Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600015 Minutes 2016-12-06 .r a Mr. Keller noted that this request would be moving forward to the Board of Supervisors. Public Hearing Items ZMA-2016-00015 Oakleigh MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000026A0 LOCATION: Located on the south side of Rio Road West across from its intersection with Woodburn Road PROPOSAL: Amend previously approved Proffers, Code of Development and Application Plan to allow a 140-bed assisted living facility on the rear half of the site.The amended plan also seeks to allow the site to develop according to the existing approved Application Plan with a revised Code of Development and Proffers. PETITION: Rezone 8.82 acres from Neighborhood Model district which allows residential uses . mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units per acre to Neighborhood Model district which allows residential uses mixed with commercial;service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units per acre. This request seeks to amend the Code of Development to add a 140-bed assisted living facility in Blocks III, IV or V of a revised Application Plan, which would reduce the total maximum dwelling units from 109 units at a density of 12.3 units per acre to 36 units at a,density of 4 0 units per acre. This request also seeks to preserve the ability to develop the existing approved Application Plan that proposes a maximum of 109 dwelling units at 12.3 units per acre. Under either Application Plan, the request seeks to amend Proffers #1, 2, 4 and 6 as follows: amend Proffer #1 to provide $19,100 cash per required affordable housing unit to meet the 15%Affordable Requirement after the certificate of occupancy is issued for the 52"d dwelling unit(the existing proffer requires constructing 7.5% of total required affordable housing units and providing $19,100 cash in lieu of 7.5% remaining required affordable housing units), amend Proffer #2 to reduce cash proffers from $17,500 to $7,333.18 for each single-family detached dwelling, from $11,900 to $5,447 57 for each single-family attached dwelling that is not an affordable dwelling unit, and from $12,400 to $7,419.91 for each multi- family dwelling unit that is not an affordable unit; amend Proffer#4 to reduce the number of trees - preserved under the plan with an assisted living facility from 39 trees to 13 trees and reduce the required bonding from'$29,000 to $10,000; eliminate Proffer#6 which required additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a sediment removal rate of 80% for the property. OVERLAYS: Entrance Corridor(EC), Steep Slopes (Managed) and Airport Impact Area (AIA) PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential — residential (6.01 — 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses and Urban Mixed Use (in Centers); supporting uses such as retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space in Neighborhood 1 of the Places29 Master Plan. (JT Newberry) Mr. Newberry summarized the staff report for ZMA-2016-00015 Oakleigh in a PowerPoint presentation, referencing an aerial map and stating that the property is located on Rio Road West near the intersection with Route 29. He stated that the property is adjacent to the Charlottesville Health and Rehabilitation Center and the Garden Spot, and is located near Berkmar Crossing, which is further to the east on Rio Road. Mr. Newberry presented a Comprehensive Plan map, noting that the property is designated urban density residential with a small portion of urban mixed use in centers. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 6 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 o , As an overview of the project, Mr. Newberry reported that in 2008, the property was rezoned from R-6 to Neighborhood Model Development to approve up to 109 dwelling units and close to 30,000 square feet of commercial space. He said that the applicant pursued site plan approval for that rezoning, obtaining approval for 108 dwelling units — 70 of which were condos — and 14,400 square_feet of commercial space. Mr. Newberry stated that the applicant is currently seeking to amend the original rezoning approval to permit an assisted living facility with up to 140 beds, approximately 56,000 square feet, and construct a minimum of 14 dwelling units and 28,800 square feet of commercial space. He noted that this would include a revised code of development and proffers, and the applicant is also seeking to maintain the original layout approved under the original rezoning in 2007, which would also be subject to the revised code of development and proffers. Mr. Newberry referenced a map of-the site, stating that under Scenario A, Building A is in block one; Building B is in block two; a commercial building as Building C is in block three; there are six townhomes in block four; and the assisted living facility is in block five. He stated that under Scenario B, the original layout approved in 2007, had many more buildings. Mr. Newberry said that the form and uses for buildings A and B are identical, the perimeter landscaping and buffers around the site are essentially the same; and the revised code of development would permit non- residential uses throughout the development. Mr. Newberry stated that Scenario A would have less greenspace and trees than Scenario B, but the arborist working for the applicant has stated that the most significant trees that were part of the original approval would be maintained under Scenario A. He noted that a much desired emergency access connection would be pursued with Scenario A, which would connect the Charlottesville Health and Rehabilitation Center to the back of this site. Mr. Newberry stated that Scenario A would likely generate less traffic and school-age children than Scenario B's mainly residential development, which may also result in more. constructed affordable housing than the cash in lieu of construction under Scenario A. Mr. Newberry stated that the applicant provided sufficient justification for revised cash proffers under Scenario A, and the applicant's presentation would include specific numbers for that justification. He said that staff and the applicant worked with the Finance Department, Economic Development, and the County Assessor, to evaluate the justification and the numbers in the applicant's presentation Mr. Newberry said that for Scenario B, staff did 'not find sufficient justification to grant the by-right credit from the original R-6 zoning, or to revise the cash proffer amounts originally accepted Mr. Newberry said that Scenario A is consistent with the Comp Plan, and the assisted living facility would provide a needed housing type for seniors, and staff spoke with the Director of Social Services about the type of housing available for low-income seniors—and the applicant confirmed that the proposed developer would be able to accept auxiliary grants for low-income seniors. He stated that the assisted living facility would support a targeted industry, would provide a targeted access, and under Scenario A the site would likely generate higher tax revenues than Scenario B. Mr. Newberry said that for unfavorable factors, the proposed cash proffers are not in keeping with the cash proffer policy in place when the site was originally approved; Scenario A would have less greenspace and trees, although the arborist's report notes that the most significant ones would be retained; and the minimum required number of dwelling units may not result in development that would be consistent with the urban density residential designation. Mr. Newberry presented a list of outstanding issues and recommended changes, stating that staff recommends that the original cash proffers be retained for Scenario B, as well as those for tree preservation and affordable housing. He said that in order to ensure that Scenario B would hit the minimum dwelling recommended by this designation, staff recommends that the code of ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 7 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 development be revised to require 53 dwelling units, and asked that Scenario A be clarified so that layout is available only if the assisted living use is established Mr Newberry stated that there are also some technical changes that will likely be required to clarify the administration for Scenario A and Scenario B to take place, and staff recommends some written indication that the adjoining site is agreeable to the emergency access connection. STAFF SUMMARY Staff believes that the proposed rezoning under Scenario A would be advantageous to the county and not create adverse impacts. After looking at potential tax revenues, staff may also be able to affirm that the value of the tax revenue mitigates the impacts of the residential uses such that no cash proffers for residential units would be necessary. Staff does not agree with the applicant that a) cash proffers should only apply to units 53-109, based on zoning that preceded the 2007 amendment and b) that the amounts be reduced to those recommended by FIAC. Development under Scenario B will create impacts from all residential units. In keeping with the Board of Supervisors' most recent actions on requests to reduce the cash proffer amount, staff cannot support the applicant's proposed reduction to cash proffers. Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The proposed uses in Scenario A are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for use and density. 2. The proposed assisted living facility will provide a needed housing-type for seniors. 3 The proposed assisted living facility supports a targeted industry under the County's Economic Development Policy. 4. A required emergency access will provide an inter-parcel connection that addresses a known deficiency in emergency access to an existing facility. 5. An assisted living facility and commercial uses in Scenario A will provide higher tax revenues than Scenario B and may create sufficient tax revenue to mitigate impacts from residential uses on the property. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 1. The proposed cash proffers are not in keeping with the cash proffer policy in place when the zoning was originally approved. - 2. Scenario A would result in less greenspace and fewer trees being preserved than what is currently required under the existing zoning. 3 The minimum required number of residentiaF dwelling units (14) creates the opportunity for development that may be inconsistent with the Urban Density Residential designation. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that Scenario A provides for uses that are needed in the community and where the benefits provided by the alternative layout outweigh the concerns. Providing the option for Scenario A or B creates flexibility to address different types of housing and commercial needs in the community. Staff can support ZMA201600015 if it can be shown that future tax revenues mitigate the potential impacts of residential units in Scenario B and if the following changes are- made before the Board of Supervisor's meeting: • No changes to cash proffers are made for Scenario B • Technical changes are made related to tree preservation and affordable housing proffers and the COD for Scenario B • The COD is revised to require a minimum of 53 dwelling units under Scenario B and under Scenario A if an assisted living use is not established • Other technical changes to the application as necessary to provide clarity for the administration of'development under Scenario A and Scenario B ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 8 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION: A. If the ZMA is recommended for approval: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201600015 with proffers as recommended by staff. B. If the ZMA is recommended for denial: Move to recommend denial of ZMA201600015 with the reasons for denial Mr. Newberry concluded his presentation, stating that staff recommends approval of ZMA 2016- 00015, and presented three slides reflecting Scenario A, Scenario B, and a combination of both so that the Commission is open to making as specific input as they wish Mr. Lafferty said that he assumes from comments that the applicant does not have easement for third entrance Mr. Newberry responded that he is not aware of one. Ms. Spain asked if a connector is necessary or desirable only if assisted living facility is there to connect the two Mr. Newberry replied that this was the case for Scenario A, stating that this would also have been applicable under the original 2007 rezoning, as the size of the footprint of an individual building requires that additional connection under the fire code He stated that under Scenario B, there would be no requirement to make that connection under the fire code. Mr. Dotson stated that application plan as mentioned in the staff report references a desire for flexibility for the developer to be able to adapt to the market, noting that there are two application or site plans. He said that his assumption is that if they approve both, it is an either/or but not something halfway in between. Mr. Newberry responded that this is the intent of staff's recommendations, and one of the recommended changes is those kind of technical clarifications moving forward. Mr Dotson said that he could see the potential for confusion if the assisted living facility shrunk and that would become housing — but that was not shown on application plan —so that needs to be clear from the outset. Mr Lafferty stated that when the new Northside library was built, there was some concern that there was no connectivity with the apartment complexes directly behind facility, and asked if there had been thought of providing sidewalk, walking path, or bike path with this development. Mr. Newberry responded that he knows there is sufficient connectivity within the site and an interconnection with the Berkmar Crossing property, but those were the only connections investigated at or towards the Northside Library. Mr. Lafferty said that putting in the facility would probably decrease use of public library. Mr. Newberry responded that this was potentially possible. Ms. More said that one of the recommended changes is to clarify that Scenario A is only available for assisted living use to be established — which addresses the use — and she wondered if this was an attempt to guarantee that if Scenario A were to move forward, the assisted living would ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 9 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 happen in phase one. Ms More said that there seem to be benefits to Scenario A, and she would want to know that the assisted living would take place in order for other benefits to be part of that scenario. Mr. Newberry responded that he would want that clarification to take place in the proffers to confirm that the layout of Scenario A would only be the eligible application plan if the assisted living use was established. Ms. More asked if that would be required before the applicant would be in front of the Board. Mr. Newberry confirmed that it would be. Mr. Lafferty asked if the county would expect a proffer for dwelling units if they would not be designated as dwelling units. Mr Newberry responded that the county would not expect this Ms. Spain asked if the townhomes were independent of the assisted living facility and separately sold. Mr. Newberry responded that there were six townhomes in Block 4, and his understanding is that they would be marketed to anyone interested. Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak. Valerie Long, attorney with the Williams Mullen law firm, addressed the Commission and stated that she represents the applicant. She introduced Andy Yarborough and Glenn Barkley from the Blake, the assisted living facility interested in building the project; George Ray, the project owner and developer; Alan Franklin, civil engineer; Steve Edwards with Edwards Design Studios, the planner and landscape architect; and Nicole Scro, a colleague from Williams Mullen. Ms. Long stated that Scenario A is the applicant's strong preference, and they have left Scenario B in as a very distant fallback plan so they wouldn't have to amend the plan a third time. Ms. Long noted that they do not yet have an easement for the connector road but are hoping to maintain that, and mentioned that the townhouse units would be separately owned but may appeal to future residents of the assisted living facility or their family members. Ms. Long's team presented a video of the site created by Bob Penio of Design/Develop. Ms. Long stated that what was shown was the type of assisted living facility that Blake would develop at this location, noting that the company owns and operates a number of assisted living facilities throughout the U.S., mostly in the southeast. Ms. Long stated that when the property was first rezoned in 2008, it had an existing zoning of R-6, and the applicant revised it to what it is now — giving up the right to do 52 dwelling units by-right. She noted that at,the time, the Board was not giving by-right lot yield credit, but they are now, most recently for the Brookhill project, where they granted by-right lot yield credit for 269 units. Ms. Long said that the applicant is comfortable with staff's suggestions and revisions and would be happy to talk about the tax revenue generated Mr. George Ray addressed the Commission and referenced a handout being distributed that had additional information on the project, including letters of support from Sue Friedman of the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 10 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 Alzheimer's Association, Peter Thompson of the Senior Center, Tim Hulbert of the Chamber of Commerce, and Suzanne Jessup Brooks. Ms. Firehock invited public comment. Morgan Butler of the Southern Environmental Law Center addressed the Commission, stating that the SELC's concerns focus on the proposed elimination of Proffer 6, related to erosion and sediment control—which offers an extra layer of protection for streams by requiring that a greater amount of sediment be trapped on the site during construction than would typically occur by following the minimum regulatory requirements. Mr Butler stated that the proffer is one that has been agreed to in a number of past rezonings as part of the county's commitment to better protecting local water quality, and should not be discarded now without some compelling reason. He said that the justification the applicant is proposing for dropping the proffer is not entirely clear, and the staff report is clear that staff believes the proffer should remain — but for some reason, keeping the proffer intact is not included at the list of recommendations at the end of staff report or reported on at this meeting. Mr. Butler stated that the SELC is not opposed to developing an assisted living facility onsite or providing some additional flexibility for the developer, but given the reduction in greenspace in this proposal, they feel it is not unreasonable to require ENS measures for the site during construction. Mr. Keller invited the applicant to provide additional comments. Ms. Long stated that the applicant does have an erosion and sediment control plan approved as part of the site plan approved as part of the original rezoning, and the,engineer has indicated that they would likely submit a similar if not identical ENS plan for the new project with necessary adjustments made. She noted that the applicant is comfortable with retaining that proffer. Ms. Long said that with the ongoing level of uncertainty with state law and lack of a county proffer policy, the applicant understands that this is a challenge for the Commission to address but would like to note that this project would generate approximately$450,000 annually in tax revenue. She stated that the county proffer policy, even when it was in place, never addressed the offsets that would be provided by projects like this mixed use one in the form of commercial tax revenue—so if the rezoning is approved for Scenario A with the assisted living facility, they would have at most 22 units with those impact fully offset by tax revenue. Ms. Long pointed out that this rezoning is not subject to the new state law because the application was submitted prior to July 1, which provides the county greater flexibility to accept cash-proffers, and the numbers used in this application are the same used in the Brookhill project—which were suggested by the FIAC committee with increases to reflect the increase in the new CIP figures. She stated that those numbers came from the committee, which met for 18 months, and staff was recommending approval of those figures before the cash policy was repealed, as was the county attorney, and lacking any other official policy, the applicant feels the number is prudent to move forward with it. Ms. Long added that if they don't grant credit for the 52 by-right lot units, it would only apply to the 22 units being built less the 3 affordable housing units. Ms. Riley asked if the applicant, in citing Brookhill as an example of using the new FIAC figures, was recognizing that his application was the prior to July 1. Ms. Long responded that Brookhill's application was also prior to July 1. Ms. Riley asked if the applicant was also asking for a reduction in trees from 34 to 13 in Scenario B as well as Scenario A. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 11 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 Ms. Long responded that they hoped Scenario B was a distant plan, but they would retain the trees larger as shown on the current plan. She noted that some of the trees-have not aged as well as hoped, although the owner has taken steps to preserve them, but they would retain all that they were able to keep. Ms. Long also confirmed that they would keep the 80% ENS level. Ms. Spain asked if the assisted living facility was not placed at the front of the lot because of the massing, and the fact that the frontage on Rio Road needed to be smaller buildings. Ms. Long responded that it was mostly due to the serenity of the rear nature of the property,which was tucked back from the road, with the lot being wider in that location as well. She noted that the trees to be retained right on ridge, the trees would help provide a lovely setting for the building. Ms. Spain asked if the applicant had to take out trees, if they were planting more or just saving the 13 trees there. Ms. Long pointed out the location of trees under Scenario A that would be retained, and said they were planning to plant more in a location for a pocket park that would be the same species — although they would not be as magnificent as those being retained at the time of planting. She stated that they are also proposing to have additional landscaping along the frontage, under ARB and Entrance Corridor requirements. Ms. Spain commented that since 80% of the residents in assisted living would be older women, she was surprised to see a fallen veteran's park—and wondered what might be more appealing to the older women living there. Ms. Long responded that Mr. Ray has a nephew who-was killed while fighting in Afghanistan, which was the genesis of the idea, but the final plan for the park had not yet been set. She stated that Ms. Spain's observation was thoughtful, and she would like to talk about how to make it even better, and she wouldn't be surprised if some of the women who lived there had served their county or had relatives who did. Ms. More commented that staff has been in contact with DSS about auxiliary grants but noted there was no guarantee that auxiliary grants would be accepted, and there are other facilities in the area that accept very few or set aside a significant amount of beds for those who need the auxiliary grant. She asked the applicant to speak about this commitment. Ms. Long responded that the partners in the venture from the Blake had been speaking directly to DSS and were very open to accepting the grants, but were working to learn more details about how the program actually works. She said that one question is if they accept grants,,if it does not cover the full cost for rent for housing for that person, are there options for family members to supplement that. Ms. More stated that the grant differs depend on a person's income and ability to pay, and typically a facility retains the majority of the income, with the individual getting a small monthly stipend and the grant picking up the rest of the tab. She noted that the commitment from the facility comes in with the balance of how many beds the facility can provide with the rate that is paid, and asked if the company had this in place with other facilities. • ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 12 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 Ms. Long responded that they do not operate other facilities in Virginia, but does elsewhere in the southeast, and the applicant is not prepared to make a commitment at this time until they know exactly how the program works. Ms. More said that she agreed with staff's assessment in their report that there is a significant shortage for these opportunities for individuals get placements in facilities like this when they can't live at home. Ms. Long stated that the applicant is also hoping that this will help a little by increasing the supply and demand across the community and thus relieving the pressure on costs. Ms. Firehock asked why there was a significant decline in the number of trees from 39 in the original proposal to 13 in this one, stating that 7 trees were described as being "in poor health," which she interprets to mean that 32 trees are in acceptable condition to remain. She said that obviously they can't remain where they are going to put a building, but there are environmental benefits to having trees beyond just the beauty of looking at them. Ms. Firehock noted that hospital visits are reduced in neighborhoods where there are well-treed landscapes, and removing them is taking away something that is cleaning the air. She said she would encourage the applicant to 'plant more trees there to thicken up buffer. Ms. Firehock stated that she as interested to see the presence of a memorial garden,as people would want to walk outside—but there is not a pleasant pathway or garden here, and the pocket park is located in a median area. She said that people need to take walks to stay healthy, but this site is so developed and there is very little usable outdoor space. Ms. Firehock said that if she was an elderly person here, she would feel trapped because you can't walk anywhere and the site does not connect to anything, adding that the lack of walkable green space makes the plan less desirable. Ms. Long responded that if they could retain the 39 trees they would, and they had their team and arborist look hard at the ones they could save in an effort to only disrupt the ones they had to. She emphasized that this is an urban community, and there are sidewalks throughout the project as well as a sidewalk along Rio Road. Ms. Long stated that the applicant is hopeful for a reciprocal path arrangement with the medical health center. She said that there is also the Berkmar Crossing Shopping Center and office park nearby, which is not necessarily the most pleasant destination, nor would the assisted living and memory care residents likely have a desire to go down there, but there would be residents in Block A and B as well as those in the six townhouse units. Ms. Long noted that there is Agnor-Hurt,Elementary School and the library nearby, and not all of the details for the memorial garden have been established, but the applicant would take comment to the given extent possible to make it an area where residents would want to gather. Ms. Long stated that the assisted living facility has two courtyards interior to the building — as there are challenges with safety and the facility operators would not want residents to leave the premises. Ms. Long said that the applicant has worked hard to make this a pedestrian-friendly environment and feels this is a great location. Mr. Lafferty stated that it looked like very little attention was paid to multi modal transportation — although it was mentioned that they would consider bike racks, and they might consider indoor storage or bike housing. He said that he thought the presentation and advertising for Blake were very good, but he wished the Commission had been given it beforehand. Mr. Lafferty stated that the type of facility planned is much needed in the community, especially with the aging population. Ms. Spain asked about the location of the nearest bus stop. Ms. Long responded that it is right in front. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 13 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 Mr. Dotson commented that the original proffer had half of the affordable housing constructed and half in lieu of payments — and in the proposed revision they were all in lieu. He stated that this was an opportunity lost because the workforce in assisted living very much needed affordable housing, and in the winter this would be a wonderful opportunity to have people live onsite so they don't have to drive in Mr Dotson said that the seven residential units could provide a way to make this more of a community by having its residents live there, and he would like to hear that the applicant was going to build half of affordable housing units, as this would make it a better project that is more profitable. Ms. Long stated that the applicant's team had a similar realization with Scenario A having a total of 22 resident units — so 15% would be 3 units. She said that Housing Director Ron White suggested that with such a small number, they would prefer cash as they can often do more with matching grants to make it more effective, especially with affordable housing units not working as well as hoped. Ms. Long said that the applicant is not opposed to building onsite and is trying to keep their options open. She stated that at the time the project was approved in 2009, there was a great desire to have units, but that started changing during the approval process, and the applicant changed to half and half— but at that point there were 109 units and a very different project. Ms. Long said that it made sense to the applicant to have the three units, and the Board has been happy to accept proffers for either the cash or the units as long as the requirement was satisfied. Mr. Dotson commented that the pendulum had swung from construction to in cash in lieu of units, but it was probably due to swing the other way Mr. Dotson said that he questioned having in the code of development for neighborhood service center having a department store, fast food restaurant, or indoor/outdoor amphitheater, as they seem to have nothing to do with neighborhood service. Ms. Long responded that the applicant was just trying to keep options open. She stated that they have run into scenarios where the uses don't fit into particular category, and they were just trying to keep their options open for a wider variety of uses. Ms. Long said that staff had suggested that they commit to an assisted living facility under Scenario A for Block E, and while there is no other place where a department store works, those uses change over time. Ms. Long said that the model for things like medical clinics or fast food restaurants have changed over the years, and a movie theater could be something like a Vinegar Hill-type theater; with an amphitheater being a small space to accommodate an acoustic guitar. She emphasized that there is no plan for that and she tends to use the same code of development, but she wanted to mention those possibilities Mr. Keller suggested that they move the discussion along. Mr. Dotson asked Ms. Long to run through the bullet points. Ms. Echols mentioned that they added the last one to retain proffer 6, and that was intended to be added in the staff report, but it just did not get on the list. Mr. Keller suggested that they look at this by taking Scenario A and B separately, as mixing them together made it challenging to assess. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION LDecember 6,2016 14 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 Mr. Keller stated that if there are no other questions for the applicant, he would close the public hearing and bring it back to staff. He asked if there were other examples of approving two scenarios Ms. Echols responded that it is a little unusual and she did not know of any projects that have been done this way, although there have been alternative arrangements proposed for minor areas She stated that when the applicant asked if they could do an either/or scenario, staff did not know if the zoning division would be amendable to it due to the administration of it. Mr. Newberry stated that this feels like a very binary option, and he can think of other approvals where there has been more of a singular bubble plan having flexibility within it, but this is proposing more of an either/or scenario. Mr. Keller asked for comments from counsel. Mr. Blair responded that this is perfectly legal for the applicant to request this, and the decision would be at the Commission's discretion. Mr. Keller suggested talking about A and then B, with a discussion as to whether they are even comfortable with B. Mr. Dotson stated that as the staff report indicates, there is a need for assisted living in the community — with the 2010 census showing 14% of the county population,over 65, and 2015 updated data showing that had grown to 17%. He stated that this is tangible evidence of a need. Mr Dotson commented that this project is consistent with the county's ambitions to be mixed use He stated that the placement of a large assisted living building, which is really up over the rise and probably appeared more in slide show than it would be in reality, and the fact it could be up to 56,000 square feet rather than 20,000 square feet, particularly if it has courtyard areas, doesn't trouble him. Mr. Dotson said that the reduction in trees is unfortunate, but the replacement landscaping might help to offset that. Ms. More said that she would echo several of Mr. Dotson's comments, reiterating that accepting cash in lieu of affordable units and the possibility for that to be an advantage on the site would mean losing the potential for affordable units under this scenario. She stated that she is not convinced that while there is a need for assisted living in the area, there is no guarantee that this facility will accept auxiliary grants — nor will it necessarily provide affordable housing units. Ms. More added that with all the good things this does offer, there is the potential not to help people who need affordable units. Ms. Riley stated that she agreed with all comments made, and since they are retaining proffer 6, she has nothing else to add at this point. Ms. Firehock agreed with what has been said, stating that the applicant made a compelling argument to get credit for the 52 units in terms of calculating what was due on cash proffers under Scenario A. Ms. Spain echoed other opinions and said she would like to see affordable housing for both rental and home ownership units, particularly for staff working at such a facility, as renting units might be more relevant than owning. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 15 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 Mr. Lafferty said that he agreed with others and did not think it was wise to take cash in lieu affordable units — as the county is very much in need of affordable units. He stated that as Mr. Dotson said, this is an excellent opportunity to put affordable unit for people who work in the facility, as they have tried to do in Crozet so that fire and rescue personnel didn't have to commute from Waynesboro. Mr. Keller said that he concurred with his colleagues, and asked if they could make a motion for Scenario A that offers support for it, but with the affordable housing component that has been suggested. Ms. Echols asked if they would also be talking about the commitment for the senior living use being shown on the plan under Scenario A, and working on the verification of emergency access as part of that. Mr. Lafferty responded that he thinks it should be included. Mr. Dotson said that it has been argued that the mixed use aspect would generate tax dollars perhaps in excess of the residential units—but that is not an argument he would like to see them entertaining. He mentioned a hypothetical situation which a developer who was just building a shopping center would sell the offsets to someone wanting to build housing. He stated that they are not prepared to do an analysis of all the secondary and multiplier implications of this, and this is not justification for any particular forgiveness or proffer amounts. Mr. Dotson said that they have heard supportive comments made, but they should be consistent with their recommendation regarding proffer amounts as they did on the first agenda item of this meeting—saying yes on the uses and application plan, but not on the proffer modification. Mr. Keller stated that this is a chance to define this in a way that is helpful, as they send this on to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lafferty asked Mr. Dotson to make a motion since it was in his magisterial district. MOTION Mr. Dotson moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZMA-2016- 15 Oakleigh Scenario A, with the exception that it not grant the reduced proffers as stated in the code of development proffer 1 or 2, both of which deal with affordable housing, that the department store, fast food restaurant, indoor theater, and outdoor amphitheater uses not be approved for inclusion in the development-code. He stated that he was open to comments that would improve that motion. Mr. Keller asked for a second so that they can have discussion. Ms. More seconded the motion. Ms. More stated that she was looking at staff's recommended changes and pulling the ones that pertained directly to Scenario A, and staff had to clarify that Scenario A is only available for an assisted living use to be established. Ms. More said she thinks the applicant may want to consider if they are talking about a nursing home or assisted living, because she did not know if there was a distinction. Ms. Echols replied that it was for"senior living," which would cover convalescent, nursing home or assisted living as the things that would qualify under that. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 16 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 > T -7=35 Ms. More said she thinks the other technical changes to the application that were necessary to clarify for Scenario A was having the conceptual location for the emergency access through the Berkley subdivision, but not for Scenario B, and they need to verify with the adjoining property owner — Charlottesville Health and Rehab Center — that they are agreeable to providing an ,_ emergency access connection; and then retaining proffer 6 related to enhanced erosion and sediment control. Mr Dotson agreed to accept those as amendments to his motion. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Blair if the Commission needs to vote on those amendments per se. Mr. Blair replied that they should for clarity's sake and would ask for a second for Ms More's amendments. Mr. Lafferty seconded the motion with amendments revising the original motion. Mr Blair agreed. Mr. Keller asked for a roll call on the amendment to Mr. Dotson's original motion The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Keller asked to go to the motion itself and asked if there was any further discussion on that. He asked staff if they thought they had captured all of the pieces. Ms. Echols replied that she thought so, and asked if there was a second to Mr Dotson's motion. Mr. Keller replied yes, and asked for a roll call vote. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0 Mr Keller said the recommendation for Scenario A will go forward to the Board. He asked staff if an alternative for Scenario B to leave it the way it was approved previously. Mr. Newberry replied that the intent is to just retain that existing approval. Mr Keller noted that it had a proffer reduction component to it too, as he understood it. Ms. Echols clarified that the applicant was asking for that proffer reduction with Scenario B, and staff's recommendation was that it not take place with Scenario B. Mr. Keller asked if there was a motion on Scenario B. Mr Dotson moved that the Planning Commission recommends as part of ZMA-2016-15 Oakleigh that Scenario B.be approved in its original form. Mr. Blair added clarification that it was in 2007. Mr Dotson agreed to add in 2007 to the motion Mr. Keller pointed out that this is maintaining the proffers the way they originally were presented. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 17 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 - t Mr. Dotson agreed that is corrected. Ms. Firehock seconded the motion. Mr. Keller invited discussion. Ms. More said that just going through staff's recommended changes, they are saying they would not look at the minimum of the 53 by-right units to be removed because that was not done in the original application. Ms. Firehock pointed out she expressed support for that, but did not hear anyone else echo that so she would leave it. Ms. More commented she would like to be consistent in the way that we approach the applications, if that is something that has been given before with other applications. She said that it sounds like she got sort of a mixed message from staff's report, but it does sounds like the Board has granted this before in some cases such as Brookhill. Ms. Echols replied the new rezonings that came in before July could use the newer cash proffer amounts, and the credit is an interesting piece of this. She explained that the cash proffer policy that no longer exists said that in rezoning applications where there is a minimal increase in density, a credit may be given for the number of residential units allowed under the existing zoning and a cash proffer amount will be based only on the)estimated density increase resulting from the rezoning. Ms. Echols said that in the cases where the credit has been given in the past for other rezonings, it has been with a very small amount. She said that in looking at the Brookhill rezoning, they had 277 acres zoned R-1 and were asking for credit for those 277 acres — but with a maximum density of 1,550 units, which was 16% of the total Ms. Echols stated that Oakleigh would like to have credit for a half, but to her knowledge that has not been granted before, and the credit for much lower density has been given. Ms. More asked for confirmation that it has been given for lower density, but in a higher density development they still have not requested half—it was 16%. Ms. Echols confirmed this, stating that she thinks the same might have been said for the earlier cash proffer reduction —the Leake —where they.were asking for a cash proffer reduction based on the fact that things were different in 2006 She emphasized that the Commission did not grant them any credits for those either. Ms. More said that she was a little bit compelled, but felt that is not what they were seeing here. She stated that she just wants a clarification that that if we were seeing something that was consistent with other applicants, that would be something she would like to consider, but the explanation she is getting is that is not consistent. Mr. Keller thanked Ms. More for bringing that up, as they had not heard that clarification. Mr. Dotson said he had a question of the other Commissioner's views, noting that the applicant is proposing in terms of uses a much expanded code of development with the exception of the four uses for the department store, etc. He asked if they would entertain this more expanded code of development, but with this application plan and with the original proffers, which would mean if ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 18 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 the desired use did not work out, it would make the mixed use more flexible and would be of some advantage to the applicant. Mr. Lafferty asked if he would anticipate the applicant coming back to the Commission if they had something that was inordinate, to see if it was acceptable, or come back to Zoning. Mr. Dotson replied that he thought they would do it through the zoning staff for an interpretation, and he would be comfortable with the same uses in B that he is comfortable in A—and the side- by-side comparison with the original code of development was more limiting than it currently needs to be in terms of uses. Mr. Keller agreed. Ms. Riley also agreed and felt that Ms. Long really made a pretty compelling case about the scenario A as the far preferred scenario, but if they had to come back, the more flexibility provided in terms of mixed use in the code of development would be helpful to other potential purchasers, and she would agree with that. Mr. Dotson modified his motion to recommend approval for Scenario B as originally approved, except to allow the code of development with regard to uses as proposed minus the four uses that were excluded before. Mr. Keller asked for a second for the amendment to Mr. Dotson's action. Ms. More seconded the motion for the amendment, but wanted to ask whether they want to clarify what blocks or buildings for the expanded uses and if that was necessary to make it clearer. Mr. Newberry said that this could be discussed by the Commission, and thanked Mr. Dotson for picking up on the request to also revise the code of development for Scenario B. He said that regarding the request that a minimum be established for Scenario B if the code of development is revised, currently the code of development would only require 14 total dwelling units — so in Scenario B, which is mostly residential, in making a motion to also revise the Code of Development as was recommended under Scenario A, staff thinks it would be prudent to have the code of development for Scenario B require a minimum of 53 dwelling units. Mr. Newberry clarified that this establishes the minimum R-6 or the minimum for the urban density residential recommended density. Mr. Dotson modified his motion to incorporate that provision. Mr. Keller asked if the second still holds. Ms. More seconded the motion. Mr. Keller asked if there was any further discussion on this. Mr. Blair asked the Chair for a moment to confer with Ms. Echols to address the advertising issue. Mr. Blair explained that staff's concern was the advertisement for this particular project and whether it was specific enough about adding uses to Scenario B. He stated that there is language about adding uses in the advertisement, and currently he did not see a problem if the Commission ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 19 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017 wants to add on Mr. Dotson's motion, stating that they could come back if they determine later that there needs to be a more specific advertisement. Mr. Keller thanked Mr Blair for his counsel and asked if there was any further discussion on Scenario B. He asked for a roll call vote on the motion. Mr. Lafferty said that he assumed they were voting on the original motion and the two amendments. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Dotson to review what they were voting on. Mr. Dotson clarified that he believed that the motion was to reaffirm and reapprove the original approval for the site in 2007, with the modification that the proposed new code of development with respect to uses would apply except for the four excluded previously, and to have the minimum number of residential units be 53 in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keller thanked Mr. Dotson for the clarification Mr. Lafferty asked if they needed to include proffer 6. Mr. Dotson replied that he believed that was part of the original approval, the 80% Mr. Blair pointed out that it was part of the 2007 approval. The amended motion passed unanimously by a vote of TO Mr. Keller thanked the Commissioners for working this through, stating that they would take a five- minute break. The Planning Commission recessed at 7:50 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:58 p.m. ZTA 2016-00003 Farm winery, brewery, and distillery events—The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on its intent to recommend adoption of an ordinance amending Secs. 18-3.1, Definitions, 18-5.1.25, Farm wineries, 18-5.1.57, Farm breweries, 18- 5.1.59, Farm distilleries, 18-10.2.1, By right(Rural Areas district(RA)), 18-10.2.2, By special use permit (RA), 18-11.3.1, By right uses (Monticello Historic district (MHD)), 18-11.3.2, By special use permit (MHD), of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 18-3.1 by amending cross-references in the definitions of farm winery event, farm brewery event, and farm distillery event, and in the use classifications in Secs. 18-10.2.1, 18- 10.2.2, 18-11.3.1, and 18-11.3.2; amend Secs. 18-5.1.25, 18-5.1.57, and 18-5.1.59 as follows in each respective section: (1) amend sub. (b) by moving farm winery, farm brewery, and farm distillery("FWBD")events, weddings, wedding receptions, and "other uses"to sub. (c), (2) amend sub. (c) to require that FWBD uses established on and after the effective date of the ordinance have at least the minimum agriculture production and use, along with beverage-related uses on- site in order to hold FWBD events, weddings, wedding receptions, and "other uses" on-site; allow by right FWBD events, weddings, wedding receptions, "other uses," and up to 4 education events related to agriculture or beverage making, if attendance at one time is 200 persons or less, and by special use permit if attendance at one time is more than 200 persons; establish method for calculating attendance, define"other uses", and require notification to abutting owners and an on- site point of contact if a zoning clearance is required; (3) amend sub. (d) to require a traffic ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION—December 6,2016 20 Draft MINUTES-Submit for approval 1-3-2017