DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
THIRD FLOOR - COURT AND OFFICE BUILDING
40 CULPEPER STREET
WARRENTON, VIRGINIA 20186
April 19, 2002
Members, Planning Commission
Brian K. Davis, Senior Planner
Suffield Meadows Continuing Care Facility
SE # 02-S-13; SE #02-S-14 and CPA #02-S-04
The applicant is requesting special exception
approvals to allow for the establishment of a continuing care facility and
to construct a private sewage treatment facility.
There is also an associated Comprehensive Plan Amendment to extend
public water beyond the New Baltimore Service District boundary.
The proposal calls for the construction of 50 cottage units, 32
condominium units in two buildings, 30 duplex units in 15 structures and a
40 bed assisted living facility on 120 acres at the intersection of Route
29 and Route 673 north of Warrenton and adjacent to the Snow Hill
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
case on February 28, 2002, and voted to defer decision for at least 30
days to allow the applicant time to address certain issues raised in the
February 28, 2002 staff report and comments received at the public
hearing. A site visit to the
property and two separate work sessions have been conducted since the
Planning Commission's public hearing in March.
applicant submitted the following revisions on April 10, 2002, in advance
of the April 11, 2002 Planning Commission work session:
site for proposed assisted living facility, further away from the
intersection of Routes 29 and 673 (Fosters Fork Road) and more
internal to the remainder of the community. The scale of this
building has also been reduced to one-story on one side.
new proposed location should minimize visual impacts of the
institutional type building in a rural area, when combined with the
reduction in mass of the building design.
The new site is also an improvement in staff's evaluation
because it is more integrated with the remainder of the proposed
site for the proposed sewage treatment facility to an area that is
further removed from existing residential areas.
new site is in closer proximity to Route 29 and topographically
situated so that the treated effluent would be pumped uphill to the
primary drainfield areas. If
any conveyance malfunction were to occur, the impact to off-site
residential areas in this location would be lessened.
The County Soil Scientist has concurred that this revised
location is preferable over what was originally proposed by the
Detailed Trip Generation Information
trip generation study was conducted using three existing and similar
communities in Virginia, combined with a much larger facility in
Baltimore of which the applicant's consultant had personal
had originally expressed concern over the use of the ITE charts in
this particular case because there were only one or two examples
from the 1990s used as a basis.
The revised trip generation information presented by the
applicant confirms staff's belief that the ITE numbers in this case
were lower than what could be expected.
The applicant’s revised materials project a rate of 645
vehicle trips per day, as opposed to the 500 vehicle trips per day
should be noted that the County’s transportation consultant,
Kellerco, has reviewed the applicant’s revised trip generation and
has suggested an alternative calculation that results in a trip
generation estimate of 839 vehicle trips per day.
This estimation was derived by removing two of the facilities
surveyed by the applicant because their size is much larger and it
was Kellerco’s opinion that this fact could possibly skew the trip
generation estimates. (Kellerco
letter at Attachment 2).
Suggested Revisions to Staff Draft Development Conditions
Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the applicant’s
suggested changes at the April 11th work session.
Staff’s suggested revisions are included as Attachment 1.
revisions put forward by staff at this time address many of the
discussion points between the applicant and the Planning Commission
and provide some clarification from the original staff draft.
Outstanding issues are noted in the text of the conditions.
Staff is of the opinion that there has been much
progress toward the resolution of issues and concerns associated with this
proposal by the applicant. Should
the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval at this time, staff
recommends that such action be subject to the staff proposed conditions in