Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-12June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the B0ard~°f Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 12, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., ROom 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Humphris said this is an enjoyable task the Board gets to do by honoring people who have served the County's citizens well. Mrs. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks that serving on the Planning Commission is one of the most demanding jobs a citizen can be asked to do. She said that these people give their forthright views to the Board. They spend many, many hours studying and when a matter comes to the Board from the Commission, much of the ~tough" work has been done by the Commission. Also, the Board members know what families must give up in order for a person to serve on one of these boards or commissions, so the Board thanks all of those family members also. She then presented certificates to the following former Commission members: Katherine L. Imhoff served from January 12, 1994, to December 31, 1995. Ms. Imhoff was a member of the Route 29 Interchange Design Committee and Historic Preservation Committee. Thomas E. Jenkins served from January 6, 1988, to December 31, 1995. Mr. Jenkins was a member of the Route 29 Interchange Design Committee and Crozet Community Study Committee. Mrs. Humphris said the Board surely appreciates Mr. Jenkins' long years of service. Monica G. Vaughan served from January 12, 1994, to December 31, 1995. Ms. Vaughan participated in the Thomas Jefferson Regional Sustainability Council. Carl M. Van Fossen served on the Board of Zoning Appeals from April 20, 1982 to January 1, 1996. Mrs. Humphris said anyone who knows Carl Van Fossen knows about his keen judgement, his astute logic, and his compassion for the citizens of Albemarle which he has always exhibited. Mr. Marshall mentioned that Mr. Van Fossen had also served for a long time as a member of the School Board. David Bass served as a member of the Public Recreational Facilities Authority from December 13, 1989 to January 1, 1996. This is someone who really cares for the citizens of Albemarle County, and expresses his views forthrightly. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Bass will be missed as a member of the Authority. Mrs. Humphris said Thomas Blue served from January 8, 1992, to December 31, 1995. Mr. Blue was a member of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) Committee, the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) Technical Committee, and was Chairman of the Planning Commission during Calendar Year 1995. Mr. Blue was not able to be present tonight, but the Board thanks him. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There were none. Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 6.la and 6.lb, and to accept the June 12, 1996 (Regular Night M~i (Page 2) remaining items on the consent agenda as information. motion carried by the following recorded vote: 000 73 Roll was called and the AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Item 6.la. Appropriation Request: Education Grants & Cafeteria, $63,785.49 (Form #95064). It was noted in the staff's report that at its meetings on November 13, 1995, and December 11, 1995, respectively, the School Board approved the following requests. Reappropriation of $150 for the Stony Point Gardening Nature Grant from the Department of Natural Resources, Virginia Museum of Natural History, for a grant not expended in FY 94-95. The funds are to be used to complete "The Companion Garden". All children in grades K-5 will be involved in planting and maintaining the garden. This project was designed to actively demonstrate the relationships that plants have with animals, natural elements and people. Appropriation of the Summer Feeding Program budget and the School Board also approved the additional expenses and revenues for the Food Service Program. The USDA encourages Child Nutrition Programs (School Lunch Programs) to participate in their Summer Feeding Program for low=income, at-risk students, This is a program similar to the school lunch for low-income children who are enrolled in summer camps, parks or recreational programs. The Charlottesville City Parks and Recreation Department operates a Summer Feeding Program in seven sites for 37 days in June, July and August. They feed approximately 400 children per day. Because 50 percent of the children at these sites are income- eligible for a free lunch, the entire site is federally-funded for lunches and snacks under the USDA guidelines. The City School Lunch Program was not interested in providing this service so the City Parks Department contacted Albemarle County Schools Food Service. Summer feeding can generate revenue to offset cafeteria losses in small schools and support division-wide purchases. Projected revenue is earmarked for purchasing transport equipment and kitchen equipment for wide use, and purchasing an ice machine for Cale Elementary School. To accurately track the total cost and revenue generated by this program, a separate fund code was established for summer feeding. Following the completion of the summer feeding program, there was a fund balance of $18,599.59. This fund balance will be used for the aforementioned purchases. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation Form #95064 in the amount of $63,785.49. Mrs. Thomas asked why it had taken so many months for this request to get before this Board. Mr. Tucker said he did not know why the School Board had delayed sending the request to the Board. By the recorded ~ote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95064 FUND: GRANTS/CAFETERIA PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR STONY POINT GARDENING NATURE GRANT AND SUMMER FEEDING PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1310460211600000 1300263105119300 1300263105210000 1300263105600000 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT MISC SUPPLIES $150.00 SALARIES 9,650.61 FICA 738.27 MISC SUPPLIES 1,443.25 June 12, 1996 (Regular Night (Page 3) 1300263105600200 1300263105600500 1300263105600900~ 1300293010939999 1300063100800100 FOOD SUPPLIES LAUNDRY/JANITORIAL SUPPLIES VEHICLE/EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES TRANSFER TO FOOD SERVICE MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT TOTAL REVENUE 2310451000510100 2300216000161204 2300233000330230 2300251000510100 2300051000512014 DESCRIPTION GRANT FUND BALANCE FOOD SALES USDA-CITY FUND BALANCE TNSR FM SMR FEEDING PGM TOTAL 000174 14,483 48 43 28 106 70 18,584 95 18.584.95 $63,785 49 AMOUNT $ 150 00 15,325 50 28,286 15 1,438 89 18,584.95 $63,785 49 Item 6.lb. Appropriation Request: Miscellaneous School Grants, $2625.77 (Form #95076). It was noted in the staff's report that several years ago a miscellaneous Grant Fund was established to account for the many small grants received by various County schools. A review of these grants revealed that adjustments needed to be made to close out minor balances in several grants. The major adjustment is the transfer of $1250.59 from the School Fund Balance to the miscellaneous Grant Fund due to the erroneous coding of grant revenue to the School Fund. By the recorded vote set out above, the following Resolution of Appropriation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95076 FUND: GRANTS/SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TO CLOSE OUT VARIOUS MISCELLANEOUS GRAiqTS IN THE 3104 FUND EXPEAVDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1310460205600000 1310460275312700 1243193010930000 DESCRIPTION HOLLYMEAD-MISC SUPPLIES STONY POINT-COMPETENCY GRANT TP3~NSFER TO GRANT FUNDS TOTAL AMOUNT $150.00 1,235.18 1,240.59 $2,625.77 REVENUE 2310451000510100 2310451000510100 2310451000512001 2200051000510100 DESCRIPTION GRANT FUND BALANCE GRANT FUND BALANCE TRANSFER FROM SCHOOL FI/ND SCHOOL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $150.00 (5.41) 1,240.59 1,240.59 $2,625.77 Item 6.2. Supts. Memo. No. 5, dated May 29, 1996, from Mr. William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent of Public instruction, to Division Superintendents, re: Changes to 1995-96 Final Entitlements, was received for information. Item 6.3. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 21, 1996, was received for information. Item 6.4. Letter dated June 3, 1996, from Ms. Cynthia J. Stratton, Chair, Charlottesville-Albemarle Children and Youth Commission, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, re: "Beating the Odds" Program, was received for information. Mrs. Humphris asked when the Board has to take action on this program. Mr. Tucker said action was taken when the Board adopted the Appropriation Ordinance last week. The Board was given a verbal report on this program at the budget hearing, and this communication is just a delayed written response to the Board's questions at that time. June 12, 1996 (Regular Night (Page 4) 000 75 Several Board members expressed appreciation to the Clerk for the new method of identifying consent agenda items in the Board member's Agenda Books. Agenda Item No. 7. ZNLA-96-03. Worrell Land & Cattle Co. Public Hearing on a request to amend existing agreements & proffers of ZMA-92-12. Property in N-W corner of inters of Rt 250/I-64. Area recommended for office regional use in Neighborhood 3 by Comprehensive Plan. TM78, P20B, P20C, P20K, P20M, P31, P32, P71, P71A. Rivanna Dist. Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1996.) Mrs. Humphris said the Board has received a request for deferral of this request for one week in order to enable certain transportation matters to be resolved. Since the public hearing has been advertised for tonight, she would go ahead and open the public hearing. She asked for comments from any member of the public who was present to speak. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer ZMA-96-03 until June 19, 1996. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-96-05. Kenneth J. Newell (applicant); CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (owner). Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers of ZMA-87-08 for University Village to allow development on portion of property closest to Old Ivy Road originally designated as landscaped/recreation area. Property, zoned R-10 w/proffers, is designated for high density residential in Neighborhood 7 by the Comprehensive Plan & is located on N sd of Rt 601 just E of Rts 29/250 Bypass. TM60B2, Pi(part). Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1996.) Agenda Item No. 9. SP-96-09. Kenneth J. Newell (applicant); CCAT2/ University Limited Liability Company (owner). Public Hearing on a request to establish assisted living facility (nursing home or similar institution) on portion of University Village property described in ZMJt-96-05. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg asked the County Attorney to explain a situation concerning the proffers. Mr. Davis said there has been a mix-up on submittal of the proffers. The proffer which was in the Board's packet for tonight is the proffer signed by the applicant, but it is not a final proffer. It is still in draft form. There are several amendments to Proffers 4, 5 and 6 that have not been finalized, so he will recommend that if the Board wishes to approve this request tonight, that the matter be deferred at that time until the proffer is in acceptable form. This does not preclude the Board from holding the public hearing and hearing anyone who is present to speak or from taking any other action it wishes. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes the proffer language the Board has, including the notes in draft form, are appropriate. There is no substantive problem with the corrections as noted. Mr. Davis said Proffers 5 and 6 just reference that they will be clarified, so there is no substantive amendment proposed to those proffers. There is a minor problem with Proffer 3 and Proffer 4 is to be deleted. All of these issues can be addressed by the applicant with a short deferral. Mr. Cilimberg then summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He started by giving a brief history of University Village and the original intention for the area which is the subject to this request. There are actions requested of the Board. The first is to amend the proffers that apply to the property regarding use and the locations of use on the property. Secondly, they request approval of a special use permit to allow for an assisted-living facility on the property. Mr. Cilimberg explain a site plan of the proposed facility which was displayed on the wall. June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 000176 (Page 5) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has requested a change to allow development on the portion of the property closest to Old Ivy Road which was previously designated as landscaped and recreation area, and instead provide landscaped and recreation area toward the rear of the property which was previously designated for future development. This change would allow them to locate an assisted-living facility. It would no longer involve residential units and it would include recognition of the location for the existing stormwater detention basin. There is another site on the property which is designated for a nursing home facility, and that would not be changed under this proposal. Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal is for a two-story building of 56,000 square feet providing up to 126 beds. The intent of the Use changes is to allow the recreation area/landscape area to still be located on the property, and to reduce through the proffer the number of housing units that could be provided in the entire development. This would have the net effect of not increasing the potential traffic associated with the entire University Village area. Mr. Cilimberg said the primary concern at the Planning Commission meeting, other than traffic concerns, is the impact of this facility to Huntington Village in particular, as well as Ivy Gardens. Staff went back to a prior plan and indicated on the proposed site plan where the future residential and future recreational facilities would have been. They also noted the location for the proposed assisted-living facility. If the facility as proposed is built, there would be a need to provide buffering to Huntington Village to the west. The acceptance of the proffers to the amended zoning would allow them to have a special use permit approved for the assisted living facility, and the site plan indicates the building would be built into the grade of the existing slope such that its visibility from Huntington Village would be somewhat limited and the provision of significant landscaping would be provided for further buffering. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had recommended three conditions which were intended to deal with potential impacts of the facility. The Planning Commission, in dealing with the special use permit, added two other conditions. Actually, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 1996, recommended denial of ZMA-96-05 by a 5:1 vote. Their primary concern was the intent of the original proffers and the impact that the proposed change would have to neighbors. The Planning Commission also took action on the special use permit should the Board of Supervisors approve the rezoning. If the rezoning is approved by this Board, the Planning Commission felt the special use permit could be approved, and, in that event, recommended five conditions to be attached to that permit. The site plan has been deferred awaiting the Board's decision on the rezoning and the special use permit. Mrs. Humphris called on the applicant to speak first. Mr. Page Williams, an attorney with Feil, Pettit and Williams, said he represents CCAT2, University Limited Liability Company, which is the owner of the University Village site. They are the co-applicants with Mr. Kenneth Newell of Manorhouse Retirement Centers. He then introduced Mr. Thilo Best who is Vice-President with Holiday Retirement Corporation from Salem, Oregon, which is the principal in CCAT2, the owner of University Village. They would like to reserve the right to some rebuttal time, so he would introduce first Mr. Best. Mr. Best said CCAT2 stands for Congregate Care Asset Trust 2. He is with Holiday Retirement Corporation which is the largest owners and operators of senior housing in North America. They run and have developed over 170 projects in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. Their primary business is taking care of their 20,000 residents nationwide. They required the remaining units at the primary building of University Village, as well as the surrounding land, and several other parcels. At the time it could have been considered a distress sale by the prior developer. Today, they are happy to report that University Village is turning around, and they are a unified force. Mr. Best explained the definition of ~assisted living". He said it is different from a nursing home, and a certificate of need is not required. It offers a nice alternative to a nursing home. It can handle care up to the serious level of a nursing home. The industry is replacing a lot of the June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meet~ing) (Page 6) nursing homes, and there will be more of a residential feel~in the unit itself. They looked for a solid assisted living operator and they found Manorhouse out of Richmond, Virginia. It has a number of properties and they focus on this region. His company typically develops rental, retirement housing without any assisted living, which is why they found someone to buy this particular acreage rather than developing it themselves. Mr. Best said he would like to clarify some of the misconceptions and inaccuracies that have been reported about the proposed project. At the last meeting there were questions about why they were not planning to build on Parcel 10. In reality, the parcel does not work as a viable, alternative site for assisted living. One is the uncertainty of the location of the Route 29 Bypass. Visually, this road would have a sighificant impact on any building located where the building pad is presently sitting. Secondly, economically from the developer's standpoint, Parcel 10 has poor visibility and accessibility. Third, the cost of the road that would have to be built from the entrance to University Village all the way back to Parcel 10 is prohibitive. There is a dirt, semi-gravel road in existence that would take one back there now. It appears that a large part of any road would be lost with location of the Bypass. Mr. Best said a better proof of why assisted living would not work in that site is the prior developer's track record in trying to put assisted living on the site. His company has located some notes that actually show national and regional assisted living companies that were contacted by the prior developer to build an assisted living project on that site. Twenty-five companies were contacted. Nine expressed some interest, but no company found that to be a viable site for assisted living. Parcels 3 and 4 are the proposed locations of Manorhouse's assisted living project. They are designated for landscaping and recreational including a large tennis pavilion, which would be approximately the same size as their proposed assisted living building. Manorhouse has agreed to provide significant landscaping and buffering of the project. They tried to tell the owners in Huntington Village this directly, but their attempts for a meeting with the Homeowners' Association were blocked. As owners, they have indicated a willingness to give up part of the density to facilitate the sale in accordance with recommendations of the Planning staff by allowing 56 of their presently permitted 260 units to be assigned to Manorhouse. Manorhouse is a regional firm with expertise in assisted living and they have searched North Charlottesville and identified this as the only viable site. They have no interest in Parcel 10 for the reasons he has mentioned. His firm has no other offers from any other operators or developers of assisted living projects in Parcel 10. Mr. Best said the traffic issue was mentioned in the introduction. Due to the net reduction in density, there is concurrence that there would be little, if any, traffic impact. The conclusion that can be drawn is that if they do not obtain approval for the project as proposed on Sites 3 and 4, there probably will not be a project built to serve the residents of Albemarle County in the foreseeable future. Mr. Best said he would like to discuss the proffers, and the supposed broken promises conveyed to him. There is some misconception that the owners have broken promises to someone. They never made any promises to the residents of Huntington Village or Ivy Gardens. They did buy the land which came with the current proffers. The original proffers, along with their amendments in 1982, 1986 and 1987, included plans for a health care center. He then read from the proffer dated October 13, 1982. He said there is precedent for amending the proffers, and there is precedent for amending the proffers in conjunction with relocating the promised health center. Lastly, it appears that the true broken promises where made by the original developer, Bill Heischman, who represented in writing to the residents of University Village ~There will be amenities, including an outdoor pool, coffee shop, beauty shop, bank and tennis pavilion. Secondly, quality health care available to all residents including a number of services, assisted-living care and short- or long-term nursing care. The nursing home and assisted- living facility will be built and ready for use by the completion of Phase 2." Additionally; the conditional use permit for the nursing home was granted for the entire 61 acres when it was granted. It has subsequently expired. None of the buildings, services or amenities were built or implemented. Mr. Best said it is safe to say that the vast majority of the original buyers of University Village bought there because of some of these promises. As to the viewpoint of the opposition, it appears that Mr. Cordle and Mr. Heischman are June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) the primary organizers of the opposition, and seem particularly motivated by their self-interest. Mr. Cordle has been a long-time employee of Mr. Heischman, the original developer and owner of all three projects. Mr. Heischman and Mr. Cordle control or own the majority of the units abutting the proposed project through various entities. Huntington Village Limited Partnership is one of the entities. This entity owns ten out ten units that would be most directly impacted near the assisted livin~ facility. Petitions were circulated among Mr. Heischman's tenants at Ivy Gardens when they came in to pay their rent. Mr. Best said his marketin~ director lives at Ivy Gardens and she was solicited. Additionally, they have heard from Mr. Heischman's employees so 15 out of the 25 units along the border of the proposed assisted- living project are units owned or controlled by one of Mr. Heischman's or Mr. Cordle's entities. Mr. Best said they honestly believe an assisted-living facility is preferable to the presently permitted tennis pavilion. His point in ~oing into the Huntington Village ownership issue is to ask that the Board not let the desires of a select few outweigh the needs of the community as a whole. Assisted-living has been shown to be a nice and pleasant way to provide for the care of the elderly, both for the family or the parties getting that type of help. Mr. Best said that in summary, due to reasons beyond their control, Parcel 10 is not a viable location. Precedent has been set for the amendment of the proffer and the relocation of the health center. It is highly unlikely that the project will be built if it is not approved on this site. The project will provide the needed high quality assisted-living services to the seniors of Albemarle County and to their families. There will be little impact on Huntington Village's condominium units value due to the development of the assisted-living units, particularly when you compare the value that would be in place if looking at a large tennis pavilion. While the proffer does reference the landscape and recreation areas including a tennis pavilion, it also states in Paragraph 4 that the applicant ~may construct a personal care facility for the aged." The broken promises were made by the prior developer to the residents of University Village who now wants to deny them this assisted-living facility. He thanked the Board for hearing him and introduced Ms. Phyllis Rubenstein, Attorney for Mr. Newell and Manorhouse. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to ask a question first. If Parcel 10 is not suitable for this facility, what is the intended use of the parcel? Mr. Best said that at this point, they do not know. They bought it as part of the larger development, and they are in a quandary also as to that particular parcel. They would like to find a developer of some use that would be permitted to take that land. Ms. Rubenstein said the uncertainty of the Route 29 Bypass alignment and how that might impact Parcel 10 has made the parcel unsuitable for the project. Mrs. Humphris said the Board has been promised a definitive line on a map by July. Ms. Rubenstein said she is with the law firm of Missoula and McCandlish in Richmond, General Counsel to Manorhouse Retirements Center, Inc. The application before the Board is an amendment to the proffers adopted in 1987. At the hearing before the Planning Commission last month, the Huntington Village neighbors asserted that the proffers are promises that were made to them by the previous developer to provide for a landscaped area on this site, and that somehow these proffers are sacred and cannot be changed. This is wrong. Proffers are not promises. Proffers are not restrictive covenants. Proffers do not give neighbors a vested right in them anymore than one has a vested right in any zoning classification. Ms. Rubenstein said there are many legal cases to prove this point, and she noted some of those cases in the materials furnished to the Board. Proffers can be amended as circumstances chan~e. Ninety-one percent of the proffer amendments submitted to this Board since 1990 have been amended. It is unlawful for one board of supervisors to bind a future board so a legislative body can respond to conditions as they chan~e, and not to be prohibited from makin~ new decisions because of decisions made in the past. What was right for the development in 1987 is not necessarily right in 1996. The proffers of 1987 are amended proffers. The original proffers were enacted in 1982. Ms. Rubenstein said there is now a new owner of University Village who has a new vision of how the property should be developed. The owner of University Village and Manorhouse Properties recognize that the elderly population in the community is exploding, that the baby boomers are aging, and people are living longer. The residents of University Village have to be 62 June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) years of age to live there, in fact most of them are closer to 80 years old. They want and need this project. They do not want or need the proffered recreational facilities. Manorhouse will provide a needed service to residents of the community who require the services of assisted living, rather than chasing them out of the community and away from families, this will give an opportunity for them to live locally and thrive. It takes the burden off of families, and ultimately off of the County, from having to provide for these citizens. Manorhouse is making an economic contribution to the County without any negative impact on the infrastructure. This will be a $7.5 million project that will bring tax revenues into the County without increasing .demands for services, such as schools. All other services will be paid for by Manorhouse. Ms. Rubenstein said her second point is that the proposed amendment does not change the intent or the impact of the existing proffers. She referred the Board to the proffers as written in 1987 and read in full No. 3. She then noted the areas referred to in No. 3 on the site plan posted on the wall. One important point is that the proffer says ~... Building, road and parking areas will be confined and residential units and services will be built essentially in accordance with .... " It does not say strictly in accordance with the schematic. The Board saw the need for flexibility in the development of the University Village property and did not allow language that would cast them in stone forever. The proffer goes on to say ~... the balance of the site will be developed so as to provide substantial natural of landscaped areas around the periphery of the site .... " That is not being changed. They are in keeping with the language of the original proffer in that regard. It will remain as proffered in 1987. Admittedly, part of Area 3 will be converted to development of the Manorhouse project if the zoning is approved, but that does not impact the part of Area 3 that goes around the periphery of the site. If you think about that whole area in a practical sense, whether the unit owners in Huntington Village who overlook that area could have had an expectation of overlooking a grassy knoll forever, Area 4 was to be recreation area with tennis courts, Area 8 could have had clustered housing units. At best, there was only one small sliver in the middle that could have been all green space under the existing proffers. Further, the way the site plan works, the existing building will give 90 feet of green space from the Huntington Village property line. The proffers call for 30 feet around the entire project, and that will be tripled. Ms. Rubenstein noted in the handout some language that had been proposed for Proffer 3 in 1987, but which was not adopted. That proposed language read: ~Building, road and parking areas will be confined ... and the balance will be left undisturbed or landscaped." The existing proffers read: and the balance of the site will be developed so as to provide substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site as shown in Areas 1, 2 and 3 on Exhibit A." That is quite a difference, and the Board's records do not indicate why the change was made. Memories are short. Is it possible that the residents of Huntington Village mistakenly remember the first version and thought that it was adopted? That is not the case. Ms. Rubenstein said she has trouble understanding what all the fuss is about. The University Village project has a long history. During the rezoning in 1982, the neighbors complained about density, and the impact of traffic on Ivy Road. Traffic studies were conducted, and the problems were solved with proffers limiting the development to 260 residential units. In 1987, the neighbors complained about the height of the proposed University Village residential tower. It was to be six stories instead of four as allowed by zoning at that time. New proffers were negotiated to include new height restrictions permitting a six-story structure. Ms. Rubenstein said the proffers for University Village need to be looked at in their entirety. The focus should not be on one small area of land, but on the intent of the proffers as they relate to the totality of the University Village property. Their purpose is clearly stated in the language of the proffers. 1) To allow a more orderly development of the University Village property; 2) To provide for better preservation of the landscape; and, 3) To lessen the impact on surrounding properties. Now, in 1996, all of the legitimate zoning considerations that were embodied in the 1987 decision, are being preserved today. The owner of University Village has agreed to sell the site to Manorhouse and in turn to reduce the density of his remaining property from 260 to 204 residential units to allow a project that is slightly larger than the original nursing home to go in the back to allow now an assisted- living facility to be developed in the front on a different site. If the proffers are approved, an orderly development of the property which will serve June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000150 the needs of the community will go forward. The Planning staff has done another traffic engineering study and recommended the reduction in density. Planning staff based its recommendation on the fact that most, if not all, of the residents of the Manorhouse project will not drive and traffic generation will be limited to employees; 20 during the busiest shift and visitors, most of whom will come at night and on weekends. The Planning staff supports this project. Ms. Rubenstein then said the landscaping will be preserved. The existing proffers now show the landscaping at a total of 6.35 acres. Their proposal shows a total of 6.40 acres, and they are maintaining the 30-foot buffer around the project. In summary, Ms. Rubenstein said there will be no net loss of total landscaped area, no loss of landscaping along the periphery, and no impact on density. There will be no impact on traffic on Ivy Road and it will be an economic benefit to the community. Huntington Village residents, the majoritY of which are renters, have no vested right in the proffers of any zoning classification. The Board is not bound by the decisions of a previous board, particularly in light of changed circumstances. When it is all said and done, there is no reason to deny a $7.5 million project which has tremendous social and economic benefit to the community, and to the County. It should go forward in light of the intent of the 1987 proffers remain in tact. This project is a win-win for the County. She then introduced Mr. Kenneth Newell, President and CEO of Manorhouse Retirements Centers, Inc. Mr. Newell said Manorhouse is a Richmond-based firm which develops and operates a system of retirement communities. They have been in the assisted- living business for the past ten years, and have established a reputation of providing senior adults with both quality service and quality products. He is present tonight to request that the Board amend the proffers that apply to the University Village properties and grant a special use permit for their assisted-living facility. If approved, the project will offer the residents of Albemarle County, as well as University Village, much needed assisted- living care. They will do so in a first-class manner, and with disruption to local neighbors. There is a need for assisted-living services by the residents of University Village, as well as an overall County need. Since University Village was first conceived, the long-term care and retirement industries have changed dramatically, as have the needs for the citizens. The need for recreational amenities such as indoor tennis facilities has long since been replaced with the need for health care amenities like assisted- living and nursing home care. Mr. Newell said Manorhouse wished to address those needs by bridging the gap between independent living and skilled care delivered in a nursing home. Their facility will offer a full complement of residential care services for elderly seniors who are no longer capable of caring for themselves, but who do not need the skilled nursing care of a nursing home. To answer technical questions, Mr. Jack Shaney, Architect, and Mr. Tom Gale, Engineer, are present. He said the Manorhouse facility will be a home and a personal residence for elderly Albemarle County citizens. This is a residential facility, not a commercial product, and they request approval to construct a retirement home on a site tucked between several other multi-family residential projects. Manorhouse will have only a slight impact on a few of the residential neighbors in Huntington Village and almost no impact on the apartment dwellers in Ivy Gardens. With regard to Huntington Village, only three of the 21 condominium buildings will actually overlook the Manorhouse site. In fact, the back yards of these residents will be just as attractive as any other Huntington Village resident who faces parking in other multi- family buildings in their residence. The proposed building will set a little lower than their two-story buildings as their building will be cut into the hill just below the Huntington Village property line. Mr. Newell said that although they did not prevail at the Planning Commission, the Commissioners did make many positive comments about the quality of the Manorhouse design and noted that the project is needed by the community, and the proposed site seemed logical for the project. In fact, they approved the special use permit for the project. Further, the project is supported by the County's Plannin9 staff and the University Village homeowners. The Planning Commission did ask the applicants to look into a few items. One, to work out any issues with the Huntington Village residents. Two~ to reduce the size of the parkin9 area. Three, to add additional June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) landscaping buffer around their parking. Four, to evaluate the feasibility of alternate sites on the University Village property. Mr. Newell said he would review the suggestions of the Planning Commission. First, they have repeated attempted to attempted to set up meetings with the residents of Huntington Village to address their concerns. They have declined every attempt to do so. Their meetings to date have been limited to an audience with Mr. Cordle, the President of their Association, who has informed him that there is no room for discussion or negotiation. The only solution for Manorhouse is to find another location. Second, they will reduce the size of the parking lot and move it a little further from the Huntington Village property line. They will work with the County's Planning staff to determine appropriate parking levels. Third, they are willing to add additional landscaping around the parking area to serve as a buffer to Huntington Village. They will work with County staff to establish reasonable landscape buffers along the entire property line of Huntington Village. Fourth, as suggested by the Planning Commission, they did study the entire University Village site for alternate locations for their development. They maintain that the proposed site is the only suitable development location. Specifically, area No. 10 which is not easily accessible due to its location, suffers from challenging topography and it is not adaptable to their design for an assisted-living facility. The uncertainty of the potential impact of the proposed Bypass makes any development on area No. 10 very risky. They were not interested when contacted by the original developer, and are still not interested in development on Parcel No. 10. With respect to Area No. 7, their engineers and architects believe the topography of the site is not suitable. The area is too small, and their design would infringe on required setbacks. The site has limited space for required stormwater retention. They looked at two nearby sites owned by Mr. Heischman, and one of these sites was too small and was bordered by railroad tracks. The second site has an existing proffer that restricts development on that site until Old Ivy Road is improved. Mr. Newell said site selection if critical to any investment in a $7.5 million project. They have studied the alternate sites and concluded that their site is the only appropriate development location at the University Village properties for their specific project. Mr. Newell thanked the Board for hearing them this evening, and said they hope the Board will agree that the Manorhouse will make a good, quiet neighbor, and that Manorhouse has demonstrated to work with the County, as well as adjoining neighbors. Likewise, they hope the Board will agree that Manorhouse has limited the potential extent of total development on Parcels 3, 4 and 8 to actually increase the actual amount of overall green space. Finally, they hope the Board will agree that the Manorhouse assisted-living retirement residence will only be an asset to the local neighborhoods. He asked that he be allowed to make final comments at the end of the public hearing. He then introduced Mr. Jack Shady, Manorhouse Architect. Mrs. Humphris asked if any Board member had a question for Mr. Newell. Mr. Marshall said he has heard the same thing three times from three different people. He asked if Mr. Shady will be making the same remarks. Mrs. Humphris said the Board members feel the presentation is becoming repetitious, and the presentation has been ongoing for over an hour, and the public has not yet spoken. Mr. Newell said Mr. Shady will keep his remarks brief. He would like to illustrate the perspective from Huntington Village. Mr. Shady said he is the project architect and owner of Freeman & Morgan, Architects, in Richmond. He then showed some graphics relating to the site plan. He said the proffer did allow for outside tennis courts, and the building, and the parking. He then pointed out the green spaces as proposed on the new site plan. The comparison between the two sites shows more open space, green space and landscaping. There is actually 5930 square feet less coverage with their project than is allowed under the existing proffer. He said a handout given to the Board earlier by Mr. Cordle shows that Parcel No. 10, and that parcel does not work. His parking lot is on about a 35 percent grade now. It does not meet ADA regulations. His driveway, which services the back of their building, runs off of the property, so there is no way to get to it. No. 10 has the same problem. He has not addressed the topography. There would need to be massive retaining walls to do what is shown. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to ask how many members of the public would like to speak. She then opened the public hearing, and said since all June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000 .82 know how much of the information the Board has already heard, if the remarks are not repetitious, the Board would appreciate it. Dr. James C. Lamb, a registered professional engineer and a resident and owner in University Village said he had previously submitted a written statement to the Board and he would not read it tonight. He said with respect to the areas to be covered, he made a study of some different preliminary drawings. He came to the conclusion that as documented in the report submitted to the Board, actually the area to be covered by Manorhouse would be equal to or less (depending on which version of the preliminary drawings were consulted) than was planned under the original site plan and the existing proffers. With the reduction in parking area that would be done for Manorhouse, and the fact that the Manorhouse building is slightly smaller than he had stated, the amount of land covered would be less (the amount of green space would be more). The Manorhouse building would be visible from 25 or 26 Huntington Village units, slightly less than one-third of those are to the north of the building and located at an elevation well above it. These units would be effected little, if at all, by the presence of the building. More than one-third are located to the south of this property and overlook empty land owned by University Village which will not be built on. That leaves one- third, or 8 to 10 of these units which would be opposite the Manorhouse building. While they are opposite the building, the back doors of those units would be about 125 feet from the building. Actually, the Manorhouse building would be invisible from about 100 of the Huntington Village units. The Manorhouse building is more attractive than the original tennis building would have been. Even that view will be modified by extensive landscaping to be determined later. With respect to noise levels, there would not be much noise from either type of development. As far as traffic is concerned, there would be no increase in traffic. Dr. Lamb said they feel this is an important and needed facility. It can be provided to Albemarle County at no cost to the County. To the contrary, it can bring in attractive income to the County in the form of property taxes. Also, it provides more jobs for local people, and it make the County even more attractive as a retirement community. He requested that this be approved, feeling it would be in the best interest of all concerned. Mr. Robin Cordle, President of the Huntington Village Homeowners' Association, spoke next. Mrs. Humphris said the Board members would prefer that the speakers not get into personal issues which the Board has no ability to deal with. Mr. Cordle agreed. He said it was stated that he blocked meetings numerous times with the homeowners, but the day he got a request for a meeting he sent out letters to all owners and asked that they call him or the office to express an interest in such a meeting. There was no response. He believes that was because all of the conversation they had in the early stages was about planting more trees. There was no willingness to talk about shifting parking or anything. The bulk of people in Huntington Village expressed the sentiment that was not addressing the issues that need to be addressed to protect the neighborhood. He does not own any interest in Huntington Village C Limited Partnership that owns a number of units. Mr. Heischman does own those units. He has worked for Mr. Heischman for many years off and on giving him advice. He never sought to hide that fact. He does not have any interest in the units Mr. Heischman owns. Mr. Cordle said he personally owns three units in Huntington Village. He never suggested that proffers are sacred. That comment was made by Mr. Nitchmann at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Cordle said when Mr. Heischman was seeking necessary approval to build University Village, in order to address neigb_borhood concerns, he attempted through proffers to provide adequate landscaped buffer areas. This developer wants to build the assisted-living facility on land that was originally proffered for recreation and open area. They are aware that circumstances change and there may be good reasons for amending proffers or changing zoning classifications. No good reasons exist in this instance. The character of the neighborhood, access to the site, and infrastructure, are substantially as they were when the original proffers were drafted. There is no doubt there is public interest in having this type of facility, there is no compelling public interest in having it on this particular site. As reported by the Daily Progress and JABA, there are several developers planning to build assisted-living facilities in Albemarle County. Mr. Cordle said he had given to the Board members a handout showing two alternative sites. He knows that Mr. Newell is not happy with these sites, June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 000 83 and that the back site presents some difficulties. He noted that someone from the Highway Department had noted a location for the Bypass and said that about four-tenths of an acre will be cut off, but that can be replaced with another strip next to University Village, and it would still be a five-acre parcel. He had the building drawn on the two sites by an architect and engineer just to see if the footprint of the building would fit. It does. Mr. Cordle said he is not an architect or engineer and only wanted to see if there are alternative sites available. Even if not on the University Village property, he believes there are other sites within the community. Mr. Cordle said he would like to address the tennis courts. This would be a facility 120 feet x 120 feet. The Planning staff said the facility would need two parking spaces per tennis court, so he had an architect figure out what would be required for 10 parking spaces because four seemed to be a silly number. The footprint they came up with was 18,500 square feet. According to the Planning staff report, the footprint of the proposed facility is 1.7 acres which is 75,752 square feet, or more than four times the size of the indoor tennis facility. The residents in Huntington Village do not object to any of the outdoor recreation activities originally planned. However, the Manorhouse building would be four times larger than the proposed tennis facility. In addition, the original proffers were approved in 1982 with conditions including a requirement that any ancillary services be for the exclusive use of any University Village residents. The 1987 proffer amendments did not change this requirement. Consequently, a tennis facility under the existing proffers should be for the use of the University Village residents. That would have a negligible impact on the neighborhood. It is a totally different impact from a tennis facility and this proposed facility. Unlike the assisted-living facility, there would be virtually no employee arrivals and departures, deliveries, food service, waste disposal, ambulances, visitors to a tennis facility, and certainly none between the hours from 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Mr. Cordle said many of the residents of Huntington Village took into account the proffered landscaped and recreation area when they purchased their homes. They regarded the proffers as a joint promise (he knows the proffer is not a promise), not as a vested interest, but as a carefully considered analysis of how that project should be developed in order to protect the neighborhood. Ironically, the 1987 proffers say they were changed and ~adopted with the express purpose to provide for better preservation of the landscape and lessened impact on surrounding properties." If the residents of Huntington Village may not rely upon these proffers, it is hard to imagine under what circumstances they may rely upon proffers. Mr. Bill Finley said he is a resident of Unit 126 in Huntington Village, and an officer of the Homeowners' Association. He would reinforce what Mr. Cordle said in the area of the County paying attention to proffers approved in the past and proffers which were used to achieve the approval that the previous developer needed in order to build the facility. In 1990, when Mr. Finley bought, he made a special effort to find out what was to be built on the property behind him. They came to the Planning Office and looked at the file with the proffers and understood that land was to be held for recreation and green space and then purchased their property. Now, a new developer comes along. They do not want to deny assisted living to the people in University Village who may need that service, but they would like the Board's consideration that the facility be located in a different place other than the proposed site. Dr. Jackson Riddle said he is President of the University Village Owner's Association and Chairman of their Board of Directors. He said his purpose in speaking tonight is to present a very strong endorsement of the proposal of Manorhouse by the officers and residents of University Village. He handed to the Clerk a petition containing the signatures of 75 or nearly 100 percent of their residents. The petitions and letters the Board has received from the residents are from those persons who may need this facility at any time. As time passes, some of the Board members and maybe even some of those who object today to this proposal, may find it desirable to use it in some future time. Of their 80 residents, some are traveling in other locations. He then asked those present in support of the request to stand and show their support. Dr. Riddle said that at their open meeting in March, 1996, the residents expressed strong support for the Manorhouse proposal after being convinced of the quality of the proposed assisted-living facility, and the quality of the June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting! (Page 13) 0001 4 care that would be available. As plans progressed, in May the Board of Directors voted unanimously to grant the two easements on Crestwood Drive requested by Manorhouse if this application is approved by the Board of Supervisors. At the Planning Commission meeting on this proposal, the gist of the comments of the Commission were mostly concerned with keeping the original proffers inviolate. He then referred the Board to the definition of "proffer" in Webster's Dictionary. He said there is no implication of inviolability or sacredness about such offers. The real question before the Board is whether the opposition of very few owners of units in Huntington Village whose back doors would overlook a building far more attractive than the one they knew was a possibility when they bought there. Whether those few objections of a personal nature should outweigh the advantages to the people of this County of a much needed, fine assisted-living facility which will bring to the community expanded opportunities for jobs in construction, in maintenance, additional professionals an increase in tax income from this property, and a substantial inducement to other retirees to move to Charlottesville. The wishes of a very few versus the enormous benefits to the entire community is the real issue before the Board. The residents of University Village strongly urge the Board's approval of the Manorhouse request and thank the Board for this opportunity to express their wholehearted support for this application. Ms. Patricia Daley said she is annoyed. She is a homeowner in Huntington Village and she guesses ~beauty is in the eye of the beholder." She does not have a vested interest and its not in her pocket, so to her it is not attractive. She does not face it. She is not part of a Heischman crew, and would like for the people present from Huntington Village in opposition to stand. Nobody has mentioned that there is a sound element to this. She will not be looking at it, but she will hear it. There will be people coming at different hours of the night to make deliveries, for pickups, for laundry, for services. This is not strictly a 9 to 5. People have needs at all hours of the night, especially if they need assisted-living care, she assumes. There will be some congestion in spite of what has been said, plus the fact that they need to have somewhere to walk. They need some way to get from one point to another. At this time, they are being enclosed on all sides and have no where to go. They will be closed in by the Bypass and now by the possibility of the Manorhouse. This is not why they bought in Huntington Village. Ms. Daley said it seems to her that in Albemarle County there are other areas which would be more than suitable. They would have better visibility and much better accessibility. Mrs. Opal David said she lives in University Village. She said she would like to comment on the remark just made about a place to walk, and she assumes that means also to walk dogs, and shortcut to the Law School. She does not think University Village has been unwilling to have people come on the property until some of their people were warned off of Mr. Heischman's property. At that time, they did put up some ~No Trespassing" signs. It has been said that the proffers have been amended substantially. She remembers the night the Board was asked to approve the change from three- and four-story buildings to a six-story building. What has happened to this particular five- acre piece of land is interesting. Originally (1982), it was designated for open space. In 1986, Mr. Heischman came in and asked to transfer his open space to the back of the property, and to transfer from the back of his property, the right to have recreational structures. He made the first move toward putting development on that property. What has been said by several speakers, has established that the development as proposed will have a total footprint of approximately 1.7 acres on the 5.4 acre site leaving 3.7 acres as open and landscape. Mrs. David said she believes there will be room in that open space for that path to still come across from Huntington Village on their way to the Law School, or the Darden School. In conclusion, she said that when CCAP negotiated the purchase of University Village property, the project was on the verge of bankruptcy. It seems reasonable that a new owner who is trying to turn this into a viable property should be given some leeway and when it is as attractive a prospect as has been offered, and one which has so little cost to the County, that the Board should think seriously about approving it. Mr. Mike Quelland said he is the Property Manager for Huntington Village and for Ivy Gardens. More importantly, he is a resident of Ivy Gardens and is in one of the buildings which overlooks this proposed site° He is not present at the request of his employer. He has been in Charlottesville and resided in Ivy Gardens longer than many of the residents in University Village. Not only is he a renter, but he is also a taxpayer. He is a citizen and he votes. That was overlooked by Mr. Best and Ms. Rubenstein when they said there are 000 , 5 June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) only a bunch of renters in those properties. He understands the need for the facility, but he objects to the proposed location of it. This serves the developers interest. This serves the owners interest, but it does not serve the interest of the community. The landscaped area was provided in the proffers to protect the residential nature of the community. By putting a commercial facility of this type here, there will be continuous traffic coming and going throughout the day. This will have a tremendous impact on his property. He wishes to stay in Albemarle County and he wishes for the interest of people who live here to be served and not just those from out of town. Mr. Paul Cantor said he is a member of the Huntington Village Board. He has been in Charlottesville since 1977. He is a professor of English at the University of Virginia. He owns Unit 210, so he would like to stress that there are many individual unit owners who will be affected by this plan and lay to rest the idea that this is some kind of conspiracy by Bill Heischman. He knows as a Board member that many individual homeowners are concerned about this proposal. Mr. Cantor said what he has heard tonight is comparisons of various forms of traffic increase. That maybe this facility will not increase traffic more than other residential units and the tennis facility. That is a way of hiding the underlying fact that there will still be a major traffic increase as a result of this facility. This troubles him. If one knows the situation on Old Ivy road, it is virtually bottle-necked on both sides because of the train tracks and the train trestles. He believes the Board members know the problems with the traffic patterns on the west side of Old Ivy Road. Over the past few years, the traffic patterns have been changed several times. It is an indication of what a problem it is to get out onto Route 250 West from Old Ivy Road. On the east side, there is a very narrow point going under the train trestles. It is a particularly dangerous traffic situation on both ends and anything that increases that traffic seems to be a very bad idea. Mr. Cantor said the other thing he has been hearing tonight is what makes Albemarle County attractive. It sounds as if this is the only source of assisted-living care in Albemarle County and that is not true. There have been veiled threats that he or his relatives will die someday because this facility is not built. He is willing to take his chances because he has seen a lot of other health care facilities in this town. What really makes Albemarle County attractive is the scenery. It is the natural beauty of Albemarle County. It is the greenness of Albemarle County. In the years he has lived here, he has seen that natural beauty compromised again and again to the point of instead being green, this is becoming a gray county. A county covered with concrete, covered with parking lots, covered with one building after another which slowly but surely is destroying everything that makes Charlottesville attractive and different and beautiful. When he looks at this proposal, he can't see that this will make this County or the City more attractive for anyone. It is just one more example of overdevelopment. This is the site which has the most adverse impact on the neighbors. You couldn't pick a site that would have more of a deleterious effect for Ivy Gardens and Huntington Village. The fact is that from the developer's point of view it is the cheapest site to develop. There are alternative sites, but they would cost more to develop. Above all it is the site that would have the most impact in making this area unattractive to the people who live there, and the people who might live there. It is already an area of fairly dense population by Albemarle County standards. He does not see any reason to make it more dense. Mr. Fred Brenner said he and Mrs. Brenner are owner/residents of University Village. He will soon be 80 years old. He would like to speak in a personal way as to why he strongly advocates the Manorhouse proposal. When they planned to sell their Florida home and move to Charlottesville, they decided to buy at University Village because it seemed to meet all their needs and expectations. Foremost among these was the availability of adequate health care facilities. This, Bill Heischman, promised to provide. They knew the foundation of such a facility was already begun and Mr. Heischman was seeking a partner in the medical care industry to help finance and run it. Subsequently, the health care project was abandoned. This was just one of many promises and inducements that Bill Heischman made to them personally and then reneged on. They urge the Board to consider the Manorhouse proposal favorably so that they and other elderly residents of University Village and of the County, of course, can enjoy the protective environment that they were promised and which they paid for. June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 0001 6 Ms. Fay Tyler Norton said she is a retired professor, a property owner and resident of Albemarle County at 2401 Old Ivy Road. She expressed her appreciation to the Board members for their attentiveness and their patience for hearing from those of University Village. She said that like many others, she and her husband moved back to Charlottesville. They returned a year ago after having been four years away. It was because of the many attractions of the area, and because of the many friends they had made during her husband's eight years as director of the University of Virginia's Center for Public Service. They have common views, and her husband would be present tonight, but he is serving as interim president of a college in Rhode Island. Both she and her husband strongly support the building of the proposed Manorhouse, the assisted-living facility. They may need it some day close by them. They recognize that it is one of the services needed more each day by persons considering retiring to Albemarle County. The County is expanding vigorously as a retirement community. A facility like the one proposed also expands economic development for the community, and provides jobs closely linked to other health care activities in the area. She and her husband are convinced that the proposed location is indeed the best one near University Village. They have seen the plans and examined the proposed landscaping carefully, and believe it will enhance things for their neighbors as well as for themselves. They believe it will enhance, not detract from, the sort of land use already in place. Who would foot the bill for development of a tennis facility? She thinks the area would remain vacant. Ms. Norton said they sympathize with those who would like to have open space, but they cannot accept the idea that present owners, not the University Village Owners' Association, should maintain a privately-maintained park for them or for any other neighbors, especially only about 24 or 25 of the units in Huntington Village actually back up to that open space. She does not concur that there would be more noise, or more problems with traffic. She was told that the staff of the Planning Commission generally recommended this project and the Planning Commission generally made positive statements about it. She believes they are realistic and the Board will serve Albemarle County best by approving the issues before the Board to establish an assisted living facility at the proposed location. Mr. Mark Webb asked that the Board recognize the forces that have been brought to bear. He knows it is a difficult decision, but the recommendation of the Planning Commission was carefully considered, so he asks that there overwhelming vote be considered and that the Board also deny the request. Mr. Jack Shady said he does not know where the 1.7 acre footprint mentioned here tonight came from. The square footage is a little over 36,000 square feet total and that includes the court yard also. The perception of the overall outside of the building is just a little over 36,000 square feet. Food delivery, laundry, linens and garbage pickup would occur during normal working hours. There are no all-night type of issues. There will be exception to that, and it can be written into the proffers, if necessary. Last, the little colored site plan presented to the Board tonight is a distortion. He has checked it and it will not work on the site. Ms. Rubenstein thanked the Board for being patient. She said the issue of traffic has been thoroughly discussed, but she trusts the engineering studies that were performed by the County. They were performed in 1982, again in 1987, and have been performed again today. She believes they can be relied on those studies. They ask for a decrease in the density to accommodate any kind of increase in traffic. There will not be an increase in traffic and these people need assisted-living. Most of them don't drive. The only potential traffic will be from employees, a maximum of 20 at the busiest shift. Family members and visitors usually come during off-hours at night and on week-ends. She said all seem to have the same views of the proffers, and they will allow for more orderly development of the property. They will provide for better preservation of the landscape, and they will lessen the impact on the surrounding properties. She thinks this project will do that. What she has heard from the opposition is almost a classic case of "nimby". She thinks they recognize there is a need for this in the community, so she believes there is no reason to deny this project which has tremendous social and economic benefit to the County. She encouraged the Board to grant the amendments to the proffers, and do a good thing for the County. Mr. Bob Grinaker a resident of Huntington Village said he heard the reference to ~nimby" and he stands to object to that. There are other possibilities that would satisfy or raise the same questions. He pointed out June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 0001 7 another spot on the map and said it would be beautiful spot for the facility. It would be closer to the University Village area than walking way down the hill to visit the people in the facility. He offers that as an alternative. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall said he built a nursing home so he knows quite a bit about it. He is also a member of the State Board of Health, and is involved in issuing certificates of need. He knows about extended care facilities and is interested to know what kind of services Manorhouse will provide as assisted care. He believes some of the residents of University Virginia expect more from the facility than Mr. Newell will be able to Provide under the assisted care category. Mr. Newell said Manorhouse bridges the gap between those individuals that can maintain an independent lifestyle. Mr. Marshall asked if there will be LPNs or nursing staff on site. Mr. Newell said "yes", twenty- four hour a day care providing residential services. Also, their residents, fragile in nature, may require dressing, feeding, medication administration, general supervision. These people don't need to be a nursing home, but can't care for themselves, cook, clean, dress, or measure medication administration, as more and more people are facing today as they reach 80 years of age and beyond, Manorhouse provides an alternative to nursing home care. When nursing care is necessary, they will obviously need to move into a nursing home. Mr. Marshall said this is essentially the same as home health care. Mr. Newell said it is the same as twenty-four hour a day home health care. They provide three meals a day, housekeeping, laundry, activities programs, transportation services, and in a custom-designed, personal care program for the individual resident. They are offering an alternative lifestyle for these people in their facility. This service is provided on a rental basis. They provide full residential services when their residents can no longer live independently. They are also providing an alternative to families who have parents and grandparents who are fragile. Where husband and wife both work so there is no one at home to care for those individuals. Albemarle County is no different from any other place in the United States in this regard, except that the pace of growth of the elderly population in the community is staggering. They provide the alternative to a skilled nursing facility. Mrs. Humphris said she had a statement to read. She said there have been many letters received on this subject, and she has not been able to reply to all of them. She received 17 letters in the mail yesterday, and the comments were about evenly divided. She does not think the Board members have had an opportunity to see all of those letters yet. She has passed them around tonight hoping the Board members could get the flavor of the public input other than what they knew happened at the Planning Commission meeting. Mrs. Humphris said she believes everyone knows that they might need this type of facility at some time in their lives, and it might be nice to have it in this location. She remembers the discussions that took place concerning this property back in the early 1980s and all of the difficulties the Board of Supervisors had making their decisions. She was aware of those meetings and attended a number of them. She went through the Board's minutes to review the history of this request. During the 1982 hearing it was stated that the support uses were those that were ~reasonably necessary to serve the residents." ~All of which are designed and intended to serve the residents." There was an idea of the central services building on the crest of the hill and it was mentioned that the health facility planned at that time would be immediately adjacent to the central services building, the residential building. There were several mentions in the minutes of October, 1982, of ~substantial landscape buffers" and "considerable buffer zone." There was a lot of discussion about the driveway going up the hill. In the discussion it said ~the driveway will be relocated and abandoned in its present location, said area will serve as a wooded buffer area between the condominiums and this facility." The conceptual plan was put in as a proffer. Mrs. Humphris said when the request came back to the Board in 1987, there was a meeting on September 16, 1987, and it was clear that the Board at that time was concerned about the vagueness of the proffers. The Board asked that the things that were offered as the benefits of the proffers be specified. The Board asked for schematic plan incorporating exactly what was to be expected. The Board wanted something in writing that could be used at a later date to enforce the assurances. On October 7, 1987, the amended proffers were discussed. The idea was that the new drawing attempted to show June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) O00 S$ in more detail the exact use of various sections of the proposed site. They wanted to pin down what was to be expected, and that was after a number of meetings and a lot of discussion. The Board believed it had invested a lot of time and effort over a long period of time, and reached the conclusion that they had finally satisfied everybody. That they had made it possible to build the University Village facility, but they were definitely going to limit the impact of the facility on the neighbors in Ivy Gardens, and most particularly the condominiums that were already in place in Huntington Village. Mrs. Humphris said she believes that since the proffers were offered as a very clear and distinctive incentive to urge the County Board of Supervisors to approve that project, and having visited her mother in another facility in town for over a period of 12 years, and knowing the types of activities that go on there 24 hours a day, she feels that the Board that did this made a commitment to the neighbors that this Board should not change because of the impact. She understands the handsomeness of the facility, what might be there in terms of recreational facilities, people have analyzed square footages, etc., but, knowing what she knows about what happens at a facility like this, there would be a major impact on the Huntington Village homeowners in terms of noise and lighting and overall activity, and not just from morning until night, but 24 hours a day. She cannot support this request. She hopes that is this Board does not approve this request, the facility will be built somewhere on the property or in Albemarle County. She believes it would be a valuable facility, but does not believe the Board can approve it in good conscience. Mr. Bowerman said it was a well-thought out analysis. Mrs. Humphris said this is a very difficult decision. These people are friends, neighbors, people she has known for a long time, but she believes after reading all of those minutes that the Board of Supervisors in 1987 had some very specific expectations and they spent months in reaching what they believed was a successful solution to the entire situation. She does not believe anything has happened that ought to change that. She understands very well the economic benefits to the developer, the taxes that would come to the community, she took all of these things into consideration. In her mind, there are more cons than pros for doing this. Mrs. Thomas said it has come to her attention that in the community there is a feeling that the Board of Supervisors does not listen to people. This often equates to the Board not voting the way people would have wanted the Board to vote. She hopes that this meeting does suggest that the Board does listen seriously, even if in the end a large number of people go away disappointed. She knows this would be a very useful facility because she is providing assisted living to two, 92-year olds in her own home day and night. She does not think the neighbors have a vested right in a vacant lot, but there was an interesting exchange that she thinks brought out how she feels about proffers and the ~promise" aspect. One of the applicants said ~we can proffer no night deliveries." It was said in passing, and it indicates the way proffers are regarded. It is regarded as something that you should have a modicum in; that the government will maintain these proffers. Then there is the fact that conditions do change. She said it is the Board's job to decide how much conditions have changed, and how much the Board wants to uphold the zoning that is already in place. She joins Mrs. Humphris in saying she has not been convinced at this point, that it should be changed. Mr. Marshall said he hopes this facility can be built. There is a need in the community for this type of facility. There are a number of extended care facilities and a lot of places that call themselves adult care homes that fall short of providing that service. They don't have health care professionals in the homes, and he is concerned about that. This facility would provide those health care professionals that area needed, but he will support Mrs. Humphris. He said her argument certainly has merit. He then offered motion to deny ZMA-96-05. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. He said that he recognizes that proffers can be changed due to different circumstances, but this Board just spent a year dealing with an issue which centered on the use of a piece of property and the proffers that were offered by the applicant. Part of what this Board considered was the total picture. To divorce the total picture when something is approved, and then later to look at it piecemeal is a dangerous proposition for this Board to undertake. June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 000 [89 Mrs. Humphris thanked the members of the public for the time taken and the sincerity with which the arguments were made, for all the telephone calls and letters. She said this Board had a thorough representation of the feelings. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board needed to take a vote on the special permit. Mr. Davis asked if the public hearing was opened with the other public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said ~no". Mr. Davis said the Board would need to open and close a public hearing on SP-96-09 although the comments of the previous public hearing could be considered by the Board in this matter, and don't need to be repeated. Mrs. Humphris immediately opened the public hearing on SP-96-09. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to deny SP-96-09. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (NOTE: At 9:23 p.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 10. SP-96-14. Jerome M. Beazley, Time Tech Management Inc. Public Hearing on a request for a Home Occupation-Class B to allow commodity trading advisory service with one outside employee in accessory structure on residential property of approx 22 ac located on W sd of Rt 627 about 2 mi W of Keene & 2 1/2 mi N of Esmont. TM120, P15B. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 3, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, unanimously recommended approval of SP-96-14 subject to one condition. There being no questions for Mr. Cilimberg from Board members, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. The applicant was present but did not wish to speak. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-96-14 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below:) The entrance onto Route 627 shall be maintained such that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) minimum sight distance requirement for a private entrance (250 feet) is provided. June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 000:1.90 Agenda Item No. 11. SP-96-15. Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity. Public Hearing on a request to establish 5 add'tl development rights for a total of 10 lots on property in Esmont area on W sd of Rt 627 approx 1/3 mi S of Rt 6. Lots to be served by public road. TM128, P85. Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27 and June 2, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.. He said this is submitted for reapproval of a permit approved in 1994 (SP-94-03) for five additional lots. When the staff reviewed this request, they considered any changes that have taken place since that time in either the Subdivision or Zoning ordinances, with the Comprehensive Plan which may have created a need for reconsideration of this application. Staff found nothing that would affect the application, and feel that the staff analysis provided originally is still applicable. Staff recommended approval in 1994, and again recommends approval today, but with conditions that are different from those originally approval because of changed circumstances. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, recommended approval of SP-96-15 subject to three conditions. At this time, Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Bruce Warden, Chairperson of the Greater Charlottesville/Albemarle Habitat for Humanity, spoke first. He said that Mr. Lloyd Feggans, a member of the Habitat Board and a resident in Esmont, could not attend tonight. During discussion of the first special use permit, there were residents present who were concerned because they did not know what was going to happen. There was a suggestion that Habitat be required to make Esmont residents exclusively beneficiaries of the developer, and it was decided not to do that. Since that time, they have addressed a number of the community issues. They have some of their Board meetings in the community, and the three families who have been selected to partner-families with Habitat are all from the Esmont area. Mr. Feggans is a member of the Board and is in charge of the Development Committee for the project. Habitat is requesting that the permit be reissued because they found that raising money for roads is more difficult than raising funds for houses. They have not raised the funds. There are three applications in for the funding for the road currently. He understands the CDBG grant this Board approved in conjunction with AHIP was not approved. There are two other proposals pending for road funds. One is with the Perry Foundation and one with a Federal program that was designed around Habitat for Humanity that is requesting funds nationally for infrastructure development. They will know within 45 days if they got funding for that. Once the road is built, Habitat has a commitment from three different organizations to build houses in this subdivision. He encouraged the Board to reauthorize the special permit. Mrs. Humphris said in the application there is a separate letter directed to the Board of Supervisors asking for a waiver of the special use permit fees. She asked if Mr. Wardell wanted to address that request. Mr. Wardell said they had originally requested that on the first application, and they got no formal response, so he assumed that meant it was not approved, and they paid the $945.00 the first time. The second time they paid the same amount. Any time Habitat considers a partnership with government, and government setting the stage for them to build these houses, anytime local governments can waive fees or provide access to services, or partner, they would like to have a positive response to that request this time. Mr. Wardell said Habitat hopes to continue to cooperate with AIqIP in that area. He does readdress that this time because it was not addressed the last time. Mrs. Humphris said she is sorry to hear that the County did not get the block grant funds. She asked that the Board deal with the special use permit request and then discuss the request for a waiver of the fees. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to approve SP-96-15. He said that no one has expressed any objection to him regarding the request this time. Mrs. Humphris then asked if any member of the public wished to speak about this request. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 000191 Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall to approve SP-96-15 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Davis said the reason the applicant is back before the Board is because they did not get their construction underway within 18 months pursuant to the special use permit. Having heard that they may have some additional monetary constraints, he is not sure if anyone asked them if 18 months is sufficient this time to allow the project to get started. The Board of Supervisors has the ability to set a longer time period as a condition of the special use permit. Mr. Wardell said one would always like more flexibility in 'this kind of arrangement. There is an internal issue that Habitat has about following through on what it commits to do. If they have another 18 months before they start this project, they have families who have been waiting three years since they were selected. Habitat has about $25,000 raised for this project, so they are one-quarter of the way there. The big chunk of money they have been looking for is for the infrastructure. Mr. Wardell said he did not remember there was a time limit involved, he thought the special permit was attached to the property permanently as a condition. Mr. Marshall asked if he could double the 18. Mr. Davis said there could be an additional condition to extend the time limit for beginning the use to 36 months rather than the 18 months pursuant to 31.2.44. Mr. Cilimberg said there is also a time frame for their subdivision plat. That plat actually has from application to signing of the final plat, a two-year period in which that needs to be done. Mrs. Humphris said the Board can't do anything about that. Mr. Cilimberg said that is correct, he just wants the applicant to be aware of that limit. Mr. Wardell said they are underway with that, and there is nothing that will stop them from completing the engineering for the subdivision. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Marshall amended his motion, and Mr. Bowerman accepted that amendment in his second. She asked that the roll be called. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (NOTE: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Staff approval of final subdivision plat; 2 o Development shall be in accord with the statements of the applicant as contained in the March 25, 1996, Description of the Request (copy attached); The road serving these ten lots must be built to state (Virginia Department of Transportation) standards for acceptance into the State (Virginia Department of Transportation) System; and This special use permit shall expire 36 months from the date of approval. Mrs. Humphris asked that staff address the question of waiving permit fees. Mr. Tucker said they were not waived; the Board made a donation to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg said there are three conditions under which these fees can be waived. For the application itself, the fee cannot be waived under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Humphris asked what the Board can do. Mr. Perkins said the Board can make a donation to Habitat in the amount of the fee. Mr. Bowerman asked where the funds would come from. Mr. Tucker said it can be taken from the Board's Contingency Fund, thereby not requiring an appropriation. Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adopt a Resolution Authorizing a Donation to Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity in the amount of $900.00. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 000192 AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DONATION TO GREATER CHARLOTTESVILLE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY WHEREAS, Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity is an entity permitted under the Code of Virginia to receive donations of money or property from the County of Albemarle; and WHEREAS, the Board finds it is in the public interest to donate funds to support the development of facilities necessary for this entity to provide services to the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby appropriates and donates to the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity an amount equal to the fee charged by Albemarle for an application fee for special permit 96- 15 for the Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity project, provided, however, the amount shall not exceed $990. Upon certification by the appropriate development review department, such funds shall be transferred by the Department of Finance to the revenue accounts of that department or directly to Greater Charlottesville Habitat for Humanity if the fee has already been paid to the County. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: April 25, 1995. Mr. Marshall had read the minutes of April 25, 1995, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Tucker mentioned that he had a copy of a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development notifying the County that it did not receive a grant offer for its Community Development Block Grant proposal in the 1996 competition. Mr. Tucker provided Board members with a copy of a letter from Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, and Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development, addressed to Mr. Art Petrini, Executive Director of Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, regarding the Ivy Landfill stormwater/leachate control project. The letter states that in their opinion the activity related to stormwater and leachate control is exempt from the requirements for filing a site plan. Therefore, this activity may proceed despite denial by the Planning Commission of the plan proposing expanded landfill activities. The letter also talks about a letter from DEQ that basically says the same thing, in that they have approved the permit requiring the RSWA to provide that detention basin. The construction of the sediment basin and leachate pad does not necessitate a site plan because there is no change in or expansion of use such that ingress or egress is required or recommended to change as a result. Mr. Tucker said it is something that needs to proceed. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna Authority wanted to expand their restroom facilities to provide separate male and female facilities, and a lunchroom for their staff. He believes expansion of the restroom facilities can occur within the existing building. A lunchroom may require renovating existing office. If staff can find a way to do that, improvements may begin. He reminded the Board that the reason there was objection to any of these improvements was because the Solid Waste Task Force recommendations have not yet been received. A lot of the public was concerned that since there was no Approved by Board of County Supervisors Date s/~'/~ Initials June 12, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 000 93 recommendation, money should not be invested in improvements if the recommendation is to close the landfill. Anything done will be on an interim basis and will not be a permanent investment to the magnitude the original plan proposed. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m,