Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201600213 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2017-05-22County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Phone 434-296-5832 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Bobby Jocz From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: January 6, 2017 (revised) REV. 1: May 22, 2017 Subject: SUB201600213 Belvedere Phase IIB - Road Plans Fax 434-972-4126 The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] [14-302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved/green space and amenities (Table 4). appears that the property line between Lot 160 and the proposed open space at the corner of the Village Green does not match the lot line shown in SUB2014-178, which was recorded in Deed Book 4583 Page 375. Clarify whether a boundary line adjustment will be required and whether the open space, as shown as the hatched area, is the size specified in the open space chart on this road plan. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. [COD] Provide information and details on how the landscaping requirements for the two open spaces on the corners next the Village Green, will be met. The description of Block 4 green space, on page 12 of the C.O.D., specifies "intensive landscape amenities" for these "edges". REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • The label "CA" does not have an entry in the plant schedule and the label "CC" in the plant schedule does not appear to be placed anvwhere within the corner open spaces. • If the label "CA" is meant to be "CC" then the symbol representing them is not of the correct scale. The canopy of the "redbud" is specified at 124 SF, which is larger than any other canopy in the plant schedule, but the symbol representing what may be "redbuds" is smaller than that used for the Yoshino Cherry trees. • If the label "CA" is not meant to be "CC" then update the plant schedule to correctly show the proposed plants and quantities. • There are two area hatches shown in the corner open spaces by the village preen. However, no information is provided on what plant material the hatches represent. Include information in the plant schedule or with labels that correctly and fully_ describe the plants and/or groundcover that the two hatches represent. • There appear to be two benches in each of the two corner open spaces. However, no note or label is provided that specify what the symbols represent. Include notes and/or labels for the rectangles in the two corner open spaces specifying what the rectangles represent. • In the plant schedule no size is specified for the Nikko Blue French Hydrangeas. Include the plant size for the hydrangeas in the plant schedule. [COD] The format and extents of the content of the table provided on the cover sheet for Belvedere Residential Densities does not match those shown on the previous subdivision plats such as SUB2014- 178. Revise the table to be the same format as the two tables shown on Sheet No. V2 of SUB2014-178 but updated to be current and include the proposed development. Both "Tables 1 & 2: Comparison with Approve Rezoning" should be provided and not combined into one table with reduced content as shown on the current submission of the Road Plan. The maximum number of residential lots in Block 7 does not match those shown in the C.O.D. but a variation requested (#53) has been submitted and is under review. Either the requested variation will need to be approved or the road plan modified to match the residential densities specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • There is a typographical error in the residential density chart for Block 5 under "Actual to date. The maximum number of carriage units for Block 5 in Phase 2A-1 should be 7 and not 12. • Carriage units for Block 7 in the "Actual to Date" portion of the residential density chart should be shown as they were in the previous chart, with Phase IIA-1 and Phase IIA-2 in separate rows. • The Block Total minimum and maximum for Block 7 in the "Actual to Date" portion of the residential density chart should be 18 and not 23, since the 5 proposed lots are not included in this area of the table. • The Density for Block 7 in the "Actual to Date" portion of the residential density chart should be 2.45 and not 2.87, since 1.4 acres and 5 proposed lots are not included in this area of the table. • The "Total" portion at the bottom of the "Actual to Date" appears to have multiple errors. The "Carriage House Units" "Maximum", the "Block Total" "Minimum" and the "Block Total" "Maximum" all appear to incorrect and there is no value provided for the "Density". • The proposed single family detached unit count for Block 4 in the "Belvedere Phase 11B Proposed" portion of the residential density chart should be 19 and not 18 because of the added "Lot 48" in this revision of the road plan. This change will also impact the total at the bottom of this column. Note additional comments on 19 additional units in Block 4 not being allowed in the C.O.D. • The "Total" "Maximum" value for Block 7 of the "Belvedere Phase 116 Proposed" portion of the residential density chart does not appear to be correct. It appears this number should be 39. • The "Total" "Maximum" value ai the buttorn of the "Belvedere Phase IIB Proposed" portion of the residential density chart does not appear to be correct. This total should only include the proposed lot. • If any of the comments do not appear to be correct contact the plan reviewer to discuss. • Once all of the comments area addressed above check and update all the values within the "Total Platted/Proposed" portion of the chart, including the totals at the bottom. • Add a note below the density chart that states that the densities shown for blocks 7 and 9 are those specified in variation #53. • Variation request #53 has been resubmitted and is vender review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved. [COD] This road plan exceeds the maximum approvable number of lots in Block 7; this plat brings the total number of Block 7 lots to 36. The COD maximum is 34. A variation request has been submitted for a modification in maximum number of lots in Block 7. Until variation request #53 is approved or the road plan is modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. this road plan will not be approved. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #53 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved. 5. [14-302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved/green space and amenities (Table 4). Provide a table that includes all of the information from Table 4 Green Space Tabulation in the most recent Code of Development (As Revised: July 22, 2014), as the `Approved with Rezoning', and that also specifies what has already been provided & platted, what is proposed with Phase IIB, the difference from the rezoning, and totals for all of Belvedere. Provide the deed book and page number for the open spaces provide and platted. Refer to SUB201400178 Belvedere Phase IIA-2 Final Subdivision Plat, Sheet No. V1, for an example. The total Open Space number provided on the current submission of the Road Plan does not match what is shown in the C.O.D. A variation request (#54) has been submitted to modify Table 4 Green Space Tabulation and is currently under review. Either the requested variation will need to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • The "Platted" "Other Green Space" for block 9 is 0.43 ACs more than shown in SUB2014- 178. However, that appears to have been an oversite in the chart for SUB2014-178, since an open space of that size does exist in Block 9A and the area of 18,892 SF (0.43 AC) is shown in the plat recorded as Deed Book 3545 Page 1. Therefore this change is accepted. However, a note should be added below the chart in the subdivision plan that specifies where that additional 0.43 AC came from. • Variation request #54 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. 6. [Proffer 3.1125% open space proffer. The revised table for Green Space Tabulations must show that the 25% open space proffer is being met. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. [14-302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved/green space and amenities (Table 4). The conservation area shown on the Application Plan in Block 9 is specified in the C.O.D. to be a minimum of 0.73 acres. A variation has been requested (#54) that would modify the minimum required area. Either the requested variation will need to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • The 0.05 AC of "Open Space" in Block 9. next to "Lot 201" is desianated on the ZMA graphics as "Open Space/Conservation Area" and should be shown as such within Table 4. However, it appears that the area is shown as "Other Green Space" in both the "Proposed with Phase IIB" and "Proposed with Variation #54" tables. Since it is specified as a conservation area in the ZMA graphics it should be shown as such in the proposed variation and the proposed additions to the green space with this road plan. • Variation request #54 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. [14-302(B)8 and COD] Yards. There are proposed lots in Block 9 are reduced to less than 60' width, which do not meet the requirement of Block 9 for 60 + lot widths (see the bottom of page 8 in the COD) A variation regtjest (#55) has been suhmitted for the widths of Blor_k- P Ints hilt is still undp.r review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved, or the lot widths shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • Variation request #55 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved, or the lot widths shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan. • In the "Notes:" on the coversheet add a note that specifies Variation #55 and the modification to minimum frontage in Block 9. 9. [COD] A third section is required for Belvedere Blvd. Two different sections have been provided for Belvedere Blvd. One of them is adjacent to the Village Green and has a median. The other is farther away from the Village Green and does not have a median. A third section will be required for the portion of the Blvd that is beyond the border of the Neighborhood Model District (NMD) because that portion of the Blvd must meet all standard street design standards, such as 9' wide parallel parking spaces. This has also been specified in the recent planning comments for SUB201600212 Belvedere Phase 4A — Road Plans. Road sections approved with the ZMA and its variations do not apply to areas beyond the NMD border. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has specified that a waiver request will be submitted, under Section 4.12.2(c)(2), to allow 8' wide parallel parking spaces in the portions_of the roads that are not part of the NMD. No waiver request has been received. 10. [COD] Revise the plan view and sectional street view of Belvedere Blvd, in the portion of the road with a median, to match either the Street Standards in the C.O.D. (page 33) or previously submitted variation request #57 that is currently under review. A minimum planting strip of 6' is shown in both the C.O.D. and the submitted variation request. A planting strip is not currently shown as being provided in either the plan view or the section view of this portion of the Blvd on the Road Plan. Also, note that either the submitted variation request will have to be approved, or the road standards shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has resubmitted the variation request #57 and it is under review. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. 11. [COD] Revise Table 8 Road Standards. The table does not match either the Street Standards in the C.O.D. (page 33) or previously submitted variation request #57 that is currently under review. The table specifies that there will be parking on both sides of Road H and I, although the road plan show and variation #57 requests that there be parking only on one side of these streets. Also, each of the rows for roads H and I should specify whether the standard is for the West or East side of the Blvd. Note that either the submitted variation request will have to be approved, or the road standards shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D.; prior to the approval of this road plan. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: Applicant has resubmitted the variation request #57 and it is under review. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. Road section for the portion of Belvedere Blvd that includes a median does not match the road standards table on Sheet 1A_orthe recently resubmitted variation_ request #57. However, it appears the section is correct and the two tables are incorrect. The two tables do not show sufficient right of way width and do not include the correct wording for the "Paved Width Minimum Fc-Fc". "Paved Width Minimum Fc-Fc" for a road section that includes a median should be worded "27' inbound and outbound". 12. [COD & SP2007-54] A variation request has been submitted (#57) that would if approved reduce the onstreet parking in the neighborhood from what was specified in the C.O.D. That variation request is currently under review. This road plan show parking on only one side of the Roads H & I on the west side of Belvedere Blvd. Either that variation request will have to be approved, or the Road Plans modified to match the C.O.D. (with any modification required by VDOT, Engineering or Fire Rescue) prior to the approval of this Road Plan. The C.O.D. provides parking on both sides of the road for Roads H & I to the west of the Blvd. This plan also shows parking on only one side of Fowler Street. In reference to the requested reduction in parking specified in variation request #57 keep in mind the following: 1) SP2007-54 was approved with conditions for on -street parking to support the SOCA facility proposed with that application. One of the conditions was to provide street widths to accommodate on street parking as approved by Engineering. 2) The previously approved variations #16, 17 & 18 (approved on 9/17/09) for the Neighborhood Center mentions that "... Part of the parking requirements may be satisfied using on -street parking, if determined by the County as appropriate... 3) There are also significant parking needs for the residences within the neighborhood. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has resubmitted the variation request #57 and it is under review. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. Also, as part of the variation resubmittal additional information appears to have been provided in reference to at least some of the specified parking requirements listed in this comment. That additional information is under review. 13. [SP2007-54 condition of approval #6, 32.5.2(b),] Soccer field parking. The applicant shall demonstrate as a condition of final site plan approval that the on -site parking provided for the use, including on -site on -street parking, is adequate for the proposed use. The Special Use Permit (SP) specifies that parking for the SOCA fields are to be provided in their immediate area and the proposed SOCA fields are adjacent to the area of this road plan. Therefore, any consideration of parking requirements on these streets, and variation request #57 that is currently under review, must consider whether the conditions of the SP will be met. This Road Plan will not be able to be approved until it has been shown that the parking requirement for the SOCA fields will be met. REV. 1: Comment not addressed. This Road Plan will not be able to be approved until it has been shown that the parking requirement for the SOCA fields will be met. It appears that 14, [4.12] Parking. Depict, label, and dimension all on -street parking within Block 9, because of utilities and driveways the number of parking spaces may be greatly reduced, in Block 4 and 7 as well as within the area beyond the NMD boundary. Visually representing the parking spaces will aid in evaluating whether there will be sufficient parking despite the fact that it is parking on only one side of all of the streets except the Blvd is proposed. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 15. [COD] The design and standards for the roads and alleys not within the NMD area were not approved with ZMA2004-7. The extension of the private alley beyond the NMD boundary requires approval since it is a type of "Private Street". Private alleys can be approved by the agent administratively in the development area if street frontage exists, or will be provided, for all lots to be served by the alley (14- 236 B.). Provide information that shows that no public agency, including the Virginia Department of Transportation and the County of Albemarle, will be responsible for maintaining the alleys. Also, provide information on whether this extension will be maintained by the Belvedere HOA. If not provide information on who will be maintaining the road and provide the associated maintenance agreements. Work with Planning, Engineering, and Fire/Rescue to establish approvable alley widths and sections. The County Attorney's office will be required to review and approve either the existing HOA documents or any new documents that will be required for the maintenance of the private alleys outside of the NMD area prior to the approval of this Road Plan. REV. 1: Comment not addressed. Address the following: • Provide the legal documentation that shows that alleys outside of the NMD Belvedere area will be owned and maintained by the HOA, as specified in the response to this comment. Ensure that before submission of the document that all pertinent portions of the document are highlighted. All HOA and maintenance agreements will be reviewed by the County Attorney's office. • Submit the private street request for the alleys outside of the NMD boundary. 16. [Proffer 5.1] Overlot grading plan proffer. The overlot grading plan proffer must be satisfied for this phase prior to Final Plat approval. If the Road Plan is meant to satisfy the requirement of the Overlot Grading proffer then provide the locations of all driveways and building areas (5.1 (a)) in the Road Plan. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 17. [Proffer 5.1] Overlot grading plan proffer. The overlot grading proffer sections 5.1.(e) specifies that "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. It appears that at least two sections of the proposed development (Lots 42 through 45 and Lots 202 through 208) do not meet this proffer. Revise the storm drainage so that it meets Proffer 5.1(e). REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 18. [Comment] Adjust the text for Table 9 on the coversheet in the following ways: • Remove the text next to "Table 9 from Code of Development" that states "No Changes Proposed" because there are changes shown to the table as proposed with variation request # 56, which is currently under review. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. F Update the variations listed above the table to include all those currently shown on page 37 of the C.O.D. (revised date July 22, 2014). REV. 1: Comment Addressed. • Ensure that the table is correct through variation #43. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. • Note that this Road Plan will not be approved until either Variation #56 is approved or the setbacks and setback table is revised to match those in the approved C.O.D. REV. 1: Comment not vet addressed. Proposed variations have not vet been approved. The variations have not been resubmitted since comments were sent on January 19, 2017. • Revise the notes, on the cover sheet, so that the addition of wording for the proposed Variation #56 is listed as Note 7, not included in note 2, and ensure that Note 7 is applied to the Side Setbacks and not the Front Build -to from street. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Add wording to the note that specified "for Block 4 (see note 7 below)". 19. [COD] Utilize a different hatch pattern for the "conservation" portions of the Open Space areas shown on the plan. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The 0.05 AC open space adiacent to Lot 201 is supposed to be the "conservation area" type of open space, as shown on Exhibit 2C of the ZMA exhibits. Revise the hatch and label for this open space to specifv that it is "conservation area" and not eneral open space. 20. [14-302(A)3] Existing or platted streets. Include in the labels for the roads and alleys the letter designations shown in the Code of Development, and shown on Exhibit 2C of the ZMA exhibits, in addition to street names for ease of review on all sheets. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 21. [COD] Provide a section for Fowler Street (Road J) that meets all standard road design guidelines including, but not limited to, 9' wide parallel parking spaces because it is not part of the NMD area. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. In reference to Fowler Street (Road J) address the following: • The road section shows a 9' wide parallel parking space and an 11' wide drive aisle. However, the response to comments states that a waiver to allow for a 8' wide parallel parking space will be submitted. Revise the dimensions so that a 8' wide parallel parking space and a 12' wide drive aisle. • Applicant has specified that a waiver request will be submitted, under Section 4.12.2(c)(2), to allow 8' wide parallel parking spaces in the portions of the roads that are not part of the NMD. No application for such a waiver has been received. Submit the waiver request or revise the plan to showg' wide- parallel parking spaces for Fowler Street (Road A. Revise the street section so that the trees are shown within the planting strip and not in the sidewalk. Provide the road and alley letters, from the Code of Development exhibits, in the labels for the street sections. 22. [14-302(B)5] Zoning Classification. The variation dates should be updated to reflect those most recently approved, including 10-3-2012 for variation #48. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 23. [14-302(B)5] Zoning Classification. Under "Zoning:" on the coversheet add block 9 to the "Note:" and revise the second sentence to state, "Any remaining portions of Blocks 4 and 7 will be platted with Belvedere Phase 4A." or clarify why this modification would not be correct. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 24. [4.6.6, 4.12.6 & 14-302(A)(4)] Lot Access Requirements; Private easements. Provide a temporary grading & construction easement and deed of easement over TMP 06200-00-00-016DO for the proposed grading depicted on the plan. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 25. 14-302(A)(5)] Public Easements. Provide the easement and deed of easement for the water line that will extend into TMP 06200-00-00-016D0, just beyond the future connector road next to Lot 201, that is depicted on the road plan. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 26. [C.O.D. & 32.7.9.51 Landscaping Along Streets. Revise the landscape plan on Sheet No. 16 to provide the required street tree calculations to assure compliance with the C.O.D. and ordinance. In the calculations provide the amount of street frontage for all of the roads in the road plan and show that the minimum distance between street trees has been met. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The notes on the landscaping sheet do not appear to be complete and in some cases do not appear to be correct. Address the following: • In SUB2014-152 Belvedere Phase II Road Plans, on sheet 13, there are two notes (not numbered) to the right of the "Minimum Planting Requirements" from the Code of Development (COD) that are not shown on this road plan. Those notes are required. Add them to the road plan. These notes are in reference to yard planting requirements and are separate from those required for the street trees. • Note #3 on sheet #16 of this submission is incorrect. It appears that an effort was made to merge two different notes from a previous road plan into one note. However, those notes were addressing two different requirements. Refer to note #3 on sheet #13 of SUB2014-152 Belvedere Phase II Road Plans for the correct wording of this note. The street tree requirement is only 50' on center, not 40' on center as the current version of the note specifies. • At the end of Note #5, on sheet #16, tree pruning to the height of 6' at tree maturity is specified. However, in a boxed note a few inches below the notes a height of 8' is specified. These notes conflict with each other either must be made to agree or one of them must be removed. • There appears to be an opportunity for additional street tree in front of Lot 197, on the southeast side of Farrow Drive, and at the northwest end (on the right) of Fowler Street. There do not appear to be any limiting factors to placing trees in these locations. • Provide at least one street tree label for each block and on each side of the street. One label for all streets along the whole street, despite street intersections. is not sufficient. 27. [14-428] Dedication of streets. Provide the following note on the road plan: `All proposed public RAIV are hereby dedicated to Albemarle County for Public Use. " REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 28. [Comment] On the road plan provide the application number SUB2016-213. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 29, [Comment] Add a note to Sheet No. 16 that states "sight distance easements are dedicated to public use and shall be kept clear of visual obstructions, including but not limited to fences, structures, and landscaping". REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 30. [Comment] Provide stop signs at all intersections of alleys with roads/streets. This includes the existing portion of Phillips Alley where the existing stop sign may need to be relocation because of the proposed development. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Label the stop signs at Phillips Alley and Shelton Street, Fowler Street and Farrow Street, Barnett Street and Belvedere Blvd., Shelton Street and Belvedere Blvd., Cornelius Alley and Shelton Street, Cornelius Alley and Farrow Street. Also, it appears that stop signs are needed at Griffen Grove and Shelton Street as well as Shelton Street and Farrow Drive. 31. [COD] Include both the minimum and maximum Front Build -to From Street lines on all proposed lots. These can be represented as they were in the previously approved Road Plan SUB 2012-152 Belvedere Phase II Road Plans. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Provide the maximum Front Build -To From Street Lines for both road frontages on all corner lots. Lots 41, 42, 45, 46, 51, 52, 55, 56, and 202 are all corner lots that need the maximum Build -To From Street Line also shown on the second frontage. Also, ensure that the text masking does not block the visibility of the setback lines. There are some lots, such as Lot 39, that very likely have the Build -To lines included but they are not able to be seen because of the placement of the text boxes. 32. [Comment] For all street that are to have parking only on one side provide no parking signs for the other side of the street. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 33. [COD] The proposed retain wall, near the back of Lots 197 & 198 is three feet closer to the preservation area then shown in the approve Preliminary Subdivision Plat (SUB2016-119). Either relocate the wall further from the preservation area or demonstrate that the wall can be constructed without affecting the preservation area. REV. 1: Comment Addressed. 34. [NEW COMMENT - ZMA2004-71 Density. The addition of a single family detached (SFD) lot in Block 4 increases the proposed SFD for the Road Plan to 19 units. 14 SFD lots have previously been platted in Block 4. There is a maximum of 32 SFD for Block 4. The proposed 19 units would create a total of 33 SFD units in Block 4 which is not allowed within the C.O.D. Either reduce the number of proposed units back down to 18 or submit a variation request for a modification for the maximum number of lots in Block 4. Until a variation request is approved or the road plan is modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. this road plan will not be approved. 35. [NEW COMMENT - ZMA2004-71 Split zoning. The Lot labeled as "Lot 48" in this road plan is shown as being a split zoned lot. Staff strongly recommends against creating split zoned lots. It is recommended that the plan be modified to develop single zoned lots. "Lot 48" is split zoned in such a way that any building site is split almost in half. Because of this the plans and plat must demonstrate the proposed use, setbacks, and code of development standards can be met in each of the two districts for the lot created. The zoning, proposed use, and density data shown in the plans and plats must be updated to include this information for this one split zoned lot. 36. [NEW COMMENT! Revise the setbacks in the proposed Block 9 lots so that they are appropriate for widths and depths for the specific lot widths. Note that "Lot 196" appears to be over 60' in width while the other lots appear to be under 60' wide. Therefore they will have different setbacks. 37. [NEW COMMENT! Revise all street sections to ensure that the tree symbol is shown within the planting strip and not within the sidewalk. Three of the road sections in this submissions show trees in the wrong portion of the street section. 38. [NEW COMMENT! Provide the road and alley letters, from the Code of Development exhibits, in the labels for all of the street and alley sections. 39. [NEW COMMENT! The Impervious areas section of the cover sheet appears to have a math error. Correct this error. 40. [NEW COMMENT! On the coversheet, in the lower left hand corner, Note 4 states that the landscaping is to be done on the final site plan. There will not be any final site plan for these single family lots, and landscaping is not covered on a final subdivision plat. Therefore this note is incorrect and needs to be removed. 41. [NEW COMMENTI The "Total Acreage:" of the site and the "Acreages: Lots:" on the cover sheet Please contact Pat A in the Planning Division by using psatgrmye �albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 xt.3250 for fort e n eation.