Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700032 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2018-04-18County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Tim Padalino, Senior Planner From: Leah Brumfield, Senior Planner and Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Division: Zoning Date: April 17, 2018 Subject: Review Comments for Resubmittal SP201700032 and ZMA201700010 (Boar's Head / Birdwood) The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the above noted application(s). 1. We appreciate efforts to address traffic management, a key consideration for these applications. Exhibit K, provided as the Event Parking Management Plan, lists a general special events traffic/parking strategy for tiers of event attendees, along with examples of prior events held at the Boar's Head and Birdwood Golf Course. We also note that the plans show numbers of parking spaces available in various lots. However, these parking lots, general strategies and prior event examples do not provide sufficient information to be considered a parking study. Without understanding the concurrent uses as well as peak uses and their associated parking needs, we cannot adequately review this application. As an example, if use A requires # parking spaces — a) is use A accessible from parking lot X? b) if use A occurs concurrently with uses B, C and D — is there adequate parking for all uses? Are some of the parking spaces shared by multiple uses? For example, a % of those lodging at Boar's Head will be using the dining room. Therefore, the ordinance eating establishment parking standard doesn't apply but a modified standard applies due to this shared use. Please provide a parking study which outlines the numbers of spaces required for the various uses, including peak uses. Please account for anticipated sharing of parking Zoning Resubmittal Review Comments for SP201700032 and ZMA201700010 between uses, based on actual experience. Can peak use parking be accommodated onsite or will offsite lots also be utilized? What is meant by the label that "parking options are for illustrative purposes only?" 2. Exhibit I, the Project Lighting Waiver Request, lists the maximum pole heights of the high mast lighting required for the hard courts at 70 feet. However, it lists additional details of the lighting to be used as potential technology available, but does not require these technologies to be used. Please consider editing your Special Exception Request to include the following: 1) the dimming of the lights for standard evening practices and the restriction of full, televised -light brightness for televised matches only, and 2) the use of dark sky compliant lighting. We understand that a photometric plan may not yet have been developed. Given the proposed pole height and the fact that glare is not easily measurable, please consider how best to show that the proposed taller light poles will not negatively impact the adjoining properties. In particular, please see if there's a way to assess the grade differences between the light poles and adjoining existing residences to see if glare will be a problem. In your special exception request, you may wish to explore additional provisions of §4.17.5 a beyond that which you submitted. 3. The Project Proposal includes under Existing Uses of the Birdwood Golf Course the use of "the Birdwood Mansion and dependent structures, including four buildings currently rented for residential purposes." However, the Birdwood Mansion has never been approved for use in association with the Birdwood Golf Course. The boundary line adjustment including the parcels on which the Mansion sits did not include the Mansion in association with Birdwood Golf Course uses. Current use of the Birdwood Mansion and its dependent structures is residential. As the Golf Course use explicitly does not extend to the entire rear of TMP 07500-00-00-06300, the Golf Course use does not extend to other non -specified portions of the parcel, despite the boundary line adjustment that created the current TMP 07500-00-00-06300. If the Birdwood Mansion will be used for Birdwood Golf Course events and other associated uses, this addition will need to be addressed in a special use permit application. If this is to occur with the current application, please provide the following information: A) what types of events are proposed? Please explain how they are customarily associated with an athletic facility use (swim, golf, tennis). B) please provide information as to the general size and frequency of events. C) please explain how parking will be provided to serve these events (see also comment #1). 4. The Proposed Conditions of Approval lists under condition 1: Buildings and other structures not expressly shown on the Concept Plan that are Zoning Resubmittal Review Comments for SP201700032 and ZMA201700010 accessory and/or ancillary to buildings and uses that are shown on the Concept Plan are permitted provided that they are located at least 50 feet away from the property line (other than the property line with the Boar's Head Inn and Sports Club parcel, currently identified as tax map parcel 059D2-01-00-014A0, or any other parcel owned by the Owner or any of its affiliated entities). Zoning is in agreement that minor changes to the structure, like adding bathrooms or other small accessory structures, should be permitted. However, the language of this condition allows too wide an allowance of additional structures. We suggest additional language limiting the square footage of these accessory and structures. 5. The Proposed Conditions of Approval lists under condition 4: All acoustic equipment associated with the proposed Tennis Facility shall comply with the Albemarle County noise ordinance. We do not understand the need for this condition because it is already an ordinance requirement. In addition, the use of the term "acoustic" can be misleading by implying that only unamplified equipment is subject to the Albemarle County noise ordinance. 6. While the concept plans provided are noted to be illustrative only, please note that Exhibit B, Birdwood SP2017-00032 Tennis Facility and Illustrative Parking Options Detail, shows a completely new connector road that has not been proposed before, labeled with "Option C." This new configuration has not been addressed or reviewed. 7. Proffer #1 references plans that are "illustrative only." This is not typical and we cannot support it as currently drafted. That language seems to obviate the proffer referring to general accord with the plan. We recommend instead some language that clarifies the major elements while providing for minor changes to the plan.