Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB202000120 Correspondence 2020-08-26 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 op n 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 I/II 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. i 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 2 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: N SD • 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: August 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 setback/open 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 41111 S 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.