Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201400006 Review Comments Zoning Map Amendment 2016-06-27Short Review Comments Report for: ZMA201400006 SubApplication Type: Avon Park II Date Completed:09/24/2014 Reviewer:Francis MacCall CDD Admin Zoning Review Review Status:QC OK Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:11/05/2014 Reviewer:Claudette Grant CDD Planning Review Status:Pending Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:10/23/2014 Reviewer:Michelle Roberge CDD Engineering Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:10/16/2014 Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:10/22/2014 Reviewer:Amanda Burbage CDD Zoning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:10/24/2014 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:10/08/2014 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on plans dated 8/25/14. 1. Cul-da-sac shall be 96 ft FC/FC. 2. Streets with no on street parking and Cul-da-sac shall be marked "No Parking Fire lane". 3. Please contact the Fire Marshal to discuss the emergency fire access road. Division: Date Completed:10/23/2014 Reviewer:Michelle Roberge CDD Engineering Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Waiver request for Private Street Authorization I recommend approval of private street. Waiver for Public Road Extension I recommend denial. I recommend extending road to property line. The applicant requested a waiver due to offsite grading and clearing to the adjacent property. Also, the justification letter states that it is necessary to obtain easements. I recommend denial since the proposed grading is already shown beyond the property limits. Also, if a future connection is implied at this location, the proposed grading should be revised for the future connection to work. Division: Page:1 of 4 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 25, 2017 Waiver for Public Road Extension I recommend denial. I recommend extending road to property line. The applicant requested a waiver due to offsite grading and clearing to the adjacent property. Also, the justification letter states that it is necessary to obtain easements. I recommend denial since the proposed grading is already shown beyond the property limits. Also, if a future connection is implied at this location, the proposed grading should be revised for the future connection to work. Date Completed:04/23/2015 Reviewer:Claudette Grant CDD Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:04/08/2015 Reviewer:Michelle Roberge CDD Engineering Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:04/07/2015 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:04/10/2015 Reviewer:Amanda Burbage CDD Zoning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:04/06/2015 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA dated 3/16/15 1. Letter from adjoining property owner to allow emergency access across TMP 90-30B to provide a 2nd point of access to Hathway Extended. 2. Hathaway Street shall be marked No Parking on one side. Division: Date Completed:05/03/2015 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on Deed of Easement dated 4/21/15 Fire Rescue has no comments or objections to the Deed of Easement. Division: Date Completed:08/19/2015 Reviewer:Claudette Grant CDD Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:08/03/2015 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks CDD Engineering Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments: Division: Page:2 of 4 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 25, 2017 Date Completed:08/05/2015 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:08/01/2015 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA dated 7/3/15. No comments or objections Division: Date Completed:12/04/2015 Reviewer:Glenn Brooks CDD Engineering Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:There are no engineering issues remaining with the proposed zoning. (Note that the private sewer arrangement may be a topic for future County consideration with ACSA.) Division: Date Completed:12/11/2015 Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein CDD Planning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/09/2015 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:12/06/2015 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA dated 11/16/15. Fire Rescue doesn't have any comments or objections to the ZMA. A recommendation from Fire Rescue would be that the fire flow test be conducted to make sure the needed fire flow is available at this site. Due to the site being close to the same elevation as the water tower on the adjacent parcel. Division: Date Completed:12/07/2015 Reviewer:Shelly Plaster VDOT Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:04/08/2016 Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein CDD Planning Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:03/30/2016 Reviewer:John Anderson CDD Engineering Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Light table comparison of 11/16/15 and 3/7/16 ZMA submittals shows very slight change. Conceptual BMP and grading plan (sheet 8) shows slightly less steep Emergency Access from Avon St. Ext. to private shared parking area. Conceptual BMP has been enlarged, with current outline more practically buildable than previous design. This plan is equivalent and often identical to ZMA submitted last November. Glenn Brooks’ comments on 11/16 plan apply: “There are no engineering issues remaining with the proposed zoning. (Note that the private sewer arrangement may be a topic for future County consideration with ACSA.)” Sight line from car (profile, sheet 8), if lowered to touch the 2:1 slope, shows neither street nor southern units will be visible from Avon St. Ext. Grading shields Stratford Way and apparently all units from CL of Avon St. Ext. Note: Additional comments on ZMA detail is reserved for site plan submittal. For example, gravel Emer. Access (12.5%) is likely to erode. Traction for emergency response vehicles is uncertain. Engineering recommends a paved surface, but defers to ACF&R. Division: Page:3 of 4 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 25, 2017 issues remaining with the proposed zoning. (Note that the private sewer arrangement may be a topic for future County consideration with ACSA.)” Sight line from car (profile, sheet 8), if lowered to touch the 2:1 slope, shows neither street nor southern units will be visible from Avon St. Ext. Grading shields Stratford Way and apparently all units from CL of Avon St. Ext. Note: Additional comments on ZMA detail is reserved for site plan submittal. For example, gravel Emer. Access (12.5%) is likely to erode. Traction for emergency response vehicles is uncertain. Engineering recommends a paved surface, but defers to ACF&R. Date Completed:03/20/2016 Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin Review Status:No Objection Reviews Comments:Based on the plans dated 3/7/16. No comments or objections. Division: Date Completed:03/28/2016 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments:The ARB will review and provide comments on this proposal. This item will be scheduled for review when the submittal is received. Division: Date Completed:03/30/2016 Reviewer:Amanda Burbage CDD Zoning Review Status:Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:05/16/2016 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on May 16, 2016, completed an advisory review of the above-noted request to amend the proffers and application plan for ZMA-2012-24. The Board by a vote of 4:0, forwarded the following recommendation to the Planning Commission on the rezoning request: To offset the impacts of the proposed development, the quantity and general distribution of plants shown on the application plan should be considered a minimum requirement of the rezoning. Division: Date Completed:06/27/2016 Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein CDD Planning Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments: Division: Date Completed:06/27/2016 Reviewer:Margaret Maliszewski CDD ARB Review Status:See Recommendations Reviews Comments:The details of the landscape plan can be addressed in future site plan submittals. Note, however, that the ARB will require the quantity, general distribution, and character of plants shown on the site plan to be consistent with that shown on the application plan. Division: Page:4 of 4 County of Albemarle Printed On:September 25, 2017 Nouro Elaine Echols From: Kelly Myles <quietlife242@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:35 AM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Maryam T.;Avon Park; Lucy Brady Hartley; Rick Randolph; Pam Rileyl Subject: Re:Avon Park II- Rehearing Thanks, Elaine. Appreciate you passing that along. Kelly On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>wrote: Hi Maryam, I wanted to let you and others know that we found a mistake with the signatures for the Avon Park II proffers last month and the Board will have to rehear the project. I believe it will be perfunctory(these kinds of things almost always are), but please let the neighborhood know it is coming up.There are no changes to the proffers other than a corrected signature.The hearing is May 10, 2017 at 6 p.m. Thanks. Elaine 1 ftirteElaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 5:24 PM To: Maryam T. Cc: Avon Park; Lucy Brady Hartley; 'Kelly Myles'; Rick Randolph; Pam Rileyl Subject: Avon Park II - Rehearing Hi Maryam, I wanted to let you and others know that we found a mistake with the signatures for the Avon Park II proffers last month and the Board will have to rehear the project. I believe it will be perfunctory(these kinds of things almost always are), but please let the neighborhood know it is coming up.There are no changes to the proffers other than a corrected signature.The hearing is May 10, 2017 at 6 p.m. Thanks. Elaine 1 'Sore '4401 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Thursday,April 27, 2017 11:46 AM To: 'Ignacio de Cardenas' Subject: RE:Avon Park II/Bellevue Real Estate LLC/Beau Dickerson I was looking at the wrong month on my calendar.The BOS meeting is May 10. Elaine From: Elaine Echols Sent:Thursday,April 27,2017 11:41 AM To:'Ignacio de Cardenas'<idecardenas@aol.com> Subject: RE:Avon Park II/Bellevue Real Estate LLC/Beau Dickerson Mr. de Cardenas, I'm sorry it has been so long since I have responded.Thank you for sending your email. You correctly identified that Michael Cetta, not Beau Dickerson, is the person who should have signed the proffers.This was my error. I was the third Planner on this project, which began in 2014.The second Planner was on maternity leave so I took over the project from her. It turns out that Beau Dickerson signed the original application, but a second application was submitted after that, since he wasn't authorized to sign. I wasn't aware of the second application and I assumed that the latest signed proffers contained the correct signature because Beau Dickerson signed the original application.This is what happens when one assumes. Since I last emailed you,we have obtained all of the legal documents that indicate Michael Cetta is the authorized person to sign the proffers. I have obtained his signature on proffers that will go to the Board of Supervisors on May 14. We have advertised for a new public hearing.The proffers contain all of the changes that Beau made at the meeting. While I am extremely embarrassed that this happened under my review, I would have been mortified in the future to learn that the proffers were not valid.Thank you again for your email. As soon as I prepare my transmittal for the Board of Supervisors, I will email you (as well as others) so they know why there is a second public hearing scheduled. Thank you again. Please let me know if I can assist you with anything else. Elaine From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday,April 14, 2017 2:04 PM To: 'Ignacio de Cardenas'<idecardenas@aol.com> Subject: RE:Avon Park II/Bellevue Real Estate LLC/Beau Dickerson Hi Mr. Cardenas, In my files, I see reference to Mr. Dickerson as, "agent for the owner" of Bellevue Real Estate LLC and I believe that the document verifying this information is in the County Attorney's office. When an application is made, our legal staff 1 verifies that the person making the application is legally authorized by the owner to do so, if it is not the owner. I have asked the County Attorney's office to let me know that they have those papers. I will let you know as soon as I hear from them. Thanks. Elaine From: Ignacio de Cardenas[mailto:idecardenas@aol.com] Sent:Thursday,April 13,2017 12:53 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject:Avon Park II/Bellevue Real Estate LLC/Beau Dickerson Hi Elaine, I am a resident of Avon Park I and was at the BOS meeting yesterday(12-Apr)where Beau Dickerson's plan was approved. As I reviewed some of the documentation, it is not clear to me what Beau Dickerson's relationship is with the property. As near as I can tell, the owner of the property is: BELLEVUE REAL ESTATE LLC 16 PINEY GLEN CT POTOMAC MD, 20854 When I look up the owner of that address in Potomac MD, I get the owner as CETTA MICHAEL G TRUSTEE CETTA DENISE S TRUSTEE 16 PINEY GLEN CT POTOMAC, MD 20854-1411 I believe Michael Cetta is Vito Cetta's son. I could not find any owners of "Bellevue Real Estate LLC" Could you help me with understanding Beau's relationship with Bellevue? Thanks so much, and I hope you having a good Ti's birthday. Ignacio de Cardenas 1159 Arden Dr Charlottesville, VA 22902 2 "%soi sad Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday,April 18, 2017 1:27 PM To: 'Vito Cetta'; 'Beau Dickerson' Cc: 'Cetta Mike' Subject: RE:Avon 2 Proffers and Signatures Attachments: A.P.II 4-12 proffers track changes.docx Hello again, I have tried to reach Vito and Beau by phone. I need to know ASAP if you want this to go to the BOS May 10 meeting(I may have said May 12 on the phone.) If so, I need to get the ad to the Clerk by tomorrow a.m. I have attached the latest proffers with changes from the April 12 BOS meeting. I can't find a copy of Bellevue Real Estate, LLC's articles of incorporation to know who may sign on behalf of the corporation.The best I can tell, Beau cannot sign. So, if Vito is the one to sign the proffers, I need to see the authorization to do so. Please let me hear from you as soon as possible with the following information: • You want to go to the May 12 BOS meeting. I am assuming that the hearing will be perfunctory, but it must be opened, closed, and the ZMA re-voted on. • The date by which I can expect the signed proffers • The Articles of Incorporation regarding who may sign on behalf of the LLC. I'm sorry we have to go through this.Thanks for your help in resolving it quickly. Elaine From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday,April 17, 2017 12:22 PM To:'Vito Cetta'<vitocetta@me.com>; 'Beau Dickerson'<Beau@builddhd.com> Cc:Cetta Mike<mcetta@mac.com> Subject:Avon 2 Proffers and Signatures Hello Vito and Beau, With the transition from Rachel to myself,the new County Attorney reviewing proffers, and other administrative people on vacation, plus the rapid turnaround of proffer changes at the last minute, I did not delve into the files to find info on the fact that Vito must sign the proffers. Beau does not ever appear to have been authorized to sign proffers. I believe that this is going to have to go back to the BOS for another public hearing. I'm hoping it won't have to go the PC as well. I'm working with the County Attorney's office to find out. Beau and Vito—please make sure that signing the proffers that Beau last amended are agreeable to Vito. I have asked for a .pdf of the proffers that came out of last Wed's BOS meeting. I should have a copy of them later today. I will be back in touch soon. Elaine From:Vito Cetta [mailto:vitocetta@me.com] Sent: Friday,April 14, 2017 4:30 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> 1 (.0) Cc:Cetta Mike<mcetta@mac.com> Subject:Avon 2 Elaine, With a cursory review of my files, I do not see anything I signed giving the applicant to authority to submit this application. I feel certain I did sign something. Could you please prepare something that me or my son Michael could sign. We are aware of the application and approve of his submission. Could you also send me the approved package. Many thanks Vito Cetta, aia 2635 South Bennington Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 home: 434-296-0003 cell: 434-531-2192 vitocetta(a�mac.com 2 Elaine Echols From: Vito Cetta <vitocetta@me.com> Sent: Tuesday,April 18, 2017 2:21 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: Cetta Mike Subject: Re:Avon 2 Proffers and Signatures Attachments: A.P.II 4-12 proffers track changes.docx Mike, Elaine is the planner dealing with Avon 2 and needs your help since the property is yours. Please call her at 434-296-5832 and respond to her email. Dad On Apr 18, 2017, at 1:26 PM, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>wrote: Hello again, I have tried to reach Vito and Beau by phone. I need to know ASAP if you want this to go to the BOS May 10 meeting (I may have said May 12 on the phone.) If so, I need to get the ad to the Clerk by tomorrow a.m. I have attached the latest proffers with changes from the April 12 BOS meeting. I can't find a copy of Bellevue Real Estate, LLC's articles of incorporation to know who may sign on behalf of the corporation.The best I can tell, Beau cannot sign. So, if Vito is the one to sign the proffers, I need to see the authorization to do so. Please let me hear from you as soon as possible with the following information: • You want to go to the May 12 BOS meeting. I am assuming that the hearing will be perfunctory, but it must be opened, closed, and the ZMA re-voted on. • The date by which I can expect the signed proffers • The Articles of Incorporation regarding who may sign on behalf of the LLC. I'm sorry we have to go through this.Thanks for your help in resolving it quickly. Elaine From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday,April 17,2017 12:22 PM To: 'Vito Cetta'<vitocetta@me.com>; 'Beau Dickerson'<Beau@builddhd.com> Cc:Cetta Mike<mcetta@mac.com> Subject:Avon 2 Proffers and Signatures Hello Vito and Beau, With the transition from Rachel to myself,the new County Attorney reviewing proffers, and other administrative people on vacation, plus the rapid turnaround of proffer changes at the last minute, I did not delve into the files to find info on the fact that Vito must sign the proffers. Beau does not ever appear to have been authorized to sign proffers. I believe that this is going to have to go back to the BOS for another public hearing. I'm hoping it won't have to go the PC as well. I'm working with the County Attorney's office to find out. 1 (11101) Beau and Vito—please make sure that signing the proffers that Beau last amended are agreeable to Vito. I have asked for a .pdf of the proffers that came out of last Wed's BOS meeting. I should have a copy of them later today. I will be back in touch soon. Elaine From:Vito Cetta [mailto:vitocetta@me.com] Sent: Friday,April 14,2017 4:30 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc:Cetta Mike<mcetta@mac.com> Subject:Avon 2 Elaine,With a cursory review of my files, I do not see anything I signed giving the applicant to authority to submit this application. I feel certain I did sign something. Could you please prepare something that me or my son Michael could sign. We are aware of the application and approve of his submission. Could you also send me the approved package. Many thanks Vito Cetta, aia 2635 South Bennington Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 home: 434-296-0003 cell: 434-531-2192 vitocettamac.com Vito Cetta, aia 2635 South Bennington Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 home: 434-296-0003 cell: 434-531-2192 vitocetta(a�mac.com 2 sidElaine Echols From: Marsha Davis Sent: Monday,April 17, 2017 1:55 PM To: Elaine Echols Cc: John Blair Subject: Avon Park II Proffers Attachments: 1014_001.pdf Elaine, Please find attached a scanned copy of the proffers as they were amended at the Board's April 12 meeting. We will process the originals in our usual manner. Let me know if you need anything else. Thank you, Marsha Marsha A. Davis Legal Services Coordinator Albemarle County Attorney's Office 401 McIntire Road, Suite 325 Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434) 972-4067 ext.7931 marshadavis(a�albemarle.orq From:scanner@CAO.org [mailto:scanner@CAO.org] Sent: Monday,April 17,2017 1:51 PM To: Marsha Davis<MDavis02@albemarle.org> Subject:Attached Image 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday,April 12, 2017 4:33 PM To: Doug Walker; Mark Graham Subject: RE:Avon park 2 Rick called me earlier. He said he is open to this game plan. He didn't indicate that it would change his mind about the 2012 amounts and past BOS actions. I talked to Greg who said that the only other applicant to do this with any regularity is Wendell Wood. Oakleigh's recent situation was different because the change made after the public hearing had to do with tree preservation and not cash proffers. I believe the order of business will be 1)the chair asks for my presentation, 2) BOS members ask any questions, 3)BOS asks for the applicant to present to them,4) applicant answers any questions/BOS provides any direction, 5) Chair opens public hearing. If applicant is going to modify his proffer amount,then the Chair will need to take a quick recess before taking action, so that Greg can review the changed amounts. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Elaine From: Doug Walker Sent:Wednesday,April 12, 2017 2:37 PM To: Mark Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: FW:Avon park 2 Closing the loop with you since you both are referenced but not copied. Douglas C. Walker Interim County Executive Albemarle County,Virginia 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville,VA 22901 434.296-5841, Ext. 3400 From: Rick Randolph Sent:Wednesday,April 12,2017 12:56 PM To: Board of Supervisors members<bos@albemarle.org> Subject: Fwd:Avon park 2 Dear Colleagues, Beau is requesting here that the Board first discuss his request to provide a proffer amount of$242,526 before the ZMA is opened up to public discussion so that he knows in advance of the public comments whether he will be required by the Board to stand by the original 2012 agreed proffer amount of$371,556. This amount, agreed to by the original developer of Avon Park II, Vito Cella, was part of the original terms of the SP when Beau purchased the property. 1 As I have been involved with this development closely as planning commissioner, I want you to know or be reminded in Ann's case that Vito's original SP was approved by both the PC (6-1) and the Board. Only when the approved project went to site review,which I attended, did the major hurdle that triggered my negative vote in at the PC meeting rise to prominence. Fire/rescue insisted that a second, emergency entrance be provided to the property off of Avon Street Extended and that the hammer-head cul de sacs be widened to permit fire equipment to turn around. I voted against the project because of the need for a second entrance, as per Neighborhood Model criteria. Before Vito's engineering firm could begin implementing the project, a second engineering firm came into the picture. Before they began implementing the SP, Vito sold the property to Beau. Although I was in Ecuador when the most recent community meeting was held, I did attend as planning commissioner in 2015 another community meeting where setback issues with the Avon Park I neighbors were discussed with Beau and to the best of my knowledge resolved. I have to date only heard from one Avon Park I resident about this application,that being Kelly Myles. See you tonight. Rick Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Beau Dickerson<beaudickerson@a,gmail.com> Date: April 11,2017 at 4:34:40 PM EDT To: <rrandolph@albemarle.org> Subject: Avon park 2 Mr. Randolph, Thank you for your prompt reply. I am sending this from my phone which is always cumbersome but I am on my way to getting my son to karate and I don't want to send this too late. There is a procedural tactic, for lack of a better word,that may be implemented at a board meeting so that supervisors can speak openly about an issue without opening the discussion to the public in order for the applicant to take the pulse of the supervisors and adjust accordingly. The supervisors would have to agree to this procedure. Since you are the supervisor for this district Elaine and Mark recommended I reach out to you. They were also the ones who suggested this approach, I am a novice with this procedure but they said it has certainly been used in the past. If you have a 30 or 40 minutes tomorrow for coffee I would be much obliged... Beau Sent from my iPhone 2 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday,April 11, 2017 12:06 PM To: 'Beau Dickerson' Subject: RE:getting confirmation Importance: High Beau, we need to take a breath here so I can do all of the research on the status of things is. A site plan approved in 2008, in theory, is valid to July 20, 2020. If a subsequent zoning took place which changed the plan and commitments (proffers),the earlier site plan may not be valid. When I answered your question, I was looking at the situation in a vacuum—a site plan approved in 2008 has certain rights.Those rights may not continue if the zoning changes. Please hold off doing anything more on this situation until can get the research done on what is and is not valid. As you know, I have not been part of the full history of this project.The history is extremely important as it informs what is possible now, without the Board's action tomorrow. Elaine From: beaudickerson@gmail.com [mailto:beaudickerson@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Beau Dickerson Sent:Tuesday,April 11,2017 10:37 AM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Re:getting confirmation I'm Sorry,the proffer document for the plan dated July 30th 2008. Beau On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>wrote: You may, but here is a .pdf of it. Does that help? From:beaudickerson@gmail.com [mailto:beaudickerson@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Beau Dickerson Sent:Tuesday,April 11, 2017 10:22 AM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Re:getting confirmation Elaine, i (111.04 Could I come by and pick up the original proffer document? I know I have seen it but I cannot put my hands on a copy. Beau On Tue,Apr 11, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@a,albemarle.org>wrote: Hi Beau— I have confirmed with several planners that your SDP200700147 Avon Park II, approved 7/30/08, is still valid and will be valid to July 1, 2020. Please let me know if there is anything else we can provide. Thanks. Elaine From: Elaine Echols Sent: Monday,April 10, 2017 5:10 PM To: 'Beau Dickerson'<Beau(aibuilddhd.com> Subject: getting confirmation Beau, I'm checking with the experts on the status of the approved site plan. I'll get back with you tomorrow. Couldn't find the right people today. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, FAICP Chief of Planning Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5823 x 3252 2 925 E. Jefferson St Suite B Charlottesville Va 22902 WWW.BuildDHD.com Licensed Sales Associate in Virginia Office:434.321.5227 925 E. Jefferson St Suite B Charlottesville Va 22902 WWW.BuildDHD.com Licensed Sales Associate in Virginia Office:434.321.5227 3 Nifto *44.1 Elaine Echols From: Rachel Falkenstein Sent: Sunday,April 02, 2017 4:41 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE:Avon Park II There were no reviewers after John.John's last review said there were no outstanding engineering comments.The applicant only made one more resubmittal after that, right before the PC meeting and that was just to address a few small outstanding comments from ARB and planning/zoning. It was a submittal without receiving comments from staff. Engineering was never asked to comment on the cost of the site changes because this issue never came up prior to the PC meeting. Call tomorrow if you still need to discuss. From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, March 31,2017 5:19 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Subject:Avon Park II Hi Rachel, I need to talk to you about Avon Park II and the impacts of the redesign on the plan. Mark Graham looked at the plan and did not see why the applicant said he had to spend so much money on redesign and anticipated grading with the new road. It looked like to him that changes were minimal.After Glenn and John left Engineering,who reviewed the plan for you? Maybe they can provide some insight. If you see this on Monday,could you give me a call?Otherwise, I'll try to reach you. I see you won't be back in until Tuesday. Thanks. Elaine K. Echols, FAICP Chief of Planning Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5823 x 3252 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:19 PM To: Marsha Davis Subject: RE:April 12 Avon Park II ZMA Attachments: Cost for revision letter 1-30-17.pdf Will check for accuracy today. Here is the applicant's Jan. letter. Thanks. From: Marsha Davis Sent: Monday, March 27,2017 2:23 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject:April 12 Avon Park II ZMA Hi Elaine. May I have a copy of the applicant's January 2017 letter? I'm attaching my draft ZMA ordinance, which Greg has not yet seen. Please review it for accuracy and let me know what the dates of the application plan and proffers are when you know. I think I'll also need to prepare a Resolution to Deny. I'll confirm that with Greg and will get that to you if needed. Thanks! Marsha Marsha A. Davis Legal Services Coordinator Albemarle County Attorney's Office 401 McIntire Road, Suite 325 Charlottesville, VA 22902 (434)972-4067 ext.7931 marshadavis a(�albemarle.orq 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, March 17,2017 5:21 PM To: 'Beau Dickerson' Cc: Rachel Falkenstein Subject: Proffers Attachments: Avon Proffers 3-17-17eke.docx Hi Beau, Many apologies for the time this has taken to get back with you on the proffers. I have gotten County Attorney Comments and we are recommending that you make the (technical)changes that are shown in this Track Changes document. If you agree, please accept the changes and clean up any of the format issues that may result,sign them and get them notarized,and bring them to us no later than March 27.You are on the April 12, BOS agenda.The project will be advertised in the paper on Monday, March 27 and Monday,April 3. I will be out of the office next week March 20—24. If you have questions or need to talk about wording, please contact John Blair in the County Attorney's office 434-972-4067 or via email jblair(c�albemarle.orq. You can also talk to Rachel—she is back in the office working part-time. Thanks. Elaine Elaine K. Echols, FAICP Chief of Planning Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5823 x 3252 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2017 3:49 PM To: 'Maryam T.' Subject: RE:Avon Park II I did not hear back from him, so I just sent him a reminder email. Let's assume he can come at 2p.m. and meet then. Thanks. Elaine From: Maryam T. [mailto:maryamt_@hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, February 22,2017 3:46 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Re:Avon Park II Hello Elaine, Have you heard from Beau Dickeson yet regarding Friday? Thanks, -Maryam Tatavosian From: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday, February 15,2017 3:03 PM To: Maryam T. Subject: RE:Avon Park II Thanks. I'm waiting to hear back from Beau. I will let you know as soon as I hear from him. Elaine From: Maryam T. Finailto:maryamt @hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, February 15,2017 3:03 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Re:Avon Park II Yes, it will just be me. From: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday, February 15,2017 3:00 PM To: Maryam T. Subject: RE:Avon Park II Thanks, I will reach out to him. Will it just be you coming to the meeting? 1 ,44 From: Maryam T. [mailto:maryamt @hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, February 15,2017 2:44 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Re:Avon Park II Hi Elaine, Yes, Feb 24 at 2:00pm. I'm flexible that day, so if that doesn't work out for Beau, I can reschedule. Thank you again for your help! -Maryam Tatavosian From: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Sent:Wednesday, February 15,2017 2:41 PM To: Maryam T. Subject: RE:Avon Park II Friday, Feb. 24?Yes, I am available in the afternoon. Please let me know and I will reach out to Beau. Thanks. Elaine From: Maryam T. [mailto:maryamt @hotmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, February 15,2017 2:22 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Re:Avon Park II Good Afternoon Elaine, Would you be available next Friday at 2:00pm? I've been trying to see if I can sneak away Friday morning, but it doesn't look like I'm able. I would also very much appreciate it if Beau is able to meet with us. Thanks again for your help, -Maryam From: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Sent:Monday, February 13, 2017 12:34 PM To: Maryam T. Subject: RE:Avon Park II Unfortunately, I am tied up with interviews all afternoon Friday. Would some time Friday morning work? Would you like for me to ask Beau to come?Staff is not in a good position to arbitrate or negotiate, but it might be possible for any misunderstandings to be rectified or"positions" to be identified. I call this, "agreeing to disagree," if that is what it comes to. Elaine 2 4 From: Maryam T. [mailto:maryamt @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 13,2017 11:50 AM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc: From: Kelly Myles[mailto:<quietlife242@gmail.com>; avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject: Re:Avon Park II Good Morning Elaine, Thank you again for the detailed information! We truly appreciate all of your efforts in keeping us apprised of these recent developments with the applicants. There appears to be some inconsistencies between what we (Avon Park HOA) agreed upon with the applicant and what he submitted as part of his latest proposal. Are you available on Friday at 2:00pm for me to stop by and go over with you our previously agreed upon terms? Also, some of my neighbors had some additional questions that I'd like to ask you. Many Thanks, -Maryam From: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Sent:Tuesday, February 7,2017 4:00 PM To: Kelly Myles Cc: Maryam T.;avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject: RE:Avon Park II Please see insertions in red below. From: Kelly Myles [mailto:quietlife242@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:43 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc: Maryam T.<maryamt @hotmail.com>; avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject: Re:Avon Park II Hi, Elaine^' Really appreciate the update and clarification.Just a few questions: 1. To make certain I'm crystal clear on what "to the north" means, that would be the area behind proposed Avon Park II Lots 8, 9 & 10, correct(i.e., the area behind current Avon Park I townhouses marked 1, 2 & 3 on the drawings and the water tower)? Yes, but I think it would also include the first two lots in Avon Park 1 that are at the corner of Hathaway Street and Arden Drive. 2. It is my understanding from Rachel Falkenstein and from my review of the plans(attached version, as well as the larger size at your offices)that the total setback behind the homes to be built on proposed APII lots 8, 9 & 10 will be 20', 15'of which will be a landscape easement(versus the 10'landscape easement behind lots 1-7), correct? The May 24, 2016 plan (see page 5 of 10) indicates that the rear setback on Lot 8 is 25 feet. On Lots 9 and 10, it is 20 feet. On all three of these lots, this area includes a 15' landscape easement. Behind lots 1 —4, there appears to be a 20' drainage and landscape easement. .Behind Lots 6—7, the plan says, "10' landscape easement,'' but I think then there is a note behind Lot 5 that says. "5' landscape easement". All of these lots (1 — 7) have a 2.5 foot rear yard setback and the 3 (0.) landscape easements are within that setback. I am going to have to get clarification from Beau (or others) on the easements behind Lots 5 — 7. 3. Are you still anticipating a March 8 BOS hearing or is it too soon to gauge that since you're still needing further clarification from him on the proffers? We will need clarification on the proffers and right now it is not on the March 8 BOS date. Many thanks! Kelly On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>wrote: Hello— Beau Dickerson resubmitted his proposal last week.The plan has not changed, but the proffers have changed. Unfortunately, I am not clear on exactly what is being proffered and I need to talk to him. He will need to update what he sent,which is also attached to this email. The proffer below may be the most important one for you to look at as it responds to the Commission's direction to pay more attention to the trees at the northern boundary of the site. Here is the proffer(with my explanations in red.): The Owner shall provide a 10'wide landscape easement behind (I think he means at the rear of) lots 1—7 (I think he means the ones on his Zoning Amendment Plan)and on Parcel Number 0900F0-00-00-000A1 (known as Avon Park 1 I think he means the Avon Park 1 Community Association land).The owner shall install plants as per the final approved landscape plan during the first fall planting season after the adjacent retaining wall is installed or following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the seventh completed dwelling unit located on Lots 1 through 7. The owner shall identify the location of the trees on the properties of the adjoining owners to the north. If the trees are located eche-within 5' or less of the property line the owner will remove trees on those adjoining existing properties.Tree removal will be subject to the existing property owner's written approval allowing the Owner,the owner's sub contractors, and/or employees,of Avon Park Phase 2 property permission to come onto the property and remove trees. This won't be the final version of the proffers and I will be glad to send you the next iteration which should be more clear. You are welcome to come look at the large size plan in our office. Feel free to call me if you need to at 434-296-5823 x 3252 Elaine Echols From: Maryam T. [mailto:maryamt @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday,January 23,2017 4:16 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc:avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject:Avon Park II Hello Elaine, My name is Maryam Tatavosian and I am the President of the Avon Park HOA. You have been in contact with Kelly Myles, a homeowner in my community regarding Avon Park II. 4 `% Thank you for letting us know that Beau Dickerson had stopped by to see yo and that he is close to submitting his latest plan to the BoS. Do you happen to have a copy of the latest proposal that he submitted to you for review? Mr. Dickerson has not had good communication with my community in the past and we want to ensure that all of our previously agreed upon issues (especially with setbacks/privacy barriers) are properly reflected in his latest plan. I would be happy to pay any cost associated with getting of a copy of these plans. Also, did Mr. Dickerson mention anything to you about him just developing APII but selling off the lots to other builders? This issue was just brought to our attention and we'd appreciate any insights that you may have on this. Thank you for your time, -Maryam Tatavosian President,Avon Park HOA (814) 746-2730 5 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:13 PM To: 'Maryam T.'; 'Kelly Myles' Cc: avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject: RE:Avon Park II Attachments: proffers 1-30-17.pdf;Application Plan 5-24-16reduced.pdf Hello— Beau Dickerson resubmitted his proposal last week.The plan has not changed, but the proffers have changed. Unfortunately, I am not clear on exactly what is being proffered and I need to talk to him.,He will need to update what he sent,which is also attached to this email. The proffer below may be the most important one for you to look at as it responds to the Commission's direction to pay more attention to the trees at the northern boundary of the site. Here is the proffer(with my explanations in red.): The Owner shall provide a 10'wide landscape easement behind (I think he means at the rear of) lots 1—7(I think he means the ones on his Zoning Amendment Plan)and on Parcel Number 0900F0-00-00-000A1 (known as Avon Park 1 I think he means the Avon Park 1 Community Association land).The owner shall install plants as per the final approved landscape plan during the first fall planting season after the adjacent retaining wall is installed or following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the seventh completed dwelling unit located on Lots 1 through 7. The owner shall identify the location of the trees on the properties of the adjoining owners to the north. If the trees are located eche-within 5'or less of the property line the owner will remove trees on those adjoining existing properties.Tree removal will be subject to the existing property owner's written approval allowing the Owner,the owner's sub contractors,and/or employees,of Avon Park Phase 2 property permission to come onto the property and remove trees. This won't be the final version of the proffers and I will be glad to send you the next iteration which should be more clear. You are welcome to come look at the large size plan in our office. Feel free to call me if you need to at 434-296-5823 x 3252 Elaine Echols From: Maryam T. [mailto:maryamt_@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday,January 23,2017 4:16 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc:avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject:Avon Park II Hello Elaine, My name is Maryam Tatavosian and I am the President of the Avon Park HOA. You have been in contact with Kelly Myles, a homeowner in my community regarding Avon Park II. 1 (0) Thank you for letting us know that Beau Dickerson had stopped by to see you and that he is close to submitting his latest plan to the BoS. Do you happen to have a copy of the latest proposal that he submitted to you for review? Mr. Dickerson has not had good communication with my community in the past and we want to ensure that all of our previously agreed upon issues (especially with setbacks/privacy barriers) are properly reflected in his latest plan. I would be happy to pay any cost associated with getting of a copy of these plans: Also, did Mr. Dickerson mention anything to you about him just developing APII but selling off the lots to other builders? This issue was just brought to our attention and we'd appreciate any insights that you may have on this. Thank you for your time, -Maryam Tatavosian President,Avon Park HOA (814) 746-2730 2 } 1 Elaine Echols From: Elaine Echols Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 4:00 PM To: 'Kelly Myles' Cc: Maryam T.;avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject: RE:Avon Park II Please see insertions in red below. From: Kelly Myles [mailto:quietlife242@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:43 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc: Maryam T.<maryamt_@hotmail.com>;avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject: Re:Avon Park II Hi, Elaine-Really appreciate the update and clarification. Just a few questions: 1. To make certain I'm crystal clear on what "to the north" means,that would be the area behind proposed Avon Park II Lots 8, 9 & 10, correct(i.e., the area behind current Avon Park I townhouses marked 1, 2 & 3 on the drawings and the water tower)? Yes, but I think it would also include the first two lots in Avon Park 1 that are at the corner of Hathaway Street and Arden Drive. 2. It is my understanding from Rachel Falkenstein and from my review of the plans (attached version, as well as the larger size at your offices) that the total setback behind the homes to be built on proposed . APII lots 8, 9 & 10 will be 20', 15'of which will be a landscape easement(versus the 10'landscape easement behind lots 1-7), correct? The May 24, 2016 plan (see page 5 of 10) indicates that the rear setback on Lot 8 is 25 feet. On Lots 9 and 10, it is 20 feet. On all three of these lots, this area includes a 15' landscape easement. Behind lots 1 —4, there appears to be a 20' drainage and landscape easement. .Behind Lots 6—7, the plan says, "10' landscape easement," but I think then there is a note behind Lot 5 that says, "5' landscape easement". All of these lots (1 — 7)have a 25 foot rear yard setback and the landscape easements are within that setback. I am going to have to get clarification from Beau (or others) on the easements behind Lots 5 — 7. 3. Are you still anticipating a March 8 BOS hearing or is it too soon to gauge that since you're still needing further clarification from him on the proffers? We will need clarification on the proffers and right now it is not on the March 8 BOS date. Many thanks! Kelly On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org>wrote: Hello— 1 (1..) (.0) Beau Dickerson resubmitted his proposal last week.The plan has not changed, but the proffers have changed. Unfortunately, I am not clear on exactly what is being proffered and I need to talk to him. He will need to update what he sent,which is also attached to this email. The proffer below may be the most important one for you to look at as it responds to the Commission's direction to pay more attention to the trees at the northern boundary of the site. Here is the proffer(with my explanations in red.): The Owner shall provide a 10'wide landscape easement behind (I think he means at the rear of) lots 1—7 (I think he means the ones on his Zoning Amendment Plan)and on Parcel Number 0900F0-00-00-000A1 (known as Avon Park 1 I think he means the Avon Park 1 Community Association land).The owner shall install plants as per the final approved landscape plan during the first fall planting season after the adjacent retaining wall is installed or following the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the seventh completed dwelling unit located on Lots 1 through 7. The owner shall identify the location of the trees on the properties of the adjoining owners to the north. If the trees are located oche-within 5'or less of the property line the owner will remove trees on those adjoining existing properties.Tree removal will be subject to the existing property owner's written approval allowing the Owner,the owner's sub contractors,and/or employees, of Avon Park Phase 2 property permission to come onto the property and remove trees. This won't be the final version of the proffers and I will be glad to send you the next iteration which should be more clear. You are welcome to come look at the large size plan in our office. Feel free to call me if you need to at 434-296-5823 x 3252 Elaine Echols tG iI It From: Maryam T. [mailto:maryamt @hotmail.com] Sent: Monday,January 23,2017 4:16 PM To:Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc:avonparkhoa@gmail.com Subject:Avon Park II Hello Elaine, 2 ) ) My name is Maryam Tatavosian and I am the President of the Avon Park 0. You have been in contact with Kelly Myles, a homeowner in my community regarding Avon Park II. Thank you for letting us know that Beau Dickerson had stopped by to see you and that he is close to submitting his latest plan to the BoS. Do you happen to have a copy of the latest proposal that he submitted to you for review? Mr. Dickerson has not had good communication with my community in the past and we want to ensure that all of our previously agreed upon issues (especially with setbacks/privacy barriers) are properly reflected in his latest plan. I would be happy to pay any cost associated with getting of a copy of these plans. Also, did Mr. Dickerson mention anything to you about him just developing APII but selling off the lots to other builders? This issue was just brought to our attention and we'd appreciate any insights that you may have on this. Thank you for your time, -Maryam Tatavosian President,Avon Park HOA (814) 746-2730 3 sod Elaine Echols From: Ron White Sent Wednesday, February 01, 2017 12:29 PM To: Elaine Echols Subject: RE:Avon Park II I don't see anything that has not been previously discussed. From: Elaine Echols Sent:Wednesday, February 01,2017 10:10 AM To: Ron White<rwhite2@albemarle.org> Subject:Avon Park II ZMA201400006—Avon Park Il—was RAchels and I have picked it up. Could you have a look at the proffers and see if they are ok with you? Thanks. Elaine From: BizHubPlanning@albemarle.org [mailto:BizHubPlanning@albemarle.org] Sent:Tuesday,January 31,2017 5:09 PM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Message from KM_364e 1 January 30, 2017 To: Albemarle County Community Development Attn:Elaine K.Echols, EA1CP Chief of Planning Re: Avon Park II-ZMA201400006 Dear Mrs. Echols: l am writing to ask for a reduction to the cash proffers associated with Avon Park phase 2. The cash proffers that were submitted and approved for the original Avon Park phase 2 plan in July 2008 should not apply to the re-designed site plan.The original plan had gone through the rezoning process and had been approved by the board of Supervisors, as well as all community development departments, in 2008. The market changed, and a shift in design was needed to meet market demand in 2013.Avon Park 2 was re-designed to have more single family detached and less attached product. The plan was approved by the planning commission in 2013, after which there were several rounds of comments over 14 months. The plan was being prepared for final submittal to the Board of Supervisors. As the plan was finalized,we had one additional meeting with the Board to cover any items we felt were still vague,for example the set-back table and the amount of design detail that would be needed for the landscaping plan. At this meeting, Fire and Rescue determined a secondary entrance was needed for Avon Park 2. An entrance had not been required in 2008, in 2013, or for 14 months in 2014. Requiring the secondary access meant that the plan had to be re-designed. This last minute requirement has led to an enormous cost increase in terms of time, real dollars, and future dollars. Cost breakdown Below is a breakdown of the increase in cost for the Avon Park phase 2 project: The re-design of Avon Park 2 site plan has caused an estimated increase in development hard costs of between $150,000 and $170,000. This added cost is due to the overall lowering of the site, additional clearing and grading,retaining walls that will now be required, and construction of the access road. Its entrance will be on State Route 742 South (Avon Street Extended). Additional landscaping will be needed due to the construction of the road and the clearing that is now needed. The cost to add additional plants, shrubs,trees,and mulch, including labor, is estimated to be $33,000. The cost of engineering this new plan has contributed $60,000.00 in additional, upfront cost. Because of this increase in cost,l am requesting that the cash proffer amount be reduced by the development hard costs of$170,000. Humbly, $eau i - • P. Managing Member of Dickerson Homes and Development Earthworks Excavating, Inc. PO Box 7372 • Charlottesville. Virginia 22906 434-975-2913 (office) •434-979-2912 (fax) October 4. 2016 To: Dickerson Homes &Development Atm: Clay Greene Re: Avon Park ll access road costs Mrs. Greene. Per your request I have studied the revised siteplan for the proposed Avon Park II development on Avon St.Ext. In particular 1 have looked at the increased costs of the features related to the access road leading from the lower end of the site. I am led to believe that the addition of this road caused an overall `'lowering"of the site so that the slope of the access road fell within acceptable parameters,and that this"lowering"in turn caused more grading/area to be graded, and the addition of two separate retaining wall networks needed to make this grading possible. In consideration of these changes_and in comparison to previous budgets that I had prepared for this project. it is my opinion that the cost of the project (from a sitework contractors standpoint)will increase by between $150,000.00 and $170,000.00. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, and please feel free to contact me with any questions. Peter D. Wildman President,Earthworks Excavating, Inc. (4010 %tile IN�wd019A a ,LuNnwwoa 03A130a1 '4,44.r+r Elaine Echols Subject: FW:Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting From: Kelly Myles [mailto:quietlife242@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday,January 18,2017 9:04 AM To: Elaine Echols<EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Fwd:Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting Hello, Elaine--We met at the July 12, 2016 Planning Commission meeting,which I attended to speak about the proposed Avon Park II development(the townhouse I own in Avon Park I abuts the proposed development site). Per Rachel's suggestion, I've been touching bases with her monthly to see if there's been any activity with that proposed development(i.e., determine whether it's in the pipeline for the agenda of an upcoming Board of Supervisors meeting, since public notices are typically only 2 weeks). She suggested I start contacting you monthly while she's on maternity leave. All that to say... any activity on Avon Park II? Thank you, Kelly Myles Forwarded message From: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Date: Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 3:51 PM Subject: RE: Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting To: Kelly Myles<quietlife242@gmail.com> FYI—I plan to be out on maternity leave starting very soon. Elaine Echols (eechols@albemarle.org) will be covering this project in my absence, so please reach out to her if I am gone. Thanks, Rachel From: Kelly Myles[mailto:buietlife242@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 19, 2016 4:05 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein(aialbemarle.org> Cc: Avon Park<avonparkhoa@gmail.com>; O'Connor, Linda<lvoconnor4@gmail.com>; Brady Hartley <bradyhartl ey@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting Thank you, Rachel. Will check in next month/year! On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>wrote: Still no action on this. 1 From: Kelly Myles [mailto:quietlife242@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 19,2016 9:17 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc: Avon Park<avonparkhoa@gmail.com>; O'Connor, Linda<lvoconnor4@gmail.com>; Brady Hartley <bradvhartley@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting Hi,Rachel -- I'm doing my monthly check-in with you to see if there's been any activity with the County on Avon Park II. My sources indicate that things are still at a standstill,but thought I'd double check with you on that. Many thanks and happy holidays, Kelly On Fri,Nov 18,2016 at 8:50 AM, Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>wrote: Still no resubmittal on Avon Park II so nothing is scheduled yet for the Board. From: Kelly Myles [mailto:quietlife242@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 7:33 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc: Avon Park<avonparkhoa@gmail.com>; O'Connor, Linda<lvoconnor4@a,gmail.com>; Brady Hartley <bradyhartley@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting Hi, Rachel --per your suggestion, I'm covering all bases by doing a periodic check-in to see if there's been any activity with Avon Park II. Thanks, Kelly On Mon, Oct 24,2016 at 10:22 AM, Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkensteinP,albemarle.org>wrote: From the time they resubmit it will take at least 30 days to get to the Board, sometimes longer depending on the Board's schedule and availability. So maybe a bit more frequently than monthly. I'll do my best to let you know when they resubmit as well. From: Kelly Myles [mailto:quietlife242@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,October 24,2016 9:44 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc: Avon Park<avonparkhoa@gmail.com>; O'Connor, Linda<lvoconnor4@gmail.com>; Brady Hartley <bradyhartley@gmail.coin Subject: Re: Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting 2 Thanks, Rachel. It would be great to have more than a few days notice,Tut I don't want to be a pest. Should I check back with you monthly, or could things proceed more quickly than that? On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>wrote: Kelly, A-mail does send updates about upcoming Board agendas, but typically not more than a few days ahead of the meeting. I will try to remember to notify you when we have a new date scheduled, but please feel free to check back periodically. Thanks, Rachel From: Kelly Myles [mailto:quietlife242@gmail.com] Sent: Monday,October 24, 2016 9:33 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc:Avon Park<avonparkhoa@gmail.com>;O'Connor, Linda<Ivoconnor4@gmail.com>; Brady Hartley <bradvhartley@gmail.com> Subject: Re:Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting Hi, Rachel Thank you for the update on the Avon Park II proposal. What's the best way to stay apprised of future activity related to Avon Park II? I signed up for A-mail specifically for BOS updates,but didn't know if that would ensure I'm alerted if/when Avon Park II is put on an agenda. Kelly On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>wrote: Kelly, The applicant still has not provided any response/resubmittal since the Planning Commission meeting.We have already surpassed the deadline for when they needed to respond to stay on schedule for the Nov 9 BOS meeting date.This item has been pulled from the Nov meeting and it will be rescheduled when we have a resubmittal from the applicant. Thanks, Rachel From: Kelly Myles [mailto:quietlife242@gmail.com] Sent: Friday,October 21,2016 9:55 AM To: Rachel Falkenstein<rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Cc:Avon Park<avonparkhoa@gmail.com> Subject:Avon Park II: Nov 9 Board of Supervisors meeting Hi, Rachel 3 (04 I wanted to follow up on our last correspondence in mid-September. At that time, you indicated that the applicant for the proposed Avon Park II development planned to provide a response to the Planning Commission's recommendations about the tree issues, and that the Board of Supervisors public hearing had been tentatively rescheduled for November 9. I thought I would check back to see where things stand on both counts. Thank you, Kelly Myles 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 April 8, 2016 Ms. Clay Green 1830 River Inn Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201400006 —Avon Park II Dear Ms. Green: Fax (434) 972-4126 Staff has reviewed your resubmittal request for ZMA2014-00006, an amendment to a PRD Planned Residential Development for a maximum of 32 residential units. We have a few questions and comments which are listed below: Planning The following comments related to planning matters have been provided by Rachel Falkenstein: 1. A few final proffer fixes are needed before this item goes to public hearing (see Zoning and County Attorney Comments below). 2. Has a minimum lot size been provided for single family and townhouse lots? 3. No outstanding issues with the application plan have been identified at this time; however ARB review is still pending. Please note that plan details such as parking and landscaping and additional items noted by reviewers bleow will be reviewed in closer detail with site plan submittal. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amanda Burbage: 1. Proffers: Proffer 3 refers to TMP 90-32; however the variable width landscape easement appears to fall on the adjoining parcel, TMP 90F -A1, owned by the Avon Park Community Association. The applicant should verify that the proffer refers to the correct tax map and parcel number where the easement is located. In addition, if the easement is not expected to be in place at the time the proffer language takes effect, staff recommends rewording the proffer language as follows: "The Owner shall obtain a variable width landscape easement..."; "The Owner shall install plants within the proposed easement as per the approved landscape plan..."; and "There shall be no obligation on the Owner to install landscaping on the adjoining property if permission from the impacted property owner is not obtained." b. Proffer 3 should specify which of the two triggers, installation of the retaining wall or issuance of the 7th CO, should occur first or last. c. The proffer language should address the phasing of other proposed landscaping improvements occurring behind Lots 8-10 and Lots 12-25. d. A portion of the landscaping shown on the plan along Hathaway Street occurs off-site and falls outside of a landscape easement. Given its prominent location at the entrance to the development, it is recommended that the developer address how and when this landscaping will occur. See comment 1.a. above for suggested wording of proffer language addressing off-site landscaping improvements. e. Proffer 6 should address the timing of the proposed recreational amenities and include a trigger for when the improvements must be complete (e.g. upon issuance of the 16th Certificate of Occupancy). Application Plan: a. The timing in note 3 in the Site Plan Notes (the first certificate of occupancy) conflicts with the timing of the improvements referenced in Proffer 3 (7th certificate of occupancy). These should be made consistent on the plan and in the proffer language. b. The installation of the scrim fence referenced in the 3rd Site Plan Note should be added as a proffer. This proffer should include a trigger for when the fencing will be installed. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering matters have been provided by John Anderson: Light table comparison of 11/16/15 and 3/7/16 ZMA submittals shows very slight change. Conceptual BMP and grading plan (sheet 8) shows slightly less steep Emergency Access from Avon St. Ext. to private shared parking area. Conceptual BMP has been enlarged, with current outline more practically buildable than previous design. This plan is equivalent and often identical to ZMA submitted last November. Glenn Brooks' comments on 11/16 plan apply: "There are no engineering issues remaining with the proposed zoning. (Note that the private sewer arrangement may be a topic for future County consideration with ACSA.)" Sight line from car (profile, sheet 8), if lowered to touch the 2:1 slope, shows neither street nor southern units will be visible from Avon St. Ext. Grading shields Stratford Way and apparently all units from CL of Avon St. Ext. Note: Additional comments on ZMA detail is reserved for site plan submittal. For example, gravel Emer. Access (12.5%) is likely to erode. Traction for emergency response vehicles is uncertain. Engineering recommends a paved surface, but defers to ACF&R. Entrance Corridor The ARB will review and provide comments on this proposal. This item is scheduled for review on May 16, 2016. VDOT The following comments related to transportation issues have been provided by Shelly Plaster: 1. The intersection sight distance for the emergency access entrance should be verified. This may be done during the site plan/road plan review. 2 County Attorney The following comments related to Proffers have been provided by Greg Kamptner: Add an inflation adjuster — sample language: Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers: Beginning January 1, 2016, the amount of each cash contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index (the "MSI"). In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended. For each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday: resubmittal schedule. (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is rfalkenstein@albemarle.org . Sincerely, Rachel Falkenstein Senior Planner Community Development enc: Resubmittal Form 3 FOROFTICEUSEOKLY SP# Fft krawnt3 Dale hid Bywka:F RettopLk C'ILL' By: Resubmittal of irnformation for .� , W t V ON "HIng IV12P A1'ClCnOWN1 PROJECT NUMBER THAT H.V; BEEN ASSIGNED; Zb 014-06 Avan Park II Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hvr6y Qr+rq fy that IIID infema6gn pmvi jc j with this Ksubmittal is what has kvn rcquv from 5;taf f Si jniturn of Owner, Contract Purchaser DuLr Print Name FEES that may apply: Da}time phone number of 5igrWory ❑ 1}ci'crralofschedid-ed pubLichcann ala hcant'src ucsl $144 S 1.06 for tach a+l+litional nuclicu + Mqual cum ui'Jim-4hm'; postage > Legal adtietlisetMtenl [pablished Lwift in the newspaper foreoch public hea6ng) Actual coat av tra cs hetwecn $134 and .15250) Rerubmltlal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of S2,6n 13 pint reaubnr ssion FREE id Each additional resubmission JTO BE PAID WHEN TIIE RESUB141TSSION IS V.tDP,TOThTr,%TCR. RTAFFI Raesuhmitia] fee9 for original Zoning Map Am mdment fee -of $3,763 13 First rceubm ssioo FREE 13 Lech additional resubmission •1TO BE Pmawnp%, TIIE RESUBSIMION IS 3fADE 70191AKESTAFFI $1.881 Tu bo iiaild after staff review for pubil-c riotlet. Vest applications for a laning Map Amcndmcni r-equirc at hast one public hcarinl{ by the Plan ning COm mission and ane public hearing bs the Beard of Supervisors. Virginia Slate Code requires that notice for public hr�srings be made by publishing a legal adv2rtisemenl in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at Imt two fees for public notice a rt Tequircd hrf+arc a Kuning Ntzp Amendmenl maY be heard by the hoard of Supervisors. Thr total fec for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is dote rmi ned and must be paid btf-Dre the application is heard In• a public body. Preparing and maiti ng or dclivrring up Lo iiity (M0 notieL F 1 S +actual oust of fir l� I � . I'{ 1a 4 Preparing and marling or delivraing each notice aftrr fifty (54) S 1.06 for tach a+l+litional nuclicu + Mqual cum ui'Jim-4hm'; postage > Legal adtietlisetMtenl [pablished Lwift in the newspaper foreoch public hea6ng) Actual coat av tra cs hetwecn $134 and .15250) County of AlbemaTle Depstt#munt of Community Development 4,01 McIntire Road ClIa2rlottesville, VA 229112 Voice: (434) 296-15 i32 Fax. (434) 972-4126 RKvierd Iix2p tsPaget I ori n pF AL13��r County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Rachel Falkenstein, Senior Planner From: Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner Date: March 30, 2016 Subject: ZMA 2014-06 Avon Park II — 5` Zoning Comments I have reviewed their submittal and have the following comments: 1. Proffers: a. Proffer 3 refers to TMP 90-32; however the variable width landscape easement appears to fall on the adjoining parcel, TMP 90F -A1, owned by the Avon Park Community Association. The applicant should verify that the proffer refers to the correct tax map and parcel number where the easement is located. In addition, if the easement is not expected to be in place at the time the proffer language takes effect, staff recommends rewording the proffer language as follows: "The Owner shall obtain a variable width landscape easement..."; "The Owner shall install plants within the proposed easement as per the approved landscape plan..."; and "There shall be no obligation on the Owner to install landscaping on the adjoining property if permission from the impacted property owner is not obtained." b. Proffer 3 should specify which of the two triggers, installation of the retaining wall or issuance of the 7th CO, should occur first or last. c. The proffer language should address the phasing of other proposed landscaping improvements occurring behind Lots 8-10 and Lots 12-25. d. A portion of the landscaping shown on the plan along Hathaway Street occurs off-site and falls outside of a landscape easement. Given its prominent location at the entrance to the development, it is recommended that the developer address how and when this landscaping will occur. See comment 1.a. above for suggested wording of proffer language addressing off-site landscaping improvements. e. Proffer 6 should address the timing of the proposed recreational amenities and include a trigger for when the improvements must be complete (e.g. upon issuance of the 16th Certificate of Occupancy). 2. Application Plan: a. The timing in note 3 in the Site Plan Notes (the first certificate of occupancy) conflicts with the timing of the improvements referenced in Proffer 3 (7th certificate of occupancy). These should be made consistent on the plan and in the proffer language. b. The installation of the scrim fence referenced in the 31d Site Plan Note should be added as a proffer. This proffer should include a trigger for when the fencing will be installed. o� .aLm COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 December 11, 2015 Ms. Clay Green 1830 River Inn Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201400006 —Avon Park II Dear Ms. Green: Fax (434) 972 -4126 Staff has reviewed your resubmittal request for ZMA2014- 00006, an amendment to a PRD Planned Residential Development for a maximum of 30 residential units. We have a few questions and comments which are listed below: Planning The following outstanding issues should be addressed prior to a public hearing with the Planning Commission: 1. The affordable apartment units should be included in the dwelling unit count and density. The overall density on this site should not exceed 6 dwelling units /acre as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Affordable units within townhouses should be renamed since these do not fit within the definition of "accessory apartment" from the Zoning Ordinance (see zoning comments). 3. Address the timing of the installation of the landscaping features within the proffers (see zoning comments). 4. The right -of -way for Hathaway Street on the southern property line should not be obstructed by a fence. 5. Provide proffer fixes as recommended by County Attorney (see below). 6. Parking calulations for townhouse units appear to be incorrect. Required parking will depend on the number and type of units provided. Applicant should insure there is enough space to provide required parking; however, exact parking calculations can be finalized at site plan. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amelia McCulley: 1. Townhome with an accessory unit: These proffers ( #1 a (2)) propose a new concept that is not fully integrated into the rezoning and is not consistent with current zoning regulations. Under the current zoning regulations, accessory units are not allowed within attached dwellings, such as townhomes. If this type of unit is supported by the Housing Director as serving affordable housing needs, the rezoning will need to be revised to: a) call it something other than "accessory' so as to avoid the confusion of the same term being used in different ways; and b) count these units as dwellings in the dwelling count. This is a new type of proposed affordable rental unit that may need further exploration before we can endorse it and administer it. Be aware that beyond the initial required rental period, these apartments may become market rentals. 2. Proffers: a. The cash proffer amounts in the current proffer statement do not reflect the County's current cash proffer policy even though they reflect the proposal from FIAC. b. We continue to recommend that some trigger be established within the proffers regarding landscaping and fencing are important to either the adjoining neighborhood or the ARB. If the first certificate of occupancy is too early for completion, it could be based on the first c.o. within that specific block. For example, if the scrim fencing is important during construction, that should be a proffer and specifications should be given on the plan. c. The applicant should consider adding proffer language to address the phasing of landscaping improvements shown on the plan. Recommended language "Landscape buffers along the north side of Lots 1 -3 and 20 -26 shall be installed or bonded until the next planting season prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy." d. The proposed special permit use is limited to one use. Staff recommends that the applicant consider allowing additional uses, since they are only allowed by special use permit and may be addressed with private convenants and restrictions. e. Correct "even" to "event" in proffer 5c. 3. Application Plan: a. Landscape Easements i. Additional landscape maintenance easements should be shown for landscaping proposed along the southern boundary of Lots 6 -15 and at the Hathaway Street entrance adjacent to Lot 1. ii. Remove note #1 in site plan notes on sheet 5. 4. The plan involves off -site grading, construction of retaining walls and landscaping, particularly along Hathaway Street within the existing Avon Park development. The plan notes grading easement but also shows landscaping that appears to be important to the adjoining residents. We recommend that the developer confirm that the landscaping and grading easements are possible. In addition, we recommend that the timing of this landscaping be addressed with a proffer. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Glenn Brooks: There are no engineering issues remaining with the proposed zoning. Note that the private sewer arrangement may be a topic for future County consideration with ACSA. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewsk: 2 Several aspects of this proposal are challenging the establishment of an appropriate appearance along the Entrance Corridor. These include: the access drive, the chained access point, the ditch and rip rap, the utility easement across the frontage, limitations on planting at the underground infiltration facility and the stormwater pond, the amount of grading, the steepness of the proposed slopes, the regularity of the proposed grading, and the retaining wall. Extremely careful and creative landscaping will be required to mitigate these negative visual impacts to a satisfactory degree and to meet Entrance Corridor requirements. The applicant's most recent comment response memo indicated that ARB and landscape issues would be addressed with the final site plan. This will not be sufficient given the extent of issues to be resolved. Landscaping addressing these items will be needed with the initial site plan submittal. The landscaping shown on the rezoning application plan should not be considered final or approved. 1. The extent of ARB review required for the architectural design of the townhouses will be determined at the initial site plan review. To accomplish this, the next ARB submittal should include the site section illustrated on Sheet 8 of 10, but without the exaggerated scale. The ARB will expect the EC- facing elevations of the townhouses to be fully designed and that they adequately address issues of form, material, blankness, scale and proportion. Note that EC review is not limited to the single vantage point illustrated in the site section. Angled views into the development are available north and south of the site. All views from the EC will be considered. 2. As described above, landscaping is critical to establishing an appropriate appearance for this development. a. The EC Guidelines require that stormwater facilities be designed to eliminate the engineered appearance of the facility and to fully integrate the facility into the surrounding landscape. This proposal results in a significant amount of regular grading resulting in slopes that have an engineered appearance that is typically not considered appropriate for the EC. Additional and /or alternate landscaping will likely be required throughout this area to establish an appropriate appearance along the Corridor. Landscaping and grading should be considered holistically to establish an integrated design that is appropriate for the Corridor. b. A landscape plan should be provided as part of the Initial Site Plan submittal for ARB review. c. EC guidelines require interspersed ornamental trees along the EC frontage. Interspersing them in an irregular pattern will help achieve a less rigid, engineered appearance. d. There appear to be remaining conflicts between landscaping and utilities /easements. Resolve all planting /utility /easement conflicts on the landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan without reducing the quantity of plants proposed. e. Staggering the shrubs and trees on the north side of the property would provide for a less rigid, engineered appearance. f. An alternate landscape treatment will likely be required for the two rows of parking spaces and retaining wall that are now perched above the open space and stormwater facilities. 3. Based on similarities to the previous plan, the following items are likely to be required during ARB review of the site plan. It is recommended that they be submitted with the initial site plan. a. Provide for review an architectural plan and elevations for the recreation shelter. b. Provide details on the plan illustrating the appearance of the maintenance access drive and chained access point. Show how these features will have an appropriate appearance for the EC. 4. EC guidelines require retaining walls 6' in height and taller to be terraced and planted. Provide on the site plan details on the retaining wall: height, material, color, planting, etc. 3 VDOT The following comments related to transportation issues have been provided by Shelly Plaster: 1. The intersection sight distance for the emergency access entrance should be verified. This may be done during the site plan /road plan review. 2. The gate /bollards should be shifted to accommodate an emergency vehicle without it encroaching onto Avon Street. 3. We are concerned with the double sided vertical fencing within the proposed public right -of -way. Who will own the fence? If the Home Owners Association owns the fence, how will this impact the extension of the stub street to the adjacent parcel should it be developed? Fire /Rescue The following comments related to Fire /Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer: Fire Rescue doesn't have any comments or objections to the ZMA. A recommendation from Fire Rescue would be that the fire flow test be conducted to make sure the needed fire flow is available at this site, due to the site being close to the same elevation as the water tower on the adjacent parcel. County AttoneV The following comments related to Proffers have been provided by Greg Kamptner: There is a Proffer 1(a)(ii) but no Proffer 1(a)(i); is this a misnumbering or is there a paragraph missing? The last sentence of Proffer 2(a) should be revised (underlined text) to state: "The cash contributions shall be paid after completion of the final inspection and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the category of units described in this paragraph 2 in the following amounts:" 3. Note that Proffer 2(a) limits the expenditure of the funds to the Scottsville Magisterial District. For all but impacts on schools (which are divided into three districts), the cash proffer policy was developed to evaluate impacts on parks, libraries, public safety, and transportation on a County- wide basis. Can they explain why they are restricting where the funds may be spent because, theoretically, they are not addressing County -wide impacts resulting from the project (though they may argue that they are over - addressing impacts within the Scottsville Magisterial District). 4. In Proffer 2(b), the second line should be revised: of the Property Tax Map and Parcel Number 09000-00-00-031001,. . 5. Add an inflation adjuster — sample language: Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers: Beginning January 1, 2016, the amount of each cash contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Marshall and Swift Building Cost Index (the "MSI "). In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the preceding calendar year, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended. For each cash contribution that is being paid in increments, the unpaid incremental payments shall be correspondingly adjusted each year. 6. Attach the pages from the Zoning Ordinance referred to in Proffer 4. 7. I'll defer to your department for any comments on Proffers 3 and S. n 8. Before this goes to the BOS, please forward to me the LLC information showing that Beau Dickerson is an authorized signatory for the LLC and his title (e.g., Member, Manager, Manager - Member). Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday: resubmittal schedule. (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is rfalkenstein @albemarle.org . Sincerely, 0 0&-�D Rachel Falkenstein Senior Planner Community Development enc: Resubmittal Form 5 gea,4mnax _ � UA 1 _ r ,.iro7 Rwdp, avow esubmi al information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment PROJECT NUlV EM 2 2rq � � p P>Bt=CC NAMX o.,r a Res6b,W 1 Fea h Repined [ 13cr "aW r I i abn1hul vee Is Not A qulred ghL� LAL&5�L . . . SignatWe Name of App]icaat ...�._— phana Number S]�Fladn�c D= FEES �tmahrnittM fees for orleinal Rpwdal Dee Permit of$IMO Ej Fine Iftw Mislim FREE ECil91�4tU 4F1AlYEtll}SOYIiEl07l�Q i Ri!Submlml fens fur urigibal Spedal U#e !'erMIt Fee of 3;4w0 © l?i!'S msubmissjua ti FREE Pct ad�:tia�al :rsuliaainn �x RumbmAt191 few fur ori&ftd &eft Wp hm e3dmen r let 41 #Z*M 51,000 D > ne�,rla [� Haab 00"ditional reaubmissiftn Re ubmid a[ feca for origibAj Zoxft f. op.Ammimenx fern -9S PO Fka mobkuLsgicfa FREE SnAh abditia :ul , c�Lb�iss:on $1,750 Dukrrw of echrdvled yablic itiari9[at agplieant"s nsq - Ad'taMu f6mwill be reclmred $180 To be puSd after staff reviow PL�ootier: Moat appIkjIWna InrSpwml Ueepranks and 7oritnZ.l +>iap Amendm:uk reqMhV wt Imt ons publk bear-Ag by the Pknnimg Cemmiealon and one poblichear'lag by the Bovril of$uperwham Vir'glnix S w#e Cede require<a that notice far public bcariagm be joada by pubriahieg ■ lagal s4YerKwdeat Io the arwspaper nd ty- wifllag leftero to adijazeut praperty uxnora. Tlwikra, ti least twD fern for publknofice PrE mqulred before it $pedal Uss Pemit orZ.00iog Mop Amen dme t mf} be lheord h4 Una MMTd of d l'jrn'L Ijrvz. Thi total iEe for publie Itot ca will be provldAd to tbt! tppilaime after thefinal Bost fi deterrninod aad must be paid II-E& re LLe apphCZa Lo is ItcmH bya public body. MAKE C TO COUNTY OF A,L .+LDeRh r -ALT CDMMUTIM DES COUNTER P perm . Tr�7:l 4r daliwetir� up Eo i[fgr (� } nptioae 12U0 + actual "affifirgi-r-L"s p Pmpwi orr ad vWtqS ar dalru:r4a9chMc ce atterfity (50) 51,00 fa eathtdd�Iq�j �satioe +aehea] goat nffi�st- claapoatage LeQaL ldvd#i t(pnh- iehedMiea b*A- rewnSWW SarCM& praWi&hr. zu&) Ac1Mal PW (midmum of$NO fmWDl bf4pabhurdnna) Coj* ofAdbcn arle Department of Co=uAl y Develormcnf 4011MdtbtlreRoad CLarlaftevvi" VA 72902 Void (4M) 2,WM2 Pas.- (4M) 472.4LU lei pF AL �J�ctr�tA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 IL% I AIL% to] t7_:101111J LyJ TO: Rachel Falkenstein FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ZMA- 2014 -06: Avon Park 2 DATE: December 9, 2015 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Several aspects of this proposal are challenging the establishment of an appropriate appearance along the Entrance Corridor. These include: the access drive, the chained access point, the ditch and rip rap, the utility easement across the frontage, limitations on planting at the underground infiltration facility and the stormwater pond, the amount of grading, the steepness of the proposed slopes, the regularity of the proposed grading, and the retaining wall. Extremely careful and creative landscaping will be required to mitigate these negative visual impacts to a satisfactory degree and to meet Entrance Corridor requirements. The applicant's most recent comment response memo indicated that ARB and landscape issues would be addressed with the final site plan. This will not be sufficient given the extent of issues to be resolved. Landscaping addressing these items will be needed with the initial site plan submittal. The landscaping shown on the rezoning application plan should not be considered final or approved. 1. The extent of ARB review required for the architectural design of the townhouses will be determined at the initial site plan review. To accomplish this, the next ARB submittal should include the site section illustrated on Sheet 8 of 10, but without the exaggerated scale. The ARB will expect the EC- facing elevations of the townhouses to be fully designed and that they adequately address issues of form, material, blankness, scale and proportion. Note that EC review is not limited to the single vantage point illustrated in the site section. Angled views into the development are available north and south of the site. All views from the EC will be considered. 2. As described above, landscaping is critical to establishing an appropriate appearance for this development. a. The EC Guidelines require that stormwater facilities be designed to eliminate the engineered appearance of the facility and to fully integrate the facility into the surrounding landscape. This proposal results in a significant amount of regular grading resulting in slopes that have an engineered appearance that is typically not considered appropriate for the EC. Additional and/or alternate landscaping will likely be required throughout this area to establish an appropriate appearance along the Corridor. Landscaping and grading should be considered holistically to establish an integrated design that is appropriate for the Corridor. b. A landscape plan should be provided as part of the Initial Site Plan submittal for ARB review. c. EC guidelines require interspersed ornamental trees along the EC frontage. Interspersing them in an irregular pattern will help achieve a less rigid, engineered appearance. d. There appear to be remaining conflicts between landscaping and utilities /easements. Resolve all planting/utility /easement conflicts on the landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan without reducing the quantity of plants proposed. e. Staggering the shrubs and trees on the north side of the property would provide for a less rigid, engineered appearance. f. An alternate landscape treatment will likely be required for the two rows of parking spaces and retaining wall that are now perched above the open space and stormwater facilities. 3. Based on similarities to the previous plan, the following items are likely to be required during ARB review of the site plan. It is recommended that they be submitted with the initial site plan. a. Provide for review an architectural plan and elevations for the recreation shelter. b. Provide details on the plan illustrating the appearance of the maintenance access drive and chained access point. Show how these features will have an appropriate appearance for the EC. 4. EC guidelines require retaining walls 6' in height and taller to be terraced and planted. Provide on the site plan details on the retaining wall: height, material, color, planting, etc. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 orange Road Charles A. Kilpatrick, R.E. Culpeper Virginia 22701 Commissioner December 7, 2015 Ms. Rachel Falkenstein County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA- 2014 -00006 Avon Park II Dear Ms. Falkenstein, We have reviewed the Avon Park II Zoning Map Amendment Plan, as submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, with revision dates of June 3, 2015 and November 16, 2015 and offer the following comments: 1. The intersection sight distance for the emergency access entrance should be verified. This may be done during the site plan/road plan review. 2. The gate/bollards should be shifted to accommodate an emergency vehicle without it encroaching onto Avon Street. 3. We are concerned with the double sided vertical fencing within the proposed public right - of -way. Who will own the fence? If the Home Owners Association owns the fence, how will this impact the extension of the stub street to the adjacent parcel should it be developed? If you need further information concerning this project or if you wish to schedule a meeting please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9894. Sincerely, Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District Ali � �'IRGINIP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 August 19, 2015 Ms. Clay Green 1830 River Inn Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201400006 —Avon Park I I Dear Ms. Green: Fax (434) 972 -4126 Staff has reviewed your re- submittal requesting to amend ZMA2012- 00004, which was a rezoning for 5.262 acres from R -6 Residential to PRD Planned Residential Development for a maximum of 32 residential units. We have several questions and comments which are listed below: Planning The following outstanding issues need to be addressed prior to a public hearing with the Planning Commission: • Hathaway Street needs to be built to the property line. See the attached engineering comments regarding this issue and you need to refer back to Michelle Roberge memorandum, dated April 1, 2015, regarding your two waiver requests. This plan does not address the recommendations. • Runoff and drainage issues per the attached engineering comments must be addressed. • Describe how the pedestrian access to Avon Street will be provided. • Steep slopes near proposed walls as mentioned in the attached engineering comments must be addressed for safety reasons. • Safety around the stormwater facilities needs to be addressed per the attached engineering comments. • The outstanding issues with sidewalks and driveways on Hathaway St. need to be addressed per the engineering comments. • 1 met with three of the Brook relatives (adjacent property owners) yesterday. They expressed their concerns regarding signing the deed. Some of the Brooks concerns include, grading, control of easement and future owners of the Avon II development. The deed of easement must be resolved with them in order for this development to work or this is going to get back to the site plan stage and stall once again because of the need for an additional fire /rescue access to this site. The Brooks are open to meeting with all of us on the site for a discussion in trying to come to a place of compromise. Let me know your thoughts on this. • Additional concerns to address regarding the Brooks adjacent property is making sure the water connections are still shown to the southern boundary of property as they were shown with the approved rezoning. If there is a reason for revisions, please explain. • A suggestion to help resolve some of the outstanding issues is to consider losing a couple lots, which could provide more room to adequately develop the site. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amanda Burbage: Application Plan: a. Setbacks To allow for greater flexibility at the site plan stage, we recommend that you use the setback table to establish minimum front, rear, and side building setback lines (BSL) and refrain from labelling setbacks on the plan. On lots where more flexibility is desired, a note could be added to the plan: "This minimum standard may be decreased by 5 feet on certain lots subject to Planning Director approval." ii. Setbacks should be expressed as whole numbers (7.5 feet is not acceptable). iii. Remove note about the 5 foot building separation between detached units, as it conflicts with the proposed minimum 5 foot building setbacks. b. Landscape Easements Additional landscape maintenance easements should be shown for landscaping proposed along the southern boundary of Lots 6 -15 and at the Hathaway Street entrance adjacent to Lot 1. ii. Use consistent labeling for all landscape maintenance easements shown on the application plan. Engineering and Water Resources The comments related to engineering and water resources provided by Glenn Brooks are attached. Entrance Corridor The comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines provided by Margaret Maliszewski are attached. VDOT The comments related to traffic and transportation issues provided by Shelly Plaster are attached. Fire /Rescue The following comments related to Fire /Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer: 1. No Objection. Proffers We have exchanged a few a -mails regarding the cash proffer policy. The cash proffer policy is being reviewed, but at the present time it has not changed. We have the approved cash proffer policy in place. Any further decisions are pending with regard to the cash proffer policy. Comments from Greg Kamptner, with the County Attorney's office are attached. The following comments related specifically to the affordable housing proffers have been provided by Ron White, Chief of Housing: 1. If the still unclear what the intent is for the affordable units. Do you plan to provide for -sale units as affordable units or will the affordable units be for rent? 2. If the affordable units are for rent then you do not need all the for sale language in the proffers. 3. In general the proffers need to be clearer. The following comments related to proffers and zoning concerns have been provided by Amanda Burbage: 1. The cash proffer amounts in the current proffer statement do not reflect the County's current cash proffer policy. The current maximum per unit cash proffer amounts are as follows: (previous comment) • $20,986.76/ SFD (single family detached) • $14,270.99/ SFA/ TH (single family attached/ townhouse) • $14,870.61/ MF (multifamily) b. The applicant should consider adding proffer language to address the phasing of landscaping improvements shown on the plan. Recommended language "Landscape buffers along the north side of Lots 1 -3 and 20 -26 shall be installed or bonded until the next planting season prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy." The general concern is without resolution to many of the issues mentioned in this comment letter, this development could get to site plan and not be buildable. Our intent is to assist you so that another rezoning will not necessarily be needed once this rezoning amendment is completed. Action after Receipt of Comment Letter After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions below: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments on a Resubmittal Monday -- Schedule can be found at this address: http: / /www.albemarle.org /upload /images /forms center /departments /Community Devel ooment /forms /schedules /Special Use Permit & Zoning Map Amendment Schedule.pdf (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that a Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application If you choose to resubmit, please use the form provided with this letter. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant @albemarle.org . Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Community Development C: Beau Dickerson Bellevue Real Estate LLC enc: Engineering Comments ARB Comments VDOT Comments County Attorney Comments Resubmittal Form Y pF AL13��r u r i IBS vt? County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner Date: August 12, 2015 Subject: ZMA 2014 -06 Avon Park II — 3rd Zoning Comments I have reviewed their submittal and have the following comments: 1. Proffers: a. The cash proffer amounts in the current proffer statement do not reflect the County's current cash proffer policy. The current maximum per unit cash proffer amounts are as follows: (previous comment) $20,986.76/ SFD (single family detached) $14,270.99/ SFA/ TH (single family attached/ townhouse) $14,870.61/ MF (multifamily) b. The applicant should consider adding proffer language to address the phasing of landscaping improvements shown on the plan. Recommended language "Landscape buffers along the north side of Lots 1 -3 and 20 -26 shall be installed or bonded until the next planting season prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy." 2. Application Plan: a. Setbacks To allow for greater flexibility at the site plan stage, we recommend that the applicant use the setback table to establish minimum front, rear, and side building setback lines (BSL) and refrain from labelling setbacks on the plan. On lots where more flexibility is desired, a note could be added to the plan: "This minimum standard may be decreased by 5 feet on certain lots subject to Planning Director approval." ii. Setbacks should be expressed as whole numbers (7.5 feet is not acceptable). iii. Remove note about the 5 foot building separation between detached units, as it conflicts with the proposed minimum 5 foot building setbacks. b. Landscape Easements i. Additional landscape maintenance easements should be shown for landscaping proposed along the southern boundary of Lots 6 -15 and at the Hathaway Street entrance adjacent to Lot 1. ii. Use consistent labeling for all landscape maintenance easements shown on the application plan. �pF .aLRnr r "a ", it COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 MEMORANDUM TO: Claudette Grant FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ZMA- 2014 -06: Avon Park 2 DATE: August 5, 2015 Fax (434) 972 -4126 With appropriate landscaping, the proposed development is not expected to have a negative visual impact on the Entrance Corridor. Note the following issues for ARB review of the site plan: 1. The architectural design of the attached units in lots 15 -20 will require ARB review and approval. The ARB will expect the EC- facing elevations to be fully designed and that they adequately address issues of form, material, blankness, scale and proportion. 2. Landscaping is critical to establishing an appropriate appearance for this development due to the size and location of the stormwater facilities. a. The EC Guidelines require that stormwater facilities be designed to eliminate the engineered appearance of the facility and to fully integrate the facility into the surrounding landscape. Note that additional or alternate landscaping may be required to fully integrate the eastern part of the development into the Corridor. b. A landscape plan should be provided as part of the Initial Site Plan submittal. The details of the landscaping can be worked out with the site plan, so the landscaping shown on the rezoning application plan should not be considered final or approved. c. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan should show interspersed ornamental trees along the EC frontage. Interspersing them in an irregular pattern will help achieve a more natural appearance. d. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan should show trees added in an irregular pattern on the new slopes that are proposed with regular grades. e. Some trees are shown in easements. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan should resolve all planting/utility/easement conflicts without reducing the quantity of trees proposed. (Check the trees in the sanitary easement near Lots 1 and 26, and the tree in the drainage easement adjacent to the EC. Other conflicts may be present.) f. Staggering the shrubs on the north side of the property would provide for a more natural appearance. 3. Based on similarities to the previous plan, the following are likely to be required during ARB review of the site plan: a. Provide for review an architectural plan and elevations for the recreation shelter. b. Provide details on the plan illustrating the appearance of the maintenance access drive and chained access point. Show how these features will. have an appropriate appearance for the EC. 4. Please include in your next ARB submittal the site section illustrated on Sheet 8 of 10, but without the exaggerated scale. G COMMON HEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION 1&01 orange Road Culpeper. Uirgim 22701 Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner August 5, 2015 Ms. Claudette Grant Senior Planner County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ZMA -2014 -00006 Avon Park I1 Dear Ms. Grant, We have reviewed the Avon Park II Zoning Map Amendment Plan, as submitted by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, with a revision date of July 3, 2015 and offer the following comments: 1. The offsite grading exhibit shows a small portion of grading beyond the limits of the grading easement (on Lot 8). The grading easement should be adjusted accordingly. If you need further information concerning this project or if you wish to schedule a meeting please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9894. Sincerely, Shelly A. Plaster Land Development Engineer Culpeper District ALR„�9�c ELI County of Albemarle A'h Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434- 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Planning From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Rev.2: Glenn Brooks, County Engineer Date: April 1, 2015 Rev.2: 30 July 2015 Subject: ZMA 2014 -00006 Avon Park II The applicant is amending an approved ZMA2012000004. I want to reiterate my concerns for the site. There are three elements that engineering focused on with this review. The first is adequate drainage, since the proposed property is wedged in between Avon 1 from the north and Nobel Heights from the south. The second is adequate sizing of the stormwater management facilities that are feasible for the site. The third is ensuring there is a safe distance from the townhomes to the SWM facilities. The biofilter and extended detention basin takes up a large space and the townhomes slopes downward towards the facilities. You will find my comments below requests for more clarification and calculations for the reasons aforementioned above. Typically, these comments are asked at the WPO and Site Plan phase, but I highly recommend the applicant to provide clarifications to prevent another rezoning and to ensure the structures can be built. 1. The maximum biofilter drainage area is 2.5 acres per Virginia DEO stormwater design Spec No.9. recommend showing other BMPs that can be added to meet water quality. Applicant has shown two biofilters. Rev.2: This has been addressed. 2. 1 recommend Hathaway Street to be extended to the property line to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on adjoining lands, terminating within the development with a temporary turnaround per Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 32.7.2.2(e). have reviewed the waiver. do not recommend approval of the waiver. It appears to be possible to build to the property line. See my review of the waivers attached. Rev.2: The road should be shown built to the property line. 3. The layout of the sewage systems appears to have laterals that run across many lots. Also, it appears that each lot will need a holding tank that will activate a grinder after reaching a certain level. Then finally the waste can be pumped to an existing main. This system is not recommended as many easements will need to be established. Maintenance will also be a burden since the laterals goes through many lots and the private road. I recommend a sewer main on the private street to a private central sewerage system. Then sewage can be pumped to a public existing main. Engineering recommends approval of grinder pumps even though it is the Engineering Dept's opinion that grinder pumps will be a burden to the homeowners of the affordable housing in the event of a power outage and when the grinder pumps need maintenance. ACSA has expressed their concern and believes a private pump station would present more of a public health issue in the event of a failure. It appears ACSA will not provide a plan approval for any developments that propose a private pump station within their jurisdicational area. Rev.2: This is a bad situation for future residents. It is very unfortunate that the regulations allow this outcome, where future owners will be responsible for unweildy private sewer infrasture extending far off of their own lots. A sound engineering solution would provide gravity sewer, or a common system which could be publicly maintained. 4. The area behind lots 21 -26 have runoff from the existing adjacent lots. Drainage inlets should be provided in addition to the swale shown. The berm is not an adequate measure to redirect runoff. I still recommend a yard inlet between lot 20 and lot 21 at minimum, and more is need to meet the proffer. This will convey runoff, for a portion of property between Avon 1 and Avon II, into a biofilter. Please note proffer 6(e.), which refers to surface drainage may flow across up to three lots before being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots. Rev.2: This has not been adequately addressed. Overland flow through multiple lots is a source of problems. The sidewalk in front of Lot 1 and 8 just ends. This also exists behind lot 15 -20. 1 recommend adjusting slightly to tie proposed sidewalks with existing sidewalks. Applicant has provided sidewalk for lots 15 -20 to the tot lot. I also recommend extending sidewalk to Avon St. Please discuss with planning if there are future sidewalk improvements along Avon St. Rev.2: Pedestrian access to Avon Street does not appear to be provided. New Comment: 6. 1 recommend showing a wall behind lots 15 -20 for the following reasons: a) The slope between these lots and the bioretention is too steep. The design specs a minimum slope of 3:1. The proposed design exceeds 3:1. b) Lots 15, 19 and 20 will need space for a landing outside the back door (at least a 3'x3' exterior landing). The grading and swale shown does not seem possible without a retaining wall. Deep footing is a possibility, but 6(a) is still not met. c) A wall provides a backyard for the following lots instead of a doorway to a steep slope that eventually leads to a biofilter and extended detention basin. Rev.2: A wall has been provided. The slopes are still too steep in the biofilter. This is residential area, and building a water feature with 2:1 slopes is a hazard. They should be 3:1 or flatter. 7. The sidewalk to the tot lot should be ADA compliant. The steep slope does not meet it. Please address. Rev.2: This has been addressed. 8. 1 recommend the tot lot to be graded to a flatter slope. 10% for a playground does not sound feasible. Please clarify what will be placed here. Also, this tot lot is very close to the extended detention basin. For safety concerns, I recommend enclosing the tot lot completely instead of the 3 -board farm fence. Rev.2: This has been addressed. Details regarding safety around the stormwater facilities may be a concern on final plans. 9. Show adequate maintenance access to the biofilters and extended detention basin. Rev.2: This has not been addressed. Access to the forebay areas and spillways is necessary. 10. Provide calculations that the extended detention basin is sized correctly and will meet channel protection. All see is a note that states "additional detention shall be provided to eliminate the need for offsite drainage." Please provide. Rev.2: This is not needed at this time. This is a final plan item. 11. On the previously approved ZMA2012 -04, a ditch improvement and replacement of culvert along Avon St. (SW of property) is shown. Please provide on this plan. This addressed frontage improvements for the drainage system along Avon Street. Rev.2: This has not been addressed. 12. The sidewalks on Hathaway St should be extended to the property line. This will affect the driveways for lots 8 and 9 since 18' is the minimum length. I recommend the driveways for lot 8 and 9 to be moved to Stratford Way. Rev.2: This has not been addressed. 13. Please make the portion of Stratford Way to the cul -de -sac a public road. Rev.2: This has been addressed. Virginia Runoff Reduction Method (VRRM) Spreadsheet for Quality Criteria: 14. Include the portion of Hathaway Street (Avon 1) in Site Area acreage in VRRM. 15. What does the .08 acres represent? This is shown on northern and southern sections of property. 16. Revise the Site Data tab acreage for Forest/Open Space, turf, and impervious. 17. In Drainage Area A tab, include open space acreage for biofilter area. 18. In drainage area B tab, include open space acreage for biofilter area. 19. Bioretention level 2 appears to meet quality criteria. Please revise. 20. 1 suggest to pull the calculations from the plan and to provide in a separate report. In the summary state the numbers might slightly change, but the location and size of the biofilter and extended detention basin should remain the same for the site plan. 14 -20 Rev.2: These items are not required at this time. These are final plan items. The site will have to meet all the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance and the state regulations. Original Proffers: 11/ 21/13 Amendment 6/29/15 PROFFER STATEMENT ZMA No. 2014 -00006 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): 09000 -00 -00 -03100 (D.B. 3786 P.G. 060) Owner(s) of Record: BELLEVUE REAL ESTATE, LLC Date of Proffer Signature: June 29, 2015 5.262 acres to be rezoned from R -6 to Planned Residential District (PRD) Bellevue Real Estate LLC, a Maryland Limited Liability Company, is the owner (the "Owner ") of Tax Map and Parcel Number 09000 -00 -00 -03100 (the "Property") which is the subject of rezoning application ZMA No. 2014- 00006 a project known as "Avon Park II" (the "Project "). This current proffer statement supersedes the proffer stateiiew dated November 21, 2013 pertaining to ZMA- 2012 - 00004. Pursuant to Section 33 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code), the Owner hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the Property if it is rezoned to the zoning district identified above. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and the Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable. Each signatory below signing on behalf of the Owner covenants and warrants that it is an authorized signatory of the Owner for this Proffer Statement. 1) AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Owner will provide 6 affordable housing units within the Project in the form of for lease or for sale affordable dwelling units (the "Affordable Dwelling Units" or "Affordable Units "). Each subdivision plat and site plan for land within the Property shall designate the lots or units, as applicable, that will, subject to the terms and conditions of this proffer, incorporate Affordable t luits as described herein, and the aggregate number. of such lots or units designated for Affordable Units within each subdivision an plat d site plan shall constitute,.,� 6 units in such subdivision plat or site plan. �v�e k7L iY' c'T N FCC r {I � i CN t9j V4 �n11. xI 1 a) The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be comprised of one or more of the following unit types: single- family t�to5 attached housing (townhouses), condominiums or apartments /flats. The Owner or his successor in interest reserves the right to achieve 6 Affordable Dwelling Units in a variety of ways, utilizing the above mentioned unit types alone or in combination as outlined below. The Owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to any subsequent purchaser of the Property. The current Owner or subsequent Owner shall create units affordable to households with incomes less than 80% of the area median family income (the "Affordable Unit Qualifying Income "), such that housing costs consisting of principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowner's insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the Affordable Unit Qualifying Income; provided, however, that in no event shall the selling price of such Affordable Units be more than sixty-five percent (65 %) of the applicable Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) sales price /loan limits for VI-IDA's first -time homebuyer programs provided that the selling price will be equal to or less than the Albemarl , unty aTfordable ousing home price. This home price will increase or decrease per year based on Al made County's designated affordable home pricing. All linanciah �C) programs or instruments described herein-must be acceptable to the primary mortgage lender. Units, the `J value of Seller -paid closing costs shall be excluded from the selling price of such Affordable Uwelline J Units. i) For -Sale Affordable Units - All pui�c(t (�ers of for -sale Affordable Units shall be approved by the Albemarle Cou ty Office of I lousing�s designee. The Owner shall provide the County or its designee a perio of one hundred twenty (120) days to identify and pre - qualify an eligible purchaser for the Affordable Units–Thie 120%hAdred iod shall commence upon written notice from the Owner that the units will be available fors notice shall not be given more than 90 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certific )f occupancy. If the County or its designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this oed twenty (120) day period, the Owner shall have the rightto sell the Unit(s) without any restriales price or income of purchaser(s); provided, however, that any Units(s) sold or leased withoestriction shall nevertheless be counted toward the number of Affordable Units required to be I ursuant to the terms of this proffer. If these Units are sold, this proffer shall apply only to the e fe$ch unit. Ngthing herein shall preclude the then - current Owner /builder from working wit the Cm sinU e}iAt1 i`aiit '�itiKr'to the start of the notification periods described herein in an a ort to identi qualifying purchasers for Affordable Units. ii) For -Rent Affordable Units ('trl�rs P.n-t` ,tom) U5�- tle. Ctn� C'al`f I"1C0r -e_ (1) Rental Rates For -Lease Affordable Units – The initial- net.rent for each for -rent Affordable Unit when the Unit(s) is avails I or occupancy shall not ezgegd the then - current and applicable maximum net rent as publijned 4 the County Housing Office: In each subsequent calendar year, the monthly net rent for elich For -rent affordable unit may be increased up to three percent (3 %). For purposes of this pro Tr statement, the term "net rent" means that the rent does not include tenant -paid utilities. The ,requirement that the rents for such for -rent Affordable Units may not exceed the maximum rents established in this paragraph la(ii)(1) shall apply for a period of ten (10) years following the ate the certificate of occupancy is issued by the County for each for -rent Affordable Unit, or until he units are sold as affordable units as defined by the County's Affordable Housing Policy, whiche er comes first (the "Affordable Term "). (2) Conveyance of Interest All instruments conveying any interest in the for -rent affordable units during the Affordable T rm shall contain language reciting that such unit is subject to the terms of this paragraph 1 a. In ad ition, all contracts pertaining to a conveyance of any for -rent affordable unit, or any part thereof during the Affordable Term shall contain a complete and full disclosure of the restrictions and c ntrols established by this paragraph la(ii). At least thirty (30) days prior to the conveyance of an interest in any for -rent affordable unit during the Affordable Term, the then - current owner shall totify the County in writing of the conveyance and provide the name, address and telephone nu ber of the potential grantee, and state that the requirements of this paragraph 1/ ii) have been\atisfied. a (3) Reporting of Rental Rates – Nuring the Affordable Term, within thirty (30) days of each rental or lease term for each for -rent a able unit, the then - current owner shall report the rental or lease agreement for each such unit''r tted that shows the rental rate for such unit and the term of the rental or lease agreement to the Nousing Office via email. In addition, during the Affordable Term, the then - current owner shall p:o de to the County, if requested, any reports, copies of rental or lease agreements, or other data p&Wfi —ing to rental rates as the County may reasonably require. b) County Option for Cash In Lieu of Affordable Units. If at any time prior to the County's approval of any preliminary site plan or subdivision plat for the subject property which includes one or more for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units, the Cot 's Housing Office informs the then - current owner/builder in writing that it may not have a qualified purch er for one or more of the for -sale Affordable Dwelling Units at the time that the then - current owner /builder expects the units to be completed, and that the County will instead accept a cash contribution to the County to support affordable housing programs in the amount of Twenty One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($21,125) in lieu of each Affordable Unit(s), then the then - current owner /builder shall pay such cash contribution to the County prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the Unit(s) that were originally planned to be Affordable Dwelling Units, and the then - current owner /builder shall have the right to sell the Unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of the purchaser(s). For the purposes of this proffer, such Affordable Dwelling Units shall be deemed to have been provided when the subsequent owner /builder provides written notice to the Albemarle County Office of Housing or its designee that the Affordable Units(s) will be available for sale. 2) There will be a maximum of 32 dwelling units on 26 lots in the development. Six (6) of the 26 units are identified on the Application Plan as having, partnients. These six units shall be constructed and maintained as two - family dwellings as defined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. The Declaration of Covenants for Avon Park 2 shall contain the following language tqr the 6_units: "The townhouse units on lots 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 within Avon Park 2 are constructed and must be maintained as a two- family dwelling unit as defined in the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code." 3) CASH PROFFER �Ai � tltl iG�t?t�t? /ICCU,E `�:kJ _- 11..�.Cf.�►L11�QhC�li'%1� 1� (L1 i10E�i -/1i — j ��n �>W N - 'Yh f "eu. r151-4,c ._1-ty _ .il:'fl Pvt �"t Y',11 a) The Owner shall contribute ct- asli�ttO th� Cour�f ti`e foffowmg amounts for ach dwelling Wnitf 1 constructed within the Property that is not an Affordab a welling Unit. The cash contribution shall be used to' address the fiscal impacts of development on the County's public facilities and infrastructure (i.e., schools. public safety, libraries, parks and transportation) identified in the County's Capital Improvements Program. The cash contributions shall be paid prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the category of uni�ts,r described in this paragraph 2 in the followin�g�amotmts: ��,L, `5 Lx� �l �)5 'fy i) Eleven Thousand Nine I Iundred $11,900.00) fin, each_a_ttached t n home /condofn►nicim unit that is not an Affordable Dwelling l )ni . ii) Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Dolhirs ($17,500.60) for each single family detached dwelling unit. iii) Zero Dollars ($0.00) for each Affordable Dwelling Unit. b) The applicant will receive a cash proffer credit from Albemarle county for the PRD by right zoning of the property, tax map and parcel number 0900- 00 -00- 03100, which would yield five (5) single family detached homes. (�'�' ,` m 01 ve- 4) EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL �t-6 �je, , rv( The Owner shall provide additional erosion and sediment control measures above and beyond the standard regulatory requirements as stated in the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (VESCH). These additional measures shall consist of the following: a) Silt Fencing (VESCH Standard 3.05): i) Contributing drainage area to non -wire reinforced silt fence shall be reduced from one quarter (0.25) acre per 100 feet of silt fence length to two- tenths (.20) per 100 feet of silt fence. Contributing drainage area to wire reinforced silt fence shall not exceed one quarter acre per 100 feet of silt fence; and ii) Maximum contributing drainage area to non -wire reinforced silt fence from minor swales or ditch lines shall be reduced from 1 acre and no greater than 1 cfs to 0.8 acre and no greater than .08 cfs. Maximum contributing drainage area to wire reinforced silt fence from minor swales or ditch lines shall be 1 acre and no greater than I cfs; and iii) The height of any silt fence shall be a minimum of 24 inches above the original ground surface and shall not exceed 34 inches above ground elevation; and iv) Post spacing for non- wire - reinforced silt fence shall be reduced from a maximum 6 feet apart to a maximum 5 feet apart. Post spacing for wire reinforced silt fence shall be reduced from a maximum 10 feet apart to a maximum 8 feet apart. b) Temporary Diversion Dike (VESCH Standard 3.09): i) The maximum allowable drainage area to a temporary diversion dike shall be reduced from five (5) acres to three (3) acres. c) Temporary Sediment Trap (VESCH Standard 3.13): i) Maximum total contributing drainage area shall be reduced from three (3) acres to two (2) acres; and ii) The storage volume requirement shall be increased by a factor of 1.2. d) Temporary Sediment Basin (VESCH Standard 3.14): i) A temporary sediment basin shall be provided where the total contributing drainage area exceeds two (2) acres; and ii) The permanent pool and dry storage volumes shall be increased by a factor of 1.2. 5) ALLOWED USES The use of the property shall be limited to those uses allowed by right under section 19.3.1; and the use allowed by special use permit under see on 19.3.2(7) of chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, Zoning Supplement 1191 dated 6 -3 -15, copies of which are attached heretoso incorporated herein as Attachment A. 6) OVERLOT GRADING l�r►n r,� Glenn }�! - +� -, is JM VAYCf i,c.�'- tocd,, _ Overlot grading Plan - Plats: The Owner shall submit an overlot grading plan (hereinafter the 'Plan ") meeting the requirements ofthe Proffer with the application for each subdivision ofthe Property. The Plan shall show existing and proposed topographic features. The Plan shall be approved by the County Engineer prior to approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control plan. The Property within the subdivision shall be graded as shown on the approved Plan.No building permit shall be issued for any dwelling on a lot where the County Engineer has determined the lot grading is not consistent with the approved Plan. The Plan shall satisfy the following: a) The Plan shall show all proposed streets, building sites, setbacks, surface drainage, driveways, trails, and other features the County Engineer determines are needed to verify that the Plan satisfies the requirements of this proffer. b) The Plan shall be drawn to a scale not smaller than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet. c) All proposed grading shall be shown with contour intervals not greater than two (2) feet. All concentrated surface drainage over lots shall be clearly shown with the proposed grading. All proposed grading shall be designed to assure that surface drainage can provide adequate relief from the flooding of dwellings in the even a storm sewer fails. d) Graded slopes on lots proposed to be planted with turf grasses (lawns) shall not exceed a gradient of three (3) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (3:1). Steeper slopes shall be vegetated with low maintenance vegetation as determined to be appropriate by the County's program authority in it approval of an erosion and sediment control plan for the land disturbing activity. These steeper slopes shall not exceed a gradient of two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1) unless the County Engineer finds that the grading recommendations for steeper slopes have adequately addressed the impacts. e) Surface drainage may flow across up to three (3) lots before being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots. f) No surface drainage across a residential lot shall have more than one -half (1/2) acre of land draining to it. g) All drainage from streets shall be carried across lots in a storm sewer to a point beyond the rear of the building site h) The Plan shall demonstrate than an area at least ten (10) feet in width, or to the lot line if it is less than ten (10) feet, from the portion of the structure facing the street has grades no steeper than ten percent (10 %) adjacent to possible entrances to dwellings that will not be served by a stairway. This graded area also shall extend from the entrances to the driveways or walkways connecting the dwelling to the street. i) Any requirement of this proffer may be waived by submitting a request for special exception with the overlot grading plan. If such a request is made, it shall include a justification for the request containing a valid professional seal from a PE, LA or LS type B. In reviewing a waiver request, the County Engineer shall consider whether the alternative proposed by the Owner satisfies the purpose of the requirement to be waived to at least an equivalent degree. j) In the event the County adopts overlot regulations after the date this proffer is approved, any requirement of those regulations that is less restrictive than any requirement of this proffer shall supersede the corresponding requirement of this proffer, subject to the approval of the Director of the Department of Community Development, OWNER Bellevue Real Estate, L.L.C. �Z- NAme: Vilo Cetta (Owner's Agent) Tax Map and Parcel Number: 09000 -00 -00 -03100 Attachment A 19.3 PERMITTED USES 19.3.1 BY RIGHT The following uses shall be permitted by right in the PRD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter: I. Detached single - family dwellings. 2. Semi- detached and attached single - family dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses provided that density is maintained, and provided further that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single- family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. 3. Multiple - family dwellings. 4. (Repealed 9 -2 -81) 5. Parks, playgrounds, community centers and noncommercial recreational and cultural facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, game rooms, libraries and the like. 6. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations, and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5- 12 -93) 7. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and /or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11 -1 -89) 8. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18) 9. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage buildings. 10. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.7). 11. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat. (Added 10 -9 -02) 12. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10- 13 -04) 13. Family day homes (reference 5.1.56). (Added 9- 11 -13) (§ 20- 19.3.1, 12- 10 -80; 9 -2 -81; 11 -1 -89; 5- 12 -93; Ord 02- 18(6), 10 -9 -02; Ord. 04- 18(2), 10- 13 -04, Ord 13- 18(5), 9- II -13) 19.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the PRD district, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter and provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use as shall be included in the original PRD rezoning petition: (Amended 5 -5 -10) 18 -19 -2 Zoning Supplement #91, 6 -3 -15 I . Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.9). 3. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference 5.1.13). 4. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; microwave and radio - wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 5. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 6. Churches. (Added 9 -2 -81) 7. Stand alone parking and parking structures (reference 4.12, 5.1.41). (Added 11 -7 -84; Amended 2 -5- 03) 8. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). (Added 9- 13 -89) 9. Professional offices. (Added 6 -8 -94) 10. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). (Added 10- 13 -04) 11. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals (reference 5.1.42). (Added 6 -8 -05) 12. Farmers' markets (reference 5.1.47). (Added 5 -5 -10) (§ 20- 19.3.2, 12- 10 -80; 9 -2 -81; 11 -7 -84; 9- 13 -89; 6 -8 -94; Ord. 03- 18(1), 2 -5 -03; Ord. 04- 18(2), 10- 13 -04; Ord. 05- 18(7), 6 -8 -05; Ord. 10- 18(4), 5 -5 -10) 19.4 RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES The gross and net residential densities permitted in any PRD district shall be shown on the approved application plan therefor, which shall be binding upon its approval. The overall gross density so approved shall be determined by the board of supervisors with reference to the comprehensive plan, but shall, in no event, exceed thirty-five (35) dwelling units per acre. In addition, the bonus and cluster provisions of this ordinance shall be inapplicable to any PRD except as herein otherwise expressly provided. (§ 20 -19.4, 12- 10 -80) 19.5 MINIMUM AREA REQUIRED FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT 19.5.1 Minimum area required for the establishment of a PRD district shall be three (3) acres. 19.5.2 Additional area may be added to an established PRD district if it adjoins and forms a logical addition to the approved development. The procedure for an addition shall be the same as if an original application were filed, and all requirements shall apply except the minimum acreage requirement of section 19.5.1. 19.6 MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL USES 19.6.1 Not less than twenty-five (25) percent of the area devoted to residential use within any PRD shall be in common open space except as hereinafter expressly provided. (Amended 9- 13 -89) 18 -19 -3 Zoning Supplement 1191, 6 -3 -15 FOP. OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or LMA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ckf{ By: Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or Zoning Map Amendment J''`Y �`r`` PROJECT NUMBER: �� 3DI PROJECT NAME: �4 Vm V�Y Resubmittal Fee is Required ❑ Per Request ❑ Resubmittal Fee is Not Required Community Development Project Coordinator Name of Applicant Sig�nature Date' Signature FEES Phone Number Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications) Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of 52,500 ❑ F• t resubmission FREE Each additional resubmission $1,250 Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications) Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request— Add'l notice fees will be required $180 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MATCF. (114Fruc TO CMTNTV OF ALRF.MARL-F/PAYMFNT AT CONTMTINTTV DF.VPI.OPMF.NT COT1NTFR i Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first -class postage Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.00 for each additional notice + actual cost of first -class postage Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 6/7/2011 Pate 1 of 1 • ^�- 11�illr IlIIf1.�• COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Claudette Grant FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ZMA- 2014 -06: Avon Park 2 DATE: April 7, 2015 With appropriate landscaping, the proposed development is not expected to have a negative visual impact on the Entrance Corridor. Note the following issues for ARB review of the site plan: 1. The architectural design of the attached units in lots 15 -20 will require ARB review and approval. The ARB will expect the EC- facing elevations to be fully designed and that they adequately address issues of form, material, blankness, scale and proportion. 2. Landscaping is critical to establishing an appropriate appearance for this development due to the size and location of the stormwater facilities. a. The EC Guidelines require that stormwater facilities be designed to eliminate the engineered appearance of the facility and to fully integrate the facility into the surrounding landscape. Note that additional or alternate landscaping may be required to fully integrate the eastern part of the development into the Corridor. b. A landscape plan should be provided as part of the Initial Site Plan submittal. The details of the landscaping can be worked out with the site plan, so the landscaping shown on the application plan should not be considered final or approved. c. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan should show interspersed ornamental trees along the EC frontage. Interspersing them in an irregular pattern will help achieve a more natural appearance. d. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan should show trees added in an irregular pattern on the new slopes that are proposed with regular grades. e. Some trees are shown in easements. The landscape plan submitted with the Initial Site Plan should resolve all planting/utility /easement conflicts without reducing the quantity of trees proposed. (Check the tree in the sanitary easement near Lot 26, trees in the water easement west of Lots 19 and 20, and the tree in the drainage easement adjacent to the EC.) f. Staggering the shrubs on the north side of the property would provide for a more natural appearance. 3. Based on similarities to the previous plan, the following are likely to be required during ARB review of the site plan: a. Provide for review an architectural plan and elevations for the recreation shelter. b. Provide details on the plan illustrating the appearance of the maintenance access drive and chained access point. Show how these features will have an appropriate appearance for the EC. 4. Please include in your next ARB submittal the site section illustrated on Sheet 8 of 10, but without the exaggerated scale. Phone 434 - 296 -5832 r �IRGIS County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434 - 972 -4126 To: Vito Cetta From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: April 1, 2015 Subject: ZMA 2014 -00006 Avon Park II The applicant is amending an approved ZMA2012000004. I want to reiterate my concerns for the site. There are three elements that engineering focused on with this review. The first is adequate drainage, since the proposed property is wedged in between Avon 1 from the north and Nobel Heights from the south. The second is adequate sizing of the stormwater management facilities that are feasible for the site. The third is ensuring there is a safe distance from the townhomes to the SWM facilities. The biofilter and extended detention basin takes up a large space and the townhomes slopes downward towards the facilities. You will find my comments below requests for more clarification and calculations for the reasons aforementioned above. Typically, these comments are asked at the WPO and Site Plan phase, but I highly recommend the applicant to provide clarifications to prevent another rezoning and to ensure the structures can be built. 1. The maximum biofilter drainage area is 2.5 acres per Virginia DEQ stormwater design Spec No.9. I recommend showing other BMPs that can be added to meet water quality. Applicant has shown two biofilters. 2. 1 recommend Hathaway Street to be extended to the property line to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on adjoining lands, terminating within the development with a temporary turnaround per Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 32.7.2.2(e). have reviewed the waiver. do not recommend approval of the waiver. It appears to be possible to build to the property line. See my review of the waivers attached. 3. The layout of the sewage systems appears to have laterals that run across many lots. Also, it appears that each lot will need a holding tank that will activate a grinder after reaching a certain level. Then finally the waste can be pumped to an existing main. This system is not recommended as many easements will need to be established. Maintenance will also be a burden since the laterals goes through many lots and the private road. I recommend a sewer main on the private street to a private central sewerage system. Then sewage can be pumped to a public existing main. Engineering recommends approval of grinder pumps even though it is the Engineering Dept's opinion that grinder pumps will be a burden to the homeowners of the affordable housing in the event of a power outage and when the grinder pumps need maintenance. ACSA has expressed their concern and believes a private pump station would present more of a public health issue in the event of a failure. It appears ACSA will not provide a plan approval for any developments that propose a private pump station within their jurisdicational area. 4. The area behind lots 21 -26 have runoff from the existing adjacent lots. Drainage inlets should be provided in addition to the swale shown. The berm is not an adequate measure to redirect runoff. I still recommend a yard inlet between lot 20 and lot 21 at minimum, and more is needed to meet the proffer. This will convey runoff, for a portion of property between Avon 1 and Avon 11, into a biofilter. Please note proffer 6(e.), which refers to surface drainage may flow across up to three lots before being collected in a storm sewer or directed to a drainage way outside of the lots. 5. The sidewalk in front of Lot 1 and 8 just ends. This also exists behind lot 15 -20. 1 recommend adjusting slightly to tie proposed sidewalks with existing sidewalks. Applicant has provided sidewalk for lots 15 -20 to the tot lot. I also recommend extending sidewalk to Avon St. Please discuss with planning if there are future sidewalk improvements along Avon St. New Comment: 6. 1 recommend showing a wall behind lots 15 -20 for the following reasons: a) The slope between these lots and the bioretention is too steep. The design specs a minimum slope of 3:1. The proposed design exceeds 3:1. b) Lots 15, 19 and 20 will need space for a landing outside the back door (at least a 3'x3' exterior landing).The grading and swale shown does not seem possible without a retaining wall. Deep footing is a possibility, but 6(a) is still not met. c) A wall provides a backyard for the following lots instead of a doorway to a steep slope that eventually leads to a biofilter and extended detention basin. 7. The sidewalk to the tot lot should be ADA compliant. The steep slope does not meet it. Please address. 8. 1 recommend the tot lot to be graded to a flatter slope. 10% for a playground does not sound feasible. Please clarify what will be placed here. Also, this tot lot is very close to the extended detention basin. For safety concerns, I recommend enclosing the tot lot completely instead of the 3- board farm fence. 9. Show adequate maintenance access to the biofilters and extended detention basin. 10. Provide calculations that the extended detention basin is sized correctly and will meet channel protection. All I see is a note that states "additional detention shall be provided to eliminate the need for offsite drainage." Please provide. 11. On the previously approved ZMA2012 -04, a ditch improvement and replacement of culvert along Avon St. (SW of property) is shown. Please provide on this plan. This addressed frontage improvements for the drainage system along Avon Street. 12. The sidewalks on Hathaway St should be extended to the property line. This will affect the driveways for lots 8 and 9 since 18' is the minimum length. I recommend the driveways for lot 8 and 9 to be moved to Stratford Way. 13. Please make the portion of Stratford Way to the cul -de -sac a public road. Virginia Runoff Reduction Method (VRRM) Spreadsheet for Quality Criteria: 14. Include the portion of HathawayStreet (Avon 1) in Site Area acreage in VRRM. 15. What does the .08 acres represent? This is shown on northern and southern sections of property. 16. Revise the site data tab acreage for Forest /Open Space, turf , and impervious. 17. In drainage area A tab, include open space acreage for biofilter area. 18. In drainage area B tab, include open space acreage for biofilter area. 19. Bioretention level 2 appears to meet quality criteria. Please revise. 20. 1 suggest to pull the calculations from the plan and to provide in a separate report. In the summary state the numbers might slightly change, but the location and size of the biofilters and extended detention basin should remain the same for the site plan. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(a-albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 34 8 for further information. a$ o ®� �'IRGII3ZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 November 4, 2014 Ms. Clay Green 1830 River Inn Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA201400006 —Avon Park II Dear Ms. Green: Staff has reviewed your initial submittal requesting to amend ZMA2012- 00004, which was a rezoning for 5.262 acres from R -6 Residential to PRD Planned Residential Development for a maximum of 32 residential units. The acreage, zoning district and maximum number of residential units are unchanged and remain the same. We have a number of questions and comments which we believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to meet with you to discuss these issues. Our comments are provided below: Initial comments on how your proposal generally relates to the Comprehensive Plan are provided below. Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The land use designation for this property is Neighborhood Density Residential. Neighborhood Density Residential — areas are intended to have a gross density between 3 to 6 dwellings per acre and may be located within the Urban Area, Communities and Villages. Neighborhood Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling unit types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. It is anticipated that Neighborhood Density Residential areas will accommodate small areas of non - residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service to serve residential uses. • The County's Open Space Plan describes a nearby surveyed historic site and the entrance corridor - Virginia Byways, or County. Scenic Highways within this area. 1 • Neighborhood Model: This proposal consists of a residential development with 26 single family detached units, and 6 attached units inclusive of an additional 6 terrace level apartments that serve as affordable housing units, bringing the total to 32 units. The form and proposed density (approximately 6 units per acre), are consistent with the land use recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. • The intent of this proposal is to provide the required on street parking in an adequate location /amend the layout of the site, and to amend the proffers relating to the affordable units, as these became outstanding issues during the site plan process. Although the layout of the revised plan is different from the approved plan layout (ZMA2012- 00004), the Neighborhood Model District remains consistent with both plans. The revised plan deviates from the approved ZMA2012 -00004 plan in terms of relocation of the affordable units, which are now located at the eastern end of the development instead of the middle (southern boundary) of the property. A cul de sac is now located at the western portion of the site with residential units around it and the stormwater area and the outdoor entertainment area have switched places on the eastern portion of the property. The general proposed intent of this rezoning amendment request is not substantially different than the approved rezoning. The approved rezoning was for a residential development and the proposed development is for a residential development. The proposed request changes the layout of the site and location of residential units. The proposed Neighborhood Model remains consistent with the approved rezoning (ZMA2012- 00004); therefore, a revised review of the Neighborhood Model was not completed with this request. More detailed comments may be provided after more detailed information is provided. Plannine 1. Per Section 33.4 (j) of the Zoning Ordinance, a community meeting is required unless waived by the director, which is not the case here. I have sent e- mails, and telephone messages, which have not been responded to regarding the organization of a community meeting. A community meeting must be held, without one we cannot recommend approval of this request. APPLICATION PLAN- DETAILED COMMENTS 1. The southern portion of Hathaway Street does not end at the property line; you will need a waiver /special exception of Section 409 (Coordination of extension of street). 2. With the addition of the 30' access easement on the adjacent property to the south, the emergency gate needs to be located at the property line. The plan shows a fence going across the property line, which will not work in case of an emergency and the need for access. 3. The BSL on the properties along the northern boundary went from 25' per lot on the approved plan to 20' for lots 1= 3 and from 25' per lot on the approved plan to a variation of 25' to 35' for lots 21— 26. The adjacent residents worked diligently with the applicant for ZMA2012 -00004 to have the BSL be 25'. We recommend you work with the adjacent residents to address this concern. 2 4. Some of the landscape screening /buffering that was shown on the approved plan, in particular for properties on the northern boundary are now eliminated. Also reference to tree preservation along the northern boundary have now been eliminated. The adjacent residents worked diligently with the applicant for ZMA2012 -00004 to include the landscape screening and tree preservation on the approved plan. We recommend you work with the adjacent residents to address this concern. 5. Crosswalks and sidewalk tapers were shown at the intersection of Hathaway and Stratford on the approved plan, but are no longer shown on the revised plan. Although this is a detail that is not necessarily needed at this stage, not showing it or referencing the intent of pedestrian orientation at this intersection is difficult to follow and is unclear. For instance, does the sidewalk just end with no means for interconnection? 6. The approved plan showed a 3 board farm fence with landscaping on a portion of the southern boundary. Also water line connections to the adjacent property line were shown on the approved plan. The reference to landscaping is now eliminated on the revised plan and the water line is no longer shown. Are these intended to be eliminated? The adjacent residents worked diligently with the applicant for ZMA2012 -00004 to include these items. We recommend you work with the adjacent residents to address this concern. In general, there are items and issues that were worked out with the approved plan that are now eliminated and not the reason for the requested revision. Staff suggests for clarification purposes, you describe the reason for the changes /elimination or you provide the information back on the plans to assist in making sure they will occur. Zoning The following comments related to zoning matters have been provided by Amanda Burbage: Application Plan: 1. In the parking schedule on page 1, please specify the number of bedrooms in the townhouse units in order to clarify which parking calculation applies. (1 BR = 1.5 space/ unit, 2 or more BR = 2 spaces/ unit). 2. For Lots 15 -20, a total of 24 parking spaces are required, but only 15 are provided. If the on- street parking spaces listed in the parking schedule for Lots 9 -14 and 21 -26 is intended to support the townhouse units, please list these spaces for Lots 15 -17 and 18 -20 instead. 3. Driveways with no garage must be at least 18 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. This is because the parking on the driveway needs to meet specifications to count toward required parking without encroaching onto the sidewalk. 4. For Lots 9 -15 that are adjacent to an emergency access easement, a front setback of 25 feet applies. Because this is a Planned Development zoning, a different setback can be established for a front adjacent to a feature such as this. Please clarify with your resubmittal what you are requesting. 5. It appears that landscape buffers have been removed from the original application plan in the area behind Lots 3 & 4, Lot 14, and Lots 20 -22. Please explain this omission. Engineering and Water Resources The following comments related to engineering and water resources have been provided by Michelle Roberge: W 1. The biofilter drainage area is 2.5 acres per Virginia DEQ stormwater design Spec No.9. I recommend showing other BMPs that can be added to meet water quality. 2. Note that the following will need to be worked out during the site plan stage, but keep in mind now that this is something you will need to work out. We recommend you eliminate this level of detail at this stage, as an approval of the plan could become problematic later should changes need to occur: The layout of the sewage systems appears to have laterals that run across many lots. Also, it appears that each lot will need a holding tank that will activate a grinder after reaching a certain level. Then finally the waste can be pumped to an existing main. This system is not recommended as many easements will need to be established. Maintenance will also be a burden since the laterals goes through many lots and the private road. I recommend a sewer main on the private street to a private central sewerage system. Then sewage can be pumped to a public existing main. 3. 1 recommend Hathaway Street to be extended to the property line to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on adjoining lands, terminating within the development with a temporary turnaround per Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 32.7.2.2(e). 4. The area behind lots 21 -26 have runoff from the existing adjacent lots. Drainage inlets should be provided in addition to the swale shown. The berm is not an adequate measure to redirect runoff. 5. The sidewalk in front of Lot 1 and 8 just ends. This also exists behind lot 15 -20. 1 recommend adjusting slightly to tie proposed sidewalks with existing sidewalks. Entrance Corridor The following comments related to the Entrance Corridor Guidelines have been provided by Margaret Maliszewski: The following revisions are requested: 1. Revise the street tree calculation for Avon Street Extended to be 1 tree for every 35 linear feet for the EC overlay. 2. The plan indicates that 7 street trees are provided along Avon Street Extended, but only 6 appear on the plan. Show 7 on the plan. 3. Remove the extraneous "proposed evergreen tree typ." notes from the plan. 4. Indicate the location and extent of fencing required at the stormwater facilities. 5. The stormwater facilities are the primary feature of the EC end of the development. The extent and appearance of these facilities and their impact on the EC based on their location is a concern. The EC guidelines require that such features be fully integrated into the landscape and that they should not have the appearance of engineered site elements. The current proposal does not meet these guidelines. Revisions to the form, layout and treatment of the facilities are recommended. A design in keeping with previous approvals is recommended. Additional trees located between the bioretention and extended detention basins is recommended. Note that: 1. The architectural design of the attached units in lots 15 -20 will require ARB review and approval. The ARB will expect the EC- facing elevations to be fully designed and that they adequately address issues of form, material, blankness, scale and proportion. 2. A landscape plan should be provided with the Initial Site Plan. 0 3. Interspersed ornamental trees are required along the EC frontage. 4. Provide a detail of the fencing proposed for the stormwater facilities. 5. The EC Guidelines require that stormwater facilities be designed to eliminate the engineered appearance of the facility and to fully integrate the facility into the surrounding landscape. The rise in topography from the EC street to the proposed facilities is expected to help reduce the visual impacts of these facilities on the EC. However, additional /alternate landscaping may be required to fully integrate the eastern part of the development into the corridor. 6. Based on similarities to the previous plan, the following are likely to be required during ARB review of the site plan: a. Provide for review an architectural plan and elevations for the recreation shelter. b. Include on the site plan a detail for the tot lot fence, including notes on colors and materials. Note that chain link is not appropriate in the ECs. c. Provide details on the plan illustrating the appearance of the maintenance access drive and chained access point. Show how these features will have an appropriate appearance for the EC. d. Intersperse ornamental trees among the large trees at a less regular pattern to achieve a more natural appearance. See ARB2008 -12 and ZMA2012 -04 for acceptable landscape design. e. Add trees in an irregular pattern on the new slopes proposed with regular grades VDOT The following comments related to traffic and transportation issues have been provided by Shelly Plaster: 1. Please be aware that, during the road construction plan review, ditch computations will be required along Avon Street Extended. 2. During the road construction plan review, computations will be required to verify the adequacy of the existing 21" CMP. 3. No objection to the rezoning as shown. ACSA The following comments related to Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) have been provided by Alexander Morrison. This relates to the site plan process: 1. 1 have reviewed the above referenced plan and have no additional comments at this time. During the site plan stage the ACSA will look at other configurations of the grinder pumps and force mains to allow better maintenance in the future. The ACSA herby recommends approval of ZMA201400006. RWSA The following comments related to Rivanna Water Sewer Authority (RWSA) have been provided by Victoria Fort: 1. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal None Known 2. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Capacity Certification Yes X No 3. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this proposal None Known 4. "Red Flags" regarding service provision (Use attachments if necessary) None Known Fire /Rescue The following comments related to Fire /Rescue have been provided by Robbie Gilmer: 1. Cul de sac shall be 96 ft FC /FC. 2. Streets with no on street parking and cul de sac shall be marked "No Parking Fire Lane ". 3. Please contact the Fire Marshall to discuss the emergency fire access road. Proffers 1. The County has a cash proffer policy that addresses impacts to the County's capital improvements pertaining to roads, public safety, libraries, schools and parks that would be impacted by the rezoning. All rezoning requests which intensify development of a property are reviewed for impacts to the public infrastructure. The County policy also requires that the owner of property that is rezoned for residential uses to provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. The Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning request that permit residential uses in accordance with the cash proffer policy. The Board may also accept cash, land or in -kind improvements in accordance with County and State law to address the impacts of the rezoning. You have indicated that you are not offering cash proffers for various reasons. The impacts of this proposal are considered. 2. Please clarify the reason for eliminating the proffer regarding overlot grading. There are several concerns and issues regarding grading in this vicinity.that have been raised by adjacent residents. The overlot grading proffer that was part of the approved proffers was included to help address these issues and concerns. Explain how you will address these issues. 3. Please provide documentation that shows Beau Dickerson is the Owner's agent assigned on the proffer statement. 4. The first paragraph of the proffer statement and proffer 5 need to be appropriately updated. The following comments related to proffers and zoning concerns have been provided by Amanda Burbage: Proffers: a. Please amend the proffer statement to refer to the current application number, ZMA 2014 - 00006. b. Add a statement that the current proffer statement supersedes the proffer statement dated November 21, 2013 pertaining to ZMA 2012 - 00004. c. The elimination of cash proffers is inconsistent with the County's cash proffer policy. This policy requires that the owner rezoning land for residential use provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. The current maximum per unit cash proffer amounts can be found on the County's website. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. You will need to make a decision within 30 days after receipt of this letter. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience. 3 Notification and Advertisement Fees Recently, the Board of Supervisors amended the zoning ordinance to require that applicants pay for the notification costs for public hearings. Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees is needed: $120.40 Cost for newspaper advertisement $200.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $320.40 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing needed. $120.40 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $440.80 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the same time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. My email address is cgrant@albemarle.org. Sincerely, Claudette Grant Senior Planner Community Development C: Beau Dickerson Bellevue Real Estate LLC enc: Action After Receipt of Comments Resubmittal Schedule Resubmittal Form 7 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT � pT ALBS,, � �'I1iGIN1P ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last page of your comment letter with your submittal. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) .Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with Page J of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will -be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at anytime you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly-to the Review Coordinator. Page 2 of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke FEE SCHEDULE FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS A. For a special use permit: 1. Additional lots under section 10.5.2.1; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 2. Public utilities; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 3. Day care center; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ .....................:......... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 4. Horne occupation Class B; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Eachadditional resubmittal ....................................... ............................... ........................$500.00 5. 5. Amend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Each additional resubmittal .............................. ................................. ............................... $ 500.00 6. Extend existing special use permit; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,000.00 Eachadditional resubmittal ....................................................... ............................... ........ $500.00 7. All other special use permits; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................. ............................... .....................$2,000.00 Each additional resubmittal ........................................................... ............................... $1,000.00 8. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request Fee................................................ ............................... ........................$180.00 ............................. B. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance: Fee................................................................................... ............................... .......................$1000.00 C. Amendment to the zoning map: 1. Less than 50 acres; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$2,500.00 2. Less than 50 acres; each additional resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,250.00 3. 50 acres or greater; application and first resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$3,500.00 4. 50 acres or greater; each additional resubmission Fee............................................................................ ............................... ......................$1,750.00 5. Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$180.00 D. Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$500.00 2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) — Fee (to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned) .......$240.00 N. Required notice: 1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: Fee............................................................................. ............................... ........................$200.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage 2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): - - Fee .................................................................................. ............................... .......................$1.00 plus the actual cost of first class postage 3. Published notice: Fee.............................................................................. ............................... .........................Actual cost Page 3 of 6 Revised 4 -25 -11 eke 2014 Submittal and Review Schedule Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments Resubmittal Schedule Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing* Resubmittal Dates Comments to applicant for decision on whether to proceed to Public Hearing * Request for PC Public Hearing, Legal Ad Payment Due ** Planning Commission Public Hearing No sooner than* COB Auditorium Monday Wednesday Monday Tuesday ';'Nov 4 ,0A 3. s1, s FDec 4;2013 , -, ` .ts,:kDec;23M2013;, ', Jan 14 RNov.,1a8`'20�13� ¥�,: >Dec 1.8; >201;3 < ,'� Jan 06 Jan 28 Dec 2' 2013,FTcie Dec - :31..12013 Jan 06 Jan 28 Dec °1',6 5 3 Jan 15 Feb 03 Feb 25 Jan 06 Feb 05 Feb 10 Mar 04 Tue Jan 21 Feb 19 Feb 24 Mar 18 Feb 03 Mar 05 Mar 10 Apr 01 Tue Feb 18 Mar 19 Mar 31 Apr 22 Mar 03 Apr 02 Apr 14 May 06 Mar 17 Apr 16 Apr 28 May 20 Apr 07 May 07 May 12 Jun 03 Apr 21 May 21 May 26 Jun 17 May 05 Jun 04 Jun 23 Jul 15 May 19 Jun 18 Jun 23 Jul 15 Jun 02 Jul 02 Jul 07 Jul 29 Jun 16 Jul 16 Jul 28 Aug 19 Jul 07 Aug 06 Aug 18 Sep 09. Jul 21 Aug 20 Tue Sep 02 Sep 23 Aug 04 Sep 03 Sep 15 Oct 07 Aug 18 Sep 17 Sep 29 Oct 21 Tue Sep 02 Oct 01 Oct 13 Nov 04 Sep. 15 Oct 15 Oct 27 Nov 18 Oct 06 Nov 05 Nov 17 Dec 09 Oct 20 Nov 19 Nov 24 Dec 16 Nov 03 Dec 03 Dec 22 7y,7 an 1,3:201 "5 9 r Nov 17 Dec 17 Dec 22 Dec 01 Dec 31 11 Jan 5 20115,,:` 3 'F a Jan,27, Dec 15 A{ �l : J,an 14 20x115 .?x S , Feb.`,2Y2.0�1,5 k 3kFf s �, ' Febx24;201'S. Jan...05' 201,5{,, " ;,,,Feb, 4 201,5 Bold italics = submittal /meeting day is different due to a holiday. Dates with shaded background 9renot2014.. =,:.f,.... 2015 dates are tentative. * The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing. ** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has been advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. N C d .II CL V C CO a� C N E a a N a U) m a N 3 d d O 0 .D C N E .a N O N M r N .O Or CL 07 C ld d 2 V .c 0. N O .U) (D d a 0 E O m m c d V a IL c O �N N .E E 0 U m C C l0 IL O r 7 U m w 3 v N y w O N t v v O m stvv V= :=I 77;i777 7777 V V V R —Ln m r N O M a a m M C m a C Nv M A0 LO r r` N < T r O O r N r N d w N � LO co 00 m r r D O m a O 33 =' (n N v v v G O M N = < N N N M M M M M "T V N u7 (O N (0 M (O N h O N CO QI N 0) O) O N O r r r N Q' r a N co M V' V'0 �N- Q r r r m m J M Q <0 m d N N N N (`�7 M V V m LA 0 (0 N r m Nr W O) O O O r J r r Q M: V V' V' V R V' to rn CD iz: M M r C d' N R` LL� - a (O M r N�` 0 O N N �M�., N` a J ry'. r r r N (� (7 t!7 0 r Ih co Q7 - r < r r M M a (o M p O^ O I� N m 0 V r 00 55 M O O Izz A N N M co V U') LO (0 I- r- w m a) O O r a r `- ca CD 0 d E aB a0 r u7 8 Ih iZ n 4 T ca n�co arm rnrnoo< d NcgcoZ;5 O r 7 U m w 3 v N y w O N t v v O m stvv V= :=I 77;i777 7777 V V V R —Ln m r N O M a a m M C m a C Nv M A0 LO cNor ra d 0 U a v v v �.rrrrrrrrrrr <rr rrrrrrr< N (2 ` O r NCO N r a N co M V' V'0 �N- C r r r 7 M Q <0 m d J M: V V' V' V R V' iz: M M r C d' N R` LL� - a (O M r N�` 0 O N N �M�., N` a ry'. r r r N (� (7 t!7 0 r Ih co Q7 - r < r r a A rn d J aB a0 r u7 8 Ih iZ n 4 n�co arm rnrnoo< NcgcoZ;5 m C c m E T N a O r 7 U m w 3 v N y w O N t v v O m P i:+ I FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # or ZAIA # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# By: .S'�,F nttr�, Resubmittal of information for Special Use Permit or tl y� N.. ;.. Air. Zoning Map Amendment „�;,N,r PROJECT NUMBER: )- MAo10JzJ0000 6 PROJECT NAME: Ay&n (gay- ( El Resubmittal Fee is Required Per Request n- /L Resubmittal Fee is Not Required 0,1a, m' I C -DY �� Community Development Project Coordinator Signature Date —Dicef�say-' Sat- Name of Applicant Phone Number Signature FEES Date Resubmittal fees for Special Use Permit -- original Special Use Permit fee of $1,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $500 =k"t° fit'. 3r i r. Gavz`X.'Yti'a St �Y'..r..; ;vr °�i`og ;F. :]5r )r <, uz }'.zt �'',§! �4 -'"Fa Lsr'M"k '�h.. �ss`X�- �`•i�a ,Ji i N T p. { �� 4' g y ' �q.�s�'t� s •s � � . ; 9 5� ��..;AAsh � ys,3 ^�`z. 'i � ;a?e? F tS >s �" 7� i i�a .; 4'�.us.. .4;\kr'hun� 7k..•�s +t-' Resubmittal fees for original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,000 y.SP R� ..,::�' {vlg "Y'E`V�Y.'.,,i'yY.3. S, E�4...r�j NS'''tf M��L ?FG, i:S`iib '°`F E'3._.ir<j'i 7`� -t•+„: Y�g7 �' .x ��� .,<. _1' ;if,: F.t ...:<.'} a' t.. - " -. i:.; �..? J'aY 5s..•Y?,k,: .i `L`x ii: z.. F,t fa, Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,500 First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,250 P a SY ^ 1 A4 r;,r 3'�"lk k�: ZF 2i xR S2i5 �+.'t .i .y i)F { # \1 ;it T.}"¢`j'X�.�° i�`�2@E.y. [,1yY.Y XS. 'iF "41Y.�J�F gk:��...,.VSy� F...."j>'4!•Ny�,J`e..iE1.4C M�+Tr4x x%}<?f}. '4.1 R�;.i� ?5e r.t`�: ,s .',xa�.. h _? kT�, v.....�i '. M.: gr d.X, IF:ti Q W ( X: ,.`.P.'. <�' (F. * :x.51 .:..::� v ., dn{`. + .:x,^.r, t..5)..t ,:clY. F 4:..< F' ?r . !`• .. :.^..zY3 ff" t�57 _ye R r'sxr•+ss'. x tF vy Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,500 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission $1,750 _1,�: 5 E.�` ' }'F: iT S� ,y.;..4 11. 1�Y�l.t jQ f.Y ,z x. V' rF. Y4=.!t w`ti TfX ?.. i+1� itF' '...r !.}" C °ya�l"�,f�,(i ?fin. �:r'.1wj'�`,i CU�:a� �,���X' 619 "L.Fw+�'��.��.�µ..i•ftfl)'�,4; '�.y.�..A"n�} �) ;S�Z.. vl�~f�.. S., v Cl, w,.....;} /A��y.)Y_q "f .: �:':v,F•^i• y�tE R -�. Yia £E-,a t•.!a. 3{ r �• 4:F k Y�° ./. '35�.. �f Sid ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request = Add'1 notice fees will be required $180 To be paid after staff review for public notice: Most applications for Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. MAKE CHECKS TO COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE/PAYMENT AT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNTER i� Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $200 + actual cost of first -class postage i� Preparing and ailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) m __ $1.00 for each additional notice +actual cost of first -class postage i' Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (minimum of $280 for total of 4 publications) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126 6/7/2011 Page 1 of 1 pF AL �J�ctr�tA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 IL% I AIL% [I] t7_:101111J LyJ TO: Claudette Grant FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ZMA- 2014 -06: Avon Park 2 DATE: October 24, 2014 Fax (434) 972 -4126 The following revisions are requested: 1. Revise the street tree calculation for Avon Street Extended to be 1 tree for every 35 linear feet for the EC overlay. 2. The plan indicates that 7 street trees are provided along Avon Street Extended, but only 6 appear on the plan. Show 7 on the plan. 3. Remove the extraneous "proposed evergreen tree typ." notes from the plan. 4. Indicate the location and extent of fencing required at the stormwater facilities. 5. The stormwater facilities are the primary feature of the EC end of the development. The extent and appearance of these facilities and their impact on the EC based on their location is a concern. The EC guidelines require that such features be fully integrated into the landscape and that they should not have the appearance of engineered site elements. The current proposal does not meet these guidelines. Revisions to the form, layout and treatment of the facilities are recommended. A design in keeping with previous approvals is recommended. Additional trees located between the bioretention and extended detention basins is recommended. Note that: 1. The architectural design of the attached units in lots 15 -20 will require ARB review and approval. The ARB will expect the EC- facing elevations to be fully designed and that they adequately address issues of form, material, blankness, scale and proportion. 2. A landscape plan should be provided with the Initial Site Plan. 3. Interspersed ornamental trees are required along the EC frontage. 4. Provide a detail of the fencing proposed for the stormwater facilities. 5. The EC Guidelines require that stormwater facilities be designed to eliminate the engineered appearance of the facility and to fully integrate the facility into the surrounding landscape. The rise in topography from the EC street to the proposed facilities is expected to help reduce the visual impacts of these facilities on the EC. However, additional /alternate landscaping may be required to fully integrate the eastern part of the development into the corridor. 6. Based on similarities to the previous plan, the following are likely to be required during ARB review of the site plan: a. Provide for review an architectural plan and elevations for the recreation shelter. b. Include on the site plan a detail for the tot lot fence, including notes on colors and materials. Note that chain link is not appropriate in the ECs. c. Provide details on the plan illustrating the appearance of the maintenance access drive and chained access point. Show how these features will have an appropriate appearance for the EC. d. Intersperse ornamental trees among the large trees at a less regular pattern to achieve a more natural appearance. See ARB2008 -12 and ZMA2012 -04 for acceptable landscape design. e. Add trees in an irregular pattern on the new slopes proposed with regular grades. Phone 434 - 296 -5832 r �IRGIS County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum Fax 434 - 972 -4126 To: Vito Cetta From: Michelle Roberge, Engineering Department Division: Engineering Date: October 17, 2014 Subject: ZMA 2014 -00006 Avon Park II I have reviewed the concept plan for the application noted above and offer the following comments for the applicant. The comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review. 1. The biofilter drainage area is 2.5 acres per Virginia DEQ stormwater design Spec No.9. I recommend showing other BMPs that can be added to meet water quality. 2. 1 recommend Hathaway Street to be extended to the property line to provide vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to future development on adjoining lands, terminating within the development with a temporary turnaround per Albemarle County Code Chapter 18, Section 32.7.2.2(e). 3. The layout of the sewage systems appears to have laterals that run across many lots. Also, it appears that each lot will need a holding tank that will activate a grinder after reaching a certain level. Then finally the waste can be pumped to an existing main. This system is not recommended as many easements will need to be established. Maintenance will also be a burden since the laterals goes through many lots and the private road. I recommend a sewer main on the private street to a private central sewerage system. Then sewage can be pumped to a public existing main. 4. The area behind lots 21 -26 have runoff from the existing adjacent lots. Drainage inlets should be provided in addition to the swale shown. The berm is not an adequate measure to redirect runoff. 5. The sidewalk in front of Lot 1 and 8 just ends. This also exists behind lot 15 -20. 1 recommend adjusting slightly to tie proposed sidewalks with existing sidewalks. Please contact Michelle Roberge in the Engineering Dept at mroberge(@albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3458 for further information. �� OF ALg� .1 �IRGINI�r.. County of Albemarle rtment of Communitv Development Memorandum To: Claudette Grant, Senior Planner From: Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner Date: October 21, 2014 Subject: ZMA 2014 -06 Avon Park II — 1St Zoning Comments I have reviewed their submittal and have the following comments: Proffers: a. Please amend the proffer statement to refer to the current application number, ZMA 2014- 00006. b. Add a statement that the current proffer statement supersedes the proffer statement dated November 21, 2013 pertaining to ZMA 2012 - 00004. c. The elimination of cash proffers is inconsistent with the County's cash proffer policy. This policy requires that the owner rezoning land for residential use provide cash proffers equivalent to the proportional value of public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. The current maximum per unit cash proffer amounts can be found on the County's website. 2. Application Plan: a. In the parking schedule on page 1, please specify the number of bedrooms in the townhouse units in order to clarify which parking calculation applies. (1 BR = 1.5 space/ unit, 2 or more BR = 2 spaces/ unit). b. For Lots 15 -20, a total of 24 parking spaces are required, but only 15 are provided. If the on- street parking spaces listed in the parking schedule for Lots 9 -14 and 21 -26 is intended to support the townhouse units, please list these spaces for Lots 15 -17 and 18 -20 instead. c. Driveways with no garage must be at least 18 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. This is because the parking on the driveway needs to meet specifications to count toward required parking without encroaching onto the sidewalk. d. For Lots 9 -15 that are adjacent to an emergency access easement, a front setback of 25 feet applies. Because this is a Planned Development zoning, a different setback can be established for a front adjacent to a feature such as this. Please clarify with your resubmittal what you are requesting. e. It appears that landscape buffers have been removed from the original application plan in the area behind Lots 3 & 4, Lot 14, and Lots 20 -22. Please explain this omission.