HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199500004 Review Comments 1995-12-18 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
OF A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: December 18, 1995
RE: Comments on UREF Proffers
Attached for your consideration is a copy of this office's comments on
UREF's proffers. These comments were given to the Planning Department and to
Steven Blaine, UREF's attorney, on Friday, December 15. The overwhelming
majority of our comments merely request that the final version of the proffers be
clarified.
GK:res
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
gMilZt
MEMORANDUM
TO: Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community
Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
FROM: Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: December 15, 1995
RE: Comments on UREF Proffers
Please accept the following as this office's comments on the UREF
proffers dated December 7, 1995.
Our primary concerns are with the proffers pertaining to declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions (Comments 7 through 14), the phasing of the
project for determining the applicability of the road improvement proffers
(Comments 24 through 31), and the proffer pertaining to the grade separated
interchange (Comment 32). However, we have addressed other issues as well,
including all of the preliminary comments contained in the memorandum to you
dated December 11, 1995.
Page references in this memorandum are to the 23 page working draft of
the proffers revised December 7, 1995, that includes staff comments.
1. Introduction (Page 1): The text states that if the property is rezoned
to PD-IP in "substantial accordance" with the rezoning application, the property will
be developed in "substantial conformance" with the proffers and the zoning
ordinance.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 2
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of "substantial
accordance." In addition, since the rezoning includes the proffers
(PD-IP and proffers), as the applicant revises these proffers the
rezoning could be evolving away from what was proposed in the
rezoning application. Thus, by revising the proffers the rezoning
may be becoming not in "substantial accordance" with the
application.
• The applicant should clarify the second clause of the above
statement, and clarify the meaning of "substantial conformance."
As the statement now reads, the applicant is merely assuring that
the property will be developed in "substantial conformance" with
the proffers and the zoning ordinance. Because the proffers are
part of the zoning applicable to the property, the applicant must
comply with the proffers, recognizing that the proffers themselves
may allow for some flexibility in their application. Likewise, the
applicant may not merely "substantially" conform with the
zoning ordinance; rather, the applicant must comply with the
zoning ordinance.
2. Introduction (Page 1): The applicant states that if the rezoning
application is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the applicant, the
proffers shall immediately be null and void.
• The applicant should recognize that the County may not impose
conditions on the rezoning. The only conditions that may be a
part of the rezoning are those that are voluntarily proffered.
Thus, the only conditions that the County could impose that the
applicant might not agree to would be those imposed pursuant to
a subsequent special use permit. The applicant's statement
would allow the property to be rezoned (removal of the proffers)
automatically and unlawfully; property may be rezoned only by a
legislative act of the Board of Supervisors. The applicant should
clarify that the proffers are not conditioned upon agreement with
conditions of a subsequent special use permit.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 3
3. Introduction (Page 1): The applicant states that the proffers will not
be interpreted to authorize any person to vary from: (1) any State statutory,
regulatory or code minimum standards; or (2) any County ordinance or regulation,
except as permitted in the PD-IP zoning district.
• The applicant should clarify what it means to not "vary" from
minimum State law requirements. The language could be
construed to supersede any proffer that is affected by State law.
For example, in Proffer 2.3(a)(i), the design guidelines will set
forth the types of materials to be used in the construction of
buildings. Would the above statement supersede Proffer 2.3(a)(i)
so that the types of building materials could not vary from the
minimum building materials requirements of the Building Code?
• The applicant should clarify what it means to not "vary" from a
County ordinance or regulation. The language could be
construed to supersede any proffer that requires more than what
is already required under County ordinance or regulation.
4. Proffer 1.1 (Page 2): The applicant states that development of the
property will be in general accordance with its zoning application plan.
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of"general accordance."
• The zoning application plan should be reexamined to confirm
that there are no proffers that are inconsistent with the zoning
application plan.
5. Proffer 1.1 (Page 2): The applicant states that plans or exhibits, if
referenced in the proffers, are limited to the purpose for which they are submitted.
• The applicant should clarify whether an "exhibit" is different
from an "illustration," which is used in the prior sentence of the
proffer.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 4
• The applicant should clarify what it means by the word
"submitted." Note that the prior sentence in this proffer states
that submitted plans and illustrations are deemed illustrative
unless they are referenced in the proffers. Thus, the applicant
should clarify the proffer so that "submitted" is replaced with
"referenced in a proffer."
• Without these clarifications, the last two sentences of Proffer 1.1
are circuitous: Plans or exhibits, if referenced in a proffer, are
limited to the purpose for which they were submitted; plans or
illustrations are illustrative only. The statements do not say what
the effects of the plans, illustrations, or exhibits are if they are
cited in a proffer.
6. Proffer 1.2 (Page 2): The applicant states that the project will be
developed consistent with "applicable zoning and these Proffers" . . . by the
submission of site development plans.
• The applicable zoning and the proffers are not two separate
things. If the rezoning is approved, the proffers are a part of the
applicable zoning.
• The applicant should clarify that site development plans need not
only be submitted, but also approved. In addition, so that the
statement is more complete, the applicant should also clarify the
proffer to refer also to the subdivision ordinance.
• The proffers do not provide for a timed phasing of the build out
of the project. The phasing controls only road improvements
(though other improvements are also contingent upon the road
improvement phasing).
7. Proffer 2.1 (Page 3): The applicant states that a declaration will be
recorded to run with the land that will provide for the coordinated development of
the property in accordance with design and architectural guidelines.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 5
• The applicant should confirm whether "coordinated
development" is synonymous with the requirement that the
development "be planned and developed as a whole," as provided
in section 8.3(a) of the zoning ordinance.
• The applicant does not state when the declaration will be prepared
and placed on the property.
• Unless Proffers 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 are sufficient by themselves
to assure that the development will be planned and developed as
a whole, we question whether a rezoning to PD-IP is justified
without knowing the contents of the declaration itself.
• The applicant should clarify where the design guidelines will be.
In Proffer 2.1, the applicant states that design and architectural
guidelines will be incorporated by reference in the declaration.
However, in Proffer 2.2 the applicant states that the declaration
shall provide design and architectural guidelines, and in Proffer
2.3, the applicant lists certain elements of the design guidelines
"that shall be set forth in the declaration."
• The applicant should clarify whether Proffer 2.5, Maintenance of
Common Areas, will be part of the declaration. It appears that
Proffer 2.5 will not be part of the declaration.
• The applicant should clarify whether the declaration providing for
coordinated development will be subject to prior County approval
so that the County is able to assure that the development will be
planned and developed as a whole.
8. Proffer 2.1 (Page 3): The applicant states that the clear intent of the
declaration will be that the County will have no rights or obligations to enforce the
covenants, conditions and restrictions.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 6
• It should be noted, however, that this statement does not abridge
the County's right to enforce any of the proffers, including
Proffers 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5.
9. Proffer 2.1 (Page 3): The applicant states that the declaration shall
not authorize any variance from State or County minimum standards, except as
allowed in the PD-IP zoning district.
• The applicant should clarify this statement because its plain
meaning is that, if the declaration imposes standards greater than
County minimum standards, County minimum standards must
apply because "variance" from those standards is not allowed.
• The applicant should clarify the last clause of this statement
because it gives the mistaken impression that the PD-IP zoning
district allows a development to avoid even minimum standards.
Whatever standards exist in the PD-IP zoning district are, at the
very least, minimum standards. Modifications are applicable only
to the requirements set forth in section 8 (planned development
districts -- generally) of the zoning ordinance.
10. Proffer 2.2(a) (Page 3): The applicant states that the declaration
will provide for coordinated development of the property.
• Because planning and developing the property as a whole is
critical to the PD-IP zoning district, the applicant should clarify
how the declaration will provide for the project being planned and
developed as a whole. Does the "high quality architectural and
landscape design and a harmonious, well-balanced" development
referenced in Proffer 2.2(b) satisfy the "planned and developed as
a whole" requirement?
• If coordinated development is based on the fixed standards in
Proffer 2.3, then Proffer 2.3 should be clarified to assure that
there is, in fact coordination. For example, Proffer 2.3(a)(i) states
that the declaration will set forth the types of materials to be
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 7
used in the construction of buildings. However, the proffer does
not state that the declaration will limit the type of materials used
and, therefore, it does not, in and of itself, assure that the project
will be planned and developed as a whole.
• If coordinated development is based on the design guidelines in
Proffer 2.4, then the applicant should clarify Proffer 2.4 to
explain how the development will be planned and developed as a
whole.
11. Proffer 2.2(c) (Page 3): The applicant states that no hazardous
materials, including medical wastes, will be disposed within the project.
• By the applicant including this provision in the declaration,
Proffer 2.1 precludes the County from enforcing it, unless it may
be separately enforceable as a proffer (See Comment 8, above).
12. Proffer 2.5(b) (Page 4): The applicant states that the
organization(s), if formed, will be bound by the declaration's covenants and
restrictions.
• The applicant should clarify this proffer to include not only
covenants and restrictions, but also "conditions."
13. Proffer 2.5(c) (Page 4): The applicant states that it or the
organization will provide a means for identifying common areas as to location, size
and other elements in one or more restrictive covenants. The applicant also states
that restrictive covenants pertaining to the common areas will run for a period of
twenty-five years.
• The applicant should clarify this proffer to eliminate any
confusion that it might be construed to supersede the need to
identify the location and size of common areas in a site
development plan or a plat.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Feeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 8
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of "provide a means for
identifying common areas."
• The applicant should clarify when the restrictive covenants will be
recorded (e.g., within a certain period following approval by the
County of the site development plan for that phase).
14. Proffer 2.5(d) (Page 4): The applicant states that nothing in the
proffer prevents the organization from changing the status of open space from
common to limited common areas as provided in the proffers.
• The applicant should clarify what a "limited common area" is, or
cross-reference to a specific section number of the proffer
statement or the exhibit where the term is defined.
• Although the proffer refers to changing the status of open space
from common to limited common areas "as provided herein," it is
unclear where in the proffer statement that provision is located.
• The applicant should clarify whether the intent of this proffer is
to create, within the requirements of the plan, a power in the
organization(s) to change the status of open space in a manner
not otherwise provided for in the zoning ordinance (e.g., by
revising a site development plan or a plat).
15. Proffer 3.1 (Page 6): The applicant states that the calculation of
the total gross floor area excludes, among other things, temporary office trailers and
modular buildings.
• The applicant should clarify whether the word "temporary"
modifies both "office trailers" and "modular buildings."
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of "temporary," or
include a durational limit.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 9
• In reference to the 3,000,000 square feet of developed floor
space, this proffer refers to "total gross floor area." Proffer 5.3
refers to "gross square footage." The applicant should use one
term consistently, and the term should have a recognized
meaning and method of calculation.
16. Proffer 4.1 (Page 7): The applicant states that the flood plain
would be subject to County regulations.
• The applicant should clarify whether the reference to
"regulations" includes all applicable ordinances, or does it refer
only to the special regulations contained in the zoning ordinance.
17. Proffer 4.2 (Page 7): The applicant states that it will implement in
phases an overall stormwater management plan for the project, in general accordance
with a stormwater management plan attached as an exhibit.
• The applicant should clarify whether the phases for implementing
the stormwater management plan are connected to the phased
site development plans referenced in Proffer 1.2, or the phases
that trigger road improvements referenced in Proffer 5.4, or some
other mechanism. Since stormwater management is required as
part of the site development plan process (section 32.7.4 of the
zoning ordinance), the stormwater management plans would be
reviewed and approved by the County as part of the site
development plan process.
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of "general accordance."
At the very least, mandatory elements of the plan should be
identified.
18. Proffer 4.3 (Page 7): The applicant states that wetlands will not be
disturbed in the development of the project.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 10
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of "in the development
of the project." This proffer may not restrict the applicant from
disturbing the wetlands once the project is developed.
19. Proffer 4.4 (Page 7): The applicant states that no single facility
may consume more than 125,000 gallons per day without a special use permit.
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of "facility."
• This proffer does not address the cumulative impacts of multiple
"facilities" in the project that are, for example, just below the
daily limit.
• The applicant should clarify how daily water consumption will be
determined. Specifically, the applicant should clarify whether
daily consumption will be determined from an average over a
period of time, or will be based on peak use (e.g., if the facility
consumes 125,000 gallons per day one day per year, it would
have to obtain a special use permit), or some other criteria.
20. Proffer 4.4 (Page 7): The applicant states that the design
guidelines' design review process will include recommendations to users for water
conservation techniques.
• The applicant should consider moving this statement to a proffer
pertaining to the design guidelines, such as Proffer 2.4.
• The proffers pertaining to design guidelines do not specifically
refer to a "design review process," though it appears that it will be
an implementation of the design committee procedures
referenced in Proffer 2.4(c).
• This proffer does not require that water conservation techniques
actually be implemented by any water user.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 11
21. Proffer 5.2(b) (Page 8): The applicant states that it will construct
to VDOT standards a relevant portion of a road phase within six months of the
issuance of certificates of occupancy for three users along such relevant portion of a
road phase.
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of "relevant portion."
• This statement appears to be less than what is otherwise required
by section 31.2.3 of the zoning ordinance, which requires that
improvements be completed within one year, and gives the
zoning administrator the authority to require improvements such
as "safe and convenient access to public roads" prior to issuance
of a certificate of occupancy.
• Depending on the way the project builds out, years could pass
before three certificates of occupancy are issued to uses along a
"relevant portion" of a road phase.
22. Proffer 5.2(b) (Page 8): The applicant states that, anything to the
contrary notwithstanding, the proffer to construct roads to VDOT standards shall
not require completion of such roads before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for a building served by that relevant portion of the road so long as adequate bonds
are in place.
• Given that this language appears to be contrary to section
31.2.3.1 of the zoning ordinance, the applicant should clarify the
meaning of this statement.
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of the phrase "anything
to the contrary notwithstanding."
23. Proffer 5.3 (Pages 9-12): The applicant outlines the phasing of the
development for triggering particular proffered road improvements.
• As noted in Comment 15, Proffer 3.1 refers to "total gross floor
area." This proffer refers to "gross square footage." The
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 12
applicant should use one term consistently, and the term should
have a recognized meaning and method of calculation.
24. Proffer 5.4 (Page 12): The applicant states that it will design and
construct offsite road improvements in phases.
• The applicant should clarify whether it may proceed to the phase
II development before the road improvements for phase I are
completed. Language in Proffers 5.4(a) and (b) appear to allow
the applicant to proceed to the next phase before the prior
phase's improvements are required. For example, Proffer 5.4(a)
states in part that applicant "shall be permitted to develop
beyond total Phase I Density in advance of completing
construction of the Phase I road improvements" if it is shown
that LOS "D" is maintained at certain locations .
25. Proffer 5.4 (Page 12): The applicant states that, unless an earlier
time is required, road improvements for each applicable phase will be completed or
bonded, or contributed for, before issuance of certificates of occupancy for the
building densities ceilings.
• The applicant should clarify whether this statement applies to
onsite road improvements, offsite road improvements or both. In
context, and considering Proffer 5.2(b) (see Comments 21 and
22), this statement appears to refer to offsite road improvements
only.
• The applicant should clarify whether the "building densities
ceilings" refers to any individual ceiling in the phasing tables or
whether it refers to the cumulative ceiling for the particular
phase.
26. Proffer 5.4(a) (Page 12): The applicant states that it will construct
the phase I road improvements before achieving total phase I density or earlier if
"specified below" or a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a
traffic analysis approved by VDOT.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron ICeeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 13
• The applicant should clarify whether what is "specified below" is
the traffic study referred to later in the proffer. (See the next
bulleted comment.) The text that follows in the proffer refers
only to the traffic analysis approved by VDOT.
• The applicant should clarify whether the traffic analysis referred
to in the statement above is also the "traffic study" referred to
later in the proffer, i.e., the "traffic study approved by VDOT"
pertaining to the Route 649/Road A, Route 606/Quail Run,
Route 606/Route 649, and Road A/U.S. 29 intersections.
• The proffer should clarify when the traffic analysis may be
requested (e.g., at any time), by whom, and whether
responsibility for the cost of the analysis will be borne by the
applicant.
27. Proffer 5.4(a)(1)-(4) (Pages 13 and 14): The applicant lists the
road improvements for phase I.
• The applicant should consider reorganizing these subparagraphs
so that they correspond to the order of the phase I improvements
as listed on Exhibit 5.3.
28. Proffer 5.4(a)(4) (Page 13): The applicant states that it will make a
prorata contribution or $100,000, whichever is less, upon completion of two left turn
lanes at the U.S. 29/Route 649 intersection. The applicant later states that the
prorata contribution may be used to fund a portion of the design and engineering
costs in order to expedite the widening of Route 649, but only if the applicant is
afforded the opportunity to participate in the design and engineering process.
• The applicant should explain why it should be allowed to
contribute less than its prorata share toward the improvements if
that share would be greater than $100,000.
• The applicant should clarify that if the prorata contribution is
used to "expedite the widening of Route 649," that the applicant
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 14
will provide the contribution prior to completion of that project.
The applicant should also clarify whether the prorata
contribution to expedite the widening of Route 649 is also
subject to the $100,000 cap.
• The applicant should clarify whether the "building densities
ceilings" refers to each individual ceiling in the phasing tables or
whether it refers to the cumulative ceiling for the particular
phase.
29. Proffer 5.4(b) (Page 14): The applicant states that it will construct
the phase II road improvements before achieving total phase II density or earlier if
"specified below" or a need is created by such development and is demonstrated by a
traffic analysis approved by VDOT.
• The applicant should clarify what is "specified below" because
the only thing relevant "specified below" that follows in the
proffer refers to the analysis approved by VDOT pertaining to the
intersection of Route 649 and Road A.
• The applicant should clarify whether the traffic analysis referred
to in the statement above is also the traffic analysis pertaining to
the intersection of Route 649 and Road A referred to in Proffer
5.4(b)(4).
• The proffer should clarify when the traffic analysis may be
requested (e.g., at any time), by whom, and whether
responsibility for the cost of the analysis will be borne by the
applicant.
30. Proffer 5.4(b)(1) (Page 14): The applicant states that it will
construct a two-lane collector road extending from U.S. 29 to Route 649 through the
project within six months of the issuance of the first occupancy permit for any
building density within phase II. The applicant adds that this road will be widened
to four lanes when traffic volumes create the need for such widening.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 15
• The applicant should clarify the language of the first sentence
above, because it may be inconsistent with Proffer 5.2(b), which
states in part: "Applicant shall construct to VDOT standards a
relevant portion of a road phase within six months of the issuance
of certificates of occupancy for three (3) users along such relevant
portion of a road phase." (See Comment 21, above)
• The applicant should change the term "occupancy permit" to
"certificate of occupancy."
• The applicant should clarify how it will be determined "when
traffic volumes create the need for such widening," and who may
make that determination.
31. Proffer 5.4(c) (Pages 14 and 15): The applicant states that it may
develop the project through the total phase III density if certain conditions occur.
• The applicant should clarify whether this statement means that
the applicant may proceed to the phase III density without
limitation if one of the conditions occurs. For example, if as
provided in Proffer 5.4(c)(1), the applicant designs and
constructs a third southbound lane on U.S. 29 from the entrance
to the project at Road A to Route 649, may the applicant proceed
to phase III density even though not all phase I and phase II road
improvements are completed?
• Are there any phase III road improvements that are critical to
address project impacts at phase I or phase II density that would
not be proffered if phase III density is not reached?
32. Proffer 5.4(d) (Page 15): The applicant states that it will dedicate
an area for construction of a grade separated interchange, but this is conditioned
upon other adjoining landowners (with land that is necessary for such interchange)
contributing their prorata share of land for such interchange, as needed.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 16
• The applicant should clarify whether this means that all other
adjoining landowners must contribute.
• The applicant should also clarify what it means to contribute a
prorata share. Specifically, the applicant should clarify whether
this language means that if any adjoining landowner does not
"contribute" the land, but sells it, or fails to contribute a "prorata
share," that the proffer is a nullity.
• The applicant should explain the criteria that will be used to
determine a "prorata share." If a separated grade interchange is
required, the amount of land VDOT will acquire from a particular
landowner will depend on the location of the interchange.
• The November 14, 1995 proffers reserved an amount of land for
twenty years for a grade separated interchange. This reservation
is no longer proffered.
33. Proffer 6.1 (Page 17): The applicant states that the active recreation
and picnic areas will follow the phasing schedule of the offsite road improvements.
• The applicant should clarify when, within a phase, the recreation
and picnic areas would be constructed. For example, during the
second phase, would the second phase recreation improvements
be constructed at the beginning of the phase, be phased in
proportionally to the second phase build out, be constructed at
the end of the second phase build out, or would they be
constructed according some other schedule?
• If the project never reaches phase III (for road improvement
purposes), then those recreation and picnic areas designated for
phase III will not be built.
34. Proffer 6.1 (Page 17): The applicant states that it will convey the
developed recreational areas to the County if the County so requests.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 17
• The applicant should clarify whether "convey" means a gift, or a
conveyance upon payment of full market value of the property, or
something else.
35. Proffer 6.1 (Page 17): The applicant states that active recreation
areas will not be lighted with stadium lighting.
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of "stadium lighting."
36. Proffer 6.2 (Page 17): The applicant states that it will restrict
development of areas not shown as development parcels on the open space system
phasing plan, subject to boundary adjustment during the project build out.
• The applicant should clarify whether the phrase "boundary
adjustment during the project buildout" means anything other
than acknowledgment that boundaries will be established by plat,
and that the boundaries shown on the plat may be adjusted from
those shown on the open space system phasing plan.
• The applicant should clarify whether there is a limit to the extent
that a boundary may be adjusted on the plat from that shown on
the open space system phasing plan (regardless of the fact that
the applicant has proffered that the open space will be at least
200 acres of the project).
37. Proffer 6.3 (Page 18): The applicant states that the green belt will
remain in its natural state, except for some specified improvements.
• The applicant should clarify whether "natural state" has a
meaning that is different from the term "undeveloped" used in
Proffer 6.2. The allowed improvements are generally the same
(the difference being that common area amenities will be allowed
in open space).
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 18
38. Proffer 6.3 (Page 18): The applicant states that at such time the
County decides to establish along the Rivanna River a public area or park, and upon
request by the County, the applicant will convey the green belt to the County.
• The applicant should clarify whether it will convey the green belt
to the County if the County decides to establish a public area or
park at any location along the Rivanna River within the County,
or only if it decides to establish a public area or park on that
portion of the river located on the project.
• The applicant should clarify whether "convey" means a gift, or a
conveyance upon payment of full market value of the property, or
something else.
39. Proffer 6.4 (Page 18): The applicant states that it will develop
within one year a preservation plan.
• The applicant should clarify whether this plan is subject to
County review and approval.
• The applicant should clarify the meaning of"develop within one
year." The applicant should clarify whether the phrase means
that it will develop the plan within one year of the proffer taking
effect, or whether it means only that the plan will be completed
within one year development of the plan begins.
40. Proffer 7.1 (Page 19): The applicant states that it will landscape
the streets in accordance with the standards in a street tree master plan for phase I.
• The applicant should clarify that these standards will apply to all
phases, not only phase I.
• Section 32.7.9.6 of the zoning ordinance requires the planting of
street trees as part of the site development plan approval process,
and would be required at that time, and not according to the road
improvement phases.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development
Ron Keeler, Director of Planning
December 15, 1995
Page 19
• It is unclear whether the street tree master plan referenced in the
proffer presently exists.
41. Proffer 8.1 (Page 20): The applicant states that its proffer to
dedicate a site for the fire station is conditioned upon the design of the fire station
meeting the project's design guidelines.
• The applicant should clarify that the fire station will be subject to
the project's design guidelines only if the fire station is built
within the project.
• The cost of compliance with the design guidelines could make the
construction of a fire station within the project infeasible.
42. Proffer 10.1 (Page 22): The applicant states that the signatories are
the only legal title owners of record.
• Code of Virginia 15.1-492:1 requires that all owners sign the
proffers, not just those "legal title owners of record."
GK:res
95.599.001