Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200400007 Review Comments Waiver, variation or substitution requirement 2018-04-11Phone 434-296-5832 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Scott Collins (scott(c�-collins-engineering.com) From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: January 19, 2016 Rev. 1: June 16, 2017 Rev. 2: April 10, 2018 Subject: ZMA200400007 Belvedere Variation #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 Rev. 2: ZMA200400007 Belvedere Variation #53 #54 #55 & #57 Fax 434-972-4126 Five variation requests for Belvedere (ZMA 04-07) were submitted November 29, 2016 (dated November 22, 2016). We have determined that additional information is necessary for completion of our review. We have also identified design changes for some of the variations that will be necessary for our recommendation of approval of these requests to the Board of Supervisors. Variation #53, 54, 55, 56 & 57: General comment for all five variation requests 1. Exhibits must be submitted, as specified below, with each variation request to support the request and be utilized in any packet that may be forwarded to the Commission and/or Board for their review. These variation requests are linked to the previously approved rezoning ZMA2004-7 and are not associated with other previous submissions of plats or plans. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. See below for comments that still need to be addressed in reference to the exhibits for the specific variation requests. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. See below for comments that still need to be addressed in reference to the exhibits for the specific variation requests. 2. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 Provide a comment response letter with the next submission of each of the variation requests. Understanding how each comment has been addressed may aid in the review of the next submission. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Provide a comment response letter with the next resubmission of each of the variation requests. 3. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 Ensure the numbers and names of the exhibits aie correct after the exhibits are updated as specified below. Also, ensure they are updated in the variation request descriptions. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 4. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 Revise titles of the exhibits such that "existing" is not utilized for roads, parking, lots, etc. that do not yet exist. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Variation #53: Request to modify the maximum density within the development blocks 7 & 9. REV 2: Variation #53: Request to modify the maximum and minimum densities within the development blocks 4, 6, 7 & 9. 1. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and addressed. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and addressed. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and addressed. Additional information requested: 2. Provide an exhibit that shows in plan view the changes in park area, stormwater management area and area of development lots, from the approved ZMA application plan to the approved subdivision plats and plans. It would be helpful to note in the exhibit that those changes were allowed by the approval of Variation #45 (approved on October 3, 2012). Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: U11af lye Me LILle Un if U LIVIH yf aP llG eXf IUl1. IL IS nUL eMbLing anu Sf IUUIu ue laueleu a5 LIVIH Application Plan Open Space Exhibit". Rev. 2: Comment addressed. • Provide a legend within the graphic that associates the color and linetype to the specified Block area. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. • Rotate the view of the proposed exhibit such that it is 180 degrees from what was last submitted and so that it matched the orientation of the ZMA exhibit. The comparison between the two graphics is not clear when they are not oriented in the same direction. Rev. 2: Comment addressed • MEW COMMENTI — Rev.2: Ensure that the scale in the title block of the exhibits is correct for printing the exhibit on 8 1/2x11 paper. If not either change the scale to "NTS" or revise the scale of the drawing, and the scale in the title block, appropriately. General comments: 3. Note that this variation, if approved, would make the minimum and maximum number of residential lots in Block 9 twenty-three. In order to meet that number of residential lots in Block 9, because of the reduced development lot area that remains in the Block after the approval of Variation #45, Variation request #55 will have to be approved, reducing the minimum lot width of the lots in Block 9. If variation request #55 is not approved another variation, reducing the minimum number of residential units in Block 9, would be required because there is not sufficient linear frontage in the remainder of Block 9 to meet the minimum lot requirement in the current C.O.D (July 22, 2014). Rev. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Variation request #55 must be approved, reducing the minimum lot width of the lots in Block 9, before this variation can be approved. See explanation above. Rev. 2: Comment not vet addressed. Variation request #55 must be approved, reducing the minimum lot width of the lots in Block 9, before this variation can be approved. See explanation above. 4. NEW COMMENT - Rev. 11 Include in the exhibit packet the page from the Code of Development (C.O.D.) that was provided with the first submission of this variation request. The packet submitted should include all exhibits and graphics that are to be provided to the Commission and/or Board for their review. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 5. [NEW COMMENT - Rev. 11 It is noted that the applicant wishes to expand this variation request to include a change in the maximum residential densities for Block 4 & 6. Since that revision was submitted four weeks after the last resubmission (on 5/9/17) it has not be reviewed. The inclusion of Blocks 4 and 6 in this variation request will be reviewed with the next resubmission. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. A swap of carriage units was also included in the most recent submission. 6. [NEW COMMENT - Rev. 21 Revise the request letter so that the description of the two exhibits correctly describe those exhibits. Exhibit A shows the location for the storm water pond that was approved in the initial rezoning and shown on the application plan. It does not show the "existing location. Also, Exhibit B shows the existing location of the pond that was approved with Variation #45. It does not show a "new" location. Revise the statements to say something like, "The attached Exhibit A shows the location of the stormwater pond as approved in the Application Plan and Exhibit B shows the existing stormwater pond whose revised location was approve in Variation #45." Variation #54: Request to modify the preservation/conservation/open space areas within blocks 7 & 9. 1. Planning staff is unable to support this variation request as it has been presented. Address the following comments and then resubmit the variation request for review. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff is unable to support this variation request as it has been presented. Address the following comments and then resubmit the variation request for review. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff is unable to support this variation request as it has been presented. Address the following comments and then resubmit the variation request for review. 2. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 2:1 Note that with this third submission of the variation request significant changes were made to the supporting documents and the information supplied. Design guidance: 3. There appears to be an error in the math provided for the specified increase of open space in Blocks 7 and 9 of 1.03 acres. This does not appear to be correct. There appears to be only a difference of 0.11 acres between the combined "conservation area", "preservation area" and "other green space" as approved with the initial rezoning and that shown in the currently approved Code of Development (Initial ZMA: 0.73+1.2+1.9+0.5=4.33, Current C.O.D.: 0.73+1.2+0.75+1.76=4.44). That increases to 0.30 acres when "Block 9 preservation easements" are included (Initial ZMA: 4.33+0.07+0.63=5.03, Current C.O.D.:4.44+0.09+0.8=5.33). Clarify where the increase of 1.03 acres specified in your application for the special exception is found in the previously approved documents or revise the calculations. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • In the "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with Variation #54" it appears that three out of four of the "Total' calculations at the bottom of the chart appear to be incorrect. Revise the chart accordingly or clarify why these changes are not needed. See other comments below for which addressing them may further impact the totals. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The totals are now correct. However, they will need to be updated again once comments below have been addressed. I IIC L.UI ICLAIUII dUUVU VVIII la ldl IYU LI IC U I I MCI IL.0 UCLVVVUII LI IC UI IyII I d I LIVII-, UP U I I Z>PCI U dI I LI IC proposed change in open space with Variation #54. Revise the description accordingly, once all comments are addressed, or clarify why this change is not needed. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. It is noted that the 6/6/2017 versions of the variation request and Belvedere Phase IIB Road Plan, not being reviewed at this time, updated the proposed 0.05 acres of open space between lot 201 and Fowler Street to be "Conservation Area" and in the "Conservation Area" COLUMN of the "Proposed with Phase IIB" portion of the Table 4 comparison table. That is correct, however it also should not be in the "Block 9, Preservation Easement" ROW of the comparison chart. It should be in the "Conservation Area" ROW of the chart. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The value for the proposed 0.05 acres of open space adjacent to Lot 201 should be under the Conservation Area column but ALSO in the "Open Space Block 9" row and not the "Block 9, Preservation Easement" row. Address the following: o The cell for "Conservation Area" and "Open Space Block 9" should be a value of 0.05 acres. o The cell for "Conservation Area" and "Block 9, Preservation Easement' should be a value of 0.09 acres. 4. There is a portion of general open space within Block 9A, adjacent to a stormwater pond and behind lots 138, 139, and 140 that was designated as conservation area in the ZMA application plan. See the attached PDF for reference. A significant portion of the required 0.73 acres of conservation open space in Block 9 would be met and the issue with outstanding conservation area would be greatly reduced if this area is considered. If it is already platted as "conservation open space" it should be considered in your calculations. If it is not already platted as "conservation open space" specifying this area as an area of "missing" conservation open space in Block 9 and quantifying its size would aid in the justification for a variation of Block 9 Conservation open space in the C.O.D. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. Additional information requested: 5. ,rovide an exhibit showing and quantifying the area not previously captured as Block 9 conservation area that would have been in Block 9A. Rev. 1: Comment Addressed. 6. Provide a plan view exhibit that shows the changes in open space and development lots, from the approved ZMA application plan to the approved subdivision plats and plans for Blocks 7 & 9. Quantify these changes including designations of conservation, preservation and preservation easements. Include information on how those changes were allowed by the approval of Variation #45 (approved on October 3, 2012) and how that impacted the area of conservation open space in Block 9 now able to be platted in the latest subdivision plats. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed: Address the following: • Rotate the view of the proposed exhibit such that it is 180 degrees from what was last submitted and so that it matched the orientation of the ZMA exhibit. The comparison between the two graphics is not clear when they are not oriented in the same direction. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. • The color and hatch of the proposed open between lot 201 and Fowler Street does not match those of either "conservation area" or the `open space" for Block 9. Ensure that the hatch and color of the hatch for this area is correct for the exhibit. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: o The hatch for the 0.50 Open Space next to Lot 201 does not match those of the other "Conservation Area" open spaces. Revise the hatch to show the space as "Conservation Area". o The label for the 0.50 Open Space next to Lot 201 does not match those of the other "Conservation Area" open spaces. Revise the label to show the space as "Conservation Area". • Provide a legend within the graphic that associates the color and linetype to the specified Block area. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: o Revise the legend to not include "Modification" in the label for each hatched area type. They should be labeled as "Preservation Area", "Conservation Area" and "Open Space Area". o The color and hatch shown in the legend for "Conservation Area" does not match the color and hatch of the "Conservation Areas" shown in the graphic. Either revise the legend or revise the hatching and color in the graphic so that they match. • Ensure inai ine iaoeis Tor MOCKS i & y are easy To reaa. in ine original z-MA grapnic ine iaoeis Tor these two blocks are not obvious. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. 7. Provide a chart with all previously platted open space in Belvedere, the proposed open spaces with Belvedere Phase IIB, and the totals for each open space type. This chart should show that with the changes specified in this variation request that all of the open space requirements, up to and including Block 9, will be met. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • In the second to the last paragraph in the variation request description it states "The proposed development updates many of the open space/conservation areas to preservation areas". It appears that the open space/conservation areas are not being changed to preservation areas but to general open space areas. Either revise the description to accurately state the change or discuss this with the plan reviewer to clarify why it is correct. • No information has been provided for "Park `A"', "Block 1", "Open Space Block 2" or "Block 2, Commons and Greenway" in the chart. Block 2 is almost fully built out and it appears most if not all of open space areas should have already been designated in a site plan if not platted. It appears that the development lot in Block 1 does not include any ZMA Application Plan specified open space and therefore all of the Block 1 open space should also have already been separated from the development portion of the block. Include platted information on open spaces for all blocks 1 through 9. If some areas have been designated on an approved site plan but not separately platted then also provide information on those areas. Until there is a whole picture of the open spaces for Blocks 1 through 9 it will be hard to understand the total impact of this change combined with the changes in the previous Blocks. If there is more open space platted or designated than is required in the C.O.D. then staff may be able to support this variation for Block 9 open space. If the C.O.D. requirements have not been met for Blocks 1 through 9 then an amendment to the ZMA may be required and not a variation in order to request a decrease in open space. Rev. 2: Comments not addressed. Address the following: • The chart was removed from the submission and is no longer provided. See comment #13 below for information on the need for this chart and for the information it needs to include. • With the inclusion of Block 10 it will be important to revised an existing issue with Table 4 in the C.O.D. Linear Park `K' is specified as being in Block 10. However, it is actually at the bottom of Block 8. Therefore, in order to not be required to provide that open space with Block 10 revise Table 4 to correctly specify that park as residing in Block 8. Please also move the row for that open space up in the chart to be under Park `H', which is also Block 8. • Include the change specified above in the variation description. General comments: 8. The variation request specifies a Linear Park "I". There does not appear to be a Linear Park "I". There is a Linear Park "J" but it does not appear to be part of the 1.2 Preservation Area in Block 9. Although Table 4 Green Space Tabulation lists Linear Park "J" as being in both Blocks 9&10 the description of Linear Park "J" on page 13 only mentions that it "Includes the Conservation area of steep bluffs and existing woodlands on the south side of the Block 10." Block 9 is not mentioned in the description. Also, the ZMA application plan only labels Linear Park "J" in Block 10. The requirement for all of the 5.35 acres of Linear Park "J" will need to be addressed in Block 10. Therefore, the listing of Block Location for Linear Park "J" appears to be an error and the proposed changes to Table 4 Green Space Tabulation should include a listing of only Block 10 for the location of Linear Park "J". Revise the "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with variation #54" so that only Block 10 is specified for Linear Park "J" and update the variation request to not address Linear Park "J" in Block 9. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Although the proposed open space table has been revised to not include Block 9 in "Linear Park `J"' no mention of the change has been made in the description. Include this change in the list of changes in the description for the variation and explain why it is being requested. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Although the proposed open space table has been revised to not include Block 9 in "Linear Park `J"' no mention of the change has been made in the description. Include this change in the list of changes in the description for the variation and explain why it is being requested. 9. Ensure that the areas shown in "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with variation #54" is correctly tabulated and that the areas specified for Block 9 will be able to be met with the Phase IIB subdivision plat and road plan. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • See Rev. 1: comment for #6 above. • See Rev. 1: comment for #2 above. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • See Rev. 1: comment for #7 above. • See Rev. 1: comment for #3 above. 10. After addressing the comments above submit an updated variation request with the updated charts and the additional information specified above. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. After addressing the comments above submit an updated variation request, and/or if needed and desired a ZMA Amendment, with the updated charts and the additional information specified above_ Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. After addressing the comments submit an updated variation request, and/or if needed and desired a ZMA Amendment, with the updated charts and the additional information specified above. 11. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 A ZMA Amendment may be required for the open space changes currently being requested. Variations cannot address reductions in either the overall "Total Green" area of Belvedere or a reduction to the "Total Preservation Area" for Belvedere. On a case by case basis staff MAY be able to support a variation request that would reduce the "Total Conservation Area" of Belvedere if that space is shifted to one of the other categories AND if staff agrees that the intent of the open space affected is being met (see comment below). This most recent submission is requesting both a reduction in the "Total Green" area and the "Total Preservation" area for Belvedere which can only be accomplished through a ZMA Amendment. If the applicant is wishes to specify that additional open space is to be added to Block 10 in order to make up the difference, as mentioned on page 2 of the description then they much specify those area, update the description, and update the proposed tables and graphic to show that addition. Once such revisions are made staff can then review them in order to see if they are able to support the variation request. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Additional Preservation and Conservation open space is now being shown to be provided in Block 10. This MAY be acceptable to staff in order to compensate for Preservation and Conservation areas that were not provided in previous site plans and subdivision plats. However, there are additional areas and concerns that need to be addressed before this can be considered. Address the following: • The "Rivanna River Bottom Land" is also part of the Block 10 open space areas. Since Block 10 open spaces area being revised these 41.85 acres must be also be shown graphically and ensure that none of the land being used for other Block 10 Open Space will reduce the available Rivanna River Bottomland to meet this requirement. Either provide an additional exhibit showing this area or expand one of the existing exhibits to also show this area. • Clearly label the park letter for, the size of, and delineate the extents for, all open space areas in Block 10. Address the following: o Park L is not labeled and no size is specified for it. Label the open space and specify its size. o Park M is not shown at all on the exhibit. Show Park M on the exhibit, label it with its letter and size. o An open space, that connects the extension of Road D and Linear Park J in the vicinity of Park L, has not been provided. This open space is required as an amenity as it is part of the trail system. o Linear Park J is not sufficiently wide for a portion of its length. In the ZMA Application Plan it appears that Linear Park J is a minimum of 50' in width for its length except at a pinch point at the beginning of the trail. Exhibit E appears to show the park width as skinny as 20' in a portion that may be as much as 400' long. Increase its width of the linear park too allow sufficient room for the trail, to retain existing trees and vegetation and to differentiate the trail from the back yards of the adjoining SFD lots. Provide a minimum width dimension for its thinnest portion. o Each area of Conservation Area and Preservation Area within Block 10 must show their individual acreages. o Show the dividing lines between Linear Park J and the other Conservation Areas in Block 10. o Ensure that when the "Rivanna River Bottom Land" is shown/provided (see above) that there is a clear delineation line between that area and the other open space areas of Block 10. • The previous Blocks 3, 4, 5, 6 platted open spaces are no longer being provided in a chart. Since a deficit in open space was shown to exist as of 8/30/07 for those blocks (see page 16 of the C.O.D.), and with Variation #13 it was specified that those deficits would be made up for in Phase 2 of the Belvedere development, they must be made up with either this variation (and Block 10) or with open space in Block 8. If Block 8 is to makeup any of the deficit it will need to be included in this variation, showing an increase in its required open space areas shown in Table 4 Green Space Tabulation. 12. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 Specify in the variation request description the change of the 0.43 acres of "conservation area" in Block 9A to general "other green space". Although this area is shown in the ZMA Application Plan and proposed exhibits, and labeled with this change, no mention is specifically made in the variation request description. Although staff has stated in the review of the Phase IIB Road Plan that they could support such a change, because it was just not platted correctly as "conservation area" in Phase I even though its use appears to meet the original intent, this change must be approved as part of the variation in order to be allowed. This specific example of area not platted as "conservation area" is PART of the justification for the reduction it "Total Conservation Area" for Belvedere. Rev. 2: Comment sufficiently addressed. 13. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 Revise the area of the Table 4 comparison chart for "Difference from Rezoning — Through Variation #54" to include the areas proposed with Phase IIB. The difference from the rezoning for all of Block 1-9 must meet or exceed those specified in the ZMA, unless as mentioned above the applicant chooses to include and increase the Block 10 open space areas in the variation request in order to avoid the need for an Amendment to the ZMA. In that case Blocks 1-10 will need to meet or exceed those totals. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Even though Block 10 is now being utilized to make up for missing preen space the Table 4 comparison chart is still required. The previous Blocks 3, 4, 5, 6 platted open spaces are no longer being provided in a chart. Now that Block 10 is being utilized to make up missing open space staff MAY be able to allow the chart to not include the platted open spaces for Blocks 1 & 2. However, since a deficit in open space was shown to exist as of 8/30/07 for those blocks (see page 16 of the C.O.D.), and with Variation #13 it was specified that those deficits would be made up for in Phase 2 of the Belvedere development, the deficit shown in the previous submission of the Table 4 comparison chart must be made up with either this variation. Resubmit an updated version of the Table 4 comparison chart that addresses these issues and now includes Block 10 and the Rivanna River Bottomland that is supposed to be part of Block 10. 14. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 Double check and revise all calculations in the charts to ensure that they have been updated for all needed changes, are totaling correctly, and meet or exceed values approved with the ZMA. Rev. 2: Comment not addressed. Prior to resubmittal of the charts double check and revise all calculations in the charts to ensure that they have been updated for all needed changes, are totaling correctly, and meet or exceed values approved with the ZMA. 15. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 At the end of paragraph on Park `G', near the end of the first page, the last sentence does not appear to be correct. It states, "... the remaining open space as moved to Block 9 for a stormwater management facility that captures the entire drainage area of the Belvedere development." Reword this sentence to specify what portion of the Belvedere development drains to this stormwater pond or to not specify the area of the drainage going to the pond. The whole development does not drain to it. rev. 2: Comment no longer needed since that section of the description no longer exists. 16. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 1:1 Variation requests #53 (moving one lot from Block 9 to Block 7) and #55 (reducing the minimum lot width in Block 9) must be approved in order for the proposed Block 9 open space specified to be possible. Therefore those two variations must be approved before this variation can be approved as currently submitted. Rev. 2: Comment still valid. Read comment in reference to interdependence of variation request. 17. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 2:1 With the inclusion of Block 10 there appears to be some inconsistency at the intersection of Fowler Street and Farrow Drive. Address the following: • Ensure that NMD zoning line is accurately drawn. It does not appear to agree with either the location on the online GIS or what has been shown in previous site plans and subdivision plats. The recent submission of Belvedere Phase IVA Initial Site Plan shows a clear delineation between the townhome lots for that submission and the NMD zoning line. That submission does not appear to agree with the submitted graphic in Exhibit E. • Area outside of the NMD are should not be shown to be the provided and required opens space areas for Belvedere NMD. • Avoid split zoned lots. • The ZMA Application Plan shows the Conservation Open Space extending to Fowler Street Road J . 18. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 2:1 Because of the proposed reduction in width of the conservation open space adjacent to Lot 201, if this variation is approved, screening and buffering landscaping will be required within that open space. The goal of the landscaping will be to accomplish the purpose of the open space within a smaller area then was envisioned in the ZMA Application Plan. Variation #55: Request to modify the Minimum lot frontage for Block 9 residential units. 1. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and addressed. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and addressed. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Planning staff will be able to support this variation request once the following items are provided and addressed. Additional information requested: 2. -rovide a plan view that labels each lot that will be impacted by this proposed modification to the C.O.D. and dimensions the proposed reduced frontages for each lot. Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: • It appears that the wrong road is specified in the variation request description. The future connection to TMP 62-16D is not Shelton Drive, it is Fowler Street. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. • Since TMP 62-16D is mentioned in the variation request description a label for that parcel should be included in the graphics/exhibits ArM iahPls for TMP 62-16D to any graphics/exhibits that show that parcel. Rev. 2: Comment addressec 3. Provide the proposed wording for the change in the C.O.D (Page 8). Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The variation request description and exhibit do not match the wording proposed for the C.O.D. The wording of proposed C.O.D. section would change the allowed minimum frontage for ALL Block 9 lots, but since lots 197, 198, 199, 200 & 201 have not yet been platted those are the lots for which it will be able to be immediately applied. Also, the Belvedere Phase IIB Road Plan (SUB2016-213) resubmitted on 6/6/2017 shows all five lots (Lots 197-201) as being less than 60' in width and not just the four shown in the Variation #55 exhibit dated April 3, 2017. Address the following: • Upaate the variation request aescription to specify that the change is to the t91OCK Y minimum lot width and could be applied to all Block 9 lots but that only five lots remain to be subdivided. Rev. 2: Comment addressed. • Revise the exhibit to show all five lots (197-201) as impacted by the requested change in the C.O.D. and provide dimensions of the lot width on all five lots. If the Belvedere Phase IIB Road Plan (SUB2016-213) resubmitted on 6/6/2017 is what is currently proposed ensure that the exhibit represent the same lot widths. Rev. 2: Revise the lot width labels/dimensions to state "55' Min." and not "57'+/-" • Revise the title of the Variation #55 exhibit to specify "Variation #55 — Exhibit 5 - Block 9 lots not yet subdivided". Rev. 2: Comment addressed. • Revise the proposed Variation #55 addition to the C.O.D. so that it states. "Revise the minimum lot frontage for Block 9 residential lots, reducing the minimum from 60'+ to 55'+." Rev. 2: Comment addressed. Rev. 2 - NOTE: Variation #56 has been withdrawn from review by applicant. See previous comments for reference to what was requested and the comments. Rev. 2 - NOTE: Variation #57 is no longer needed because of the applicant withdrawing the request for reduced parking on Roads H & I. See previous comments for reference to what was requested and the comments. An updated Code of Development and Application Plan reflecting all variations approved since July 22, 2014 (the latest Code revision date) comprehensively will be required prior to Final Plat approval if the variations are approved by the Board of Supervisors. Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternyeCq�-albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for further information.