Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 16 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 16,1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, March 16,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. William Nitchmann; and Mr. Pete Anderson. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner. Absent: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker. A quorum was established with 5 of 7 members present. The minutes of March 2, 1999 were unanimously approved. Mr. Loewenstein abstained, as he was not in attendance at that meeting. Mr. Keeler presented a review of the March 3rd Board of Supervisors meeting, indicating that there were very few items considered at that meeting of interest to the Commission: the Board considered a Resolution of Intent to amend Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with non -conformities; the Board adopted Chapter Two, "The Natural Environment," of the Comprehensive Plan, adding one sentence on Page 98 that "Albemarle County should take a leadership role in developing exemplary interior and exterior lighting in its public building projects." Mr. Keeler reported that the Board's March l Od' meeting focused primarily on the county budget. Public Hearins SP 98-73 Good Shepherd Church (Sign #38) Request to allow the construction of a 16'x16' addition to the existing church in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows churches by special use permit. Property, described as Tax Map 75, Parcel 36, 36A, 36B & 37, consists of approximately 11 acres and is located on Route 29 South, approximately one and one -quarter mile south of the City limits. The physical address is 960 Monacan Trail Road. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area (RA). Prior to the public hearing, Mr. Rieley indicated he has family associations with the parish of which this church is a part and therefore would abstain from the discussion and vote. Ms. Echols presented the staff report, explaining that the permit was necessary to allow a church use in the Rural Area. She stated that the church has been in existence for approximately 100 years, and is non -conforming because its construction predated the Zoning Ordinance; Ms. Echols indicated that small churches in the rural areas wanting to do expansions find themselves in a non -conforming situation and require a special use permit. She said that the church is a stone church located on a hill just south of the I-64 interchange at Route 29 south, and has a rectory, a cemetery, and three lots which are part of the property. The applicant wants to add a 16'x16' addition for a rector's study; no other changes are proposed. Ms. Echols noted her attachment to the staff report showing where the expansion would be, and stated cinder -block materials would be used similar to the previous addition. She added that the building has been surveyed by the state's Historic Resources Department, but has not been evaluated for historic landmark status. Ms. 95 Echols said the design review planner has determined the addition would not be visible from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor; engineering and zoning have reviewed the request, and made two comments on the plan. She noted engineering's recommendation that a better set of steps be provided from the lower parking area up to the church if the congregational size increases; Ms. Echols said there is not heavy usage of the parking lot at the upper level. She added that zoning wants to know where the boundary lines are to make sure that there are no side setback violations with the addition; they are currently conducting deed research to locate old surveys that indicate where the interior lot lines are. Ms. Echols said once they find the lines, they can see whether there is a setback violation. She concluded that staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the three conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant's intent was to combine all of the property so that the setbacks would meet the ordinance. Ms. Echols replied that that is a possibility, but there may be some problems with the language of the deeds that relate to their cemetery plots — people who have made contributions to the cemetery for its long-term maintenance are concerned about the ability to retain the maintenance if the parcels are combined. Mr. Thomas asked what the alternative would be if the church is unable to combine the parcels. Ms. Echols responded that they could get a survey done to establish the interior lot lines and see where the proposed building layout is in relation to those lines; if they have a side setback problem, then they could ask the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Mr. Edwin Johnson and Mr. Roy Haney, members of the Good Shepherd Church, addressed the Commission. Mr. Johnson said that a member of the church donated the monies to put on the addition for the minister; church members then obtained a contractor and created a plan for the addition. Mr. Johnson said the church, built in 1905, has between 18 and 20 people attending each Sunday. He said they have a part-time minister, but do not currently have anywhere for him to sit/study. Mr. Johnson said the addition would be in the back of the church, and estimate it to be 30 or 40 feet from the cemetery. Mr. Haney said he has been a member of the church since he was 12 years old, and has been on the vestry for the last 50 years. He explained that in 1955, the church had a member who died, leaving an insurance policy for the church. Mr. Haney indicated the church set up a fund for the cemetery to ensure that the cemetery would be taken care of, and additional contributions have been made to the fund over the years, and it now contains enough money to give the cemetery perpetual care. Mr. Haney added that he has researched the church boundaries at the county courthouse, and only found one plat that indicated that something had been deeded to the church for the cemetery. He read from the deed, "this tract of land was owned by Mrs. Florence E. Murray and is situated 2 % miles from Charlottesville and it adjoins the property of the Good Shepherd Church." Mr. Haney complimented Ms. Echols on her help with their project. Public comment was invited. None was given, and the matter was placed in front of the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 98-73 with conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 98-159 Luck Stone Preliminary Site Plan Request for preliminary site plan approval to relocate the existing entrance of the facility further east, across from the existing entrance of the facility further east, across from the existing Shadwell Convenience Store. This new entrance proposal includes the construction of new scales, a shop building, a wash building, a driver's shelter, and realignment of the State Route 22/State Route 250 NOW intersection. This property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, NR, Natural Resources, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcels 7, 7B, 20, 23D, 23E, 36D, and 36E is located on the southern side of State Route 250 East [Richmond Road], across the road from the Route 22/Route Ms. Echols said the design review planner has determined the addition would not be visible from the Route 29 Entrance Corridor; engineering and zoning have reviewed the request, and made two comments on the plan. She noted engineering's recommendation that a better set of steps be provided from the lower parking area up to the church if the congregational size increases; Ms. Echols said there is not heavy usage of the parking lot at the upper level. She added that zoning wants to know where the boundary lines are to make sure that there are no side setback violations with the addition; they are currently conducting deed research to locate old surveys that indicate where the interior lot lines are. Ms. Echols said once they find the lines, they can see whether there is a setback violation. She concluded that staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the three conditions outlined in the staff report. Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant's intent was to combine all of the property so that the setbacks would meet the ordinance. Ms. Echols replied that that is a possibility, but there may be some problems with the language of the deeds that relate to their cemetery plots — people who have made contributions to the cemetery for its long-term maintenance are concerned about the ease and expense of that plan. Mr. Thomas asked what the alternative would be if the church is unable to expand its borders. Ms. Echols responded that they could establish the interior lot lines and see where the proposed building layout is in relation to those lines; if they have a side setback problem, then they could ask the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance. Mr. Edwin Johnson and Mr. Roy Haynie, members of the Good Shepherd Church, addressed the Commission. Mr. Johnson said that a member of the church donated the monies to put on the addition for the minister; church members then obtained a contractor and created a plan for the addition. Mr. Johnson said the church, built in 1905, has between 18 and 20 people attending each Sunday. He said they have a part-time minister, but do not currently have anywhere for him to sit/study. Mr. Johnson said the addition would be in the back of the church, and estimate it to be 30 or 40 feet from the cemetery. Mr. Haynie said he has been a member of the church since he was 12 years old, and has been on the vestry for the last 50 years. He explained that in 1955, the church had a member who died, leaving an insurance policy for the church. Mr. Haynie indicated the church set up a fund for the cemetery to ensure that the cemetery would be taken care of, and additional contributions have been made to the fund over the years, and it now contains enough money to give the cemetery perpetual care. Mr. Haynie added that he has researched the church boundaries at the county courthouse, and only found one plat that indicated that something had been deeded to the church for the cemetery. He read from the deed, "this tract of land was owned by Mrs. Florence E. Murray and is situated 2 3/4 miles from Charlottesville and it adjoins the property of the Good Shepherd Church." Mr. Haynie complimented Ms. Echols on her help with their project. Public comment was invited. None was given, and the matter was placed in front of the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SP 98-73 with conditions as recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 98-159 Luck Stone Preliminary Site Plan Request for preliminary site plan approval to relocate the existing entrance of the facility further east, across from the existing entrance of the facility further east, across from the existing Shadwell Convenience Store. This new entrance proposal includes the construction of new scales, a shop building, a wash building, a driver's shelter, and realignment of the State Route 22/State Route 250 intersection. This property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, NR, Natural Resources, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcels 7, 7B, 20, 23D, 23E, 36D, and 36E is located 96 on the southern side of State Route 250 East [Richmond Road], across the road from the Route 22/Route 250 East intersection. This property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is not located within a designated development area. 140. Mr. Rieley announced that because he consulted with Monticello during the time Luck Stone was searching for a new entrance, and this entrance location is one he helped to evaluate, he would abstain from the discussion and vote. Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, indicating that the applicant is seeking to gate the existing quarry entrance, close it, and also obscure the existing asphalt plant entrance. He said both sites are proposed to be served through a joint entrance that will be located further east on site directly across from where Route 22 intersects with Route 250 at the Shadwell Convenience store. Mr. Morrisette explained that the new entrance proposal includes the construction of new scales, a shop building, a wash building, a driver's shelter and realignment of the intersection. He explained that the S.L. Williamson asphalt plant and the Luck Stone quarry currently occupy this area. The majority of the site is currently graded and cleared as a result of the intense mining; the proposed property entrance will require a breach in the existing landscape berm, and the applicant is proposing to vacate the existing office/sales facility and gate the existing main entrance, closing the asphalt plant and recreating/re- landscaping the berm. Mr. Morrisette reported that the Zoning Department has determined that the existing office facility, should it be used when the new scales facility is constructed, would have to be directly affiliated with the quarry, and could not be headquarters for an external portion of the quarry — it would then require a rezoning to allow for that use. He stated that in accord with the site plan processing procedures, a Planning Commissioner and an adjacent property owner have both requested that this proposal be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Morrisette added that the applicant is requesting a one-way circulation waiver as well as a waiver to allow for grading on critical slopes. He indicated that the Site Review Committee has reviewed the plan, and could grant approval subject to Commission modification of the waivers. Mr. Morrisette referenced a letter from an adjacent property owner requesting that the Commission review the proposal to "enable the general public to learn the details of this project that will have a major impact on the 250 East/Route 22 corridor." He added that the Commissioner who brought the item to his attention indicated that there would be a significant impact to the area, and this would be a good opportunity to make the public aware. Mr. Morrisette noted that the development is a by -right use, and the issue of the use is not before the Commission. He concluded that staff finds that the proposed development meets the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance except for the items requested for waiver. Route 250 East is a designated Entrance Corridor and is therefore subject to the Architectural Review Board. He added that a certificate of appropriateness is not issued until the final site plan; although the applicant has not submitted architectural schematics and landscape plans to the design planner, it is anticipated that the design of the entrance will minimize the visibility of the site. Staff analysis indicates that proposed development is an improvement over the conditions associated with the existing facility; the existing quarry entrance continues to be a major safety issue, as heavily weighted trucks pull out onto Route 250, and immediately climb a hill to the east or west. Mr. Morrisette said there is inadequate distance for the trucks to gain enough momentum for acceleration up the hills without significantly impacting the flow of traffic. He said that relocation of the entrance proposes to place it at the top of the hill, allowing trucks to accelerate more quickly as they pull out and proceed downgrade. The applicant has agreed to gate the existing entrance to be used for emergency access only. Mr. Morrisette said that staff also finds this proposal to be an improvement because the 97 applicant also proposes to close the existing asphalt plant entrance; with this proposal the quarry and asphalt plant entrances will be combined. He added that the applicant's plan will upgrade the existing Route 22/Route 250 intersection, which has posed a safety concern for many years because of inadequate turn lanes and inadequate controlled access for the Shadwell Convenience Store, and is not signalized. Mr. Morrisette said this proposal incorporates improvements to the entrance that include installation of adequate turn lanes, traffic signals, and controlled access points for the store. He added that these improvements would also be accompanied by a reduction in the maximum speed limit from 55 M.P.H. to 45 M.P.H. from the I-64 intersection to the Route 729 intersection. Mr. Morrisette said that VDOT and County Engineering have reviewed the request, and support the intersection improvements; the adjacent property owner to the Shadwell store has also provided staff with comment in support of the proposed improvements. Mr. Morrisette reported that VDOT has agreed to fund the cost associated with the signal installation, and the applicant has agreed to fund the remaining improvements of the intersection. He stated that the one-way circulation waiver request is due to the use of the weigh -scales and the information window that will be installed; planning staff finds that the scales and window are an expected accessory to the proposed use, and with the proper control devices and markings, recommends approval of the waiver. Mr. Morrisette reported that because the critical slopes are manmade, staff approves of the critical slopes waiver to allow grading. Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Morrisette to explain the recommended condition regarding stormwater management/BMP plans because of the wash facility planned for the site. Mr. Morrisette said the applicant's plans take this into account and the health department is also satisfied with the "grit disposal." Mr. Morrisette indicated a change in condition # 4 to state "VDOT approval of drainage, computations, and right-of-way improvements." Mr. Nitchmann asked about the pattern of synchronization planned for the lights to be installed because of their location so close to each other. Mr. Morrisette said his understanding is the lights will be synchronized. Mr. Nitchmann commented that there are not improvements to Route 22; Mr. Morrisette said the main lane merging into 250 would be upgraded slightly and mentioned that there are some improvements planned for Route 22 associated with the Shadwell Antiquaries that have been administratively approved; he confirmed that he only entrance to that would be from Route 22. Mr. Nitchmann asked if that was part of the deceleration lane; Mr. Morrisette said that in working on the Shadwell antique site, staff worked to locate the entrance as close to the Shadwell store as possible, probably combining a joint access at a future date. Mr. Billy Mills of VDOT addressed the Commission to answer their questions. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there would be any changes where Route 22 and Route 250 merge. Mr. Mills said the merging point at this time would stay exactly as it is. Mr. Nitchmann asked if he was aware that the current owner of the property had wanted to put a shopping center there to sell Virginia -made goods, and asked if he thought the current proposal would make this a better corner. Mr. Mills responded, "I certainly think it's better than what's there now." He confirmed that although he is not a traffic engineer, VDOT would be able to signalize the lights properly. Mr. Thomas asked if there would be a delay on the light because the trucks coming out of the entrance are so slow, especially when loaded. Mr. Mills said there would be an adequate delay, depending on the traffic. The applicant's representative, Ed Campbell of Roudabush & Gale surveyors prepared the site plan for the Luck Stone site, addressed the Commission. He indicated that the primary reason for the moving of the entrance is the safety issues that arose from the site, especially the slow trucks moving from the 98 bottom of the hill attempting to accelerate. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there were plans for a retail store once the entrance is established. Mr. Campbell responded that he is not aware of one being planned. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's concern about possible retail/commercial uses, Mr. Morrisette said that the Zoning Department determined that should Luck Stone seek any type of commercial use, or rent it out for another office use, or use it themselves for a headquarters that is not directly affiliated with the mining then a rezoning would have to occur to support that use. Mr. Loewenstein asked about the wash facility. Mr. Forest Wiseman of Luck Stone reported that the wash facility would be a water -separator system designed to clean up Luck Stone's own equipment. He said the facility is totally closed circuit, with no discharge; Luck Stone has no plans to build that this year, but probably in the year 2000. Mr. Wiseman said Luck Stone has constructed 6 or 7 of these units voluntarily at other sites. He said he facility will contain a small pump -house, an old water -separator resting on 70' x 70' with a small 20' x 15' building to house the equipment. Mr. Wiseman said they have received recognition from the National Eagle Award for environmental services that this type of system provides. Mr. Nitchmann asked if all of the stone and the overburden would be carried out the one entrance. Mr. Wiseman said that 100% will be carried out that entrance, and said that Luck Stone uses a spray bar to clean the trucks prior to leaving the gate, and the plant employees work to clean up any spilled stone and debris near the entrance. Public comment was invited. Mr. Gregory Graham, representing Edgehill Farm, addressed the Commission, stating that Edgehill is in support of the new entrance of Luck Stone, but do not believe there has been adequate research done for the traffic patterns for the store itself. Mr. Graham said the turning lane off of Route 22 will be a problem with traffic heading east on Route 22; he stated they would like further review of the traffic pattern. Mr. Graham said that the new antique store would add an additional problem for traffic heading west on Route 22 trying to turn into either the antique store or the Shadwell store, and will also pose a problem for traffic trying to continue past the site. Mr. Fred Westervelt, owner of Milton Farm, addressed the Commission. Mr. Westervelt commented that he has heard that Route 250 will become four lanes, and hoped that the four-laning would be incorporated into this plan "to minimize future upheavals in that area." He asked if it had been considered to use the existing entrance/exit currently used by Williamson as the common entrance/exit, as it would separate the two traffic lights and would eliminate what appears to be a "chaotic amount of congestion in that little area" with the store, two roads, and turn lanes. Mr. Westervelt commented that he was surprised to see the site plan's inclusion of the 120 acres between Route 732 and the river, directly across from Milton Farm. Mr. Morrisette noted that the parcel was highlighted by the graphics department simply because Luck Stone owned the property, not because there are any immediate plans for it. He confirmed that anything the company wanted to do with that property would have to be brought back before the Commission in the normal review process. Mr. Nitchmann asked about the Williamson exit Mr. Westervelt had mentioned. Mr. Morrisette replied that he was not involved in the design and location of the entrance, but just reviewed their proposal. He said his assumption is that the S.L. Williamson entrance may not have adequate site distance. Mr. Mills commented that he was not certain if that entrance was looked at extensively, but noted that the entrance is at the end of two curves, and the site distance would probably be less than it is where it currently is. He added that the ramp that feeds westward on Route 22 would feed directly into that, creating a problem with cueing. Addressing the question Mr. Graham raised, Mr. Mills stated that there is a left turn lane, so people headed west would have a lane to head into the slip ramp; also, there will be a lane for left turns, so they will be able to get into the lane and wait for the eastbound lane traffic to 99 clear so they will not have to hold up traffic. He confirmed that VDOT believes traffic will run smoother with the new entrance. Mr. Thomas commented that he thought one traffic light in the area might be enough for traffic flow, stating, "the trucks could enter on 729 rather on coming out at the store." Mr. Morrisette commented that there would be a railroad crossing to contend with and a "cost associated with that." Mr. Thomas said he did not see anything wrong with the site plan, but the intersection's construction and traffic flow concerns him greatly. "I hope VDOT has done all their homework and are correct on it, but we can't make that decision here." Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Mills when the proposed widening of 250 would take place. Mr. Mills responded that there is presently just a study beginning, and a committee has been appointed to review the widening. "I'd say we're looking at 10 years plus." Mr. Nitchmann said, "Putting a light at Route 729 sure helped an awful lot and I think probably has saved some lives over the last year or two that it's been up there. That's in a very dangerous place there." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SDP 98-159 with conditions as modified and recommended by staff and the accompanying critical slopes and one-way circulation waivers. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 98-099 Farmington Golf Short Course Proposal to construct a short hole golf course, which includes slight alterations to the existing golf course. Property, described as Tax Map 60E2, Parcel 1 (part of), is located within the existing Farmington Country Club Golf Course. The site is located directly off Wood Lane and is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated development area. Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant — Farmington Country Club — seeks approval to relocate the existing practice area and construct a short -hole golf course, which includes slight alterations to the existing golf course. He said the site is located entirely within the existing Farmington development, on the southern side of Wood Lane, approximately 400 feet east of Farmington Drive. Mr. Morrisette said Wood Lane is a private road owned by Farmington Inc., in which easements were allowed for residential access; 7 residents adjoin Wood Lane to the north. The site is currently an existing golf course hole with corresponding terrain; golfers currently share Wood Lane with the residents. As is the case with all private roads within Farmington, pedestrians, golf carts and vehicles travel Wood Lane, which serves as the primary means of access for golfers to get to the course and the only means of access for the residents to get to their homes. Mr. Morrisette said the site is sometimes referred to as "the east nine," and was constructed in 1966. He said the proposed development is being requested for Planning Commission review by adjacent property owners; the applicant is also seeking a waiver to allow for grading on critical slopes in excess of 25%. Mr. Morrisette reported that the Site Review Committee has reviewed the site plan and could grant approval subject to Planning Commission modification of the waiver. He further stated that multiple adjacent property owners have requested that the Commission review this proposal; the letters of opposition are attached, as is a petition stating opposition. Mr. Morrisette said the major concern expressed in the letters is the safety issue in relationship to Wood Lane and its blind curve, located approximately 220 feet east of Farmington Drive. Currently, the golf traffic shares Wood Lane with the residential traffic, and the residents find the current situation to be a major traffic concern, inn mostly because the road is narrow —16 feet wide — and winds through a blind turn. These concerns are further amplified by the increase in golf cart traffic associated with this proposal. Mr. Morrisette explained that Farmington Country Club has conducted multiple discussions with various residents of Wood Lane in an effort to address their concerns, referencing Attachment "E" of the staff report — a letter from Farmington describing their proposal and their efforts to date. Mr. Morrisette outlined the attempts Farmington has made since their original proposal to the county in July of 1998, as explained in his staff report. He stated that the majority of residents on Wood Lane remain opposed to any golf traffic continuing to use the road, and cited the problems the applicant has presented in providing a golf cart path, as outlined in his staff report. Mr. Morrisette continued that planning staff has noted the request is for a by -right use, and short -game practice areas are an expected accessory to golf course facilities. The applicant is proposing to relocate their existing short -course site due to inadequacies of its size and location. Mr. Morrisette said planning and engineering staff concur with the residents that the ideal situation is to remove the cart traffic from Wood Lane; although it is staff s recommendation for the applicant to construct a separate golf cart path, staff is not requiring him to do so because: (1) "the applicant has demonstrated a good faith effort to satisfy the concerns of the Wood Lane residents and to mitigate the impact of the proposed development"; (2) the golf traffic increase would be slight because practice areas generate minimal traffic and are heavily used during infrequent schooling events; (3) the proposed road improvements are an improvement in safety conditions over what currently exists; and (4) the engineering department has determined there is adequate site distance and this proposal "is not imperative that the golf cart traffic be completely separated from Wood Lane." Mr. Morrisette concluded that staff is recommending approval of the proposal with conditions as outlined and accompanying critical slopes waiver, as the slopes were created as a result of grading during the course's original construction. Mr. Thomas asked if there is any property on the north side of Wood Lane that can be purchased. Mr. Morrisette replied that around the bend, the applicant is proposing to do a property exchange to obtain some land for widening; the easement that currently goes through there is very narrow, and additional width is needed. Mr. Nitchmann asked what would go in the "rumble strip" shown on the sketch in the staff report. Mr. Morrisette replied that it would be ridged pavement that would make a driver aware he was in the wrong place. Mr. Loewenstein asked about the finding in the staff report that staff is not requiring the applicant to construct a separate cart path, commenting that item 1 c indicates "widening the road to its maximum potential without impacting sizable trees," yet a letter from a Farmington resident said there would be more than 18 trees 40 feet in height or greater that would be impacted by the application. Mr. Morrisette said there may be some trees on the actual golf course site that would be disturbed, but heavy landscaping would replace those; the intense/sizable trees are right along Wood Lane, close to the berm. Mr. Morrisette announced that he had received a letter from Ms. Melinda Wells, a Wood Lane resident, and distributed the letter to the Commission; he read the letter (Attachment "A"). Mr. Wade Trembley, representing Farmington Country Club, addressed the Commission. He explained that a short -game practice area would be a very small change on an existing portion of Farmington's Golf Course. Mr. Trembley said the area would include two target greens and a chipping/putting green with an area surrounding them (practice bunkers). He explained there is no "teeing area," as balls are just dropped on the ground and hit; the longest shots are intended to be no more than 70 yards in length. He stated that all shots are directed away from Wood Lane. Mr. Trembley said that the placement of the 101 proposed practice area on Wood Lane is a result of infrastructure issues such as old irrigation systems and bunkers; he said the Farmington irrigation was put in in the early 60's and is "nearing the end of its useful life." Mr. Trembley said that Farmington hired a golf course architect in early 1997, who came to the club and interviewed the golfing community, reviewed all the elements of the golf course, and came back with a master plan. The architect also studied the practice areas to see how they could be improved, and concluded that Farmington's existing short -game practice area is an inadequate facility, located on a sloping piece of ground that does not lend itself to this type of practice. The architect recommended moving it to the proposed Wood Lane site, requiring Farmington to change what is now a Par 5 golf hole to a Par 4. Mr. Jack Rinehart, a Farmington board member and lifelong Farmington member, addressed the Commission. He said that he has worked with approximately 40 golf clubs in Maryland and Virginia, and stated that clubs of Farmington's size have short -game practice areas, sometimes associated with their driving ranges, and sometimes separate. Mr. Rinehart said that virtually all new clubs are integrating with their driving ranges short -game practice areas. He said Farmington has one full championship golf course, and an adjacent nine -hole course. Mr. Rinehart said that a great influx of golfers from the masses is putting a tremendous strain on the courses, making it impossible to use them for practice. He commented that over half of shots in the golf game are played within the 70-yard range, and are the easiest to correct with practice. He continued that Farmington represents 1200 family memberships comprising 3000 members, and 1600 non-resident members who are a vital part of the community. Mr. Trembley reported that Farmington has tried to address the concerns raised by the Wood Lane residents. He said that when the master plan was completed in 1997, the Wood Lane residents were not involved in creating the plan, and no one was aware that this was going to be an issue. Mr. Trembley said that in late 1997, it became apparent that concerns were being raised; early in 1998, the board met with some of the residents to discuss the issues. He said that Farmington has examined ways to relocate the cart path and allay safety concerns, but stated that for 33 years, Wood Lane has hosted cart traffic and pedestrians "without incident." Mr. Trembley said, "We recognize that it would be preferable to minimize that if we possibly could, but as you've heard, we've got an existing golf green on our original 18 holes .... with the green that doesn't really allow itself to create this separate cart path without totally relocating this green, and possibly some of the major trees..." He continued, "We were trying to look for solutions as to how can we do this ... thought we had reached an agreement on this rumble -strip separated cart path, widening Wood Lane where it comes to a little s- turn area, creating a defined cart lane, but more importantly, getting cart traffic off Wood Lane sooner than it exits now — some 200 yards earlier than it now leaves Wood Lane. We have a widened Wood Lane, and further we propose to significantly re -landscape the area, create an earth and berm and re - landscape the area that would soften the view from Wood Lane looking towards the practice area." Mr. Trembley commented that the trees that would be removed are "Virginia pines," very slender — only growth at the top — that are on the edge of the existing golf hole that we are going to turn into the short - game practice area. Mr. Trembley concluded, "Farmington has worked very closely with the Wood Lane neighbors, and we've worked in good faith over a period of almost a year to resolve this issue, and in fact we've improved the plan significantly along the lines that it is described to you. I believe it to be a good plan, one which meets not only the needs of the club, the golfing community, but we think it also addresses many of the concerns of our neighbors as well." He recognized members in the audience from Farmington, who raised their hands. 102 Mr. Thomas stated, "I'm a member of Farmington also, and I would like to tell everyone in the audience that I feel in my heart I can evaluate this as fairly as anybody can do..." He asked Mr. Trembely if Farmington tried to locate the facility in another place. Mr. Trembley replied there were two areas that were potential candidates for this practice area — the site where it currently exists on a steel slope, and the area identified in the current plan. He stated, "We didn't attempt to predispose our architect who was doing the master plan — our preference really would have been to keep it where it is. It's a little more proximate in terms of its location; but for a variety of reasons, specifically its slope, that area just isn't well -suited for creating a good short -game practice area. And we are a very active golf club, and one of the important elements of that is a good short -game practice area. Public comment was invited. Mr. Thomas Kuesel, a resident of Wood Lane, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has served as principle spokesman for 15 months for the Wood Lane residents, but several months ago resigned the position because he had tired of arguing the matter. Mr. Kuesel commented that the primary concern of Wood Lane residents is the issue of safety, concern for the mix of traffic on the road, including automobiles, maintenance vehicles, delivery trucks, golf carts, motorized golf bag carriers, and pedestrians and bikes, strollers, etc. He noted that the Farmington presentation reduced the length of Wood Lane that would be reduced by the golf carts, but have not reduced the critical area which is the most hazardous — the curve in the road near Diver's Cemetery. Mr. Kuesel referenced a letter from Dr. Charles Miller, an orthopedic surgeon who is very familiar with the consequences of vehicles and humans when combined. %W Mr. Kuesel commented that Farmington's attempt to mitigate the problems on the curve by widening the pavement by 6 feet and adding a rumble strip only permits those who are "so minded to" to use the assigned paths; it does not prevent the careless, inattentive, and those surprised by unexpected opposing traffic coming around the blind curve from crossing over into the path of the accident. He said he has tried to work with Farmington's Green Committee to devise a plan for a fully separated cart path, and eventually succeeded, submitting a scheme involving retaining walls and shrubbery to permit terracing into the berms around the ninth green and the side of the banks, but Farmington rejected this, primarily because it was too close to the green, and too exposed to errant golf balls. Mr. Kuesel recollected that Farmington at one time shut down their entire course for one season to rebuild all of the greens — at that time, they paid special attention to the ninth green of the south nine, adding some large berms and sand traps between the green and Wood Lane, because Farmington considered it to be a dangerous area. He said while the new traps have helped, the problems remain. Mr. Kuesel said the new motorized golf bag carriers are an added concern, and commented that "Wood Lane is now an accident waiting to happen." Mr. Will McNeely, a Wood Lane resident, addressed the Commission. He complimented the Farmington personnel on their work with the renovations at the club, but said the proposal for the short - game practice facility proposed is not a very good proposal, because it is not very close to where the number one hole is on the south nine and therefore does not make sense — it is a remote location. Mr. McNeely said all of the residents of Wood Lane except one agree that it should not take place there because there is no proper access to get there because of the blind turn. He submitted some photos illustrating the blind turn, and expressed concern that he and his wife share over the safety for their small children because of the increased cart traffic and possible car use. Mr. McNeely said his driveway would likely be the turn -around spot for any cars dropping off golfers. Regarding the practice area proposed location, Mr. McNeely stated, "I don't think you should jeopardize my children's safety." 103 Mr. Nitchmann asked if the major concern of Wood Lane residents is the increased cart traffic. Mr. McNeely answered that both cart traffic and possible car traffic are major concerns, stating, "There is not a cul-de-sac there presently, and they have to use somebody's driveway, and generally it's our driveway — we're the last house, or next -to -last down on that lane, and that's some of our concern." Mr. Nitchmann asked if it would be a safer situation if Farmington were to conduct the proposed improvements to the road — the rumble strip, the berm, and the widening of the road — without installing the practice area. Mr. McNeely said it would be. Mr. Nitchmann asked why the cart traffic would be more dangerous. Mr. McNeely responded, "There's more carts and cars and maintenance vehicles as well. The whole nine yards just to maintain a facility like that would be pretty demanding... it's a very dangerous road as is... serious injuries is very possible, I believe." Ms. Washington asked if cart traffic goes slower than car traffic. Mr. McNeely responded, "Cart traffic is really not as dangerous as car traffic, and car traffic is a big concern .... I fear that golfers might say, `hey, why don't you just drop me off here,' taking a car rather than a golf cart, and that's some of my concern as well as the cart traffic." Mr. Nitchmann asked if the increase in car traffic were eliminated if this would be a viable change. Mr. McNeely responded that it would be, adding that he believes Farmington does need a short -game practice facility. "I just don't believe this is the proper location for it. I would love to have a short - game practice facility there — I would use it a lot, but I wish they would pick a better location for it. The location they are currently using is right next to number one on the south nine where everyone tees off, and it's an adequate facility. However, I wish they would maybe update that facility a little bit, make it a little nicer. I discussed this with some of the golfers, and they say it's too difficult to do because it's a slope, but I wish they'd look at this proposal a little bit harder." Ms. Andrea Vest of Farmington Drive, across from Wood Lane, agreed that the primary concern regarding the planned practice area is the safety on Wood Lane. She added that three months ago, her next door neighbor (in agreement with the club) cleared at least an acre of trees. "The effect has been devastating, not only to our family, but to neighbors and other members of the club, and most importantly, to the environment." Ms. Vest submitted several posters that show the effect of the loss of trees on Wood Lane, and urged the Commission to carefully consider the impact of this project, if passed. She added that although the trees have been described as "just old Virginia pines," the residents who have lived there a long time, the trees are part of Wood Lane and the course. Ms. Vest commented that many golfers mentioned their dismay over the loss of the acre of trees, and added that they would be upset at the loss of more trees. "Any difference is big when you live there." Mr. Nelson Lewis, a Wood Lane resident, reiterated the safety concerns about the current plan, emphasizing the concern over containing golf cart traffic with a rumble strip. He pointed out that the cart path does incorporate two-way traffic including pedestrians and motorized golf cart bags. He clarified that if vehicles and golf carts are moving in opposite directions and are asked to stay within the golf cart path, it might be tempting to move into the road or the rumble strip itself. Mr. Nitchmann asked, "What happens if we made them put a curb in instead of a rumble strip." Mr. Lewis responded, "That would solve the problem. If you can separate the road from the golf cart path, I think many of the concerns of the Wood Lane residents and owners would be gone." No further public comment was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Thomas asked where the carts have been riding in the past. Residents responded that they have been using the road. Mr. Thomas asked if the additional 6-foot space for carts to run in would be better 104 or worse, and wondered if the practice range was going to mean automobiles would be allowed to drop people off. He expressed concern over cars needing to turn around in the driveway. "There is no parking lot for cars to pull into and park, only carts," and asked if autos would be allowed to turn around in the cart parking lot. Ms. Washington asked if a major entrance is available at Farmington where people can park, and then disperse to the clubhouse, golf course, etc. She indicated that Wood Lane may appear easier for golfers to use, instead of parking and walking. She asked Mr. Trembley, "What can the country club do to make sure your members adhere to coming into the main facility of Farmington, rather than complicating things and using the Wood Lane road where you have those several private residences?" Mr. Trembley responded that the East Nine was built in the mid 1960's, and since that time Farmington has gone out of its way to discourage members from driving their cars down and pulling up on the grass and teeing off in that area. He said the golf staff have been instructed to ask people not to do that, and his understanding is it is not used that way, with a few rare exceptions. Mr. Trembley said Farmington will continue to ask members not to take their cars down Wood Lane, "I can't tell you with absolute certainty no one will ever do it, but as a matter of practice it seldom occurs." Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Trembley to specify where the cart path would start. Using the map presented, Mr. Trembley indicated that the widening would begin where the big oak tree is — the bulk of the widening would occur on the north side of Wood Lane. He added that there is a fence on the north side of the road that defines a yard, several feet behind the actual pavement surface. Mr. Nitchmann asked, "There's no way to take the cart path and put it to the left of that big tree?" Mr. Morrisette said, "There's a significant grade impact. You would have to do some significant changes to the green itself." Mr. Trembley said that the property on the right side of Wood Lane doesn't define the fence line — the fence line comes out of that some distance. He confirmed that Farmington owns property inside the fence line, which they have chosen not to debate with the owner putting a cart path in that area. "It would have made a major disturbance of his yard." There is some debate as to who owns that property. Mr. Nitchmann said, "A surveyor can tell you that." Mr. Trembley responded that the club thought a better solution was to offer him the property inside the fence line, as the landscaping in his yard has been defined along the fence line. Mr. Nitchmann said, "Let's assume that you had that piece of property. Couldn't you take that cart path and run it along the right and then have one point across the road where all the cart traffic would go to get onto this side ... did you look at that?" Mr. Trembley said yes, but "the existing fence line that defines that property has been in place for a number of years — perhaps as many as 40, and it has been extensively landscaped well outside that property line. As we explored the possibility of locating the cart path there, the owner who is here this evening expressed serious reservation about that option, and suggested that he believed he might own the property by adverse possession. Farmington believed that to get into a debate over that ... we didn't want to take his front yard...,' Mr. Nitchmann said, "But it's not his front yard, unless legally it's his front yard .... if there's such a great concern over safety here of members of the road..." Mr. Trembley said, "You're trying to balance several issues here with homeowner concerns. You're hearing one of them right here." Mr. Thomas asked if the road cutting off at Wood Lane has always been there. Mr. Trembley responded that in order to reach the men's tees on the East Nine first hole, someone would have to drive another 105 200 yards down Wood Lane than the map shows it. He said Farmington is proposing exiting Wood Lane much sooner than is currently the practice. Mr. Nitchmann said the major concern is the s-turn and how many people are going to drive up and drop people off. "The only thing that's going to change car traffic there is people wanting to drop people off. The car traffic may increase a little bit, but if you change this a little bit, you may be able to allay any fears anybody may have." Mr. Trembley replied, "To make any adjustment to allow for cars, our impression is, will encourage cars. Right now the club has discouraged automobile traffic over the purposes of golfer use, and has been successful in that. And we think if you were to create a turn -around on club property, which conceivably we could do, is only going to ask people to [use the road for cars]." Mr. Nitchmann said he is not saying to put a turn -around place, and asked, "Do you have any problem if we said that can't be a rumble strip, that has to be a curb." Mr. Trembley said that it is a narrow road when two cars meet, and someone would have to veer off onto the planned rumble strip. "If you have a curb, we're concerned about cars or carts getting hung up on it, and in the winter time if you are going to plow snow, a curb is going to create a significant challenge to clearing the roads out there, which Farmington Country Club maintains." Mr. Nitchmann commented that they clear roads in the city with curbs all the time. Mr. Trembley said, "When two carts met on that section, there'd be no room for the two carts to pass each other." Mr. Nitchmann asked how they pass each other now. Mr. Trembley said one would drive onto Wood Lane. Mr. Trembley added, "This is not a high traffic road. There are seven homes that exist on this road. It is a dead end." He said, "The nature of the short -game practice area is that two, three, four people use it at any one point in time. It is not a high traffic, high use area. And in our opinion, is not going to create significant additional cart traffic." Mr. Thomas asked if there would be lessons given there. Mr. Trembley said yes, and the pro would be accompanying the golfer; occasionally, a clinic with 10 or so people might be conducted, with attendees using carts to reach the site. Mr. Rieley stated that while the facility is needed at Farmington and this is a "carefully considered proposal," whereby the club has "tried hard to adjust the plan to make it as safe as possible and to address the concerns of the neighbors." Mr. Rieley continued, "Nevertheless, the safety concerns here seem to me to go a good deal beyond just `not -in -my -backyard' syndrome. This situation with carts and kids on bicycles and pedestrians and vehicular use coexisting on an informal roadway like this probably has gone on for a long time without incident and possibly could. But we didn't as a body endorse that, so no matter what the other virtues are of this proposal, I just can't bring myself to support an SDP that puts cars and increased cart traffic on a narrow roadway with a blind curve on it. I just don't think it's responsible, and while I think that other aspects of this are probably extremely well thought out, if you can't get safe circulation as a part of the plan, you don't have a good plan, you don't have a good site .... when I way safety of getting a cart path and removing somebody's fence, they don't seem to equate — safety of kids is of far higher value. I 106 think it's a good think, I hope it can be adjusted so it can be acceptable, but I certainly can't support it in this form." Mr. Loewenstein agreed, noting that "there have been suggestions made tonight involving ways to tune this a little bit to make it better. I think some of Commissioner Nitchmann's ideas are good ones. As this application stands, I can't support it. I think safety is too important to receive our approval of something like this." Mr. Thomas agreed, stating, "I would like to see Farmington Country Club accommodate the residents maybe a little more than what they've done. The north side of the road — there is space there ... I think the top end of the road needs to be wider, to be safer." Ms. Washington said she like the plan initially, but after hearing a lot of residents, her feelings changed. "My biggest issue with any changes in the development or country club is the safety of kids, basically because you have families on Wood Lane that do have children, and you do have a combination of car traffic versus cart traffic and you don't have... a viable way of making sure that car traffic on Wood Lane does not increase. I can't support this action at this time." MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded denial of SDP 98-099, citing their basis as failure to comply with Section 32.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with safe and convenient access, circulation of pedestrian ways. Mr. Kamptner referenced the ideas mentioned in the Commission discussion as alternatives, including installation of a curb instead of a rumble strip. Mr. Rieley indicated that he feels the cart path needs to be separated from the automobile path, with a physical separation. Mr. Nitchmann added that it would make sense at the curb to have an engineer examine whether a speed bump would slow people down near the tree, or cut the tree down to increase visibility. The motion passed unanimously. He added that what has deterred him from voting for this is "the fact that there is an alternative here that [Farmington] has looked at in a very cursory way because someone built a fence there. I guess it kind of surprises me that with the number of attorneys out there that you didn't look into this a little bit farther. It seems like there's a solution to this that I think may be acceptable down the road here that have children here." The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of the critical slopes in the event the decision is appealed and brought to the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed unanimously. SDP 98-156 Western Albemarle High School Major Site Plan Amendment Request for site plan amendment approval for various site improvements, including additional parking, turning lane, gas pump canopy, grading and lighting of play fields. Waivers from full compliance with the lighting ordinance and to allow grading on critical slopes have been requested. The property, described as Tax Map 56 Parcel 17C, is the location of Western Albemarle High School which is in the White Hall Magisterial District. It is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and is located on the south side of Route 250 West (Rockfish Gap Turnpike). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a Rural Area. Applicant requested deferral to April 6, 1999. The adjacent property owner and his representative expressed concern that the item had already been deferred once, and he [the property owner] could not attend the April 61h meeting. The Commission indicated they could receive his comments now, but the property owner said it would be difficult for him 107 to speak on the issue without knowing what the High School representatives were going to say. His representative suggested that the item be deferred to another date when the property owner could attend. The Commission agreed that the item could be heard at the April 20t' meeting, and the adjacent property owner agreed to attend and give comment at that time. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of deferral of SDP 98-156 to April 20`h. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Keeler agreed to inform appropriate planning staff on the change of date. Other Matters Not Listed on Agenda: As this was overlooked at the beginning of the meeting, Ms. Washington asked if anyone wished to speak on other matters. No one came forward. New Business: Mr. Kamptner reported that the training for new Commissioners would be scheduled within the next few days; he also stated that a new Commissioner handbook would be available in the next few months. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. V. Wayne Cili Secretary 09 1(1R