The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZMA199500004 Correspondence 1995-12-15 FROM OUP FOUNDRTION 12. 18. 1995 10: 00 P. 2 • • The University bf Virginia Foundation P. . B x 9023 Telephone (804) 982-4848 if : C It Road FAX (804) 982-4852 C rlo esvilie, VA 2 906 December 15, 1895 T0:. Tim Lindstrom FR• : Tim Ros9Xiv. I1 SU:'°ECTT: Piedmont Enyironmentel Council Thank you for your ?scent letters. Attached are two memoranda emara de which may be of i eres to you. Ms. ThOrpe indicated that it would be acceptable to you if we deli red his letter this morning. As slwa0s, please do not hesitate to call should you wan to d souss any Issues irelated to our plans. TRA ! r . F i I t t t t i 1 • • 1 FROM OUP FUUNDHTIUN 12. 18. 1995 lU: 01 P. 3 — • —_— Y6duov ' IC—rJ- 1D , 4.errrM ; CHARLOTTESVILLE-. 604 982 4852 +:r t P WOCMS trN •OOTHE Lt.? Courl B unre Building • Post 0 ce Box 1288 CherlotieeN11e, Vlrgiaie 22902.1288 Tel4phone/TDD( 04)97a'•8500 • Fax(804)980-2222 Steven iv. -laiut Wrtt.i i Direct Dial (804)077.240 December 13, 1995 Mr. Rose Univ• sity f Virginia Real -tato Foundation P.O, ox ''23 Chitl • ` le, Virfginia 22906 i FRO PrlifferitelieW Dear im: !Deal Cinkala requested that I review Mr. Lindstrom's letter to you of December 12. The 1.'ter contains an analysis of our proffers and Dean requested my input to the extent that the it lysis relates to legal adequacy. The following comments will reference Mr. . dstr+om's subject headings: Errifue the terra "substantial compliance" is pretty standard in these types of proffers. The County Attorney has raised no objection to this language. It has been used in other rezonlnns (see e,g. Montesano proffers). The word "substantial" pr�bably could be deleted without any practical effect on how these proffers will be enforced. The reference td the provisions of the PD-IP zoning district refers in particular to Section 8.5.�d) of the Ordinance. We can amend the proffers to refer specifically to is section if you wish. In any case in which the proffers appear to conflict with local ordinances or 1 state laws, the local ordinahces and state laws will control. nsaLinilhiilonj In addition to the Zoning Application Plan, the proffers incorporate the Road Phasing P1$n, Road Transportation Plan, Open Space Phasing Plan, and Storm Water Management Plan, The language conforms to the la#:IgLiege in Section 8.5.5 which reads: "the development ahaJI be in usaril with site development plans meeting requirements of this ordinance , . . as specifically supplemented or modified by FROM UVR FOUNDRTION 12. 18. 1995 10 01 P. 4 Mr. im . Rose Dec be l3, 1995 Pag , 2 the Board of Supervisors in the particular case." We can delete the word "general" without any practical effect on the enforceability of these proffers. The Board of Supervisors may approve an application with specific modifications to the PD or general regulations, as provided in Section 8,5,4. My goal was to preserve the Board's ability to do so in approving this rezoning, The Zoning Application Plan may be amended to track the ordinance language without any practical effect on the enforceability of these proffers, Instead of the word "conceptual," reference to the location of improvements being general in nature (as suggested in Mr. Lindstrom's letter) will have no practical effect on the enforceability of these proffers, 3. _ The reason for the proffers 2.1 through 2,5 is to demonstrate t there will be a method of unified control for the Park. Perhaps we should note that there were no covenants and restrictions in place when the property was toned to PD-IP in 1979. We may wish to provide copies of the existing covenants and restrictions used at the Fontaine project as an example. We also can note that the two purchasers have agreed to } be bound by covenants and restrictions which will be more developed by the Foundation once the Park obtain; the desired zoning. Paragrapll3.1 Density The term "modular buildings" was suggested by the County Planning Staff. The December 7 revisions eliminated language which was objectionable to the PEC. there.was no concession intended by eliminating that language t those provisions were illegal or constituted any illegal delegation of legislative authority, Siitrai Water jganagemga and Water Canea:vatic My understanding is that a storm water management plan is not required by County regulations. t. Trta_nM rtaitenjlideguagy The analysis of our traffic study has been accepted by VDOT. timing Proffer 5,2(a) does not necessarily restrict county authority regarding the timing of bot ding or the construction of required roads, It may be possible that a subdivisioti plat recordation precedes a final site plan approval, in which case our proffer Could result in improvements being made prior to County requirements. FROt: UVR FOUNDATION 12. 18. 1995 10: 02 P. 5 . - --- • i• iV Vd 1 +,001-IAI • WNNKLUI ItV1LLc� $04 882 4852 +:i: . i Mr. im *. Rose Dec lber 1 13, 1995 Pug 8. Tian; its Rn d Imp v rn nts The phasing schedule is not intended to add up the density of permitted uses. It is simply a matrix, the right-hand column relates bnly muatwg densities. 9. EgzegtignglArlaa The proffers simply say that to the extent open space is not already regulated within the Park, the proffers arc not intended to subject our "open space" to the open space ordinance. . 1 to. Landagolimataldterws The street and tree master plan is already on file at the County, 7 have been unable to get a correct reference to that plan by a specific date. Very truly yours, A fia,fA) W,WT4L/cd Steven W. Blaine SWB cc: i s. plan Miller via I ( fax) r. can Cinkala (via'fax) 1. ‘21q‘u .o+o iv r i • •, FR011 UVA FOUNDATION 12. 18. 1995 10:02 P. 6 i STONE Blq D G E MEMORANDUM 3 • 1 ; 1-74 . 4CS71ti1JLE,dt HARDOPY TO FOLLOW t TO: Tim 12. Rose, UVAF /, • cc: Ellen Miller 1 r�'� '�� Steve Blaine FRO. • i ;Dean M. Cinkala, Stonebridge As ci s'Inc, 1 DAT:•. December 14, 1995 SUB CT:;; :North Fork Rezoning , j . I undo tan that Steve Blaine has reviewed the Piodmo4t Environmental Cotutcil1s (PEC) letter dated ece her 12, 1995 and prepared a response to the iyarious legal issues that the PECI. raised. in add ionMr. Blaine's response, I would like to address three "business issue" which were. raised 1 I the PEC letter which we should respond to; i h . Ljiniit on Water.Usage: As we discussed and as I documented in a letter to Mr. K.eoler a the County,we have agreed that any user that has a water usage rale Of greater than 1 5,000 gallons pei. day will require app?val by the County before it can be t d'veloped at North Pork. , r Phase III Trarisportition Improvements: We need to irtiprove our language: in this section so that Phase III improvetnents ate in place by the end iof Phase III development or whpft earlier needed is justified by a traffic study approved by VDOT (bp( in no case before Phase I and II densiti4 are achieved). This will address the PAC's concern that hive could build just under 3.0 million square feet and therefore never be responsible!for Phase III irnproveme tts. i . l)$nsity Limitations: We will modify our language to eliminate the. terin "modular l,yildings" from section 3.1 of the proffers This language•was added based on. cop rncnts from the County but we do understand the PEC's concern ;and therefore . wjill make this change. Tim, I ',I 1iew0'these changes, along with Steve 8lainc's;letter, will address issues raised in,the PEC's 1 ' ter; iAS you know, we Will continue to be respc naive to any reasonable concerns raised f cgardii I• thin'application. Please t: II MO if you have any iquestions. z STONEBNIDOC ASSQCIAT:ies, INC. 4800MQnuomeIy Lone•$alk tyi•Bohol.,irfaryiand rWh4.5.0 A 1