The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSUB202000120 Correspondence 2020-09-18 O 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. j 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 Park's 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 long way in addressing your concern. 1 0 FPC•FIC^ >s i, r yr avr--�r (,, 1 9 freavi:t)5 .r.�'T'Pa'c 1" d7r�rr :ta)"..cl P,Pp its, d' `" i!' I i,`ti,5'�' PT PC,NriC`ii Oa'; J' uP „ per y j J i :Itr sirs PG -9�' 9_EL4 I, �^ L- - 'r, ,i !--- - I 1 i PPPR ,IOFO €`c 'i7 "• � QI. 1IVROPOSED13' PROPOSEDSCR1ttFEFJCE y� .'''' j 99 LA` scAF.'tNNG; FERCE AL0TI5 PrRI PERT LINE. �` 1 i1 i LAM APACEFSt`70 IMP%T.A - _ - q:.. r -. 1=-t PP.OfOEDS. ^ I r p t { DEt,�_FG,� i PROPOSE! ,;DRAIN~-CIS AM) 1 r LAN T�5CAP NG COW di I i 1 ! - -- - 1 'LAF.DSCAPP•IGE�ASE:Mil/it 1 / ifA,SGt,?E?iT .1.'•d7d.'Liia' n i — _ �- ea.. - LA.4D_C_�PEDtu FLFt.AREA) t ,'` @tB,�c•�,. � r f f t d k sr•., s __ _ p ( Pr,,n 1. .�i�t� r II � � if' IIj ,fJ I. t ' ,f a ! ' r-.� � r �it., rra( i ' 11 j48'FilSEDe`a �' } f.d / t dr 1 l'Y1,� r 1.,1-.f ,I fYr" If1.1li:P-10;(1SJEDCGizCUR3r i'11 f r . a t` .I.l l',f30li ' C-G-6CURP dl{ t / 1 `'i' ''',f 1. I ? ' '. dd t •• .-+,, :III I d I 1 !.ar 9'ROPOSEDEMet?GEOCNaACCESS i,. , ;c c S YA _ ' ' 1..!_i i 1 `I _1 /I ti/ ilJ;OAD REt4IG?'doknt DOLL-ARDS, °, ji L� T - _ ( _ 1 r PR'OPdSSE{�CGkg ;_ . :Et ei� °``.°{' 'i !i'1 14 I •RI G •>t �' ,/ 'EN:Map:CE . 1•0 ALL, d. i 1'L T LOT LOT • LOT LOT LOT f Y\,'w� 1 : ' - - _-- ' ' -•' -- . , i,FIC41C. ;�l II 2 27 6 �5 23 r al' ' r �� _ ,:_; }.} in 10 q'.. ,i tl rI ; I r I e \ ' ti4 ` ;1 i0FRJATSET7AYwry .J� o r > t I 1' e , � ° :),) ' , i III STQPSlGh1YP 1 1 ! 1 iI I •ca�7;nA ' ,\ • !ia t' _A.l i.. t b" 22' P '-.2 - 16' tl221_ 6' . — - q' i.` 'y-,'L.. §1 'It , I a* ,1 — . . - t ,, .,.^.x 1P.ROPOSED 1, 1, ( i 4 .l .Y ` ''t,I'` :- "1" T.: L'Hn' ia.:h:1-i.::: CGT tItYP,1 _1..a_ _ 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 swinkjw(a�stanleymartin.com I 571 309 5043 StanlevMartin.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 II Questions 2 ;CAUTION EXTERNAL email. 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) 3 lb 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 operi 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) 1