hedrick stated the condo units would be purchased.

Mrs. Carlone asked if the applicant would proffer the Alzheimer’s and the nursing home built first.

Mr. Hedrick stated he was agreeable as long as there was competitive financing available at the time of the building permit.

Ms. Kirkman stated the fiscal impact analysis shows 120 nursing home beds but only a minimum of 60 beds have been proffered.

Mr. Hedrick stated the proffer includes 120 nursing home beds.

Ms. Kirkman stated that was a maximum, but there was a minimum of 60 proffered.

Mr. Hedrick stated the first phase would be 90, which meets the certificate of need.

Ms. Kirkman stated the fiscal impact statement was written to assume 120 nursing home beds, but you do not have a COPN for 120 beds.

Mr. Hedrick stated that was correct, the build out would be 120 beds.

Ms. Kirkman stated you only proffered a minimum amount, which means you could do a range, you do not have to build 120 beds.

Mr. Hedrick stated there are 120 beds proffered.

Ms. Kirkman stated this was something that needs to be fixed in the proffer, because she did not read in the proffers that 120 nursing home beds would be built.

Mr. Hedrick stated that was the maximum capacity that was being proffered.

Ms. Kirkman stated proffering a maximum amount was not the same as saying you would build the maximum amount.

Mr. Hedrick stated that was correct.

Ms. Kirkman stated the fiscal impact statement was based on building that maximum amount, so the fiscal impact statement does not match what would necessarily happen, because the maximum amount may not be built.

Mr. Hedrick stated that was correct, but they planned on the maximum amount.

Ms. Kirkman asked if there were 52 assisted living units.

Mr. Hedrick stated yes, there were 52 units.

Ms. Kirkman asked if they were rental units.

Mr. Hedrick stated yes.

After a brief discussion between Ms. Kirkman, Mr. Fields and Mr. Hendrick, it was decided rental units are assessed according to market forces.

Ms. Kirkman asked if the 168 independent units were all rentals.

Mr. Hendrick stated the assisted units have been increased to 76 and the independent units have been decreased to 144.

Ms. Kirkman stated she would like to point out the fiscal impact analysis appears to be incomplete because a comparison was not generated to compare to the current use of the property under the current zoning.

Mr. Hedrick stated the information from Bob Carter when the economic analysis was done was approximately $3.8 million and the net present value of the built out project verses $700.000.00 by right use.

Ms. Kirkman stated her concern was clarified as that was based on assumptions that may or may not happen, primarily the creation of 120 nursing home beds.

Mr. Hedrick stated there would not be any proffers for the by-right use.

Ms. Kirkman stated that was why a fiscal impact statement was required.

Mr. Di Peppe asked about the wording for the proffer concerning when the transportation improvements would occur.

Mr. Hedrick stated it was agreed that the right-of-way improvements would happen upfront for credit of the proffer payments.

Mr. Harvey stated when this issue was adjourned, the applicant would have a chance to amend the executed proffers and present them back to the County Attorney for review. When the regular meeting session was held those changes would be reviewed to verify that the changes caught the intent of the Commission.

Mr. Di Peppe asked if the vote would be withheld until the regular meeting.

Mr. Harvey stated the Commission would defer action until the regular meeting.

Mrs. Carlone stated she wanted phasing.

Mr. Di Peppe stated the applicant was willing to note that, with the condition of obtaining the loans two year out.

Mr. Payne stated he understand the concern of the Commission, but under the guidelines of the Ordinance there was a required number of assisted living beds and nursing home beds to be built based on the number of independent living units.

After a discussion by the Commission and Mr. Payne concerning the requirements of the ordinance, Mr. Harvey stated staff would make copies of the ordinance and present to the Commission at the regular section.

Mr. Di Peppe made a motion to defer to the regular meeting. Mr. Rhodes seconded. The motion to defer to the regular meeting passed 7-0.

3. SUB2600748; McCarty Forest, Revalidation, Preliminary Plan - A revalidation of an approved preliminary subdivision plan for 12 single family residential lots, zoned A-1, Agricultural, consisting of 51.24 acres located on the west side of McCarty Road at the intersection of Colebrook Road on Assessor's Parcels 59-12 and 59-13 within the George Washington Election District. (Time Limit: April 3, 2008) (Deferred to February 6, 2008 Work Session)

Mr. Stepowany stated staff has met with the applicant and revised plans have been presented to the Commission. He went over in detail changes to the plan and concerns of the Commission from the previous meeting. He stated Mr. Alexander was present to discuss the existing culvert and the drainage easement. He stated the applicant was present to discuss the street lighting system.

Mrs. Carlone asked about signs where the road would cut through.

Mr. Stepowany stated signs are a requirement for future roads. He stated proposed roads have a VDOT requirement of a twenty-five foot radius from the edge of pavement to be improved with a barricade.

Mrs. Carlone asked about fill in.

Mr. Stepowany stated the owner was working on a brochure to go with the homeowners documents.

Ms. Kirkman asked if the Best Management Practices (BMP) facilities slope toward the road.

Mr. Stepowany stated Mr. Alexander, engineer for the project, was present to answer questions.

Joe Alexander, Alexcom & Associates, stated the road drainage splits and the BMP structures make up for that.

Mr. Judy asked if the two stub streets are dedicated as right-of-way.

Mr. Stepowany stated yes.

Mr. Fields asked if the applicant would agree to forgo the potential hook up to water and sewer.

Charlie Payne, attorney for the applicant, stated there was an ordinance which requires the connection to water and sewer if brought to your site.

Ms. Kirkman stated she would like to thank the applicant for adding the additional buffer to the CRPA.

Mrs. Carlone made a motion to discuss at the regular session. Mr. Di Peppe seconded. The motion passed 7-0.

ORDINANCE COMMITTEE

Mr. Fields stated time did not allow the discussion of the ordinance committee.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 6:56 p.m.