1992-06-25(II) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

172 considered but was found to, be too expensive to make accessible for persons in wheelchairs and the group home occupants would be disabled and unable to work but will not show outward symptoms. Ms. Waters stated that she would vote in favor of granting the option for the group home for the following reasons: a delay would be a "no" vote; housing is needed for victims of HIV and AIDS; similar arguments to those made by neighbors would probably be expressed for other locations; traffic is a problem but the group home would not significantly add to it~ ~use of the property for construction of a bridge was-unlikely due~to the disruption it would cause and expense~ use of the property as a park was unlikely because of the significant number of existing parks in the City; significant impacts and property value decreases have not been seen in neighborhoods which have housed other group homes~ and social services costs are not likely to increase since the City will not be responsible for health care and victims are already using social'services. With regard to the process, Ms. Waters stated that she has heard a great deal about this issue from the neighborhood, and City lots have been~sold in the past without the issue going to the Planning Commission since no process is currently in.place to involve the Planning Commission, but she thought the Council and Planning Commission could meet to discuss developing such a-process for the future. Ms. Waters stated that her vote was dependent on the requirement that the grOup home go through the special use permit process at which time specific impact issues could be addressed. Ms. Slaughter expressed agreement with Ms. Waters and stated that she felt the group home would be a good idea in the long-term. Ms. Slaughter stated that while a process could be developed with~the Planning Commission in the future, there has never been a process for dealing with the sale of City property. Ms. Slaughter stated that she felt the Council has acted in good faith and could look at issues raised more closely during the special use permit process. Ms. Slaughter noted that persons with HIV and AIDS are already living in Charlottesville, but do not have adequate homes. Mr. Toscano stated that he felt the special use permit process would provide an opportunity to address concerns raised and encouraged the neighborhood's involvement throughout the process. Mr. Toscano agreed that it would be legitimate to consider having a process with the Planning Commission to consider use of 'City land but added that he felt that the process followed by Council has been democratic. Mr. Toscano acknowledged that traffic and density issues needed to be addressed in the Shamrock Road neighborhood. Mr. Vandever stated that he felt the issue was critical and the urgency of the grant had to be considered because there was little hope for continued funding. Mr. Vandever recommended that Council assist the AIDS Support Group in finding a better location if the Shamrock Road site is found to be unsuitable. Ms. Waters made a motion to amend the ordinance selling the property on Shamrock Road by granting the Charlottesville Housing Foundation an option on the western lot only for $37,450, contingent upon receipt of the grant and a special use permit for the group home. Mr. Toscano seconded the motion. The ordinance was unanimously amended. The ordinance giving the Charlottesville Housing Foundation an option on one lot on Shamrock Road, as amended above, which was offered at the June 15th meeting, was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Toscano, Mr. Vandever, Ms. Waters. Noes: None. Absent: