HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 07 83 PC MinutesM
n
June 7, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 7, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jim Skove; Mr. David Bowerman;
Mr. Allen Kindrick; Mr. Richard Cogan; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Tim
Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. Keith Mabe, Director of
Community Development; and Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning. Absent:
Commissioner Davis.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of October 19, 1982 and March 8, 1983
were approved as submitted.
Community Development Block Grant - Applications - County proposal to apply
for two housing rehabilitation grants, amount to $700,000 in funding.
Mr. Mabe presented the staff report.
Mr. Gary Oliveri (AHIP) and a representative of the League of Women Voters
(Ms. Gentry?) spoke in favor of the grant proposal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Mabe explained the plan in some detail.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Community Development Block Grant proposal be endorsed
and forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-83-18 Dr. and Mrs. W.D. Buxton - Request in accordance with Section 30.5.5.2
and Section 30.3.5.2.1 to convert concrete ford to low-water culvert
bridge in floodway of Moormans River, 80.10 acres zoned Rural Areas,
County Tax Map 25, Parcel 18, White Hall Magisterial District. Located
in Sugar Hollow, on north side of Route 614, about 6/10 mile west of its
intersection with Route 674. TO BE READVERTISED FOR PUBLIC HEARING JUNE
21, 1983.
Mr. Kindrick moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that SP-83-18 be deferred to
June 21, 1983. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-83-2 Riverbend Limited Partnership and Carlo Columbini - Request to
rezone ± 28.735 acres currently zoned C-1 Commercial and HC Highway
Commercial to PD-SC Planned Development -Shopping Center, County Tax Map 78,
/8I
June 7, 1983 Page 2
Parcels 17D, 17D2, 17G, 17F and parts of Parcels 15C1 and 17A, Rivanna
Magisterial District. Located off east side of Riverbend Drive, south of
Route 250 East and southeast of Free Bridge, north of Rivanna River.
AND
Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan - Plan 2 - Located off the east side of
Riverbend Drive, south of Riverbend Drive, south of Route 250 East, at
Pantops; alternative plan development of a 183,600 square foot shopping
center on an 18.2 acre site. County Tax Map 78, a portion of Parcels
17D, 17G and 15C1.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended modifications
to the rezoning petition and conditions of approval for the site plan.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Chuck Rotgin. He expressed serious
concern about the length of time involved with the submittal and approval
process. He stated the applicant had no objections to the suggested
modifications, but he did ask that the conditions of approval on the site
plan (conditions 1(a) through 1(i) be divided into two groups, i.e. those
directly related to building construction which would be tied to the
issuance of a building permit, and those related to grading, utility line
work, roads to be satisfied before construction on "any one of those items
could commence. He indicated the main reason for the request was to
allow construction to begin in time to meet leasing committments and
therefore not jeopardize financing arrangements. Mr. Rotgin stated the
two main concerns were traffic problems and stormwater management. He
agreed that a traffic light was needed at Riverbend Drive and Rt. 20 and
agreed to pay a share of that cost. Regarding a light at South Pantops
and Riverbend Drive, he felt such a light was premature, but offered to
pay a share when it becomes necessary. Regarding stormwater management,
he noted that some officials are recommending "extraordinary" measures
for this development and he felt this was unfair. He noted that there
was no benefit to be gained from stormwater detention at Riverbend Drive.
He stated the applicant had contacted citizen groups and attempted to
answer their questions.
Mr. Don Wagner, also representing the applicant, asked that Mr. Elrod, the
County Engineer, clarify some of his comments.
Mr. Elrod commented on the applicant's request to proceed "on parts
before having completed final design on other parts." He stated he
understood a developer's reasons for wanting to get ahead because of
seasonal weather and financing concerns, but he could anticipate problems
which could arise which would result in extraordinary costs to correct.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
June 7, 1983
Page 3
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Roosevelt confirmed that
the traffic circulation plan was acceptable with th enodifications
suggested by staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked when the 5 million gallon storage facility would be
on line. Mr. Wagner responded and stated he had spoken with Mr. Rossi
who explained that some minor problems needed to be fixed and the facility
should be operational by the first of July.
Mr. Elrod confirmed he had given preliminary approval of the stormwater
management system, but he noted that the applicant "still had a lot of
work to do."
The stormwater plan was discussed at length, including Mr. Elrod's role
in dealing with the applicant.
There was a discussion of pages 13 and 14 of the staff report. The
Commission made some minor adjustments. Staff explained the recommenda-
tions more fully.
There was a brief discussion about the construction of Riverbend Drive.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-83-2 for Riverbend Limited Partnership and
Carlo Columbini be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the modifications recommended by Staff on page thirteen of the
Une 7, 1983 staff report and subject to the finding rlQQntained on pages
fourteen and fifteen of the same staff report with ��iePwonimendments
(underlined) to points on page fifteen:
Agreement to modify design of the stormwater management system to
include pollution abatement measures to the extent deemed reasonable
by the County Engineer; provided that such modifications may be in-
corporated without substantial increase in cost of such system.
Agreement to develop and pursue a site maintenance program to include
a regular street sweeping program utilizing vacuum sweepers and to
reflect practices recommended by the State Water Control Board
"Urban Best Management Practices Handbook," such program to be
reviewed by the County Engineer.
• Revised agreement regarding road improvements, including construction
of Riverbend Drive, and signalization. Agreement to pursue additional
planning in transportation matters as recommended by the Virgnia
Department of Highways and Transportation.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Commission then discussed the Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan.
Mr. Keeler again explained the applicant's request, i.e. to grade the
area around the east wing and to get under construction on the east
wing and to establish and construct an entrance onto Riverbend Drive
within the first phase. He noted that all the other improvements in
Phase I would require all other site plan approval.
/m
June 7, 1983
Page 4
Mr. Payne commented that though he had no real concerns about the
applicant's request, he pointed out that historically when construction
has begun before the plan is completed problems have arisen, and if that
should happen in this case, the developer should be prepared for the
Commission to tell him "it's his problem." Mr. Keeler added that if
any problems should arise in the future with any of the conditions
of approval which might require Commission review, those items will
be scheduled in due course.
Ms. Diehl stated she did not see any reason for the suggested order of
conditions (as suggested by Mr. Rotgin for Phase I) to be necessary
for Phases II and III. She noted that the conditions could be applied
to any phase.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Rotgin commented: "That's acceptable."
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler: "Do you see any arrangement of conditions
that would be more acceptable to you but would still obtain the goal of
getting work started on the Phase I buildings?"
Mr. Keeler responded that this was a decision for the Commission to make.
He added: "In my mind the conditions that we have recommended--I(a)
through (h)--have to do with the site plan.... So, in my mind, the applicant
wants to begin construction of the building without an approved site
plan."
There was a very lengthy discussion about the applicant's request for the
division and numbering of the conditions of approval. The Commission
attempted to understand the applicant's intent and the implications of
approving the applicant's request.
Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of modifying the conditions presented by
staff, if that was the Commission's desire, rather than working with the
conditions as presented by the applicant.
Ms. Diehl agreed with Mr. Cogan.
Mr. Bowerman expressed some concern about the possibility of precedent which
might be set by allowing the applicant's request. Ms. Diehl did not feel
precedent would be set because this is a Planned Development which is
different than if it were simply a single commercial endeavor, and the
County has more protection with a Planned Development. Ms. Diehl indicated
she would go along with re -writing the conditions for Phase I only.
Mr. Kindrick agreed.
Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, expressed concern about
the intersection at Rt. 20. He was also concerned about the possibility of
I
10
In
n
June 7, 1983
Page 5
of the shopping center becoming operational before the road is constructed.
The timing of the construction of the road was discussed including the
possibility of bonding.
Mr. Keeler reviewed the conditions for both Phase I and Phases II and III.
To the conditions of approval for Phases II and III he added the following
as No. 5: "No grading, building or other activity shall occur in Phases
II and III until a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for Phase I."
Mr. Rotgin objected to this condition and continued to interrupt the
Commission's discussion. Mr. Bowerman informed Mr. Rotgin he was out of
order. Mr. Rotgin beligerantly objected to being called out of order.
He asked Mr. Keeler to explain the reason for condition No. 5.
Mr. Keeler responded: "You have asked us to modify our conditions to
satisfy you intent to get under way with Phase I. I don't have any
problem with that. I don't want a lot of space between the conditions of
phase I and phases II and III. If condition 5 is not acceptable
for phases II and III, then at that time that you're ready to get under
development with those phases, I think you can come back to the Planning
Commission at that time. We would be able to evaluate what has been done
in Phase I and maybe modify the conditions to improve that. If you want
to get under way with Phase I, this will say you can do it, but you have to
finish it before you get into phases II and III. That's the only way I
can see, at 11:00 that we can handle this."
Mr. Rotgin suggested that the Chairman get a policeman to remove him if he
was out of order. He continued to object to Mr. Keeler's suggestion.
Mr. Bowerman stated firmly: "Mr. Rotgin, what we're doing tonight is out
of the ordinary process of what we have done in the past. We are attempting
to meet your concerns and your time schedule in a framework which is
acceptable to the County. I think we have gone out of our way to do that."
Mr. Skove moved that the Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan for Phases I,
II and III be approved subject to the following conditions:
Conditions for PHASE I:
1. Building permits for this phase of development may be issued when the
following conditions have been met for Phase I:
a. County Engineer and Building Official review and approval of a
certified engineering study identifying areas of fill and
evaluating such areas for suitability of proposed improvements;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance in the building area and construction entrance road
area;
June 7, 1983
C. Albemarle County Service Authority approva�lg o� stub -out
locations and elevations for water and sewer connections.
2. Grading outside the building area and construction o:= roads,
parking lot, utility lines and storm sewer shall not proceed
until the following conditions have been met for the work in
*40
question:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Cofttrol
Ordinance for work in the area. County Engineer approval
of the design of any retaining wall rcquired and Albemarle
County Service Authority approval of protective :ncasures
for the sanitary sewer where crossed by the stor,water;
b . County Engineer review and approval of improverc,�_.its in the
100-year floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood
Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance;
C. County Engineer approval of road plans and profiles
including on -site accessways;
�,d'. County Engineer approval of paving speciLicatior.s ;,5u- ,- f 15)190'I
C. County�Engineer approval of stormwater drainage facilities
in accordance with Staff recommendations of ZNA-33-2;
f. Planning Staff approval of sidewalk locations;
g. Virginia Department of Iighways and Transportation approval
of road plans for Riverbend Drive and Riverbend Drive to b
constructed to the reason<�'le satisfaction of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy;
h. Albemarle'County Service Authority approval of detailed
plans showing plan and profile of water and sewer lines.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following
conditions have been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow, handicapped parking
and access;
b. Planning Staff approval of detailed landscape plan;
C. Completion of construction of Riverbend Drive to
reasonable satisfaction of the Virginia Departm,2nt of
Highways and Transportation.
4. Adequate parking, access, storm drainage and the lice will be
required for each phase of development. Parking requirements
will be based on zoning of the property.
5. Approval of this site plan shall not be deemed as Planning
Commission endorsement of any future division of land in this
area.
June 7, 1983
Page 7
M
Conditions of Approval for PHASES II and III:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer and Building Official review and approval
of a certified engineering study identifying areas of fill
and evaluating such areas for suitability of pr_opos:�d
improvements;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of detailed
plans showing plan and profile of water and sewer lines;
C. Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance. County Engineer approval of retaining ,all
design and County Engineer and Albemarle County Service
Authority approval of protective measures for the sanitary
sewer where crossed by the storm sewer prior "Lo the
issuance of a grading permit for activity in those locations;
d. County Engineer review and approval of improvements in
the 100-year floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3
Flood Hazard Overlay District of the zoning Ordinance;
e. County Engineer approval of road plans and profiles
including on -site accessways;
.f. County Engineer approval of paving specifications;
g. County Engineer approval of stormwater drainage facilities
in accordance with Staff recommendations of ZMA-83-2;
h. Planning Staff approval of sidewalk locations.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following
conditions have been met:
a, Fire Official approval of fire flow, handicapped lurking
and access;
b. Planning Staff approval of detailed landscape p
1 a.z
arking, storm drainage and the like will be
3. Adequate p access, requirements
required for each phase of development. Parking
will be based on zoning of the property.
4. Approval of this site plan future division of inthis
Commission endorsement of any
dJ
area.
all occur ir. Phases IT
5. No grading, building or other activity shall
been issued for
and III until a Certificate of Occupancy
Phase I.
/81
June 7, 1983 Page 8
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
tary
Recorded by: Stuart Richard
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 7-90
/0