HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201300004 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2013-09-11 I '
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper,Virginia 22701-3819
Gregory A.Whirley
Commissioner of Highways
September 11, 2013
Ms. Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville,VA 22902
Re: ZMA-2013-0004 Hollymead Town Center-Block VI, Area C
Dear Ms. Grant:
We have reviewed the Zoning Map Amendment for Hollymead Town Center, Block C-6 dated
3'18.'13 with revisions dated 8%16'13 as submitted by Dominion Engineering and the draft
proffers for the amendment dated May 12, 2003 and offer the following comments:
1. The Trip Generation Study Memo indicates that generally,the trip generation from the
proposed zoning will be less than that indicated for current zoning in the original TIA.
The memo provides trip generation from the original development plan. The original
planITIA should be referenced by the date of the plan and it would be helpful if copies of
the original data were provided for comparison with the memo.
2. It appears that no new proffers have been offered for the proposed amendment. For the
most part, it appears that the improvements to be made as indicated in the proffers
provided have been completed.
Generally,we have no objections to the zoning amendment as submitted once verification of the
original trip generation has been provided. Please feel free to contact me if you need additional
information concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Adri 414t1/4..
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
*Nor `4alite
Claudette Grant
From: Greg Kamptner
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 12:30 PM
To: Claudette Grant
Subject: ZMA 2013-00004 HTC Area C
Claudette-
My comments to the proffers:
1. Proffer 1 need not, and should not be amended.
2. Satisfaction of proffers 2 through 4 need to be confirmed by Zoning or Engineering.
3. I'm not sure what the proposed amendment to Proffer 5 adds to that proffer. I'm assuming that we are now 5
years past the approval of the first final site plan or subdivision plat,so the remained is due now upon the
County's request.The proposed language creates a conflict with the third sentence of the proffer. Perhaps the
applicant should agree to pay the balance,whatever it is at this point,as a condition of approval of the final
subdivision plat or site plan for Block VI,which I believe is what they are trying to say,though the timing
required by the "paid with the construction of the next block" is a little unclear.
4. Proffer 7 should use the standard affordable housing language. Be sure to get Ron White's comments on this.
My comments on the Code of Development:
Is the change on page 10 the only change?
Greg Kamptner
Deputy County Attorney
County of Albemarle
gkamptner @albemarle.org
1