HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300002 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-08-22�YpF ALp�,
f i lk�
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner
From: Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning
Date: August 22, 2013
Subject: ZMA 2013 -02 Pantops Corner — 3rd Zoning Comments
Please consider the following comments:
1. Proffers need to be submitted on the necessary proffer form. (This comment remains from
the last set of comments and has not been met.)
2. Transportation — the applicant's resubmittal justification regarding transportation impacts is
not helpful. It appears that the applicant is stating that between the otherwise required off -
site improvements for a site plan or subdivision plat, the parcel interconnections will
accommodate the increased traffic. This is impossible to review without traffic study data.
(This comment remains from the last set of comments and has not been met.)
Proffer #1: This proffer does not mention Road B and it should, if that road is shown
on the plan and is expected to accommodate the increased traffic from this rezoning. This
proffer language (such as "contemporaneously with ") is ambiguous and should be revised for
clear triggers. For example, a) what frontage improvements specifically are proposed and b)
must the frontage improvements be completed prior to the first c.o. or approval of the first
plan or plat? C) when will the access easement be provided and with what width or other
specifications? (This comment remains from the last set of comments and has not been
met.) Proffer #1 does not state whether the connection to Rt. 20 will be public and if so,
when dedication will occur. The last sentence should be removed because it sets up the
interconnection to tax map 78, parcel 6 only if the respective owners agree to share in the
road costs.
Proffer #1 does not appear to provide any commitments beyond what is required for a
site plan or subdivision plat. This revision did not make any changes to proffer #1.
Proffer #2: This proffer is new and is very vague. It doesn't establish any standard or
alignment for the connection to Rt. 250. As Greg notes, it should be written as an obligation
on the owner, not the County.
3. Green Space: This proffer accomplishes very little beyond what the ordinance will require.
The 50 ft bldg setback appears to be more extensive than the 100 year flood plain and will
therefore be what is greater. This is also an area of critical slopes as well as a required
buffer area per the site plan ordinance. The Commercial district regulations will limit
disturbance and location of any improvements. This proffer will set up a confusing situation
with respect to what applies since the Commercial district and site plan landscaping
regulations haven't been requested to be waived. The mitigation plantings may not be
consistent with the required landscape buffer plantings. I suggest that this proffer be
eliminated because it provides little to no additional obligations to us and conflicts with current
regulations.
4. Neighborhood Scale: If this is important in terms of visibility from the EC, it should apply to
the entire parcel and not just the portion listed in proffer #4.