Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP198700049 Staff Report 1987-07-21 STAFF REPORT HEARINGS: JULY 21, 1987, PC AUGUST 5, 1987 , BOS STAFF PERSON: RONALD S. KEELER SP-87-49 T. 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. 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. Virginia Department of Transportation recommends a commercial entrance to serve the property with a minimum of 550 feet of sight distance. Virginia Department of Transportation notes that "there is only 400 feet of sight distance for a vehicle turning left into this property and the problem is caused by the slope across the road and possible a vertical curve on Route 729. To obtain the necessary sight distance in this direction would require grading and possibly a sight easement on the school property and on Luck Stone. The sight distance is 535 feet to the north and 545 feet to the south (See Attachment A) . The Clifton property has only about 100 feet of frontage on Route 729 and it may not be possible to relocate the entrance to obtain sight distance. As commented by Virginia Department of Transportation at a minimum, improvement of the entrance would require easement( s) and substantial grading of a rocky embankment across Route 729. Applicant' s Proposal (See Attachment B) The applicant proposes six lodging rooms and restaurant seating capacity for 50 people. The applicant also states an intent to serve not more than 35 diners per night and that the 50 person capacity is sought solely to satisfy Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations. While the County can impose a 35 or 50 diner per night or other such limitation, enforcement of such regulation for practical purposes would be self imposed. 1 From the applicant' s submittal, it is apparent that confusion exists about the existing Clifton operation. Zoning clearance has been issued for tourist lodging (Please see Zoning Ordinance definition) . However, actual use appears to exceed that provision to include cocktail parties and wedding receptions. The dining area currently has seating capacity for 32 persons. 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" (Page 130) . The plan also recommends that highway service businesses which rely on the interstate traveller as a market including hotels, motels, and restaurants be considered for location at selected interchanges of I-64. The plan further states that "random, individual locations of highway service businesses should be discouraged. " In regard to the Rural Areas, the Comprehensive Plan states 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. " Regarding these Comprehensive Plan recommendations, staff offers the following comments: 1 . Historic significance of Clifton has not been established, though some historic/cultural value may be identifiable; 2 . The nearest interstate interchange to Clifton is at Shadwell. While not located at an interchange, access to I-64 is relatively direct by Route 250 East; 3 . Due to existing development in the area, staff opinion is that Clifton would have little direct effect on agriculture and forestry, however, approval would set precedent for commercial development in the general area; 4 . The proposal, as stated, may not be particularly oriented towards "highway" business. The Comprehensive Plan is currently under revision. The Planning Commission has reaffirmed its intent that the rural areas be devoted to agricultural/forestal uses as opposed to residential and commercial development. In November, 1986, staff recommended that should zoning revision follow Comprehensive Plan adoption, consideration should be given to elimination of uses from the Rural Areas zone including motels and restaurants which bear no relation to the Rural Areas intent. Motels and restaurants are accommodated in several urban commercial zones. 2 STAFF COMMENT In the past, staff has cautioned about conditions of approval which require monitoring as opposed to physical design to limit intensity of usage. Therefore, a limitation of service to be provided to not more than 35 or 50 diners per night should be viewed as ineffective. Also, with six lodging rooms and seating for 50 persons, staff would recommended that this petition be viewed primarily as a restaurant with lodging usage as accessory. Historically, the County has been conservative towards zoning provisions for restaurants in the Rural Areas, permitting them only by special use permit under very limited circumstances: 10. 2. 2. 26 Restaurants located on or adjacent to motel premises. 10 . 2. 2. 27 Restaurants located within an historic landmark as designated in the Comprehensive Plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn, in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. Since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, two petitions for inns in the Rural Areas have been approved. In the case of Keswick, the request was part of a much larger project which included restoration/rehabilitation of the Keswick Country Club and Golf Course. Therefore, Keswick was an extraordinary situation not comparable in staff opinion to the Clifton proposal. The other approval was for an inn at Colston. As can be seen from the Planning Commission minutes (Attachment C) , emphasis was placed on the historic value of the structure as justification for approval of the request. While the record does not show that the applicant desired restaurant usage for non-lodging quests, explicit condition was attached (SP-85-08 Edgar Robb - Colston Inn) : Approval is limited to four ( 4) rooms for overnight travellers with no restaurant facilities beyond that necessary to serve residents of the inn. Staff can determine no circumstance to distinguish the Clifton request from the Colston approval. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors wish to bring portions of the existing Clifton operation into zoning Conformance: 1. Approval is limited to six ( 6) rooms for overnight travellers with no restaurant facilities beyond that necessary to serve residents of the inn; 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 3 . Building and Fire Official approvals. 4. This approval does not constitute approval for cocktail parties, wedding receptions and the like; provided that this approval shall not be deemed to limit in any fashion interpretation by the Zoning Administrator. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve the full Clifton proposal, staff recommends an alternate Condition 1 (Condition 4 would be deleted) : 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. 4 ALBEMARLE COUNT'i 1 63 1 \ NI 1 A/ 5A \ ci 46 � \ )(.--/' \' ' \ , \ X. s\ '--), ( '\)( 't \ A> \ \ —21——7 .\ r (\ic, i \I/ __. \ 1.‘ tio° Ai / i 1\ \ \,,,,6 \ 1 r I I � \\ _,, )\1(2 \ ,.. ,. (2 I... � I I \ I @A \ . v / , i , ii . \, .- ii\ 1\ 0 . - I' '...';1 i I 2A / . , a. i \ y 12:\ — 80 78 - —_—_ ___t 5 \ 9 /V \. er4r 1� - olill--.4k A24,( \,, / 4r \ ROUT f ��I \ / e J�_54 i,a3. a \ I1� fU 22 4f R� 250 ��/�� r /�d1, ©�b � �, secnaa 7•a /// . 7 176 7A fiNELL Ilpir:,, ay.,\6 i i ',',,,i ........ �/���/���j AND � 17 Ip .,,� i/CNESAPE� _� L.A 4p • -IY' °O • \ 2,611 / -1 r A771;�/ l 23E r 23 •�� / Tf3 / \�\ /%7 --__,.=___ /- _AtiSt 1 1* ex ..y / A 43A r--= \ I,,Z . '/i ��. 43 / 7 YSA , // \ 42 ,�:�•� 23B 73 � -I _r.� WO / � 37; SP 87— 41 W/c.Ly / ;;; , 4,0 36A 43" Ct.../ I mo/ t /NH I\.V571•v 3 SCALE IN FEET RIVANNA AND SECTION 79 •°° "° 600 "" SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICTS rJ I • r , i" t r .. 1 4' ' , . I. i 1 • . ''''. .::;',":•::,:.4.,": . • \ r'��'q4� . tr :• E w1-. `i . ri 7. 2-,.:::,: .` 1-,, I . . \ • . y, f 111 O^, a O t ' 1 ii 7.85 ACRES Z• . ee C•1 .3' 1 � 1 • 1 ! I 1 !I i b q G e` ' t g QV +• • • HIV•' A 1. NY,'"r o0 ti • • { 1 .l It tN✓.r•Si t.•N1,1. pr E•5 ACRES RESIDENCE TRACT • ,:'• a+4. CLIFTON 11 o c/r YpM{;.1!. ALB E MARL E CuUNIV, VIRGINIA N tr• St1111uM ICOtI•+ 1'. 1Do WC 1/ NIS , 1'rli t•NU rs,,. B. AUDRET HUFFMAN a ASSOC _ ••• INl/NIIAINII IvOrlr.".q CNIOL 0rT/SYltte.•• �.�...'•._• .. 1r... 4•.4 ,.1.--- • VIRGINIA' • IN THE news OFFICE OF ALOCKARLR CIRCUIT COURTt t slit1 I • ,•414. aaaA Will* nresente' to me in said office and with certificate . Ji .' l. w 1�t !! • {,I,CJt -`4naw • •"""U UI V VISION COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O BOX 2013 RAY D. PETHTEL CHARLOTTESVILLE,22902 D. S. ROOSEVELT COMMISSIONER June 12, 1987 RESIDENT ENGINEER Special Use Permits & Rezonings for June 1987 Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning Department of Planning & Conmunity Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Keeler: The following are our comments: 1. ZMA-87-7 Jefferson Square Shopping Center, Route 29 North - This rezoning would probably generate more traffic under the PDSC zoning than the individual properties would generate under the HC zoning. A regional shopping center on 371/2 acres would allow for more diverse and possibly larger stores than each individual property would have. Some of these properties already have zoning proffers on them, and the Department recommends that these previous proffers still be applied concerning the access and traffic generation volumes. The road improvements and control of access that this request would do, should offset the impact of increased traffic volumes from this ZMA. The Route 29 North Corridor Study shows the crossover at Woodbrook Drive to remain open. 2. ZMA-87-6 Crutchfield, Route 606 - This request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plans. This section of Route 606 is currently non-tolerable. 3. SP-87-49 T. Mitchell & Emily Willey, Route 729 - The Department recommends that the existing gravel entrance serving this property be upgraded to a paved commercial entrance. A minimum of 550' of sight distance is required and the existing entrance does not have this. There is only 400' of sight distance for a vehicle turning left into this property and the problem is caused by the slope across the road and possibly a vertical curve on Route 729. To obtain the TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 0 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Mr. Ronald S. Keeler Page 2 Special Use Permits June 12, 1987 & Rezonings for June 1987 necessary sight distance in this direction, would require grading and possibly a sight easement on the school property and on Luck Stone. The sight distance at the intersection of the existing entrance and Route 729 is also not adequate. The sight distance is 535' to the north and 545' to the south. Should additional information be needed, please let us know. Yours truly, D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer - a By: J. A. Echols Ass't. Resident Engineer JAE/dlc cc: Mr. J. F. Coates V Description of Request: "Clifton" is an historic estate currently operating as an "inn" under the tourist lodging statute Section 10. 22 . 24 . Clifton has five sleeping accomodations which include breakfast service. Clifton opened as an "inn" in late 1985. Clifton is seeking a special use permit to offer additional meals to our guests. We do not wish to be physically larger than we presently are, nor are we proposing changing the present nature of Clifton. We are simply proposing to use it more fully so that we may better serve our guests. To cater to our guests ' requests we wish to offer evening meals on a regular basis. The economics of doing so require that we avail our dining room - on a reservation basis only - to the public. To maintain the integrity and tranquility of Clifton it is our desire to serve approximately thirty-five diners each evening. As a convenience to our dinner guests we would also seek to be licensed by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. It is our understanding that to be so licensed under statute Section. 10. 22 . 26 it is necessary to have the capacity to serve fifty diners and also to have six or more rooms. We presently have UAL-- physical capacity to host that many guests, but wish to make it clear that it is our preference not to use our space in this way. We wish to remain the small, tranquil, secluded place we presently are. It is our ambition to simply provide full , tasteful and quiet service to our guests and our neighbors. Clifton' s entire staff lives on the premises. With the exception of the chef, this situation would remain unchanged. The twenty-five additional dining room chairs we prospose to offer to the public would generate five to ten additional vehicles coming-and-going each day. Offset by our ten guests nor., leaving for dinner (in their five vehicles) we believe the net traffic imput of our proposal is negligible and unnoticeable. Moreover, neither Clifton nor its parking lot can be viewed from the road and thus does not create any interest with passerby traffic. We view there to be no potential negative impact associated with our request. Rather we hope to continue to become an even more positive and contributing member of our community and neighborhood. SP-85-8 Edgar Robb - Request to locate a country inn on ±6 . 0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas . (Conversion of existing historical structure) . Property, described as Tax Map 73 , Parcel 33 , Lot 1, is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersections of State Routes 708 and 637 . Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Donnelly gave the staff report. He added that the applicant had submitted additional information but the staff had not yet . had time to review the information. It was determined a main issue of this proposal is whether or not this structure has ever served as an inn. Mr. Donnelly stated staff would be able to recommend favorably on the application if such previous use could be determined. Mr. Payne stated he had reviewed the additional information very briefly, and he had not seen any definitive evidence that the structure was, or was not, an inn. Mr. Keeler stated the applicants, the Elders are attempting to have this building placed on the Historic Landmarks Registry and the preliminary report from that commission will not be available until April 15 , and this is scheduled to be heard by the Board on April 17 . He stated staff feels that this matter must be dealt with very carefully, i.e. basing approval on representations as to the historic character of a structure. 'i9 March 19 , 1985 Page 7 Mr. Keeler also stated the main consideration in this matter is the importance of this to the architectural and historical sig- nificance of the County. He stated staff is hesitant at this time without some sort of written verification from either the Virginia Landmarks Register or the National Register of Historic Places . It was determined the report from the Virginia Landmarks Register would be available on April 15 , but it would not actually be placed on the Register at that time. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Rick Thompson, representing the applicants, addressed the Commission. He stated he was an architectural historian and had done extensive research on this building. He offered the following comments: --A deed trace has been done as far back as 1850 . --Two structures existed on the property and can be docu- mented through the will of Richard Woods (1801) and through insurance records (1799 and 1805) . --Those insurance records show drawings of the structure and give dimensions , locations, etc . --A description in the insurance records describe the structure as a "dwelling and tavern" . --Order Book records (1791 and 1793) "ordinary" licenses were issued to Richard Woods . --The insurance records show conclusively (Mr. Thompson felt) that the house was in existence in 1799 and 1805 . Mr. Thompson stated he has been in contact with Mr. Jeff Bodel (Virginia Historic Landmarks) and Mr. Bodel is familiar with the house and feels it is imminently qualified both through its architectural characteristics and its historic importance and its association with persons of local historic importance. Mr. Thompson added that the applicants only plan dining facilities to serve the resident guests and have no desire to open a restaurant, though he pointed out a restaurant is permitted under criteria 27 of what is available by special use permit in RA areas . He said what is contemplated is essentially a Bed and Breakfast arrangement. He also stated the applicants will not be residing in the inn. He stated that he had no doubt the property would receive Historic Landmark designation, and he explained that without such designation restoration would not be economically feasible because it would not qualify for tax credits and and could not be operated as a quasi-commercial enterprise. Mr. Thompson stated there were no problems with the conditions outlined by staff. Regarding No. 3--No expansion beyond the original limits of the structure--he stated it might be necessary March 19, 1985 Page 8 to go beyond the original structure to provide for modern con- veniences, such as a bathroom. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Higginson once again addressed the Commission and stated the chimney on the structure is dated 1809 . Mr. Keeler suggested the following as an additional condition of approval which he felt would satisfy the issue of the building' s possible historic significance: • Planning Commission has recommended favorably on this petition under representation by the applicant that written verification from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their public hearing as to the historic/architectural/cultural significance of the structures and that the same received substantial usage as an inn. He explained this condition would mean that if the applicant does not receive a favorable written statement from the Virginia Landmarks Register by the April 17 Board meeting, the Board date would have to be postponed. Mr. Payne pointed out that in the past the Commission has been more inclined to approve this type of usage if it is a return to a historic usage. He said that in this case , the structure may be found to be architecturally and historically significant, but not significant as an inn. He said he felt Mr. Keeler ' s condition requires that both of these factors be determined. Mr. C.J. Elder, the contract purchaser of the property, addressed the Commission. Having gone through this before with the 1740 House, he stated he is familiar with the process and he is very encouraged that the structure in question will receive Historic Landmark designation. He explained a Preliminary Information report has been filed with the Virginia Landmarks Commission and the matter will be heard by the State Review Board on April 16 . He emphasized that the actual determination will not be made on April 16 , but it will be determined if the property is worthy of nomination. He explained the entire process would take 3 or 4 months . In view of the time involved with this process and the fact that the applicant had indicated the project would not be economically feasible without the official designation, Mr. Bowerman suggested that adding a condition which would require that this designation be obtained in order for the special use permit to be approved would satisfy the Commission' s concerns . Mr. Payne stated he did not feel this was proper since he felt it was not proper for the Board to delegate its legislative • March 19 , 1985 Page 9 authority to another body. He explained the difference in the condition stated by Mr. Keeler and what was being suggested by Mr. Bowerman is that Mr. Keeler ' s is a data condition and Mr. Bowerman' s a determinative one. Mr. Elder confirmed that approximately 99% of all requests that are determined worthy of nomination do actually receive the designation. He also indicated that he would have no problem with a condition requiring Historic Landmark designation; however, he indicated he would have a problem with a condition that would require that previous use as an inn must be proven. The following neighboring property owners addressed the Commission and indicated they were strongly in favor of the proposal : Ms . Elizabeth Webber, Mr. Robert Finley and Ms . Jan Redick. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he was in favor of the petition. He felt Mr. Thompson' s information had shown that at some time in the past an inn did exist on this site. It was determined no current definition for "country inn" exists in the Ordinance. Ms. Diehl stated she felt the proposal does not meet criteria (2) and (3) as stated in the staff report, but that it does meet criterion (1) and she indicated she was in favor of the application. Mr. Michel suggested that condition (1) be changed to read as follows: • Structures, and/or any expansion thereof, to be restored to the architectural character of the period, in accordance with the guidelines established by the National Register of Historic Places. Mr.. Payne indicated this was acceptable. He added that the purpose of this condition was to insure the preservation of the building in its historic character. Mr. Michel moved that SP-85-8 for Edgar Robb be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (It was determined that staff ' s original condition (3) could be deleted. ) 1. Structures , and/or any expansion thereof, to be restored to the architectural character of the period, in accordance with the guidelines established by the National Register of Historic Places. • March 19 , 1985 Page 10 2 . Approval is limited to four (4) rooms for overnight travellers with no restaurant facilities beyond that necessary to serve residents of the inn. 3 . Site Plan approval. 4 . Approval of signage at site plan review to ensure signs are of a design appropriate to the architecture of the period. 5 . Building and Fire Official approvals . 6 . Planning Commission has recommended favorably on this petition under representation by the applicant that written verifi- cation from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission will be presented to the Board of Supervisors at their public hearing as to the historic/architectural/cultural significance of the structures and that the same received substantial usage as an inn. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion. Regarding the addition of condition 6 (previously referred to as condition 7) , Mr. Bowerman stated he was in favor of omitting the last three words since the applicant has indicated it would be 3-4 months before final determination can be made as to the usage, and he understood that Mr. Payne had suggested that that not be included as a permanent condition of the approval because it would be delegating authority to another legislative body. Mr. Payne pointed out that while it is possible that an inn may have existed on this site, this particular structure may have never actually served as an inn. He felt the information that had been presented was sketchy and should be researched further, and that is the intent of condition 6 . He confirmed that this condition would guarantee that it must be determined that the structure was used as an inn. Mr. Bowerman indicated he was still concerned that the informa- tion required by condition 6 would not be available by the time the matter is heard by the Board, thus they will not be able to • make a determination. Mr. Michel stated he felt Mr. Thompson would be able to furnish further information to satisfy the Board. Mr. Thompson stated he felt this structure was documented as a tavern as well as any structure could be documented for the 18th century. Staff indicated they were satisfied with the conditions as previously stated. In answer to Mr. Skove' s inquiry, Mr. Keeler explained that Bed and Breakfast can only be offered within a single-family home which is being used as a dwelling, and guest cottages cannot be used for this purpose. S March 19 , 1985 Page 11 Mr. Payne stated the main issue here is that a commercial use allows preferential tax treatment, and Mr. Keeler pointed out that the structure cannot be used as a dwelling if it is to be eligible for the tax. The previously stated motion for approval of SP-85-8 was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on April 17 , 1985 .