Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000120 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2020-09-25County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 434-296-5832 Memorandum To: Scott Collins From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: September 25, 2020 Subject: SDP202000050 Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan SUB202000120 Avon Park 11— Preliminary Subdivision Plat The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan/plat referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): 1. [ZMA2014-6, 33.44, 8.5.5.3(a)] Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan. The proposal relies on a special exception to vary certain aspects of the rezoning, including but not limited to modifications to unit types, parking, setbacks, road network, storrnwater management, and lot layout from what was approved in the rezoning. Prior to initial site plan/preliminary plat approval the special exception shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Request deferral of the special exception, the initial site plan, and the preliminary plat by Tuesday, August 4th. If I do not receive a deferral request by then I will move forward with a denial of the proposal. Rev 1. The deferral was received and a special exception has now been submitted and is under review. The item will be scheduled for a BOS date (tentatively scheduled for Nov 4r", pending approval of that date). 2. [ZMA2014-6, 33.44, 8.5.5.3(a)] Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan. The applicant did not submit an application nor any of the required information or documents for staff to review a special exception request. The special exception fee was paid but no other information was provided. The property owner must sign the SE application. Please submit an owner signed application and all required information to process the request. Rev 1. The deferral was received and a special exception has now been submitted and is under review. The item will be scheduled for a BOS date (tentatively scheduled for Nov 4', pending approval of that date). 3. [ZMA2014-6, 32.5.1(c), 8.5.5.3(a)41 There is offsite grading proposed on IMP 90E-9 and TMP 9017-Al just behind lot 28. The plan references an existing grading easement on the adjacent parcels, however, staff is unclear of the terms of this easement. Please submit the deed associated with this easement for staff review and approval prior to initial site plan and preliminary plat approval and prior to WPO plan approval. If the easement is not cleared by the County Attorney to be usable for the proposed grading, a new easement will be needed. Rev 1. The revised plan proposes offsite grading on TMP 90E-9 (private residential lot). TMP 9017-Al (Avon Park I HOA common open space). and TMP 90E-F-44 (private residential lot). The offsite grading easements recorded in DB 3291-607 are temporary and are only for the future extension of the roadway. Per consultation with County Engineering the proposed grading in these easements is for the road's extension. 4. 132.5.2(d)] Topography and proposed grading. Depict and label the existing topography for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and pertinent offsite features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than 50 feet outside of the site. Revise the initial site plan to provide the above required topographic information. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 5. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a), 33.44, 4.191 Special Exception for a Variation to the Application Plan - Setbacks. The minimum rear setbacks are listed on sheet 1 as 5' adjacent to open space and 15' adjacent to property lines. Notably the entire development is surrounded by open space. However, sheet 3 lists Lots 5-12 as having 15' setback. Revise sheet 1's setback notes to clarify the rear setback for those lots. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 6. IZMA2014-61 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 applicant has provided a note on the plan to address this item: "All landscape easements, buffers, and screening shall be planted in accordance with the approved proffers. Landscaping shall be installed prior to the first certificate of occupancyfor any propped units within the development. " Revise the note to include reference to proffer 3. A landscape plan that correlates to the proffers and the application plan will be required prior to final site plan approval. Rev 1. Comment addressed. Proffer 10 (incorrectly listed as Proffer 9) - The lot layout of the proposed development no longer correlates to the proffer language for the location of the required scrim fence. On the final site plan depict, dimension, and label the scrim fencing that correlates to the location depicted on the application plan. Also, provide a note on the plan that the fencing shall be installed immediately following the grading of the area depicted on the application plan as Lots 1 - 9. Rev 1. Comment addressed. IZMA2014-61 Proffer 3(a). The owner shall obtain a variable width landscape easement behind what was depicted on the application plan as lots 1-7 on TMP 90E-Al, owned by the Avon Park Community Association. The current plan depicts "Existing 10' landscape easement" and "Existing 5' landscape easement" in this location but fails to provide recordation information for these easements. Revise the plans to provide the recordation information of these easements to ensure they are truly existing. If they are not existing these easements shall be platted prior to final site plan and final subdivision plat approval. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. These easements are not existing and shall be platted prior to final site plan and final subdivision plat approval. 8. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a)21 Waterline Access forAdjacent Lots. Provide a 20' waterline easement to the northern property line shared with TMP 90-32A, owned by Robert Spauls. These easements shall be platted prior to final site plan approval. Rev 1. Comment addressed. This easement shall be platted prior to final site plan approval or with the final subdivision plat approval. 9. [4.12.16] Parking. Perpendicular parking spaces adjacent to 20' wide travelways are required to be 10'x l8'. Revise the bay parking to meet this standard or increase the width of the travelways to 24' wide. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 10. [ZMA2014-6, 8.5.5.3(a)41 Landscape Easement. A landscape plan consistent with the rezoning shall be required prior to final site plan approval. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. 11. IZMA2014-61 Proffer 6. The final site plan shall identify the location of trees at the rear of TMP 9017-A2, TMP 9017-17-42, TMP 9017-17-43, and TMP 9017-17-44. 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 properly owner's written approval. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. 12. IZMA2014-61 Proffer 8. The final site plan shall include TMP 9017-A1. Improvements required by proffer 8 shall be depicted, label, and dimensioned as part of the final site plan. Rev 1. Comment not addressed. 13. IZMA2014-61 On the final site plan distinguish the exact location of where the double -sided vertical fencing and the 3-board farm fencing begins and ends. The locations should correlate to the application plan. Also, provide cutsheets for each fence type. Rev 1. Comment not adeauately addressed. 14. IZMA2014-61 The roadside ditch along the parcel frontage of Avon Street shall be improved to VDOT standards (see sheet 6 of the application plan). Rev 1. Comment not addressed. 15. [32.5.2(n)] List the proposed surface materials for all parking lots, travel ways, walkways, etc. in a label on the site plan drawings. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 16. [32.5.2(1)] Label all utility easements as "proposed" with a size/width measurement. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.2(n)] Existing improvements. The existing conditions sheet is not accurate in its representation of two existing homes, as one has been demolished. Revise the site plan to accurately reflect the existing conditions of the site. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 18. [32.5.2(e)] Existing landscape features. Depict the existing landscape features as described in Section 32.7.9.4(c). Rev 1. Comment not addressed. 19. [Comment] Prior to final site plan and final subdivision plat approval VDH approval shall be received to ensure Lot 29 and Lot 30 are each provided a primary and reserve drainfield. See attached VDH review comments. Rev 1. Comment addressed. VDH approval letter dated 8-26-2020. 20. IZMA2014-61 Proffers. All proffers shall be adhered to as dictated in the proffers. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. 21. [32.6.2(e)] Public facilities and utilities. All water and sewer facilities to be dedicated to public use and the easements for those facilities and shall be identified by a statement that the facilities are to be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 22. 132.8.2,14-3111 Infrastructure improvement plans. Road Plan and WPO application must be approved, all required improvements must be built or bonded, and all required Deeds and Declarations must be reviewed and approved prior to final site plan/ final subdivision plat approval. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. 23. 114-3171 Instrument evidencing maintenance of certain improvements. Submit with the final site plan/ final subdivision plat an instrument assuring the perpetual maintenance of street trees, private streets, open space and any other improvements that are to be maintained in perpetuity. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. 24. 132.61 The final site plan shall meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. 25. [Comment] The final site plan/ final subdivision plat shall not be approved until all SRC reviewers have approved the plan. Their comments attached. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. 26. 132.5.2(k),14-302(A), 14-302(A)51 Private/Public Easements. Provide deed book page reference information for all existing easements depicted on the plat. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 27. 132.5.2(k),14-302(A), 14-302(A)51 Private/Public Easements. Is there an existing sanitary sewer easement for the sewer connection to phase I? If so, please depict, label and dimension the easement and provide the recordation information. Currently the sewer line is being proposed on TMP 90E-9 and TMP 90E-Al. Prior to final subdivision plat approval or final site plan approval a sewer easement shall either be proven to exist in this area or one shall be platted. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 28. [General Comment] It is up to the applicant to coordinate a centralized mail delivery location for the lots in accordance with USPS requirements. Staff may ask for written verification from the USPS that a mail delivery location has been approved by the postmaster during review of the final plans. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. * [Public Comments] Please see attached public comments and requests from adjacent property owners and the Avon Park HOA. My only concern with their comments and suggestions involved the request for the Affordable Housing units to be moved "towards the back end of the development" because of perceived "potential negative impacts" with the units because they are currently slated to be located adjacent to three Avon Park I homes. I don't foresee any impact on the property values for current residents with the current proposed location. In addition, the County expressly seeks to avoid any social stigma being perceived or associated with any affordable unit, which could easily be the case if the three affordable units were tucked away, almost hidden, in the center of the new development. Please keep me informed on how the HOA's discussions with Stanley Martin proceed. I remain optimistic that positive outcomes possible for both parties. Rev 1. Comment still relevant. The HOA president and other residents have requested additional rear setbacks or larger landscape buffers between the rear of the lots adjacent to Avon Park I development. See Marvam's attached emails and Tara de Cardenas email from 9-18-20. Jeremy Swink has also been working with the adjacent neighbors, He his attached email from 9-18-20. Please contact Christopher Perez in the Planning Division by using coerez(a),albemarle.orQ or 434-296-5832 ext. 3443 for further information. Engineering — Emily Cox Comments attached Fire and Rescue — Shawn Maddox Comments attached ACSA — Richard Nelson Comments attached E911—Andy Slack No objection VDOT —Adam Moore Comments attached Building Official — Michael Dellinger Note to developer: Due to required distances from lot lines and structures as required by the NFPA, underground propane tanks may be prohibited. Plan accordingly. Other than this, no objection. Virginia Department of Health —Alan Mazurowski Comments attached � AI ?"h �IRGRTF County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Christopher Perez From: Emily Cox Date: 17 July 2020 Rev. 1: 19 Aug 2020 Subject: Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan (SDP202000050) The initial site plan for Avon Park II has been reviewed by Engineering. The following comments will need to be addressed before approval: 1. WPO must be submitted and approved before final site plan approval. Please ensure the WPO contains all items from #4 and #9 of the proffers in ZMA2014000006. The overlot grading plan can be part of the WPO submission, but it should be a separate plardsheet within the plan. The title of the whole set should be Avon Park II VSMP and Overlot Grading Plan. Rev. 1: Comment still applies. 2. Road plan must be submitted, approved and built or bonded before final site plan can be approved. Rev. 1: Comment still applies. 3. All easements will need to be recorded before final site plan approval. Rev. 1: Comment still applies. 4. [Sheet 2] Please label the existing contours. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 5. [Sheet 2] Please show the managed steep slopes. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 6. [Sheet 2] Ensure all applicable DB & PG numbers for existing easements and right-of-way are shown. For example, Hathaway Street. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 7. All sidewalks should be in street right-of-ways. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 8. Please show sight distance lines and profiles at all applicable entrances/intersections. Rev. 1: Comment still applies. Ensure sight distance lines are shown at all intersections (Anoko Court isn't showing any). 9. [Sheet 3] Please ensure all applicable parking dimensions are shown and that they are accurate and meet county parking requirements. Some parking spaces labeled 18ft are measuring 16ft and others appear to have the measurement pointing to the wrong location. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 10. Per the engineering design standards manual, the minimum travelway width for private roads with multifamily and perpendicular parking is 24 ft. This plan shows 20 ft widths. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 11. [Sheet 5] Ensure road cross sections match proposed road dimensions on the plan. A 43ft right- of-way detail appears to be missing. Also, there is an alley detail, but no alleys on the plan. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 12. [Sheet 4] Provide more spot shots in parking areas to ensure slope does not exceed 5% in any direction. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 13. Ensure crosswalks meet ADA and VDOT standards. Rev. 1: Why are there no crossings across Desoto Drive? 14. Underground storage cannot be loc cd in the right-of-way. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 15. Underground storage will need to be in a SWM facility easement. Rev. 1: SWM facility Engineering Review Comments Page 2 of 2 easement will need to be recorded before final site plan approval. 16. [Sheet 4] Ensure there is positive drainage away from the rear of houses (for example, lots 1-4). Rev. 1: Yard drains and grading will be evaluated with WPO Plan. 17. [Sheet 4] Ensure the sanitary sewer manholes are out of the wheel path of vehicles and are flush with the pavement in the roads. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 18. Show the driveway aprons on the plan view and provide a detail. Rev. 1: Comment addressed. 19. [Sheet 4] Ensure the grading for the emergency access road is not concentrating water and causing any erosion issues. Rev. 1: Erosion issues and concentrated water will be evaluated with WPO Plan. 20. Ensure trees are not directly on stop of storm pipes or structures. Ideally, they should be located A away. It is not clear on this plan as the trees are not shown on the same sheet at the storm pipes. Rev. 1: Comment still applies. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 September 02, 2020 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Chris Perez (804) 7862701 Fax: (804) 7862940 Re: SDP-2020-00050 & SUB-2020-000120- Avon Park II- Initial Site Plan & Plat -Special Exception Variation Dear Mr. Perez: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section has reviewed the Avon Park II- Initial Site Plan & Plat, dated June 08, 2020, revised August 10, 2020, as submitted by Collins Engineering, and find it to be generally acceptable. Please note; the comment below for the site plan still remains applicable. Land use 1. Please show radii on the existing asphalt driveway on Avon Street extended, that will be improved. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the VDOT Charlottesville Residency Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If you have further questions, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer VDOT - Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Review Comments for SDP202000050 Initial Site Plan Project Name I Avon Park II Development - Initial - Digital Date Completed: Thursday, September 10, 2020 DepartmenUDivisionlAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Richard Nelson ACSA Requested Changes From: Richard Nelson <melson@serviceautho6ty.org> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2020 5:18 PM To: Christopher Perez <cperez@albemade.org> Subject: RE: Transmittal of SDP202000050 Avon Park II — Initial Site Plan & SUB202000120 Avon Park II — Preliminary Subdivision Plat Chris I recommend approval of Transmittal of SDP202000050 Avon Park II —Initial Site Plan & SUB202000120 Avon Park II Preliminary Subdivision Plat with the following conditions: Submit 3 copies of the utility plan for review. Water pressure is low in this area. Booster pumps may be required. Utility plan approval will be required prior to final plat approval. Thanks, Richard Nelson Civil Engineer Albemarle County Service Authority 168 Spotnap Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 (434) 977-4511 Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 0912412020 Review Comments for SDP202000050 Initial Site Plan Project Name I Avon Park II Development - Initial - Digital Date Completed: Monday, September 21, 2020 DepartmenUDivisionlAgency: Review Status: Reviewer: Michael Dellinger � CDD Inspections No Objection Pape: 1� Countyof Albemarle Printed On: 09/24/ 0020 Review Comments for SDP202000050 Initial Site Plan Project Name Avon Park II Development - Initial - Digital Date Completed: Thursday, August 20, 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status: Reviewer: Shaven Maddox —El Fire Rescue See Recommendations Page: 1� Countyof Albemarle Printed On: 09/24/ 0020 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District ALBEMARLE CHARLOTTESVILLE State Depahmenl of Health ELUVANNA COUNTY (RALMYRA) 1138 Rose Hill Drive GREENE COUNTY ISTANARDSVILLE) LOUISA COUNTYILW ISA) Phone (434) 972-6219 P Q. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY ILOVINGSTON) Fax (434) 972-4310 Charloilesville, Virginia 22906 August 26, 2020 Christopher Perez, Senior Planner Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Avon Park II Preliminary Subdivision Plat, SUB202000120 Initial Site Plan, SDP202000050 Mr. Perez: As requested, I've reviewed the above -referenced documents, revised 8/10/20, for the proposed development. As stated in the response to comments letter, the existing residences on proposed lots 29 & 30 will be connected to public water & sewer systems. Therefore, I have no objection to the proposed development or variation request. If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306. Sincerely, Alan Mazurowski Environmental Health Supervisor Thomas Jefferson Health District alan.mazurowski(c�vdh.vir ig nia.gov Christopher Perez From: Maryam T. <maryamt_@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 7:44 AM To: Christopher Perez Cc: Kelly Myles Subject: Fw: Follow Up Question CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Christopher, I had accidentally posed our second question incorrectly to SM. Just wanted to ensure you were copied on the below email. We would like to request 20' along the entire Avon Park 1/11 border. Maryam From: Maryam T. <maryamt_@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2020 7:31 AM To: Jeremy W. Swink <SwinkJW@stanleymartin.com>; Scott Collins <scott@collins-engineering.com> Cc: Kelly Myles <quietlife242@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Follow Up Question Jeremy and Scott, My apologies, but I posed the second question that we had inaccurately. We would like to request the following: 2. Can you please consider restoring the setback/landscape & drainage easement to 20' if the County agrees? This would include restoring the easement for both the upper and lower part of the properties along the border. Thanks again! Maryam From: Maryam T. Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 10:17 PM To: Jeremy W. Swink <SwinkJW@stanleymartin.com>; Scott Collins <scott@Collins-engineering.com> Cc: Kelly Myles <quietlife242@gmail.com> Subject: Follow Up Question Hi Jeremy and Scott, I apologize for not getting back to you sooner about a finalizing a meeting time this week. We were waiting on Rick Randolph to confirm his availability since he wanted to participate, but he ended up being tied up this week. In light of this scheduling conflict, I think we can just ask our questions in an email. We wanted to follow up with you reference the changing of the rear -setbacks from your original plans and our face-to-face meeting a few years ago. We have two questions: 1) Can you please provide further explanation of the 5' change to the landscaping easement on the lower part of the development, including the County's role? 2) Would you consider restoring the setback/landscaping and draining easement to 20', pending approval from the County? The changing of the rear -setbacks has been a significant area of concern for the 7 homeowners along the Avon Park I/Avon Park II property line. While 5' may seem minimal on paper, your townhomes, in some instances, will literally be in the backyards of some of the Avon Park I homes. Even with a robust landscaping plan, it will still be pretty close. From my community's perspective, this will have a negative impact on thier quality of life, including negative impacts on their property values. If at all possible, we would appreciate your thoughts by close of business on Thursday. We have a community meeting on Friday and it would be great for us to be able to talk about this issue further. Please note that while the HOA is representing the collective concerns of the all of the homeowners impacted by this development, you may also have individual owners directly reaching out to you regarding this matter. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response. Maryam Tatavosian President, Avon Park HOA (814) 746-2730 Christopher Perez From: Tara de Cardenas <taradecardenas@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 3:19 AM To: Christopher Perez; SwinkJW@stanleymartin.com Subject: Avon Park II Questions Attachments: Questions about rear set back change in Avon Park II from Avon Park I residents.docx CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Chrsitopher and Jeremy, Our HOA president, Maryam, tells us that there has been no response about our question regarding the 5' of easement that was removed from the Stanley Martin Plan between June of 2020 and August of 2020. We did get comments comparing the 2017 approved plan and the Stanley Martin plan of 8/2020. Residents of Avon Park I would like to know specifically why the change between the plans of 6/2020 and 8/2020 happened. Also, we would like to know whether there was anything in the county comments that required this change. I am attaching a detailed explanation of our concerns and I hope that you will find time to answer our questions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We will be presenting the attached to our representative on the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and will include your response in our presentation. Sincerely, Tara de Cardenas Tara de Cardenas 434-218-3920 434-422-0047 (cell) Questions regarding the Avon Park II development from Avon Park I residents Summary This document reviews the many changes made to the Avon Park II plan, from the 2008 County - approved plan to the August 2020 plan proposed by Stanley Martin. In summary, we are contesting the decision to change the open space/landscape easement from 20' to 15' on the Avon Park II property between Avon Park II and the homes in Avon Park I along that property border. This change occurred between the Stanley Martin Plan of June 2020 and the Stanley Martin Plan of August 2020. Our questions are in the conclusion. History of Changes to the Avon Park II Plan This is a brief history of what has transpired regarding the Avon Park II property over the past several years, particularly behind some of the single-family homes on Arden Drive. 2008 County approved plan: The plan that was approved in 2008 followed our neighborhood model. There were townhomes behind the AP I townhomes and houses with similar side setbacks to ours behind the single- family homes in Avon Park 1. There was a 20' rear set back, and 10' side set back (a total of 20' between homes.) We point this out because, being concerned about what might happen behind us, some of us consulted this approved plan before buying our homes. We feel that it is important because when we purchased our homes, we were led to believe that the neighborhood would consist of other single family homes similar to ours — that there would be the same flow between homes. See plan in link: 2008 Plan 2017 county approved plan: The Dickerson Plan — which involved rezoning (and years of work/negotiations from Avon Park I residents before the land was rezoned (2017), was allowed 6 homes per acre on a 5.262 acre lot. These homes were spread across the bowling alley shaped lot. There were single family homes behind most of the Avon Park I homes, and side set backs were closer than the 2008 plan, (total of 15' between homes) but there was still room between the homes. The only townhomes were at the bottom of the development where Avon Park I and II are more separated by larger back yards and larger HOA easement. There was a 20' landscape easement on the Avon II side as well as a 5' setback behind SFDs and 15' + 5' behind townhomes. See plan in link: 2017 Approved Plan 2018: The Stanley Martin plan that was presented to Avon Park I residents, as well as our Board of Supervisor (BoS) representative at that time, Rick Randolph, involved the following: • All townhomes would be in the upper section of the 5.262 acres. As a result, there are obviously no side setbacks in the buildings behind the Avon Park I homes. We would no longer be looking at a neighborhood, we'd be looking at a wall. This also makes Avon Park a community of Townhomes with one block of single-family homes, which will undoubtedly affect the value of our single family homes. • This plan proposed a 20' landscape easement, a 5' rear set back, and additional area between the rear set back and the home, dependent on whether the units had porches. There was a 15' open space/landscape easement proposed behind the water tower and it extended just a few feet behind 1964 Tudor Ct. The rest of the area behind this last townhome near the water tower would have a 20' landscape easement. This is especially important to these homes as there is little to no back yard. As a community, we saw the benefit of the added yardage between our homes and the Avon Park II homes and decided to not fight the townhomes. See plan in link: 2018 Plan June 2020 Plan: This Stanley Martin plan also stated that the open space/landscape easement would be 20' (plus a 5' setback from the lot line) See plan in link: June 2020 Plan August 2020 Plan: This plan has a 15' open space/landscape easement (with a 5' set back). See plan in link: Auqust 2020 Plan According to Stanley Martin, "the proposed (plan) does not take up the entire buildable area (it gets close though when we install the deck as shown). In many cases, this adds 3'+ to the distance between existing homes (10-13' if you don't count the deck, or if we don't install one." This is what we were told in 2018 as well. It is because of this and the extra 5' of setbacklopen space/easement, that we did not argue against the townhomes and lack of side setbacks. The point we would most like to make is that Stanley Martin presented this to us as more yardage behind our homes. This is why we did not argue when all of the homes were put into one small area. Now, 5' (25% of the promised yardage) has been removed. Our concern is not with the difference between the 2017 plan and the current plan. Our concern is with the difference between the Stanley Martin plan of 2018 (and June 2020) and the Stanley Martin August 2020 plan. Conclusion/Questions: For Stanley Martin: The residents of Avon Park I would like to know why the plan changed from June to August, removing 5' from the open space/landscape easement. For the county: Was there anything in the county comments that required this change? Was the county involved in this decision at all? This is an issue we would like to address with the county. Density issue: We were also told by our Board of Supervisor representative as the rezoning process for the Avon II property started, that there should be less density as we approached the rural area, not more. Our community borders Biscuit Run Park and the area south of that is rural. While we are in the growth area, and we understand that more development needs to happen in this area so that we do not have to extend the current growth area, it seems to us that this property is being developed more densely than it should be considering that it is on the border of the rural area. This property is 5.262 acres. It is zoned for 6 homes per acre. Each of the two lots at the bottom of the property, closest to the road, are just under one acre (.92 and .83), this puts 28 homes on just over 3.5 acres. (3.5 x 6 = 21.07) These two lots, when added to the 3.5 acres, bring the project into compliance. However, considering the fact that the two lots at the bottom of the property will be sold separately, and most likely be sold back to the previous owner, our question is this: Will it now be feasible for a developer to put more homes on those lots? The current zoning would allow for 10 more homes (6 homes per acre and both lots together are 1.75 acres). If so, does this not negate the original intention of the current zoning? If this is the plan, does Stanley Martin's townhome project even comply with the current zoning requirements and intentions? We were told one thing at the first meeting in 2018 and are now being told that they cannot do what they originally proposed. We were also told that the county demanded this smaller landscape easement. Then we were told that Stanley Martin cannot make the 20' easement work with their plan. We respectfully suggest that if their original plan doesn't work on this small property, they need to come up with a different plan. Christopher Perez From: Jeremy W. Swink <SwinkJW@stanleymartin.com> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 9:10 AM To: Tara de Cardenas; Christopher Perez, Maryam T.; Scott Collins Cc: Kelly Myles; Gregg P. O'Donnell Subject: RE: Avon Park II Questions CAUTION: This message originated outside the County of Albemarle email system. DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. Good morning. Thank you for your message. Maryam has done a wonderful job communicating on the HOA's behalf. I think her and I have covered a lot of ground over a couple of meetings and many emails. Please allow me to address your questions below: 1) What is the reason for the change in the buffer (from 2018 to 2020)? a. First, I think its important to point out that the homes on the approved plan are much closer than anything we have ever put forth. In the approved plan there is zero buffer and a 20' building setback. County code allows for a 4' encroachment into those setbacks with decks so technically the distance between the Avon Park 2 lot lines in Avon Park 1 open space is 0' and the distance between the back of deck and Avon Parks property line is 16'. b. You are correct that we reduced the buffer to 15' on the latest submittal from the 20' on the initial concept. The reason is because we decided to mix the affordable dwelling units in with the market rate units instead of isolating them on one side of the site— a guiding principle of ADU development in many jurisdictions. The dimensions on our ADU's are 16x40 and the dimensions on the market rate lots are 22x36. I included the option for a 10' deck on both housetypes. The extra 4' of depth on the ADU is driving the buffer reduction. That said, I am (and have been) in agreement to find an amicable solution. Here are the three options we are evaluating: 1. Add 5' of landscape buffer on the lots, within the setback. As you can see in the picture below, our proposed homes are still much farther away from the Avon 1 property line (even with 10' decks) than the approved plan. Perhaps the additional 5' of landscaping would help. 2. Eliminate the option for an ADU unit owner to construct a 10' deck. If we do that, the buffer can return to 20'. 3. Move the ADU's to be in one location. a. I am not certain yet which option will work the best for all stakeholders —Avon Park 1; Stanley Martin, and our future homeowners. I am confident that any of the above will go a lone way in addressing your concern. FIC-FK I I TYP 90r-9 I O'CONVOR LLITNC TRUST DO 5116 PC 289 PROPOSED w' I I LANDSCAPNG EASEMENT DB___PC�_ air TYP 90E-8 A"F ICNALTO OR TARA L DE CARDF.N'AS DR 4060 PC 77 PROPOSED SCRIM FENCE FENCE ALONG PROPERTY UJE ADJACENT TO TMP 9oF _L gar avr i N/F LAN FARTS DD U6.t PC 261 xi► Dee D / PROPOSED PROPOSED rY DRAINAGE A LANOSCAPBK roxS LANDSCAPING EASEMENT EASEMENT ASSOCIA TI (LANDSCAPED BUFFER AREA) Dx`►G._ REAL PRE DO —PG.— DD 369. O105E6CG-,CURB 10 l PROPOSEDEMERGENCYACCES' ' ROAD REMOVABLE BOLLARDS PROPOSED CG-qD - Wi i' L�T LOT aT LgT a LOT 1S LOT aA LOT a9 2 `; ENTRANCE - -` _-- - 'FRONTIo{ SET TACK 1 STOP SIGN (TYP) I M i s 22' 16' 22' O' .> PROPOSED rP :? CG u (TYP 1 2) Was the County involved in the change in buffer from 2018 concept to 2020 submittal? a. No, we were driving the change — the County was not involved. The consideration was 100% based on the decision to offer a similar sized deck for ADU's and market rate. I believe we have proposed three viable solutions. While I understand there may be a preference from Avon Park 1 on one or two of the three, I am going to consider them all as I need to determine what effects there will be on the future homeowners in Avon Park 2. 3) Density —The County can confirm my answer, but this is my understanding: a. The proffers run with the land. No matter how the original parcel is subdivided, the max density proffer still applies. b. We are giving the Seller back (2) lots and we are retaining 28 homes shown on the plan. Total density = 30 homes. c. Unless there is another proffer amendment or rezoning of the original parcel, then I don't see how another developer could further subdivide those two lots beyond the 30 that are shown on the submitted preliminary plat. I hope this helps. Let me know if you would like to discuss in a virtual meeting or on site. Jeremy Swink Vice President, Land — Charlottesville and Richmond Divisions STANLEY MARTIN HOMES 404 People Place #303 Charlottesville, VA 22911 swinkiwostanleymartin.com 1571.309.5043 StanleyMartin.com From: Tara de Cardenas <taradecardenas@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2020 3:19 AM To: cperez@albemarle.org; Jeremy W. Swink <SwinkJW@stanleymartin.com> Subject: Avon Park 11 Questions CAUTION: EXTERNAL email. Chrsitopher and Jeremy, Our HOA president, Maryam, tells us that there has been no response about our question regarding the S of easement that was removed from the Stanley Martin Plan between June of 2020 and August of 2020. We did get comments comparing the 2017 approved plan and the Stanley Martin plan of 8/2020. Residents of Avon Park I would like to know specifically why the change between the plans of 6/2020 and 8/2020 happened. Also, we would like to know whether there was anything in the county comments that required this change. I am attaching a detailed explanation of our concerns and I hope that you will find time to answer our questions. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We will be presenting the attached to our representative on the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and will include your response in our presentation. Sincerely, Tara de Cardenas Tara de Cardenas 434-218-3920 434-422-0047 (cell)