PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, August 25, 2004 All Commissioners present. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT/JERRYS WAY, COLLEEN - Applicant Nancy U. Saunders submitted a preliminary plat for a division of 13.331 acres into 12 lots ranging from 40,017 square feet to 70,152 square feet. The property is accessed from Rt. 29 North with an entrance beside Blue Ridge Medical Center. Mr. Boger reported that the final subdivision plat was approved by the Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission in 1991 but that the developer did not record the final plat at that time and has, therefore, exceeded the time period and the process must start over. Mr. Boger noted that, since 1991, the county has adopted a new subdivision ordinance and a new erosion & sediment ordinance which would have some impact on the subdivision. In addition to possibly requiring a new E&S plan, the major issue was a road at the rear of the property which serves 3 of the lots in addition to a couple of other houses further up the road. The road has an 11-foot gravel surface area. Mr. Boger said that the applicant would have two options - to bring the road up to county standards or to ask the Board of Supervisors for an exception to the road standards. Mr. Boger also reported that 2 of the 12 lots are currently zoned Business (B-1) and could not be developed as residential without a rezoning. He said that under the proposed new Zoning Ordinance, the B-1 lots should not be a problem as the area is proposed for Neighborhood Residential which would allow commercial. During Public Comment, Mr. Joe Johnson, who lives nearby on Rainbow Drive, noted the small lots sizes and asked what the developer planned to put on the lots. Mr. Massie Saunders, representing the applicant, said that the lots range from .9 to 1.3 acres and that there would be residential development similar to that currently on Rainbow Drive. Following Public Comment, Ms. Russell expressed concern with the 11' road and said that she would be in favor of having the road brought up to county standards. She then asked whether the county would require a new plat and noted that if the Board of Supervisors were to grant an exception, the same plat could come back to the Commission as the final plat. Ms. Proulx said that a proposal being treated as new should come in under the requirements in the current ordinance and show all required easements, etc. She said that she would prefer to treat the existing plat as a preliminary with the final showing all required information under the ordinance. Mr. Bruguiere then moved (Mr. Hoffman seconded) to approve the preliminary plat as presented. After discussion of whether that motion would require a final plat to current standards if no exception were granted, Mr. Bruguiere withdrew his motion. Mr. Bruguiere then moved (Dr. Walker seconded) to approve the preliminary plat with the understanding that the final plat will meet current standards unless the Board of Supervisors grants an exception to the road standards. Commissioners voted 7-0. RENEWAL OF APPLICATION FOR HIGH COUNTRY ASSOCIATES (HCA) FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE WINTERGREEN MASTER PLAN - HCA has requested a rezoning of approximately 30 acres from Agricultural (A-1) and Residential (R-1) to Residential Planned Community (Conditional), designating the property as Multiple Use and incorporating the area into the Master Plan for Wintergreen. The property is located on the west side of Rt. 151 across from the intersection at Rt. 612. In addition, the applicant has requested a total of 350 additional residential units be added to the Master Plan. HCA has offered the following proffers: 1. That 175 additional units, half the total additional units requested, be assigned exclusively to the development of a Senior Residential Care facility to adjoin two sides of the 27th hole of the Stoney Creek Gold Course (behind Tuckahoe School). The proffer notes that these 175 units can only be built as senior housing. 2. Approximately 30 acres of land be added to the Master Plan and designated for Multiple Use (7-5-1) - a) To reduce the density of the zoning from the Multiple Use density of 20 units/acre to a gross average density for the entire parcel of not more than 6 units/acre. b) To impose a maximum height limitation on any structures built upon this property of not more than 3 stories (as defined in the BOCA Code) above ground with a maximum height of any structure from ground level to roof crest of 52 feet. c) To reduce its permitted nonresidential uses in this area to the following: * Recreational facilities to compliment and support the residential uses including the sale/rental of soft drinks, confections, linens and sundries. * Community Association Management/Support facilities - not to exceed 1,000 sq ft of enclosed conditioned space. * Real Estate professional offices for the sales and rentals of such residential units - not to exceed 3,000 sq ft of enclosed conditioned space. 3. There is a fence line of trees and other vegetation located along the boundary of the proposed addition and Rodes Valley Section. HCA proffers not to remove any tree or vegetation of greater than 2" caliper located in such fence line unless it replaces such tree or vegetation with a similar tree or vegetation. 4. HCA proffers that the development of the subject properties of this application shall be in strict accordance with the conditions set forth in their submission. Mr. Boger reported that VDOT had reviewed the location of the proposed entrance to the development and found that it would comply with their standards. In addition, VDOT felt that there would be adequate capacity for Rt. 151 to handle the increased traffic. Mr. Boger noted his initial concern that the applicant would not be providing adequate open space, walkways and trails and that the high-density development would be located so close to the existing single-family homes in the area of Stoney Creek. He reported that there are several adjacent areas belonging to the Wintergreen Nature Foundation and dedicated to open space and parks. In addition, the initial plan calls for walking trails and recreation areas. Mr. Boger reported that the proposed development actually only adjoins the Stoney Creek residential area along a 45' section. He then noted an initial concern that locating a high-density development close to the single-family area could go against the intent of the RPC District. He said though that the intent of the Planned Development is a mix of housing types. Mr. Boger then noted a concern that constructing along Allen's Creek could have a negative effect on the natural features. He said that the developer plans, however, to construct a lake in the area for both recreation and to deal with stormwater issues. Finally, Mr. Boger said that the applicant would have to come back to the county with a final plan before building and he noted no major objections to the proposal. Mr. Dick Carroll, representing HCA, noted a shortage of condos at Wintergreen and said that real estate agents need an inventory to sell. He said that high-density development could only happen where a central water and sewer system is available and that the proposed 29-acre development is adjacent to such a system. He said that the proposed development would be good for Nelson in that the units would sell/resell in the $300,000 range and add $100 million to the county's tax base. Mr. Tim Hess, representing HCA, said that the proposed development would not destroy the pristine approach to Stoney Creek, noting that only a 40' section is adjacent to the Rodes Farm area. He said that there is plenty of water and sewer capacity to accommodate the development and that the plan is consistent with the Nelson Comprehensive Plan to encourage tourism. He said that the development would support any additional county costs and the plan would ensure that the development does not exceed the county's ability to provide needed services. Mr. Hess said that the community is growing and changing and that he believed that the development would enhance the community. Ms. Russell asked how the 52' height would be measured and Mr. Carroll said that it would be measured from the lowest ground-level point to the roof crest. Ms. Russell then said that one reason given for the development was a shortage of condos. She said that there were plenty of opportunities for building condos on the mountain. Ms. Russell said that her view of the Master Plan showed higher density with more traffic on the mountain rather than in the valley. She said that her understanding of the proposal including more vacation and temporary residents but that the amenities for those uses were on the mountain rather than in the valley. Mr. Carroll said that there is no room on the mountain for development of large condo complexes and that the valley is growing with no way to stop that. He said that it makes sense to develop in such a way that we can live with it. Ms. Russell said that people who came to Stoney Creek and those who live around Nellysford came there for specific reasons. Mr. Carroll said that you cannot limit people coming here. Ms. Russell said that it is more a matter of scale than keeping people out. She then asked whether the proposed development would be a part of Stoney Creek. Mr. Carroll said that that would depend on how the property owner association was set up. Ms. Russell said that many would like to see the development done with the same architectural review as Stoney Creek. Mr. Carroll objected saying that HCA has done a good job in the past and that there was no reason to think this development would be done any differently. He said that if they had to bring everything to a committee for approval, they could not keep up with the market as to the process would take too long. Mr. Carroll said that they are in the real estate business and would not do anything they thought would be detrimental to Nellysford, Nelson County or Stoney Creek. Ms. Russell asked about the commercial aspect and whether Wintergreen Real Estate would be moving its offices to the property. Mr. Carroll said that they would not be moving, that the 3,000 sq ft office would be used to handle the rental and sales of the proposed units. Ms. Russell then said that she had heard the store component compared to Black Rock Market on the mountain and asked whether there would be gas sales. Mr. Carroll said that gas sales would not be a part of the business and said that the business would be built to service the people on the property rather than people coming from outside. Mr. Carroll said that HCA knows there is a market for second homes, but does not know what types of homes those might be. Ms. Russell said that she felt it was incumbent on her, as a Planning Commissioner, to look at the most specific plan possible. Mr. Hess noted that there have been six additions to Stoney Creek over the years and that a Master Plan is a road map to address what the market is dictating. He said that a change to the Master Plan is not a negative to the overall community. Mr. Bruguiere said that the developer will have to bring a final site plan in for review. Ms. Russell said that her concern is that once a rezoning is granted, the land would no longer fall under the county's zoning ordinance. She said that if the development will not be subject to Wintergreen covenants and requirements, the issues must be addressed now. During Public Comment, Mr. Dan Butterfield said that HCA should be more open about the plans as residents still know little with no specifics. Several Stoney Creek residents said that they had moved to Stoney Creek to get away from traffic and other urban concerns and that the proposed development would not be in keeping with the Stoney Creek and Wintergreen. Ms. Elaine Weems said that everyone else at Stoney Creek would have to get approval to build and said that the development should comply with the Wintergreen covenants and architectural review. Ms. Lynne Carson, who owns several parcels off Rt. 151, expressed concerns with increased traffic on Rt. 151. She also said that she was in favor of the Assisted Living component, but wondered whether any residents of Nelson County would be able to afford the units. Ms. Carson said that rezoning the 29 acres would give HCA a great deal of power to develop as they wished. Ms. Judy Juergens noted that, if not a part of Stoney Creek, the annexed property would be exempt from the Wintergreen time-share restrictions. She said that it is extremely important to residents that there be no time-sharing. She also expressed concern with the commercial component, noting other markets close by. She said that the real estate office would not be needed as the developer could use one of the new units and Wintergreen Real Estate would be just down the road. Mr. Dave Juergens said that the development should be in concert with the surrounding density. He also expressed concern with water issues and noise and pollution. He noted no specific plan for the development. Mr. George McKinney said that the valley is made up of permanent residences with the mountain being the second home and vacation home area. He suggested that the county wait for the outcome of the new zoning ordinance process before proceeding on the application. Ms. Jan Burland said that the county's Comp Plan embodies a land preservation mindset, recognizing the natural environment as an important facet of quality of life. She said that the 29 acres proposed for development is a beautiful piece of farmland and a buffer between 151 and the peace and tranquility of Stoney Creek. She said that the proposal is an urban-type plan with no business at Stoney Creek. Mr. Mike Crowe said that the approximately 3,000 property owners at Wintergreen are required to accept a set of covenants and restrictions governing the community prior to purchasing a building site, expecting that those covenants and restrictions would protect their environment and investment. He said that HCA is now seeking permission to have the "right" to develop housing and/or commercial structures in any manner they choose. Mr. Crowe said that to do anything other than deny the application would be to send a message to developers that they can ignore the Master Plan and disregard covenants and restrictions that many homeowners rely on to protect their investment. Mr. Craig Cooper expressed concern about noise and light pollution and equated the high-density proposed to a "residential Walmart". He noted parking required for the density proposed as 375-400 parking spaces or twice the size of the Food Lion parking lot in Lovingston. He said that the proposal would have a significant impact on Nellysford and Stoney Creek. Mr. Cooper said that the proposal would be 19 times the density of the Rodes Farm area and 13 times the density of the Stoney Creek area. Mr. Ken Frederick expressed concern over water issues, noting that the value of water became apparent during the recent drought years. He said that HCA claims of excess capacity for pumping water and dealing with sewer told the residents nothing about the long-term sustainability of both. He said that HCA should be required to provide scientific information on the water issue. Mr. David McGann said that he opposes any proposal that would pump into existing waterways and opposes putting a burden on existing Stoney Creek residents for a development they do not want. Mr. Joe Longton said that when Stoney Creek is built out, there would be a lot more traffic on Rt. 151 without adding an additional 30 acres. He said that there is plenty of land around the county for development without putting it at Stoney Creek. Dr. Mitch Fleisher noted the pristine beauty and clean water and air in the area. He said that his main concern when moving to Stoney Creek was to avoid urban sprawl. He suggested scientific studies on water, noise and light impacts. Dr. Fleisher said that the only people who will benefit from the development will be a real estate company, with the development having a profound effect on the area and the residents. He suggested that the county wait on the issue until January, 2005 when Wintergreen property owners would have a voice in the development. (NOTE: In January, 2005, any new development proposal at Wintergreen would require both county and Wintergreen property owner approval.) Mr. Billy Smith, adjoining property owner, said that he still does not know any more about the proposal than he knew before. He said that he had heard it might depreciate his property and said that he likes Nellysford and does not want to see a Crozet, Waynesboro or Stuarts Draft. Mr. Peter Agelasto, speaking on behalf of Friends of the Rockfish Watershed, expressed concern about why the county needed to rush to a decision with so little information and facts. He said that water and utility issues are germane to the process and that current studies are needed. He suggested that the following issues need studies and need to be addressed by HCA before consideration by the county: 1. water supply impact; 2. sewage treatment; 3. impact on rivers, streams and other ecological considerations; 4. impact of construction of impervious surfaces; 5. traffic volume and flow patterns; 6. impact on Nellysford community and Wintergreen's Master Plan; and 7. conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Agelasto also suggested that the county question the revenue projections from the developer, noting problems all over the state with new homes producing enough tax revenue to pay for education and services. Following the Public Comment, Mr. Carroll said that the proposed development would have its own homeowners' association. He noted that HCA already has the right to develop condos up to 62' under the current zoning and that this plan was driven by the congregate care portion of the plan. Mr. Bruguiere said that he had contacted the Nelson County Service Authority and was told that the existing systems could handle the additional development. He said that at the last meeting on the issue, he had heard about high-rise condos and rental units so he had voted no on the proposal. He said that since then, he had been to the property and realized that residents of Stoney Creek would not be able to see any of the proposed units when built. Mr. Bruguiere said that he is still on the fence, but that after seeing the artist's renderings, he would suggest that the other Commissioners take the time to visit the site. He moved (Ms. Russell seconded) that the proposal be tabled until the September 22nd Planning Commission meeting. Commissioners voted 7-0 to table. Ms. Proulx said that if HCA wants the benefit of having the property associated with Wintergreen, they should also accept the restrictions applied to the rest of Wintergreen. She said that she would also like to have a clear statement on how the 52' measurement on the height of buildings would be done, although she said that she still has a problem with allowing a 52' building height in that area. Ms. Russell said that she is still concerned with the commercial component, noting that the county has committed to Nellysford as the commercial center of that area of the county. She said that there is other existing commercial space along Rt. 151 that is owned by the applicant and could be utilized. Ms. Russell also said that she is concerned with the 52' building height, noting that it is a matter of scale. DISCUSSION OF PROJECT FOR GLEN MARY - Mr. Steve Crandall presented a preliminary proposal for the property on Rt. 664, adjacent to the Ski Barn. The proposal included a low-density, mixed use development with 12 house sites on 4-6 acre lots with two clustered commercial areas using entrances on Rt. 151 and Rt. 664. He said that the proposal would include the use of active solar, rainwater capture and solar heating on two parcels totaling 95 acres. He said that the intent was to mimic the look of Wintergreen Winery's split-rail fence and substantial setbacks with a minimized ingress to the property. He said that the commercial components would include a microbrewery and restaurant among other businesses with covered walkways between them and a large courtyard in the center. The plan would also include substantial open space. He asked for input before he formally introduced the plan. Ms. Proulx said that the Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial growth in Nellysford and not scattered up Rt. 664. Mr. Bruguiere said that the Comp Plan could be amended and suggested that Mr. Crandall be prepared to be specific about what the commercial would actually be, as previous applicants had been turned down because they could not be specific about the retail. Ms. Proulx said that she did not believe commercial to be appropriate for the area and said that the county should avoid strip development on Rt. 664. Ms. Russell said that she would have a problem with water and floodplain issues in that area. REVIEW OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION/MR. DARYL MORSE - Mr. Boger noted that Mr. Morse wants to divide one of his five lots on Rt. 661 (Phoenix Road) into two 4.83-acre lots. Mr. Morse requested input before paying a surveyor. Commissioners expressed no problems with the proposal. ZONING ORDINANCE WORK SESSION - Commissioners scheduled a work session for Wednesday, September 15 at 7:30pm to review the draft zoning ordinance and zoning map prior to the Joint Board of Supervisors'/Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 21st. PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS - Ms. Hunt and Mr. Harman agreed to review and draft a proposed revision of the bylaws for review at the October Planning Commission. Dr. Walker agreed to do the actual edits once the review and rewrite is completed by Ms. Hunt and Mr. Harman. Meeting continued to September 15. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This report, sent to over 580 Nelson County citizens, was made possible by the generous donations of Rural Nelson members and supporters. We need your help to continue this service. Please consider donating. Kim T. Cash Field Officer Rural Nelson, Inc. P. O. Box 401 (622 Front Street) Lovingston, VA 22949 434.263.5000 Email: info@ruralnelson.org www.ruralnelson.org