HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199500004 Correspondence 1995-12-19 (2) 12-19-1995 10:48AM FROM STONEBRIDGE ASSOCIATES TO 1804972403537 P.01
Yir • I:
• .
STONEBIDGE
; Fax Cover Sheet
„ , ,••
DATE:. • tlember 19, 1995 • TIME: 1043 A4
TO: Wayne Cilimberg PHONE:
'Rion Keeler / FAX: 804.972.4035
FROM: • Dean M. Cinkala PHONE: 301-913-9610
Sto6ebridge Associates, Inc. FAX: 301-913-9615
RE:
, •
CC: ;T rn1Rose SD15
- 6teie Blaine,Abbr 35
Numbedofpags including cover sheet: 3
Messa0e:'Ple4se see attached as we discussed.
•:
. . •
• .
• •
. •
•
•
• .I
, • • •
. •
• '
••
. ,•
THE NFOlevIATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSMISSION MAY BE PRIVILEGED AND/OR
CONFIIDENTIAI..•'AND IS INTENDED EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE USE OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS TO
WHOS IT'IS!ADDRESSED.
•
STONEBRIDGE ASSOCIATES, INC.
4800 Montgomery Lane•Suite 875•Belite.tekt;Marylou/20814-5332
12-19-1995 10:48AM FROM STONEBRIDGE ASSOCIATES ( TO 1804972403537 P.02
STONEB rDGE
f '
1 , ' MEMORANDUM
i
VIA PildS114ILE&HARD COPY TO FOLLOW
1 ;
. TO: ' j ; IV. Wayne Cilimberg, ACPD jj`t.N cc: Ron Keeler
j 1 ! Tim Rose
FROM: :: i !Dean M. Cinkala, Stonebridge Associates;Inc, Ellen Miller
' i 1
Steve Blaine
DATA: ' ! December 19, 1995 .
I
SUBJECT:' Wirth Fork Rezoning !
Based on most recent Planning Staff report, we understand that there are five major issues
of public oncem you would like addressed by our proffers. We have spoken with Mr. Keeler
and ha-6 4isCussed mutually acceptable solutions to eaci of these issues which will be reflected
in,our proffers.I Following is a'brief summary of each of the issues;
Disposal of Hazardous Materials: Given the current drafting of the proffers, item 2.2 (c) states
"That no haaardbus materials, including medical waste will be disposed within the Proj:ect."
We will move;this language to another section of the proffers so that it is enforceable by the
, County, and not included in Section II of the proffers which is titled "Owners Association and
Declari.tions;of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions". ,
Water lUsage: In our most recent draft of the proffers we had not included a number in section
4:4 defining Ith!e water consuniption level above which a user must be approved by the.'County
before lit can develop a facility at North Fork. We have subsequently defined;that level as
125,00 g'.11bris per day (average daily consumption) and will commit to this level in the final
draft of the proffers.
l
Right of? fiy!Dedication for a Grade Separated Interchange: We agree to following two
cone s: 1.);We will add back language to the proffers which agrees not to develop in the area '
shown ``Fi&tUre Right of Wady Dedicated for a Grade Separated Interchange" on Exhibit 5.3 of
the pr ers for a 20 year period; and 2) We will replace the last sentence of paragraph 5.4(d)
with l guage that states that the applicant will dedicate the area shown as "Future Right of Way
DedicafedH for a Grade Separated Interchange" on Exhibit 5.3 of the proffers when the
interchange is to be constructed so long as the County uses its best efforts to require other land
owners adjacent to the interchange to also dedicate land for such an interchange if and when the
County has the'ability to make such a requirement of other land owners.
Compliancelof the Firestation with the Park's Design;Guidelines: As we discussed with Mr.
. modify paragraph 8.1 of the P
Keeler,�vre�w;�u rollers to eliminate the sentence which reads:
• ;
i STONEBRID<;E ASSOr.,nT .S, INC.
¢Roo Montgomery Lane•Suite 873•Bethesda,itfarylarui 2081¢-5332
1 Telephone. xot.atx.n6to Fax: to1:9I4.96ic
12-19-1995 10:49AM FROM STONEBRIDGE ASSOCIATES TO 1804972403537 P.03
• ':Mr.\. Cilthibètg, • ! , • ,
,
11 ' Page2 j.
!
"App icantTs:proffer to dedicate a site for the County's fire station is conditioned upon the
design of the fire station meeting the Project's Design Guidelines."
•
;
and it .104e it With the following sentence: -
"ApP int's prciffer to dedicate a site for the County's fire station is conditioned upon the design
of the the e;station gaining approval by the Project's Design Review Committee Which approval
shall not be Unreasonably withheld."
,
Clarification of the Terms Conveyance: We have been asked to clarify the term onveYance as
it is used.in relation to proffer 6.1 and 6.3. Conveyance in proffer 6.1 will he fee simple
;
conveyiance at terms mutually acceptable to the County and the applicant which may include
convey an0 as a.gift. Conveyance in 6.3 will be fee simple conveyance as a gift.
Way4 I ibelieve that this response accurately reflects the discussion Ellen and I had with Mr.
Keeler last Friday and accurately conveys the changes which we will make to the proffers. I am
•sorry ior Itittipg you this so' late in the process but I mistakenly assumed th4t the County
undersiood that we had committed to make these changes based on our discusiion with Mr.
Keeler ha. Week. If anything is unclear or unacceptable please call me to discuss such items.
r
•
• • 1' 1
• :;
•
s* I;
1 I
•
I
•
•