Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198700049 Staff Report 1987-08-05 AMENDED STAFF REPORT HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION: JULY 21, 1987 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: AUGUST 5, 1987 SP-87-49 MITCHELL AND EMILY WILLY Petition: T. Mitchell and Emily Willy petition the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for an INN ( 10. 2 . 2 . 24) and RESTAURANT ( 10. 2 . 2. 26) on 7 . 85 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 23B, is located on Route 729 across from Stone-Robinson Elementary School in the Rivanna Magisterial District. INTRODUCTION The applicant presented information at the Planning Commission hearing which staff believed warranted a revised staff report. In addition to issues of access, highway orientation of the business and historic significance of Clifton, the applicant provided evidence of little change between the current operation and the proposal under this permit. (Please see Attachment A) . Character of the Area: The main dwelling known as Clifton is a late 18th or early 19th century plantation house. The building has been substantially altered and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places though staff of the Virginia Landmarks Commission stated that it may have some historic significance. The applicant states that: • Clifton was a part of Peter Jefferson' s original Shadwell estate which was, in turn, deeded to Thomas Jefferson. _- • Clifton was included in that portion of the Shadwell .-I estate which Thomas Jefferson deeded to his eldest daughter, Martha, as a wedding gift upon her marriage to Thomas Mann Randolph. • Thomas Mann Randolph, an early Governor of Virginia and the father of Thomas Jefferson' s only surviving and legitimate heirs built the first structures at Clifton and lived at Clifton for a period of time shortly before returning to Monticello and reconciling with the Jefferson family just before his death in 1828 . • Clifton was an early warehouse for the port at Milton, and, as such, was the focus of one of Thomas Mann 1 Randolph' s business efforts locally. Indeed, the marble stone sitting at the present entrance to Clifton is reputedly a remnant of a column destined for the University Rotunda which broke on the dock at the Milton port just below Clifton. • It is also believed that the grounds at Clifton were planned and designed by Thomas Jefferson, or at least by one of his proteges; the multiple terracing, for instance, are illustrative of his influence. Most properties in the area are developed or approved to be developed residentially or are in commercial, industrial, or public use. Approval of Clifton would in staff opinion have little effect on agriculture or forestry. Applicant' s Proposal: Clifton is currently operating as "tourist lodging" a use by right in the RA, Rural Areas zoned. The initial staff report questioned the extent of the current operation to which the applicant responded that: "We have been and currently are licensed by Albemarle County under the Tourist Lodging provision. We have been inspected by both the State and local Health Department and the Safety Marshall, all of which have given us their approvals. We have also conferred with the County and obtained all appropriate approvals for conforming our sanitary system, including bringing the septic tank and well up to full commercial standards. We would respectfully disagree with the staff comments about confusion with respect to the existing operations. There is the implication that we are not permitted to do what we have been doing in terms of hosting receptions and weddings. We have been advised by the County that the hosting of such events is entirely permissible if such events are catered by a licensed caterer. Upon checking with the Alcohol and Beverage Control Office we were also advised that we were not allowed to purchase or sell alcoholic beverages on behalf of Clifton. Both of these conditions have been strictly adhered to in each instance, to our knowledge. " Therefore the only increase in usage requested under this permit is an increase from 5 to 7 lodging rooms and to open the dining area for one seating per night to the general public. 2 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends that "conversion of historic buildings to commercial uses compatible in character should be considered as a method of historic preservation. " In the case of Clifton, substantial effort has already been expended on renovation. The plan also recommend that "residential, commercial and other development activities should be directed to designated growth areas rather than being permitted to encroach on agricultural and forestal areas with detrimental effects. " Due to existing development in the area, staff opinion is that Clifton would have little direct effect on agriculture and forestry. The plan contains locational recommendations for highway-oriented uses including motels and restaurants, however, the existing Clifton operation is not highway-oriented in nature. Staff Comment: As stated earlier, this petition represents little change over the use already authorized by the County. When presented with this argument and other information (Attachment A) , the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval subject to: 1. Approval is limited to six ( 6) rooms for overnight travelers and a fifty ( 50) seat restaurant. Except for lodging guest and occasional luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties and the like, restaurant usage is limited to not more than fifty ( 50) diners per evening. 2. Site plan approval. Prior to review of the site plan by the Planning Commission, the applicant shall obtain Health Department and Virginia Department of Transportation approvals. 3 . Building and Fire Official approvals. 3 ALBEMARLE COUNT` 63 ` \s` n ‘\. 5A r \ l K I \ 1 c, ffl? I I 46A -rC\ t � \?(/ I I 4I .% \\ I II io � f CTI•r / I \ I I \ \r/ I2 A I * 511 2A78 \ 1 / 80 \, .f our H © 3A ' I 7, IY .0-rf 4F RI 250 r % C� � SETION � 7 17,1111 7A \\ SHADWELL �11A 17e 40% is i � fl toGNESAiEAK/ _� I A n 14, nO / a. 230 b1 36D - 23E r 23 N. T M/ 1 \\\ // 16 23C ,y " N /' 43A ' Set � \ //i 73 ///� • • ♦ �. YSC // T.M. E. WIL.y (6wrrtt4 INN 3+ ' '_. 25,<_, ♦.r 93 SCALE IN FEET RIVANNA AND SECTION 79 sae MOO '°° ° WO SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICTS 441____ __ _____ lib -. . , 0 -----,----10 . 714 /r 7C ei � ' \ \ SG N/E.P 6+A 3C MCN/' ip we',,,, _ i Foy C� ARTHUR F. EDWARDS \i',,,, h Na 1170 �-�� �/ \\ , Na 1420 / LO K • .\`L� I ii : • /r P R/VE.P \\\• I war r✓rcC .✓•nv/e.eo/.olaro ' I wrr .✓cct Al OVN/C/� q.�ovc �9:0 OP . r J tJ `\ I G.tA/�E ✓�1 Ccic./M /�.P/MS 1.Fr �/ i� srir/o.v SURGE �_ __ �— - o_ .�P ,`\ \ Orp Scwct c/NE T ` : I \ '_ I I Oro /o rCF M.n/N �_ - � T1 ." - \-A---....----__.______„...... -_____ srwe.t t..Ve T--- - ✓,- IL 1, 0r0 6c/+.wJ I 1•:I i / FO.rce M.4/A/ .-- I1 i I . IysI • %1 r li:±1 a • --...• . /Z } -----) a f 1 ,I'OcITE 2, l N 6. c.) . QAr4p 5-c..1 G L•• S .1- M.4.e. /6, "715'7 Mor.ra.N7we:/^.icX)'Ye.rr/e4e:/-metal* "C'e AT T/y0 Ai///\IG SGa/'Y ER a/NE Erq S Eti1EN1"S �OrP /- . A/•PO/� .er /A/ G/STAP/.4 PA At'K .4. Af/O.r Q Y ../4/i�.14.4N oir ... T-s.pc-AA 7B T, ,t l•Ct C/✓K 0N6/w/e,••.NG-C4. a =tw11.✓e,. -C4 NO.Y.INN.•NO c..,.rl 077e s✓.ee.r, YM'M1C 44//4 I0 3 ( l I: k 1,`ti - Il0 - b 0 _ ... 1 I }..a ro I • J ✓ip-'--- -` I o// _ �1 0/o j ae 1 .tI. o o I // 'Ori • - •• A .H/N/M(,A1 Qf. 1' Of rovge .� :: 1 $1 �11 \ - r---`T\ .t - rKie r O! .A•r.t1LNrAP/, QYG.CC/lO - - 000 IN. I ilO •/ 2:411 N.. ` 010 I i 111 / �e ro.. is 1701-T---1--- ___1_____. ____, • ea • - - --- _ -_ioKs tea../ •.—•.-- .---._ _ _. -_- _ __ CO.vf.K a rN .•I JtMCNr r c ( O.0 /r0 _-_ - -- rr0 1r0 yr0 500 Oro 700 Cr0 7r0 /0 r0 //r0 /e r0 /!ro .ISO "-- —^ RAIL I 44441.7111 7ii AND MOFILE..4•Yot ...veer 5 r.� A UA I tLtL1JV I tK .'Jb ; ( ti(; 4: 1 b NM; LLHI I 1 - 6049716€6 ; # 2 r -E r 4gill 124 S. Fairfax St. I4-141 . �, Alexandria, VA 22314 JUL 21 1987 PLANNING DIVISION July 18 , 1987 Mr. John Horne Director of Planning and Community Development Albemarle County 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: Clifton; SP-87-49 T. Mitchell and Emily Willey_ Dear Mr. Horne: We have just received a copy of the agenda and the staff report with respect to our above-referenced appliclion. It is our understanding that this staff report will serve as the source document upon which our application will be reviewed. Therefore, and in light of the concentrated timing of these matters, we are concerned because it contains a number of factual inaccuracies which, I believe, will be significant in the Planning Commission's review of this petition. At the outset, it is perhaps best to e,.utline the essential issues of our position and then address the zoning implications of our request and respond to the specific errors of fact in the staff report. We believe these correcting facts may affect your conclusions and we believe they will give the Commissioners the proper information upon which to review our petition. ESSENTIAL ISSUES 1) JIo change of use of the property is requested. Clifton is and will remain a country inn. 2) po structural chancte . are required to slightly expand our existing dining services other than minor improvements to our existing kitchen. 3) No disturbance of the land is necessary. More than being compatible with the rural designation, Clifton enhances it. 4) Clifton is npt visible or audible from the road or by its neighbors. We have a long, forested drive and we are geographically nestled, protected, and isolated by the trees, the river and the precipitous terrain. 5) Clifton is an "oasis" in an already commercial are4. We are not surrounded by large private estates or farms ; our commercial neighbors are numerous. Indeed, Clifton's slightly expanded operation would allow us to continue to offer a desirable rural respite for our district. 6) Neighborhood Support: Clifton (and this proposal) are enthusiastically supported by its neighbors and community. We have a proven track record and they know who we are and are supportive of what we plan to do. In summary, Clifton's proposal has no negative impact on the intent of the RA zoning designation: Quite the opposite, it is in harmony with it. What we are proposing to do -- offer meals to our guests and a limited number of the public -- enhances the rural environment we are in. Our proposal enhances Clifton. It enhances our neighborhood. It enhances our community. Our neighbors and community have attested so. COMMENTS ON THE STAFF REPORT We will address this area in coordination with the staff report presentation. PETITION Exclusion of Parcel 23C We indicated in our petition that our property includes Parcels 23B and 23C but the staff report only included parcel 23B in its review. Parcel 23C has been part of the Clifton estate since 1969 . A more current survey has now been included in the file. The addition of Parcel 23C is significant from a number of standpoints: o First of all, parcel 23C adds approximately 500 feet to our frontage on Route 729 . o Secondly, it will easily permit Clifton to add an ingress driveway (in fact, there previously was a second drive and the pathway 2 I U..i 4 oU4d I000 . 1F 4 still exists) which will permit the 550 ft. of sight clearance in both directions as required by the Virginia Department of Transportation. There should be no need for easements or major excavation. o Third, this also adds three (3) acres of land to our property and a buffer from the public road, thus further isolating Clifton. CHARACTER OF THE AREA historical Significance Clifton has substantial documented historical significancel. However, the historical significance of Clifton is not the issue raised by our petition. We have not applied for zoning pursuant to 10. 2 . 2 . 27 . Rather, we have applied for a special use permit under the statutes 10. 2 . 2 . 24 and 10. 2 . 2 . 26. Our aim is to slightly expand current operations. Virginia Department of Transportation Recommendation The entrance problem alluded to in the second and third paragraphs of this section of the staff report can be entirely cured by positioning a second driveway into the property on Parcel 23C, as indicated above. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Expansion to Seven Lodging Rooms We stated in our application that we presently have a capability to offer at least six guest rooms; we actually expect to accommodate seven overnight lodgings and thus would request permission to use seven lodging rooms. Limitation on Diners We also wish to -larify the number of diners which we would hope to have in our restaurant and the self-policing of that number. We have no interest in having large numbers of diners at Clifton. Large groups disturb our overnight guests who are the fundamental part of our business. Moreover, it is, of course, the aspect of our business upon which we have built our l see Attachment I 3 reputation, and upon which we will continue to build our reputation. While we certainly have a selfish interest for limiting the number of diners in our inn we also have physical limitations imposed by the sheer size of our common space and, thus, could not serve many more than 50 diners under any circumstances. The limitation on diners is more than self-imposed; it is physically imposed. Therefore, we believe the County should be confident of this limitation. Contusion regarding Present Use We have been and currently are licensed by Albemarle County under the Tourist Lodging provision. We have been inspected by both the State and local Health Department and the Safety Marshall, all of which have given us their approvals. We have also conferred with the County and obtained all appropriate approvals for conforming our sanitary system, including bringing the septic tank and well up to full commercial standards. We would respectfully disagree with the staff comments about confusion with respect to the existing operations. There is the implication that we are not permitted to do what we have been doing in terms of hosting receptions and weddings. We have been advised by the County that the hosting of such events is entirely permissible if such events are catered by a licensed caterer. Upon checking with the Alcohol and Beverage Control Office we were also advised that we were not allowed to purchase or sell alcoholic beverages on behalf of Clifton. Both of these conditions have been strictly adhered to in each instance, to our knowledge. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In response to the points raised by the staff report under this section and consistent with their order in the report, we'd like to respond as follows: Historical Designation - Inapplicable While one could perhaps debate Clifton's historical significance, we have not sought a special use permit on the basis of converting an historical building to "commercial uses compatible in character" . We are applying to offer dinners on the basis of an established operation as a country inn presently licensed by the County to serve breakfasts under the tourist lodging provision. We are not making any substantial changes with respect to the property in order to do this. We simply wish to prepare dinners for our quests and a limited number of the general public, on a reservation basis only. 4 highway Service Business As the report itself suggests we are not a highway service business. We are a small intimate inn which has never appealed nor does it intend to appeal to the highway traveler or casual passerby. No adverse impact on rural area We agree with the staff that Clifton would have little direct effect on agriculture and forestry. Clifton' s "development", as such, not only respects the rural aspects of the Rivanna Magisterial district, it celebrates it. We invite you to tour our home and gardens. We believe that you will agree that we and our innkeepers have worked hard to achieve an enhancement of the country life in Albemarle County and an enrichment of all that it may offer to both our neighbors and our out of town guests. precedent Set for Commercial Development Staff suggests that while there would be no disturbance to the rural area caused by Clifton's petition, that it would set a precedent for commercial development. Presently, we are surrounded by: Luck Stone Quarry Robert Lea Co. , Inc. GOCO fuel and bulk service station S.L. Williamson Co. asphalt plant Shadwell convenience store and gas station and stone-Robinson Elementary School . Certainly it strikes us that in this area Clifton' s "development" is anything but negative. In fact, our proposal will preserve Clifton as an "oasis" in a rather commercial sector of the district. It is our understanding that the Special Use Permit designation is suited for this type of proposal . The purpose of the special use permit is to allow the County to select opportunities for exceptions from the zoning ordinance. In this context we believe that the Clifton proposal is truly exceptional and our "development" is not representative of other possible commercial applications in the area as -we have already existed for two years, demonstrating our responsible management and sensitivity to and respect for the rural designation, 5 nGrtvn ICLtLUI- ItK i -_ i -}- I:7 VVV I I -we are already surrounded by commercial operations far less compatible to the rural environment than Clifton. Rather than further eroding the rural environment, we improve it and -we have the enthusiastic support of our neighbors. Therefore, our requested exception should be granted. Staff Comment Monitoring of Usage Staff has cautioned concerning the monitoring of our usage. As indicated previously, we are self-restricted because of the common room space and we are self-motivated to limit the numbers because if we don't it would adversely affect the inn business which we have worked so hard to build. Lodging an Accessory? Staff comments that this application should be viewed primarily as a restaurant with lodging an accessory. Our response: 1. We started as an elegant inn, offering five (5) refined accommodations in an isolated country setting. With your approval, we will still be an inn, first and foremost, but an inn which will now be able to serve dinners as well as breakfasts to its guests and friends. 2 . This is, after all , a business -- a business operating, hopefully, to generate revenues (and that continues to contribute to the tax base) . The figures demonstrate that the inn and the restaurant are somewhat equal partners in this venture, with the lodging portion of our business probably bringing in substantially more revenue -- hardly what we would characterize as an "accessory" to the restaurant: Nightly Lodging Revenues : 7 rooms @ 130/night = $910 Nightly Dining Room Revenues: 25 diners @ ay. $25/person m $625. 6 3. We believe the figures speak for themselves and demonstrate our interest in maintaining the proper balance between the inn and the restaurant. Similarity to Inn Proposals We would respectfully disagree with the staff's conclusion that of two recent applications for inns (Keswick and Colston) that Colston is more similar to Clifton. It strikes me that we are quite different from both recent applications2 : 1. We are much smaller than Keswick and we currently operate as an inn, and simply want to be able to continue that operation with services provided by our staff rather than caterers. Also unlike Keswick, perhaps, we have operated successfully in the past and enjoy the enthusiastic support of our neighbors and others in the community. 2 . Our petition is the reverse of the others in the sense that we are located in a portion of the district that is already the site for industrial and commercial operations . Clifton is the serene, rural exception in the neighborhood. 3 . We do not wish to be more than what we presently are. We simply wish to offer additional dining services without changing the structure of our facility. 4 . Unlike other applicants, you know who we are and what we'll do: we'll maintain the refined and intimate estate feeling that has made Clifton so popular. Indeed, Clifton has been the site of dinners for a Supreme Court Justice and is extremely popular with the University Community as a site for lodging leading business executives and legal scholars. We hope to be able to continue to offer these services and to offer these same guests dinners -- a service which they have frequently requested in the past. 2 see Attachment II for comparison with Colston. 7 Distinguished from Fl1ure Applicants We are distinguished from future prospects because we are currently operating and already have our lodging and dining facility in place. Prior to opening two (2) years ago, we were advised by the County and by others that we should operate as a bed and breakfast under the tourist lodging provision, in order to demonstrate to the community our responsible approach to serving the public. In fact, while we had room to accommodate more than five overnight lodging rooms, we limited our facility to five rooms, so that we came within the tourist lodging statute. We did this at considerable financial sacrifice, but with the knowledge that in the long run that this might allow us to do what we are requesting in this petition. we have, in fact, demonstrated our ability to be a positive element in the community, and our operations have been approved by our neighbors and the community. We are as:zing to slightly expand our operations in a way that will not change the use of the property, would not involve substantial physical or structural changes to the property, and, as the staff points out, would clearly not disturb the rural area. Further, we are proposing to do so with our neighbors wholehearted approval. We hope with yours too. Conclusic We respectfully request approval of our proposal limited to seven (7) overnight lodging rooms and otherwise consistent with the staff's final recommendation (approval of the full Clifton proposal) , including Alternate Condition 1. Thank you for your time and consideration in reviewing this letter and our file. Very truly yours, T. Mitchell Willey Emil alley Attachments 8 Attachment I DOCUMENTEI2 HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE Or CLTFTON o Clifton was a part of Peter Jefferson's original Shadwell estate which was, in turn, deeded to Thomas Jefferson. o Clifton was included in that portion of the Shadwell estate which Thomas Jefferson deeded to his eldest daughter, Martha, as a wedding gift upon her marriage to Thomas Mann Randolph. o Thomas Mann Randolph, an early Governor of Virginia and the father of Thomas Jefferson's only surviving and legitimate heirs built the first structures at Clifton and lived at Clifton for a period of time shortly before returning to Monticello and reconciling with the Jefferson family just before his death in 1828 . o Clifton was an early warehouse for the port at Milton, and, as such, was the focus of one of Thomas Mann Randolph's business efforts locally. Indeed, the marble stone sitting at the present entrance to Clifton is reputedly a remnant of a column destined for the University Rotunda which broke on the dock at the Milton port just below Clifton. o It is also believed that the grounds at Clifton were planned and designed by Thomas Jefferson, or at least by one of his proteges ; the multiple terracing, for instance, are illustrative of his influence. attachment iI pIFFER BE WE TO GOLSTON APPLICATIONS With respect to the Colston application, the staff indicates that they see no difference between that and the application of Clifton. We do. 1. We are not seeking a special use permit on the basis of historic classification. 2 . We are presently operating -- responsibly and to the pleasure of our neighbors -- and are serving a need in this community. We are a known quantity and one that has met with great acceptance. 3 . Colston was not planning to operate in an area surrounded by industrial/commercial operations. 4 . Colston was attempting a start-up operation. There were no histories and no guarantees to its sensitivity to the area. Clifton has amply demon'trated its recognition of the rural desig- "tion and has done an excellent job of demonstrating this respect through its own operations. 5. Colston, as the record indicates, did not request restaurant usage, beyond serving its guests. 6 . In the end, Colston was apparntly granted all that they wished, conditioned upon their historical designation. Clearly, Clifton has requested restaurant usage for both its guests and some of the members of the public on a reservation basis only. It is our opinion that Clifton is different from other applicants, either those which have been reviewed by the Planning Commission previously, or future prospects and should be considered on its individual merits. 10 r 2D B h. 2A " " I2C . 78 - . to, 5„,. illillillillillllllllilillilljlllllllI 48 4C 1` 4f3 �RS�ATE ■ *4 X fill RO(/ TE c 0 R 1W C 4 t, 4 3 A 4 ' �� Y _— — 4f( Rt 22 RA :r 4N - - } i tl tNlNttlt►NNMiil S�� 4d 4F u q Uu ill l I,2 f-7E N1M1t11N1i1WN � ` 4 H 4 G R it 8r� SECTION 79A N R \' 17 B 7A '' ' SHA�WELL g 17C NN►uultut u l - A/V� lu unuuil 17 16 15 2 f - ttll� 20 _ -T 21 t 1 PEAKS D IS T RI°111 R 5A VANNA �. ►7A 24A GN 22 3 Rivonno tsT N R 23A �45 0 - � 246 SCOTTSVILLE 23o � t. / J /\ SHADW LL M ILTO N I D 3 6 D/�/ 2_3E \,,� STATES HEI HTS"..__ ' C 3 /3r S CT10 "�' C SECT 10 N 2 / r.. i' 43 A 23 B - / 36C Q r 41 t �S6 4 3 42/" 25A v 42 A 40 X •� 25B ` 38 - - -r- - 3J 43K �� 37 \ ��i,tNNNt 25C i 33 43G 34 25 H 43L 43M 4 3` 3 6 B 26 36A 32 31 430 � 29 ' f k 43 P 4 4 , .� I � 35 g SN 28 4 �71 0- 4 , ✓ y.J + ` 'RIV.'NrIA AND SCALE IN FEET..' Y _ F T�, 600 0 600 1200 logo 2400 , O N SCOTTSVILLE DtSTRI TS,