Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP199300019 Minutes 1993-07-20 Boars Head In Tajor Site Plan Amendment Proposal to locate a 100 ' 60 ' tent near the existii Boar' s Head Inn pool. This tent shall be used for parties, weddings and the like. Property, described as Tax Map 59D(2) , Section 1, Parcel 2 is located within the Boar's Head Inn complex. The proposal is located south of Wellington Drive and west of the Sports Club adjacent to an existing pond and directly west of the pool. This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 7) . Mr. Keeler briefly reviewed the history of the request. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request, including support for a modification of Section 5. 1. 16 (c) to allow a maximum of 65 decibels and support for a modification of Section 4 . 12. 3 . 4B to allow an increased distance to parking spaces (greater than 500 feet for 16 spaces) . In response to Ms. Huckle ' s question as to the conditions under which the noise tests had been conducted, Ms. Hipski explained readings had been taken at 8 : 30 a.m. and 4 : 30 p.m. No tests were done when the tent was actually in use with music present because no events have as yet taken place at the new tent site. Mr. KeeleK pointed out that a variety of events will take place at the tent, but, regardless of the event, the applicant will have to comply with the noise limitation. If a complaint is received, the Zoning Department or Police Department will measure the noise. He noted that the Boar' s Head is going to attempt to govern the noise issue themselves. It was determined "tented" portable restroom facilities will serve the tent. Mr. Johnson pointed out the two main issues: noise and parking. He called attention to a letter dated July 9, from Ms. Greenwood (Boar's Head) which offered to place temporary No Parking signs (in residential areas) during functions. He wondered if that might be added as a condition. Staff agreed such a condition could be added. (It was later decided condition 1 (e) would be added as follows: Staff review and approval of pedestrian walkways connecting the tent area to "Area G" , shuttle bus drop-off and route and temporary "No Parking" sign locations. 7-20-93 4 There was a brief discussion as to how the parking requirements had been arrived at. Ms. Hipski explained that 1 space/75 square feet of assembly area is required. Ms. McCulley added that that figure comes from the Zoning Ordinance and is the most appropriate for this type of use. She noted that tents are not specifically provided for in the ordinance. Mr. Blue felt the applicant might be ` able to provide better data as to parking needs, based on past experience. Recalling past problems with another site (ACAC) and, personal knowledge of parking problems at this site, Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about inadequate. parking. Ms. Andersen noted that there was no limitation on the frequency of events. She pointed out that a three-fold increase in frequency was projected by the applicant. Mr. Bowling pointed out that the issue before the Commission is a site plan approval, not a special permit request. Therefore, the Commission is restricted to those issues which can be addressed, through the Site Plan Ordinance. Mr. Blue interpreted: "Then that probably applies to the parking also. We are not allowed to require more, parking space than the Zoning Ordinance allows. " Mr. Bowling confirmed: "That's exactly right. " Ms. Huckle asked if the use could be approved on a trial basis. Mr. Bowling replied: "No. This is not a special permit application nor a rezoning request. This is a site development plan and your Ordinance is geared to what the State Code requires. It's assuming you can do this by-right, subject to meeting the requirements of the site development ordinance. Those parameters do not allow you to do what you propose. " Mr. Johnson asked if the No Parking signs could be required. Mr. Bowling replied affirmatively, because that is an issue covered in the Site Plan Ordinance. Mr. Keeler added that he felt this could be done as a part of the distance waiver. Ms. Andersen asked about the enforcement of parking violations. Mr. Bowling confirmed that because this is private property, the County will have no enforcement capability. However, he pointed out that the Inn will have a vested interest in keeping a free flow of access on its grounds. The applicant was represented by Mr. Leonard Sandridge and Ms. Sandy Greenwood. Mr. Sandridge explained the reasons for the request. He stated that the issues of parking and noise have been of concern for several months as work with the neighborhood associations has continued. Ms. Greenwood explained that new contract arrangements will require that 7-20-93 I 5 "meeting planners" abide by an established decibel rading (65 decibels) . This will allow the Boar's Head to be able in enforce the noise restrictions. She stated the applicant is taking steps to address parking needs with both the tent functions and on the grounds of the complex. She stated ample parking will be provided as well as a shuttle service between the guest rooms and designated parking areas. She stressed that it has always been the applicant's policy to work with the neighborhood associations to address concerns and it has recently been agreed that a council will be formed composed of the applicant and the three adjoining neighborhoods. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question regarding a possible permanent structure in the future, Ms. Greenwood did not believe there was a demand for a permanent structure. The following members of the public (residents of Ednam) addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal: Dr. Luke Combs (See Attachment A. ) ; Mr. Bob Swantz; Ms. Marianne Nolan; Ms. Carol King; Mr. B.J. Shaw Kennedy. The reasons for opposition included the following: --"The true interests and position on this issue by the vast majority of the residents of Ednam Forest has been misrepresented to the Planning Commission" by the Board of the Ednam Forest Home Owners Association. (Dr. Combs) (This statement was confirmed by Mr. Swantz, a member of the Board. ) --A survey of the the residents of Ednam Forest indicated a 90% disapproval of the use of a tent except on a very limited basis. (NOTE: The survey referred to by Dr. Combs had not been made available to staff or the Commission. ) --Execessive noise from tent functions. --Parking problems. (It was later noted that some parking problems were the result of the back parking area being temporarily closed during resurfacing. ) --A tent presents a change to the aesthetics of the area. --Additional traffic will create problems. (It was pointed out that there is only one access to Ednam which can cause problems for emergency vehicles. ) --Boar's Head Sports Club Members were not informed of this request. They, too, will be effected by lack of adequate parking. Mr. Sam Friday expressed disatisfaction with the existing situation. He objected to having to drive by the tent on a regular basis. He felt the present proposal was a "reasonable consideration from the standpoint of visual impact. " He felt the applicant was doing everything possible to "mitigate the problems of traffic, parking and noise. " However, he expressed the hope that if the problems 7-20-93 6 that have been encountered in the past persist with the new location there will be some way to stop the usage. (In response to these comments, Mr. Bowling stated: "The Zoning Administrator can enforce the site development plan. " Ms. McCulley explained further that the use of the old tent site would be a violation of the site plan. It was later noted that the number of days of permitted usage is controlled by the BOCA Code. ) Ms. Martha Tarrant,. President of the Ednam Village Owner's Association, pointed out that there had not been sufficient time to survey the homeowners in Ednam Village and the letter written by her organization had come only from the Executive Committee. Mr. Frank Kessler, Developer of Glenmore Country Club, explained that a similar tent used at Glenmore has had no negative effect on property values. He also questioned the statement that there is only one access to Ednam since he had built a second access when he developed Phase II of Ednam Village. In answer to Mr. Johnson's request regarding the Commission's review of this request, Mr. Bowling explained that the Zoning Administrator has determined that a tent is a proper accessory use under the Zoning Ordinance, i.e. it is allowed as a matter of right provided that the requirements of the site development ordinance are met. He explained that the Commission's review is "restricted to the requirements of the Site Development Ordinance in deciding whether to approve or disapprove the site. " Ms. Greenwood addressed some of the public comments with the following statements: --There is no intention of having two tents in use at the same time. (Mr. Bowling pointed out that a second tent would be a violation of the site plan. ) --The Boar's Head will closely monitor the noise levels be having their own engineer perform decibel readings. --The vast majority' of events do not have bands. (Ms. Huckle suggested that unamplified music be considered. ) --The tent will be oriented toward Birdwood, away from the Inn and residences. --Once the construction on the back parking lot has been completed, the parking problems will be alleviated' because some of the Sports Club members will use that area. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. (NOTE: It was determined that the Ednam Forest Owners Association is separate from the Ednam Community Association. ) 7-20-93 7 In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Ms. McCulley listed some of the functions which have taken place at the tent in recent months. Ms. Huckle was interested in determining if those persons attending tent functions are likely to be guests at the Inn or local residents. In response to Ms. Andersen's request, Ms. Hipski pointed out the location of the required 80 parking spaces. Mr. Blue commented on the method of determining required parking spaces. He felt that past experience is more accurate than an arbitrary number contained in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that this question has come up in the past and suggested that it would be helpful to monitor these types of uses and when it is found that certain uses are taking more spaces than called for, then some provision should be made to address that discrepancy. In response to Ms. Andersen' s request, Ms. McCulley attempted to explain how she analyzed the request. She explained that these types of temporary events are considered an accessory use and are customarily expected and incidental to a commercial operation such as an Inn, thus "the use itself is permitted. " Regarding the tent structure itself, she explained: "The Zoning Ordinance is completely silent about tents, neither prohibiting them nor permitting them. But as a matter of practice they have been permitted. Therefore, it is my finding that it is a permitted structure and would have to follow the regulations that any use of this type would have to, such as the Building Code, as applicable. " Further, the use, "in and of itself, " generates the need for parking review, etc. and therefore requires a site plan. She concluded: "That's what's before you--a site plan and two modifications under the Site Plan Ordinance, but not whether or not it's a permitted use or whether or not it's a permitted structure. " Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would be able to continue as in the past (with a tent in the old site) if this current request were to be denied. Ms. McCulley responded: "I don't think so. If you deny it, it is my understanding of the State Code that you would have to be specific in your reasons for denial and you would have to explain how the application could be changed so as to make it approvable. " Mr. Bowling confirmed this was accurate. It was determined this request was a result of the fact that the applicant has been using a tent without a site plan. (The applicant was not aware that a site plan was needed for tent usage. ) Mr. Blue interpreted that the requirements, in relation to noise limitations, parking requirements, etc. would be the same if the request were for a permanent structure. Ms. 7-20-93 8 McCulley noted the only difference would be that the County Code would apply to noise restrictions. She explained that because this structure has "flexible sides" (or could possibly be without sides) she applied the Supplemental Regulations that are normally applicable to swimming pools, tennis courts, etc. , which are more stringent. Ms. Huckle felt less noise would escape from a permanent structure. Mr. Blue agreed that was probably the perception most people have, but he questioned its accuracy because the noise limitations (of the sound that was allowed to escape) would remain constant. The Chairman again closed the public hearing. Mr. Keeler pointed out areas where he felt No Parking signs would be appropriate. Likewise, he, stated that Ednam Village and Ednam Forest have the right to post signs at their entrances--No Parking Beyond This Point. He felt that ' the applicant could also post these signs, but stated that the residents have the right to control their roads. Regarding the issue of emergency access (and the possibility that parking along residential streets could make it impossible for emergency vehicles to pass through) , Ms. McCulley referred to the County Code and the fact "that the Fire Official may require both public and private fire lanes to be free of obstruction to vehicles and marked in a manner perscribed by the Fire Official. " She suggested that the Commission might want to request that the Fire Official review this area. Mr. Keeler recommended the addition of condition 1(g) : "Fire Official approval of accessways for purposes of emergency fire access, etc. to ensure unobstructed access to Ednam Village and Ednam Forest. " Mr. Blue felt the applicant was sincere in statements that it would not do anything to harm either the residential neighborhood or its business. He also understood the residents feelings that approval of this request will result in a continuation of problems which have occurred in the past. He felt it unfortunate that the applicant and the residents had not yet reached an agreement on the situation, but he pointed out that the Commission must take action on the request. He concluded that he had been swayed by the applicant's position that this was appropriate for certain functions. He could find no basis for a denial based on the residents' objections. He stated he could support the proposal with the conditions as discussed. Ms. Huckle stated she could not support the proposal because she felt it could not meet the requirements of the Site Development Ordinance without the waivers required for 7-20-93 9 parking and noise. She felt persons who purchased homes, before the existence of the tent, "had the right to enjoy them in peace and comfort. " She also noted that personal experience has, led her to believe that parking is presently inadequate. She suggested that the request might be more acceptable if the applicant would offer to limit the number of events. Mr. Nitchmann expressed agreement with both Commissioners Huckle and Blue. He felt this is another instance which emphasizes the need to "be looking at these zoning issues regarding parking as well as noise and try to work toward getting it cleared up once and for all. " Regarding this particular request, he stated, "Our hands are tied.. There are not a lot of things we can do to turn it down unless we have a specific reason why we wish to turn it down that would point to the fact that it does not meet with the site plan ordinances. " MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that the Boar's Head Inn Major Site Plan Amendment be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Note on the plan "The sound from any radio, recording device, public address system or other speaker shall be limited to sixty-five (65) decibels at the nearest residential property line. This site shall comply with all other Sections of 5. 1. 16 of the Zoning Ordinance. " b. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans. c. Department of Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. d. Inspections Department approval of surface treatment of the handicapped parking space. e. Staff review and approval of pedestrian walkways connecting the tent area to "Area G" , shuttle bus drop-off and route and temporary "No Parking" sign locations. f. Note on the plan "This is a temporary structure as defined by BOCA Code. g. Fire Official approval of emergency accessways and fire lanes. 2. Administrative approval of final site plan. 3 . A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until: a. Fire Official final approval. 7-20-93 10 Discussion: Mr. Johnson felt that though the concerns of the public were valid ones, "the Commission's hands were tied. " He felt this was a different situation than ACAC had been because this is totally private property where the parking and noise is controlled from within. He noted that it was in the best interest of the applicant to ensure that this use is acceptable to their customers. He did not feel the Ordinance offered any basis for denial of the application. Ms. Huckle disagreed. She noted that the site plan cannot meet the provisions of the Ordinance in the following respects: (1) 16 parkings spaces are farther than 500 feet from the use; and (2). the request for 65 decibels is greater than the 40 decibels allowed by the Ordinance. (NOTE: The applicant was requesting modifications to address these two issues. ) She concluded: "You can approve it if you want, but don't say that you don't have a way to disapprove it. " Mr. Blue stated: "Ms. Huckle is actually correct. Even though staff has identified those things that can overcome those discrepancies, we could turn it down on that basis. " Mr. Bowling confirmed that if the Commission disagreed with staff's justification for allowing those modifications, the request could be turned down. Mr. Keeler quoted the following section of the Ordinance related to Supplementary Regulations: "The Commission may waive, vary and modify any requirement of Section 5. 0 in a particular case upon the finding that such requirement would not forward the purposes of this Ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest or that the varied or modified regulation would satisfy the purpose of this Ordinance to at least an equivalent degree as a specified requirement. " Mr. Keeler added: "I think, in regard to the 500 feet distance for parking, that has been a commonplace waiver and I doubt that any of our larger shopping centers have all their parking within 500 feet. " He also recalled one instance were noise levels had been modified (Augusta Lumber at North Garden) . Mr. Blue interpreted: "In other words, if this were taken to Court we could be ruled as being arbitrary and capricious because it is a normal waiver. " It was noted that background, ordinary noise often exceeds that which is allowed by Code. Mr. Jenkins felt that the available parking would effectively limit the number of participants at a particular function. He also felt the decibel level which was being 7-20-93 11 requested would "effectively do away with the bands" unless the noise could be muffled. He concluded: "If (the applicant) wants to be neighborly, they are going to have to correct these problems. " He would have preferred being able to allow the use on a trial basis, but understood that was not possible on a site plan approval. Mr. Johnson asked where the applicable noise provision is found in the Ordinance. Ms. McCulley responded: "It has been my interpretation that what is applicable, given the nature of the structure, the fact that it is a tent, is the regulations that apply to swimming pools, golf and tennis clubs, so it is 5. 1. 16, under (c) : 'The sound from any radio, recording device, public address system or any speaker shall be limited to 40 decibels at the nearest residential property line. "' Mr. Johnson agreed that that "was the best we can do, " but "it has been an intepretation for convenience but we don't really have a finger on a violation here as far as noise goes as long as we limit it to 65 db's. " There was a discussion of the Criminal Code noise regulations which have a limit of 65 db's. Mr. Keeler explained that it applies only between the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. It was determined the proposed conditions would give the Zoning Administrator the power to enforce a noise limitation to 65 db' s at all times. Mr. Grimm expressed support for the request which he felt was a by-right use. He felt the enforcement of the proposed conditions would address the concerns raised. The previously stated motion for approval passed (6: 1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. Ms. Andersen asked what procedure should be followed if someone wished to challenge the fact that tents are not specifically dealt with in the Ordinance. Ms. McCulley explained that her decision of June 21st could be appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals 30 days after the decision (by July 21st) . - Mr. Keeler pointed out that any determination disallowing tents would "assume that you couldn't have a circus and the County Fair would not be permissable. "