Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198700049 Action Letter 1987-07-21 4 ,IftG(Nl� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 July 22, 1987 Clifton - The Country Inn c/o Clifton Rt. 9, Box 412 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP-87-49 Mitchell and Emily Willey Dear Mr. & Ms. Wiley: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 21, 1987, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 . Approval is limited to six ( 6) rooms for overnight travellers and a fifty ( 50) seat restaurant. Except for lodging guests 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. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 5, 1987 . Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, KC4,1./1/4k6264 Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning RSK/jcw cc: Jesse Hurt Bob Jenkins Jack Collins Kathy Brittain Dan Roosevelt SP-87-49 T. Mitchell Emily Willey - Request in acc^,Rance with Section 4 10.2.2.24 and 10.2.2.__ of the Zoning Ordinance to al] existing (Clifton) tourist lodge to expand to an inn with restaurant. Property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 23B is located on the east side of Rt. 729, `south of Rt. 250E. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the stiff report. Mr. Keeler also called the Commission's attention to three letters of support which had been received. Mr. Keeler made additional comments, including some changes to the staff report, as follows: --The applicant also owns parcel 23C which gives frontage on Rt. 729 from the end of the school property to the river, thus obtaining sight distance should not be a major concern. --The applicant is proposing seven lodging rooms, not six as stated in the staff report. Mr. Keeler noted that six rooms were advertised, thus Mr. Payne should advise as to whether or not the Commission can approve anumber greater than was advertised. --Though the staff report implied that the existing operation might possibly be violating zoning regulations, Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant has shown that the current operation was "condoned by someone in the County." --Though the building is not eligible for designation as a National Historic Place, it has not yet been finally decided as to whether or not the building has some historic value. Mr. Keeler advised the applicant that it would be to his benefit to have a determination made by the State before the Board hearing. --Though the location of the building is not "particularly oriented towards 'highway' business" the applicant has demonstrated that he holds local contracts and has an established business. July 21, 1987 Page 3 Mr. Gould asked Mr. Keeler to explain the difference between an . inn vs. a restaurant. Mr. Keeler explained three sections which deal with this type of use: 10.2.2.24 - Motel; 10.2.2.26-Restaurants located on or adjacent to motel premises; and 10.2.2.27 - Restaurants located within an historic landmark. He stated he had been operating under section 10.2.2.27 but apparently the applicant had applied under section 10.2.2.24 as a motel. Mr. Gould asked Mr. Payne to comment on the issue of the additional room which had not been advertised. Mr. Payne responsed: "I think it depends on how significant you view the number to be. I think historically you've answered that question by saying 'You can't have what's more intensive than what you advertised. ' So the real question is 'Is this really more intensive than what you advertised? ' I don't know that there is a whole lot of difference between those two numbers under these circumstances and I think it would be a defensible position if you were to say that the one extra room is not significant in this case--the nature of the use is not changed. On the other hand, if you strictly adhere to your historical precedent, you would say that it would be limited to six." Mr. Keeler added that the letters which had been mailed to adjacent property owners had stated: "To allow existing Clifton Tourist Lodge to expand to an inn with restaurant." Mr. Gould also asked Mr. Payne to comment on the question of whether or not the existing operation was in compliance with the Ordinance. Mr. Payne stated he had had a very brief conversation with the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Burgess, in relation to this issue and though he was not certain of Mr. Burgess' position, Mr. Burgess did not seem to think it was "a matter of great moment." Mr. Payne stressed that he was not familiar enough with the situation to give a definitive opinion as to its legality, i.e. the additional use of cocktail parties and wedding receptions. He added, however, that Mr. Burgess had mentioned one thing which suggested that it is not technically in compliance, that being that such uses are considered accessory if the owner is living in the residence, but if the owner is no longer living in the residence, then it is not lawful. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mitchell Willey addressed the Commission. He presented photographs of Clifton. He briefly explained the proposal and gave a short history of the inn. He stated it was his desire to create an intimate, small inn in an elegant country setting. He stated that the community has been very supportive. Additional comments included the following: --No real changes in the use of the property are proposed; --No structural changes are required for this type of dining facility; --There will be no disturbance to the land or to neighboring property; --There will be no disturbance to the rural designation; --The facility has neighborhood support; --The application should not be considered precedent setting because one purpose of a special permit is to allow for exceptions for exceptional cases. July 21, 1987 'age 4 • *Regarding the issue of cocktail parties and wedding receptions, he stated "We were advised by the County that that was permissable as long as the serving is done by a licensed caterer." The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Pete Craddock, speaking both for himself and as President of the Stone-Robinson PTO, expressed his support for the proposal. He stressed this was the type of neighbor the community desired rather than some type of commercial development. Mr. Tom Dwight, operator of the Silver Thatch Inn, addressed the Commission. Mr. Dwight was concerned because he felt the proposal was seeking exemptions from regulations that other restaurants in the area must abide by. He felt that the existing operation did not comply with the "intent of the law." He was concerned about sight distance requirements. He stated that the facility does not have a commercial entrance and this will cause problems not only with delivery vehicles, but also with emergency vehicles. He questioned the adequacy of parking provisions. He felt the facility should meet the same requirements for a commercial kitchen as similar establishments in the area. He questioned the adequacy of the soils to support a drainfield for this type of operation. He questioned whether proper ABC permit procedures had been followed for some of the past events held at the facility. Mr. Dwight felt the zoning was not proper for this type of facility and approval of this application would be setting a precedent. In response to some of Mr. Dwight's concerns, Mr. Gould explained that the ABC requirements were not an issue before the Commission. He also explained that sight distance and parking requirements would be adressed at the time of site plan review and if ordinance requirements could not be mct, the proposal would not be approved. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould stated his main concern was the impact on the surrounding area and he was of the opinion that the proposal would not negatively impact the area. Mr. Wilkerson noted that he was familar with this area and found it to be impressive. He moved that SP-87-40 for T. Mitchell and Emil} Willey bu recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is limited to six (6) rooms for overnight travellers and a fifty (50) seat restaurant. Except for lodging guests and occasional luncheous, 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. • July 21, 1987 _'age 5 3. Building and Fire Official approvals. c Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Michel asked Mr. Payne to comment on the precedent issue. Mr. Payne was uncertain as to what Mr. Michel was asking. Mr. Michel gave as an example: "Could Colston come back, based upon this being a precedent, and (request) a major dining facility?" Mr. Payne responded: "They certainly could ask for it. Whether it would be appropriate to grant it would be an issue that you would have to take up at that time. It's so axiomatic to say the character of the area is what you consider that I'm almost embarrassed to say it. . . .I think it's really a question of how you evaluate it on a case-by-case basis." Mr. Payne noted that, prior to 1840, many of these buildings went back-and-forth from private use to public use. He stated: "I don't know that you can say that the mere fact of changing from one use to the other is in itself particularly precedent setting. It is precedent setting in the sense that once you have done it once, it can be cited, however accurately or inaccurately, again." The Chairman called for a vote on the previously stated motion. The motion for approval passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on August 5, 1987.