The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB201800178 Review Comments 2018-11-15 , Christopher Perez From: Rick Randolph Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2018 5:04 PM To: Christopher Perez Subject: Re: SDP201800074 Avon Park II—Initial Site Plan &SUB201800178 Avon Park II— Preliminary Subdivision Plat Thanks, Maryam and Chris, for this comprehensive list of the concerns of Avon Park I residents and of staff's clear responses. Please let me know, going forward, of any ongoing issues you and the residents may see, Maryam. All the best, Rick Sent from my iPad On Nov 15, 2018, at 3:50 PM, Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>wrote: Maryam, Thanks for contacting me, your comments are well received. I offer the following responses in red. Scott, Please see my responses to Maryam's comments. There are a few additional items for you to address in the resubmittal that I missed during my initial review, see below in red. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development'County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 From: Maryam T.<maryamt @hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 15, 2018 12:04 PM To:Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org>; Scott Collins<scott@collins-engineering.com> Cc: Rick Randolph <rrandolph@albemarle.org>; Pam Riley<priley2@albemarle.org>;Vito Cetta <vitocetta@mac.com>;Jeremy W.Swink<SwinkJW@stanleymartin.com> Subject: Re: SDP201800074 Avon Park II—Initial Site Plan &SUB201800178 Avon Park II—Preliminary Subdivision Plat Christopher, My apologies for not being able to make it to the meeting this morning due to the school closures. Per my earlier email, I would like to speak with you today or tomorrow regarding some concerns that the Avon Park HOA has with respect to the recommendations and the overall plan, as some have adverse impacts on my community. Below are some of our concerns that I would like to discuss with you: 1 [ZMA2014-6, 33.15] Amendments to Existing Proffers. A proffer amendment is needed for proffer 3 and proffer 10. Proffer 3 - The lot layout of the proposed development no longer correlates to the proffer language for the timing of required plantings in various landscape easements, which are tied to certificate of occupancies (COs) for various lots/units. • The Avon Park HOA, along with the neighbors who are impacted by this development, request that concrete timelines be included on when the required plantings in the various landscaping easements are to be planted. It is very important to us to have the proper privacy in place as soon as possible and we are not comfortable with the uncertainty on when this will take place. Staff response: understood. This will be addressed moving forward. • Please also note: Per our discussions with Jeremy Swink, we noted that our initial landscaping recommendations (for the landscaping privacy barrier) between Avon Park I and Avon Park II was based on there being shorter single family homes behind my community. Since the Townhomes are taller, we are requesting a change to the our previously proposed landscaping plantings. Jeremy mentioned how this could be worked with them separately, however, we would like some language in the document indicating that we would like the plantings changed due to the new design of the Avon Park II development. Defer to you Christopher on how we can best go about this. Staff response: Scott Collins, somehow I overlooked a landscape plan as part of the variation request. With the revised initial site plan, which is acting as an application plan for the variation request, I'd like a landscape plan submitted with the initial site plan. I'll add this to my review comments for the initial site plan/prelim sub plat. Staff advises you to work with the neighbors/Jeremy Swink to determine the appropriate planting changes, if any are to occur from the existing application plan. I will say, this is residential to residential, so from my end I won't require a change for a staff recommendation of approval; however, the BOS will need to approve the variation request and they may require evergreen trees 9single row or double row) in place of evergreen shrubs because the unit type is being switched from SFD to SFA and the intensity of the residential units are being clustered on half the site, thus supporting a more intensive landscape buffer of evergreen trees. Please consider this when making revisions to the initial site plan and providing the landscape plan as requested. Proffer 10 -The lot layout of the proposed development no longer correlates to the proffer language for the location of the required scrim fence. • We have significant concerns with the developer NOT including a scrim fence along the Avon Park 1/Avon Park 2 property line. Without the scrim fence, the neighbors who are impacted by this development will be unfairly burdened by dust, noise, and the unsightly nature of the construction process. We also have some owners who are looking to sell their property and absent a scrim fence, it would have adverse effects on their property values. Most developments throughout our County do utilize a scrim fence when construction is occurring between two communities. Therefore, there should not be any exceptions made for my community. My community feels very 2 strongly about this issue and we would like to have the scrim fence be put back in. Staff response: The scrim fencing is a proffer, it's required. My review comment merely seeks to lock it down for the new layout of the proposal. Your concerns are addressed. [ZMA2014-6] Proffer 6. The final site plan shall identify the location of trees at the rear of TMP 90E-A2, TMP 90E-F-42, TMP 90E-F-43, and TMP 90E-F-44. If trees are located within 5' or less of the property line, the owner will remove the trees on the adjacent properties. Tree removal will be subject to the existing property owner's written approval. • We would like clarification on this. Per our discussions with Jeremy, he had mentioned that Stanley Martin would try to preserve as much trees as possible on the Avon Park II side. The language,as written above, suggestions that potentially ALL trees within the 5'or less of the property line will be removed. Can Jeremy or Scott please clarify whether all or some of the trees will be removed? Staff response:The way I read proffer #6-it specifically talks about trees on the Avon Park I side being removed (TMP 90E-A2, TMP 90E-F-42,TMP 90E-F-43, and TMP 90E-F-44). All the trees on Avon Park II adjacent to the above mentioned TMPs was coming out and new evergreen trees were being planted within the Avon park II buffer. I defer to Scott on any further guidance. • For additional clarification, will there be a temporary easement required behind 1964- 1968 Tudor Court for the removal of the trees as referenced above? Based on our understanding, the temporary easement for the removal of trees exist only behind 1147- 1165 Arden Drive. Staff response: No, temp easements are not required to cut down your trees. The proffer speaks to written permission from the property owners of TMP 90E-A2, TMP 90E-F-42, TMP 90E-F-43, and TMP 90E-F-44. [4.20] Parking. The development is permitted a maximum of 81 parking spaces to meet the 20% maximum parking threshold. Currently the proposal is over this maximum. Please remove 3 parking spaces. • We are concerned about the County's request to remove 3 parking spaces from the plan. While the County may believe that there are sufficient parking spaces,the development as a whole is small, and any additional parking spaces needed(especially during holidays and weekends) will spill over to the Avon Park I side. The Avon Park I community currently does not have sufficient parking to support our own community and any overflow of parking from Avon II will significantly impact us. We strongly request that the County not mandate the removal of these parking spaces due to the potential adverse impact on Avon Park I. Staff response: Scott Collins you may provide the additional spaces as depicted on your application plan. Staff will merely make a note about the 20%situation in the staff report to the BOS but in light of the HOA's concerns I will recommend approval of the 3 additional spaces. 3 [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a), 33.44, 4.19] Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan - Setbacks. • We look forward to seeing the final numbers on the setbacks as well, as it was our understanding that they would be at 15' throughout. Staff response: under what context are you referring to "your understanding" of the setback request? Was it a previous meeting with the applicant? Or a former rezoning? The current front setbacks for Avon Park II are 25' front setback. The applicant requested two opposing fronts 10' and 15'...Scott Collins, when you provide your true request please submit a justification for why you are going below 25' front setback and what this setback permits you to accomplish. Please note: Section 4.19 permits a 5' min on a PRD. Also, Avon Park I required 25' front setbacks. So whatever you request, please justify it. Thanks [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a)2] Waterline Access for Adjacent Lots. Provide a 20' waterline easement to the northern property line and to the southern property line along Stratford Places. Additionally, provide a waterline easement that extends to TMP 90-30B. These easements shall be platted prior to final site plan approval. Note: There is also a reference by ACSA indicating "...waster pressure in this area may be low due to the location in proximity to the tank." Question: Is the plan for the Avon Park II development to tie into the water tower system that is currently in place on Avon I? If so, we would like to note that our water pressure throughout the community is extremely low and we have reached out to the AC Water Authority on numerous occasions reference this issue and we were told that there is nothing that can be done about our concerns. If another development ties into this water system, the Avon Park I community will see even more decrease in our water pressure, which puts an unfair burden on my community. Can the County please elaborate on how the water pressure issue will the handled? Staff response: this connection is a public water connection. ACSA provided the following comments: Submit 3 copies of the site plan to ACSA for review along with water/sewer data sheets. Note that water pressure in this area may be low due to the location in proximity to the tank. ACSA's review comments leads me to believe this proposal is approvable. Please contact Richard Nelson of ACSA for a more detailed explanation of the issue and whether or not they have any control of this issue. His contact info is: rnelson@serviceauthoritv.org or at(434) 977- 4511 Thank you for your time and I look forward to discussing these issues with you. Maryam Tatavosian President, Avon Park HOA From: Christopher Perez<cperez@albemarle.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 4:05 PM To: Scott Collins Cc: maryamt @hotmail.com; Rick Randolph; Pam Riley;Vito Cetta; quietlife242@gmail.com; taradecardenas@gmail.com;Jeremy W. Swink 4 Subject:SDP201800074 Avon Park II—Initial Site Plan &SUB201800178 Avon Park II—Preliminary Subdivision Plat Scott, SDP201800074 Avon Park II—Initial Site Plan SUB201800178 Avon Park II—Preliminary Subdivision Plat Attached are SRC review comments for the above ref project. Reminder, site review is tomorrow. Christopher Perez I Senior Planner Department of Community Development(County of Albemarle,Virginia 401 McIntire Road I Charlottesville,VA 22902 434.296.5832 ext.3443 5