Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700009 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2017-07-07COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Padalino, Senior Planner; Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner FROM: Heather McMahon, Senior Planner RE: SP2017-9: Birdwood, Proposed Indoor Golf Facility DATE: July 7, 2017 On June 26, 2017, the Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) voted unanimously to forward the following comments and recommendations in regard to the application for an Amendment to Special Use Permit (SP2017-9) for the UVA Indoor Golf Facility at Birdwood to the Planning Commission for consideration: 1. The HPC is concerned that the proposed development will compromise the site's eligibility and current individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places and would like confirmation from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) that it does not. 2. The HPC would like the applicant to provide a detailed explanation of why the previously approved location for the facility was deemed undesirable. 3. The HPC believes the proposed parking area should be relegated outside of the historic core. Preferably, the proposed parking should be relocated adjacent to Golf Course Drive. Should the Planning Commission choose to accept the current location, then the applicant should implement a combination of sensitive site grading and screening through vegetation that will mitigate the parking's visual impact on the historic site. 4. The visual impacts of exterior lighting on the historic site shall be limited. 5. The applicant must exercise due diligence in undertaking thorough archaeological investigation of the entire area proposed for ground disturbance. In addition, staff raises the following concerns: 1. The proposal inappropriately prioritizes the pastoral aesthetic of a 1984 private road over a cultural landscape whose period of significance dates from 1819 through 1953. 2. There is a discrepancy between the number of parking spaces requested in the memo (written narrative submitted with the application), which is 24, and the number of parking spaces illustrated on the conceptual site plan, which is 20. 3. The proposal (written narrative submitted with the application) indicates that the existing asphalt parking area north of the carriage house holds 12 vehicles and that the size of the UVA golf team fluctuates between 8 and 14 members annually. If additional parking is necessary which cannot be accommodated by the existing asphalt parking area, then that additional parking should be relegated outside of the historic core. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 9724126 June 2, 2017 Chris Schooley PO Box 400218 Charlottesville, VA 22904 cds7c@virginia.edu RE: SP201700009 UVA Indoor Golf Practice Facility (Amendment) Dear Mr. Schooley: Your request for Special Use Permit SP201700009 for the proposed UVA Golf Indoor Practice Facility has been reviewed by members of Albemarle County staff and our partner agencies. Review comments are provided below, organized by Department, Division, or agency. Planning There are several outstanding issues that you should be aware of; we remain available to assist you in addressing and resolving these issues, which include the following: • Please note that the review comments contained in this letter are directly based on the materials that were originally submitted on April 17. County staff acknowledge the multiple additional exhibits, drawings, and narrative explanations that you have provided to different reviewers throughout this initial review phase; however, review of supplemental materials is not reflected in these review comments. In order for County staff and our partner agencies to formally consider these supplemental materials, they need to be provided via a resubmittal. The next deadline for accepting resubmittals is Monday, June 5; please see the attached "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" for detailed information regarding resubmittals (and other options for your possible next steps). • The conceptual plan provided with your submittal identifies an area for the "General Location of Proposed Facility & Parking" which is approximately 6.5-acres in size. This relatively large area for the proposed development site is not specific enough for Staff to conduct an accurate assessment of the proposed development, particularly in regards to the area's close proximity to the Birdwood Mansion, historic outbuildings, and cultural landscape. Therefore, staff cannot provide a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission (PC) or Board of Supervisors (BOS) unless and until a more specific conceptual plan is provided that allows County staff and officials to more accurately assess the proposed project's potential impacts to historic resources (both structures and landscape) in sufficient detail. Members of County staff have determined that this proposal must be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB); please see Entrance Corridor comments from Heather McMahon, below. • Members of County staff have concluded that this proposal (as originally submitted) creates concerns regarding potential impacts to historic resources; please see historic preservation comments from Heather McMahon and from Amelia McCulley, below. Please note that all special use permit applications involve a requirement for the applicant to conduct a Community Meeting. To date, this meeting has neither been arranged nor conducted for this application; and the Community Meeting should be held before the PC public hearing date is finalized. Please contact me at your convenience to begin coordinating a date and time for this meeting. We recommend that all issues, questions, and comments be resolved before requesting a public hearing with the PC. More specifically, we recommend that you provide a formal resubmittal of all of the supplemental info that has been provided after the initial April 17 submittal (inclusive of any revisions you may choose to make to your conceptual plan and/or any other element of the SP submittal). If you do choose to provide a resubmittal, it may be helpful to conduct the required community meeting first, as that optional approach would enable you to incorporate any revised and/or new materials that you might wish to include with your resubmittal after holding the meeting. However, if you choose to forego any resubmittal and elect to request a hearing with the PC, the earliest possible date to do so would be July 25 if you conduct the community meeting prior to June 30. Additionally, it appears that you could conduct a community meeting and provide a resubmittal prior to June 19 and still be eligible for a July 25 PC public hearing. (Please note: requests for PC public hearing dates are always subject to confirmation based on previously -confirmed agenda items for any particular meeting.) Please refer to the attached "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" for more details about possible next steps for the continued review of your application. Comprehensive Plan Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) are provided below; additionally, comments regarding conformity with the Comp Plan will be provided to the PC and BOS as part of the staff report. The Comp Plan designates the subject property for "Institutional" land use(s) in the Future Land Use Plan for the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan. Institutional uses include ancillary facilities such as sports facilities for the University. Therefore, this proposal to continue and expand the existing golf course is consistent with the Plan. The Comp Plan states that the historic mansion on the property and important outbuildings should be retained. Please note that concerns have been raised by staff regarding the lack of specificity on the conceptual plan submitted with your application, and the potential for the development site to negatively impact the historic resources (depending on the ultimate siting of the proposed facility within the large area specified as the "General Location"). Please see the attached comments related to historic preservation provided by Heather McMahon and Amelia McCulley. The Comp Plan calls for future vehicular interconnection with the Boar's Head property. However, because the proposed facility is physically separated from the Boar's Head Sports Club area, and because it is not anticipated to generate additional traffic, staff does not feel that the 2 vehicular connection to the Boar's Head property is necessary or warranted with this proposal. The subject property is also within an area identified as "Area B" which is an area for cooperative planning with the County of Albemarle, the University of Virginia, and the City of Charlottesville. This three -party planning agreement takes place through the Planning & Coordination Council (PACC). Area B contains land which lies at the boundaries of the University in either the City or the County, or has otherwise been designated as part of Area B, and on which the activities of any, or all three, of the parties might have a significant effect, as designated on the Map. Development in these areas continues to be guided by the current City and County Comprehensive Plan and the current University of Virginia Plan. Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are typically reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan. There was not enough information provided with the application to conduct a Neighborhood Model analysis of this project; however, since this is a proposed addition to an existing golf course facility, a full Neighborhood Model analysis is not needed. Comments are provided below on relevant aspects of the Neighborhood Model that the applicant should consider with a resubmittal. Pedestrian Orientation: Boar's Head is identified as a "center" in the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods Master Plan; pedestrian and/or other non -vehicular connections should be provided between this major destination and the proposed UVA Golf facility. • Multimodal Transportation Opportunities: The planning and design of the proposed UVA Golf facility should include amenities and infrastructure that can accommodate (potential) future bicycle connections between the Western Urban Area and the University. Community Meeting Since the Community Meeting required of all special use permit applications has not yet taken place, additional comments regarding impacts to neighboring properties may be forthcoming. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: 1. Property Issues - It appears that some of what were previously separate parcels consisting of Birdwood have been combined (tax map 60 parcels 28B and 28C). There is one small parcel adjacent to the subject property that is tax map 75 parcel 63A. This property does not appear to be part of the concept plan. However, if this property is part of the golf course use, it would make sense to include it in the special use permit and associated legal ad. 2. The currently submitted application does not adequately explain the proposed change in location for the practice facility. More importantly, it does not address how the historic site/structures and designation on the National Register of Historic Places will be retained and what protective measures are incorporated into the new design. As the applicant is aware, this was a significant component of the prior plan design and special use permit consideration. It appears that this is a critical issue to resolve prior to the special use permit proceeding to public hearing. If the new location can be achieved while continuing to adequately preserve the historic site, there may be relevant conditions of approval that should be included. 3 3. While we understand the desire to build in further flexibility to the implementation of the special use permit approval with the ultimate development, Zoning is not able to adequately administer compliance with the currently submitted plan. Please resubmit a plan that provides further details about locations of building and parking envelopes, areas of disturbance, access roads, any new protection elements for the historic site, etc. There may be ways to utilize more details relating to major elements, as with the previously approved plan, without eliminating some appropriate flexibility. Perhaps the applicant could consider what areas of flexibility will be important and we can discuss from there. Engineering The following comments related to engineering have been provided by Frank Pohl: • No objection. VDOT The following comments related to transportation have been provided by Adam Moore of VDOT: • VDOT has reviewed the application and finds it to be generally acceptable. Please also note the critical importance of providing vehicular ingress and egress via Golf Course Drive, and not via Birdwood Drive, as previously discussed in detail during the review process for approved SP201500019. Please also see the "SP Conditions" section for information relating to vehicular access to and from Route 250 / Ivy Road, below. Historic Preservation The following comments related to historic preservation have been provided by Heather McMahon: The proposed conceptual plan would allow the golf facility to be sited in areas that could result in significant negative impacts to historic resources. Although County staff understand the applicant's purpose in preparing and submitting a non-specific conceptual plan with the amended special use permit application, the historical significance of the Birdwood Pavilion property does not allow for generalizations. Consequently, from a historic preservation perspective, the conceptual plan cannot be supported. In order for County staff and officials to accurately assess potential impacts and to ensure the appropriate level of protection for cultural resources, a more specific site location on the conceptual plan would need to be shown. Additionally, because areas specified as "general location of prop. facility & parking" on the conceptual plan would be visible from the Entrance Corridor (Rt. 250), ARB review will be required. Plans and other information which have been reviewed, but which were not submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application, confirm the potential for negative impacts to historic resources. These documents show a revised location for the golf facility that creates multiple issues of concern among Community Development staff, including: 1. The proposed new building's and site features' relationship to the existing historic structures within the historic farm complex creates concerns regarding physical, aesthetic, 4 and contextual appropriateness - particularly as viewed from the Birdwood mansion and all other points north of the historic farm. 2. The proposed location of the parking lot would negatively impact the Birdwood mansion curtilage and sever the visual connection between the mansion core and the historic farm complex. The proposed development may create negative visual impacts from the historic (mansion) core to the agricultural landscape. 3. The proposed development may create negative physical impacts to the site's historic fabric and/or the cultural landscape. The degree of negative impact resulting from the proposal cannot be determined at this time because the information provided with the amended special use permit application was insufficient. The following recommendations are made: I. Site the proposed parking lot in a location that does not sever the visual connection between the mansion core and the historic farm complex or otherwise create significant negative visual impacts. An option might be relocating the parking to the hillside west of the brick stables, adjacent to Golf Course Drive. 2. Provide architectural elevations, three-dimensional renderings, and sight -line analyses sufficient to determine the level and degree of the proposed building's impact on the historic resources. Provide for review information on the level of rehabilitation proposed for the historic structures that would be impacted by the proposed new facility. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Route 250 / Ivy Road Entrance Corridor have been provided by Heather McMahon (below). Details of ARB review requirements and procedures are forthcoming, and will be provided during the week of June 5-9. • Because areas specified as "general location of prop. facility & parking" on the conceptual plan would be visible from the Entrance Corridor (Rt. 250), ARB review will be required. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) The following comments related to ACSA have been provided by Alexander Morrison: Impacts on Public Facilities and Public Infrastructure: Please be advised that offsite public water infrastructure upgrades will be required as part of the approved utility plan in order to achieve the required fire flow for the proposed 6,710 SF facility. Prior to final site plan approval the applicant shall submit a hydraulic report to the ACSA for review and approval which depicts the required water infrastructure upgrade extent as well as the ability to achieve the required fire flow as a result of the upgrades. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) The following RWSA comments have been provided (below) by Victoria Fort; please note these review comments (received on June 2) are specific to the Initial Site Plan for the proposed project (SDP201700019), not the Special Use Permit Amendment (SP201700009). Regardless, these are provided for your information. Please also see the attached drawing provided by RWSA titled "Sewer 3" showing details for a "Typical Manhole with Drop Connection." RWSA has reviewed the initial site plan for the UVA Foundation - Indoor Golf Practice Facility as prepared by Dewberry Engineers and dated 3/31/2017 and has the following comments: General Plan comments: 5 1. A new 12" sewer is proposed to serve this facility that will connect to the RWSA Morey Creek Interceptor at RWSA manhole MRI-MH-57. At full capacity, the addition of this 12" sewer would exceed the available capacity of the existing 12" RWSA interceptor. Please provide calculations to justify the sizing of the proposed sewer line as well as the anticipated flows from this facility at full buildout. 2. If anticipated sewer flows will exceed 40,000 gallons per day, a flow capacity certification from RWSA will be required prior to final site plan approval. Sheets C1.03. 2.03, 3.03: 1. Label RWSA sewer line as "RWSA 12" VCP Sanitary Sewer" 2. Label RWSA manhole as "MRI-MH-57" 3. Show and label 12" sewer line (manholes are shown) Sheet 3.11: 1. Label RWSA sewer line as "RWSA 12" VCP Sanitary Sewer" 2. Label RWSA manhole as "MRI-MH-57" 3. Include the following sewer connection notes this sheet: a. All connections to RWSA manholes shall be watertight and made with a flexible rubber boot. b. All coring methods, the coring contractor and all materials for construction shall be approved by RWSA in writing prior to construction. c. RWSA Engineering Staff shall be present for all cores into the manholes. Contact RWSA Engineering a minimum of 3 business days in advance to schedule a core of a manhole. d. Bypass pumping may be required at the sole discretion of RWSA staff. Grouting of the manhole bench or interior may be required, at the sole discretion of RWSA staff, for a smooth transition of flow. e. Existing manholes shall be backfilled to original grade to the satisfaction of RWSA. Sheet 4.05: 1. The invert of the proposed new 12" sewer connection into RWSA MRI-MH-57 needs to be constructed within 12 inches of the manhole invert or be installed with a drop connection (see attached detail). Drop connections shall be ductile iron pipe, backfilled in six inch lifts and compacted by hand tampers. 2. Note that the velocity of sewer flow within the last pipe segment prior to the connection at the RWSA manhole may not exceed 15 fps. This should be taken into account if the slope of this line is altered to address comment #1 above. 3. On the profile for Sanitary Sewer "A" this sheet include the following note: "See RWSA sewer connection notes sheet 3.11" Fire/Rescue The following comments related to Fire/Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer: • No comments or objections based on SP dated 4/17/17. SP Conditions Please note that SP201500019 was previously approved for a very similar use and facility (but at a different development site within the Birdwood Golf Course), with the following conditions of approval (below). Existing conditions and potential future conditions (as may be applicable) will be a topic of discussion as the review process continues. 6 1. Development shall be in general accord with the plan titled `UVA Golf Indoor Practice Facility, Site Plan Diagram' prepared by Dewberry dated April 30, 2015 (hereafter "Layout Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Layout Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the plan: building location, orientation, and mass; and access to the site via new road labeled `Access Drive'." 2. Ingress and egress along Birdwood Drive shall be restricted, to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator, to only those residences served by Birdwood Drive and shall not be used as an access to the indoor golf practice facility. 3. Any new construction at the existing golf course facility and site other than the site improvements shown on the Layout Plan, except for minor changes (such as additional practice tees, modifications of greens, and other changes that do not requires a site plan), shall require an amended [SP]. 4. The Owner shall continue to implement an Integrated Pest Management / Nutrient Management Plan to reduce adverse water quality impacts. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is necessary: $392.00 = Cost for newspaper advertisement for Planning Commission public hearing $215.00 = Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $607.00 = Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing is needed, as follows: $392.00 = Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $999.00 = Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the PC and BOS public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Please contact me with any questions and/or requests for assistance you may have. I can be reached at tpadalino a,albemarle.org or 434-296-5832, ext. 3088. Sincerely, 7 Tim Padalino, AICP Senior Planner Planning Division enc: Action After Receipt of Comment Letter Resubmittal Form Resubmittal Schedule DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT o 9L ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made 9 on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees paid in cash or by check must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. Fees may also be paid by credit card using the secure online payment system, accessed at http://www.albemarle.org/department.asp?department=cdd&relpage=21685. 10 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #I or ZMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or 9,'� Zoning Map Amendment , PROJECT NUMBER: SP201700009 PROJECT NAME: UVA Indoor Golf Practice Facility — Amendment ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request X Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Tim Padalino Community Development Project Coordinator 1i 1 i 20 1'1 Signature Date Chris Schooley — UVA Real Estate Foundation — (434)-982-3777 Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $538 Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,150 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,075 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,881 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request— Add'I notice fees will be required $194 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cost of first-class postage Y� Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) 00 for each additional notice + actual $1.cost of first-class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (tninimum of $280 for total ofpublications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 77 2017 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Dates Comments to applicant for decision on whether to proceed to Public Hearing Payment Due for Public Hearing Legal Ad Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* COB Auditorium Monday Friday Monday Tuesday Nov 07 2016 Dec 09 2016 Dec 19 2016 Jan 10 Nov 21 2016 Dec 23 2016 Jan 09 Jan 31 Dec 05 2016 Jan 06 Jan 16 Feb 07 Dec 19 2016 Jan 20 Jan 30 Feb 21 Tue Jan 03 Feb 03 Feb 13 Mar 07 Tue Jan 17 Feb 17 Feb 27 Mar 21 Feb 06 Mar 10 Mar 13 Apr 04 Tue Feb 21 Mar 24 Mar 27 Apr 18 Mar 06 Apr 07 Apr 10 May 02 Mar 20 Apr 21 May 01 May 23 Apr 03 May 05 May 22 Jun 13 Apr 17 May 19 May 22 Jun 13 May 01 Jun 02 Jun 05 Jun 27 May 15 Jun 16 Jun 19 Jul l l Jun 05 Jul 07 Jul 17 Aug 08 Jun 19 Jul 21 Jul 31 Aug 22 Jul 03 Aug 04 Aug 14 Sep 05 Jul 17 Aug 18 Tue Sep 05 Sep 26 Aug 07 Sep 08 Sep 18 Oct 10 Aug 21 Sep 22 Oct 02 Oct 24 Tue Sep 05 Oct 06 Oct 16 Nov 07 Sep 18 Oct 20 Oct 23 Nov 14 Oct 02 Nov 03 Nov 13 Dec 05 Oct 16 Nov 17 Nov 27 Dec 19 Oct 30 Dec 01 Jan 02 2018 Jan 23 2018 Nov 13 Dec 15 Jan 08 2018 Jan 30 2018 Dec 18 Jan 19 2018 Jan 29 2018 Feb 20 2018 Tue Dec 26 Jan 26 2018 Jan 29 2018 Feb 20 2018 Tue Jan 02 2018 Feb 02 2018 Feb 12 2018 Mar 06 2018 Tue Jan 16 2018 Feb 16 2018 Feb 26 2018 Mar 20 2018 Sold italics = submittal/meeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background are not 2017. 2018 dates are tentative. `Public hearing dates have been set by the Planning Commission; however, if due to unforeseen circumstances the Planning Commission is unable to meet on this date, your project will be moved to the closest available agenda date. 12 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Tim Padalino, Senior Planner From: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: May 26, 2017 Subject: SP 2017-09 UVA Indoor Golf Practice Facility — initial comments The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application(s). Property Issues - It appears that some of what were previously separate parcels consisting of Birdwood have been combined (tax map 60 parcels 28B and 28C). There is one small parcel adjacent to the subject property that is tax map 75 parcel 63A. This property does not appear to be part of the concept plan. However, if this property is part of the golf course use, it would make sense to include it in the special use permit and associated legal ad. 2. The currently submitted application does not adequately explain the proposed change in location for the practice facility. More importantly, it does not address how the historic site/structures and designation on the National Register of Historic Places will be retained and what protective measures are incorporated into the new design. As the applicant is aware, this was a significant component of the prior plan design and special use permit consideration. It appears that this is a critical issue to resolve prior to the special use permit proceeding to public hearing. If the new location can be achieved while continuing to adequately preserve the historic site, there may be relevant conditions of approval that should be included. 3. While we understand the desire to build in further flexibility to the implementation of the special use permit approval with the ultimate development, Zoning is not able to adequately administer compliance with the currently submitted plan. Please resubmit a plan that provides further details about locations of building and parking envelopes, areas of disturbance, access roads, any new protection elements for the historic site, etc. There may be ways to utilize more details relating to major elements, as with the Zoning Review Comments for SP2017-09 UVA Indoor Golf Practice Facility previously approved plan, without eliminating some appropriate flexibility. Perhaps the applicant could consider what areas of flexibility will be important and we can discuss from there. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Padalino, Senior Planner; Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner FROM: Heather McMahon, Senior Planner RE: SP2017-9: Birdwood, Proposed Indoor Golf Facility DATE: May 25, 2017 The proposed conceptual plan would allow the golf facility to be sited in areas that could result in significant negative impacts to historic resources. Although County staff understand the applicant's purpose in preparing and submitting a non-specific conceptual plan with the amended special use permit application, the historical significance of the Birdwood Pavilion property does not allow for generalizations. Consequently, from a historic preservation perspective, the conceptual plan cannot be supported. In order for County staff and officials to accurately assess potential impacts and to ensure the appropriate level of protection for cultural resources, a more specific site location on the conceptual plan would need to be shown. Additionally, because areas specified as "general location of prop. facility & parking" on the conceptual plan would be visible from the Entrance Corridor (Rt. 250), ARB review will be required. Plans and other information which have been reviewed, but which were not submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application, confirm the potential for negative impacts to historic resources. These documents show a revised location for the golf facility that creates multiple issues of concern among Community Development staff, including: 1. The proposed new building's and site features' relationship to the existing historic structures within the historic farm complex creates concerns regarding physical, aesthetic, and contextual appropriateness - particularly as viewed from the Birdwood mansion and all other points north of the historic farm. 2. The proposed location of the parking lot would negatively impact the Birdwood mansion curtilage and sever the visual connection between the mansion core and the historic farm complex. The proposed development may create negative visual impacts from the historic (mansion) core to the agricultural landscape. 3. The proposed development may create negative physical impacts to the site's historic fabric and/or the cultural landscape. The degree of negative impact resulting from the proposal cannot be determined at this time because the information provided with the amended special use permit application was insufficient. The following recommendations are made: 1. Site the proposed parking lot in a location that does not sever the visual connection between the mansion core and the historic farm complex or otherwise create significant negative visual impacts. An option might be relocating the parking to the hillside west of the brick stables, adjacent to Golf Course Drive. 2. Provide architectural elevations, three-dimensional renderings, and sight -line analyses sufficient to determine the level and degree of the proposed building's impact on the historic resources. Provide for review information on the level of rehabilitation proposed for the historic structures that would be impacted by the proposed new facility. if: 10 e _i"tn� ` OK COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Culpeper,Virginia 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick,P.E. Commissioner May 16„2017 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Tim Paladino Re: UVA Indoor Golf Facility—Special Use Permit SP-2017-00009 Review #1 Dear Mr. Paladino: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced application as submitted by The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, dated 5 April 2017, and finds it to be generally acceptable. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is desired, please contact Justin Deel at 434-422-9894. Sincerely, 016,1- Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency • VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Tim Padalino From:. Deel,Justin(VDOT) <Justin.Deel@vdot.virginia.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 16,2017 3:28 PM To: Tim Padalino Cc:. 'Mike Myers';.Moore,Adam PE (VDOT) • Subject: SP201700009 UVA Golf Facility- Special Use Permit 5-16-17 Attachments: SP201700009 UVA Golf Facility- Special Use Permit 5-16-17.pdf Tim, Attached is our approval letter for SP201700009 UVA Golf Facility-Special Use Permit. Justin Justin Deel, P.E. Land Development Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 434-422-9894 540-717-1408 (c) i • . . O'SA 4 kt • • • COUNTY OF'ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development • 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596 Phone.(434)296-5832 Fax(434) 972-4126 MEMORANDUM • TO: Rachel Falkenstein; Senior Planner FROM: Heather McMahon,.Senior Planner RE: SP2017-9: Birdwood;Proposed Indoor Golf Facility DATE: May 12,2017 The proposed concept plan would allow the golf facility to be sited in areas that could result in significant negative impacts to historic.resources. Consequently, from a historic.preservation perspective,the concept plan cannot be supported.Although the applicant's purpose in requesting approval of a non-specific site plan is understood,.the historic significance of the property does not allow for generalizations. A specific site location-is required so that specific impacts can be assessed and so that important cultural resources can=be protected'. Plans and other information which have been reviewed,but which were not submitted as part of the Special Use Permit application,confirm the potential for negative impacts to historic resources. These documents show a revised location for the golf'facility that: 1. Will be visible from the Entrance Corridor(Rt.250)and,therefore,will require ARB review. 2. Could negatively impact historic structures in and near the mansion core. 3. Will sever the visual connection between the mansion core and the historic farm complex, and will impact the mansion.curtilage(due to the location of a parking lot). Should the PC or BOS choose to approve the amendment based on the general concept plan,the following conditions upon the golf facility and its'reiated improvements are recommended: 1. As viewed from all points north of the stone garage, the maxiimum height of the proposed building shall not exceed the height of the midpoint of the stone garage's main roof; • 2. The proposed parking shall not be placed.in between the historic(mansion)core and the historic farm complex; 3. No part of the proposed development shall negatively impact views from the historic(mansion) core; 4. No part of the proposed development shall negatively impact the historic fabric or cultural landscape The degree of negative impact resulting froth the proposal cannotbe determined at this time because insufficient.information has been submitted. The following items are recommended: 1. Relocate the parking lot so that it is not visible from the Entrance Corridor or the mansion core. Should the parking lot remain visible from the Entrance Corridor in its revised location,place landscaping to screen the lot in a naturalistic pattern that blends with the existing landscape. 2. Provide architectural elevations,three-dimensional renderings,and sight-line analyses sufficient to determine the level and degree of the proposed building's impact on the historic resources. Provide for review information on the level of rehabilitation proposed for the historic structures that will be impacted by the new facility. 3. Clarify the grading or landscape element located directly south of the brick stables and provide dimensions for the proposed retaining wall. 4. Consider relocating the parking in the hillside west of the brick stables, adjacent to Golf Course Drive. Additional comments will be provided after this information is received and reviewed. For additional information related to the current review,please see the attachment.