Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201600007 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2018-04-16County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434-296-5832 Memorandum To: Justin Shimp (justin@shimp-en ing eerng coin) From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: Revised April 16, 2018 Apfil 12, Subiect: SDP201600007 Inglewood Terrace — Final Site Plan Fax 434-972-4126 The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] Conditions of Initial Plan Approval: 1. [Comment] This application was reviewed against Site Development Plan requirements only. Lot lines and a `private road' are shown on the plan, but no subdivision application, nor private road request, nor road plans have been submitted. Any subdivision related comments are provided for reference only unless necessary for site plan approval. Rev 3: A private road request was submitted and has been approved. 2. [4.6.1, 4.6.6, 32.7.2.1, 32.7.2.2, 32.5.2(m), 32.7.2.3, 14-207, 14-309] The private street serving the development is proposed within an existing publicly dedicated right-of-way, this is not approvable. VDOT never accepted the portion of the right-of-way labeled as `Unimproved Inglewood Drive' into the State Secondary System and the County still owns it. Either pursue vacation of the right of way pursuant to State Code 15.2-2272 prior to final site plan and/or final subdivision plat approval OR upgrade the existing roadway to meet current VDOT standards from the point where VDOT maintenance ends. This will include a suitable turn around at the end of state maintenance, removal of the existing parking area, continuation of curb and gutter, tie in of the existing driveway of TMP 061 KO-05-OD-00400, and the dedication of right-of-way or easements as necessary. Please show these improvements and easements or ri t-of- way_prior to final site plan and/ or subdivision plat approval. Rev 3: The applicant has chosen to develop the current proposal as a public street within the existing publically dedicated right-of-wav, which has been upgraded to meet VDOT standards and is to be accepted by VDOT into the State's Secondary Street System. On the private property the applicant is serving the development with a private street. The public road has an approved turn around and the private road has a fire truck pull off area. The comment has been addressed. 3. [Comment] Approval and recordation of a plat showing the vacation of the property line between TMP 61K-10-OA and TMP 61K-lO-OA2 is required prior to final site plan approval. Include the deed book/page reference number on the final site plan. It may be appropriate to combine all platting items on a single plat (if other items exist). Rev 3: Comment still relevant. Please resubmit the plat for review and approval prior to final site plan approval. 4. [Comment] VDOT approval of the proposed entrance to the site shall be required prior to final site plan approval. Rev 3: Comment still relevant. VDOT comments attached. 5. [14-412(A)(3), 14-412(A)(3)(b) and 14-412(B)] VDOT road standards apply to the proposed private street. Show the 24' required width FC/FC on the final site plan. Rev 2: The County Engineer may permit the width of the private street to be 20' FC/FC per design standards manual. Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(i), 15.2.1(3, 14-233(B)1, 14-2341 A private street request must be submitted prior to final subdivision plat approval. This private street request can be reviewed administratively due to the presence of attached dwellings. A maintenance agreement for the private street must be submitted for review and approval by the County Attorney's Office with the subdivision application. Rev 3: A private street request was submitted and has been approved by the Agent due to the presence of attached units. 7. [32.7.2.2, 14-410(H), 14-4221 Private Streets in the Development Area. In the development areas, streets shall be constructed with curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks and planting strips. Sidewalks and planting strips shall be designed and constructed in compliance with section 14-422 (Sidewalks and planting strips for street trees and other vegetation shall be established on both sides of each new street within a subdivision creating lots for single family detached and single family attached dwellings in the development areas) Revise to provide sidewalks and landscape strips on both sides of the new street. Otherwise submit variation or exception request pursuant to Section 14-422(F) & 14-203.1. This item shall be acted on prior to final subdivision plat and final site plan approval. Rev 3: The above sections of the subdivision ordinance were sited in error and have been determined not to apply to this development or the request; rather it has been determined that Section 32.3.5 permits variations and exceptions of the required improvements listed under Section 32.7.2.2, which utilize the private road standards in Chapter 14 but are not varied or excepted by Chapter 14. Because of this error the agent has chosen to utilize the exception requests and iustifications provided by the applicant and apply them to Section 32.3.5 to act on. Restating the request: The applicant has requested to provide sidewalks on one side of the roadway. The applicant has also requested to omit landscape strips on both sides of the roadway. Considerations and Finding: Based on the numerous varying design proposals that have been submitted by the applicant it should be noted that the applicant has chosen to develop the current proposal as a public street within the existing publically dedicated right-of-way, and develop a private street for the remainder. In considering the request the agent has examined the surrounding neighborhood, which is a historic neighborhood that was originally designed without sidewalks and landscape strips. As lots are redeveloped sidewalks are established along the frontage, void of landscape strips. Current VDOT standards do not require sidewalks and landscape strips on both sides of the public roadway. The agent finds there is an unusual situation involving the existing previously dedicated but not accepted 50' Public right-of-way that is acting as a constricting factor for the installation of the required improvements. Additionally, the current proposal is not served by a through street but rather a deadends street that serves 9 proposed units. Taking into consideration the above circumstances the agent approves the exception requests to permit sidewalks on one side of the roadway and omit landscape strips throughout, which will results in an improvement that substantially satisfies the overall purpose of the ordinance in a manner that equally meets the desired effect of the requirement. Additionally the improvement facilitates public safety, health, and welfare of residents in the neighborhood by providing enhanced pedestrian access from the units down the hill. As a condition of the approval for the exception to omit landscape strips, landscape easements shall be provided between the driveways on individual lots 1-3 to provide the required street trees, and all other requires street trees shall be planted within the open space areas adiacent to the right-of-way and in parking islands, as depicted on the plans. The comment has been addressed. 8. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.15(g)] Curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways. Either provide the required curb and gutters in the parking area or submit a request and justification for a modification/waiver under Section 4.12.2(C) & (C)2. This is an agent approved waiver which can only be acted on after consultation with the County Engineer, who shall advise whether the proposed waiver or modification would equally or better serve the public health, safety or welfare. This item shall be acted on prior to final subdivision plat and final site plan approval. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.16(c)] Minimum parking space sine. Are the 6'-wide parking spaces fronting Lots 4-9 for motorcycles/mopeds? If so, label the spaces as such. If not, on the plan label what they are being utilized for. These spaces shall not be counted towards the minimum required spaces. Final: Comment addressed. 10. [4.12.16(C)] The two proposed parking spaces fronting TMP 061KO-05-OD-00400 are required to be 18' in length. Currently they are depicted as 16' in length. Revise the final site plan accordingly. Final: Comment no longer relevant, plans were modified to omit these spaces. 11. [32.5.2(i)] Street trees shall be required for this development. Prior to final site plan approval a landscape plan shall be provided. Final: A landscape plan has been provided. Detailed landscape comments are provided below in "Additional Comments". 12. [32.5.2(i), 4.6.3, 15.2.1(3), 15.3] Setbacks. The setbacks throughout the plan are not accurately depicted. This development is classified as "infill development" pursuant to Section 4.19 of the County Code. The correct setbacks for this development are as follows. - Front Minimum — 30 foot Rear Minimum - 20 foot Side Minimum & Maximum — none Rev 2: On the plans clearly label, dimension, and depict the width and location of the proposed private street easement. The private street easement shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide to provide frontage for the all of the lots. Currently the easement necks down to 20 feet adjacent to Lots 4-9, this is not approvable. Increase the width of the easement to 30 feet in this area. This will not affect the setbacks for these lots because areas in parking bays shall not be considered as part of the private road for purposes of determining front yard setback as provided for in Sec 4.6.3(a) of County Code. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 13. [32.5.2(p] Per the June 19, 2015 letter by David L. Powell, Environmental Specialist, which was submitted to staff on October 29, 2015, the stream feature has been categorized as an Intermittent Stream. The study was reviewed by County Engineering staff and has been determined to be adequate. An adjacent property owner has contacted staff and expressed his concerns with this study and has opted to contract a stream categorization study of his own by a licensed professional. At the time of this approval letter the second study has not been provided. When the study is submitted it shall be considered and reviewed by County Engineering staff. If the second study contradicts the June 19t", 2015 study, the County Engineer will make a determination to classify the stream. Rev 2. Comment has been addressed. 14. [32.5.2(d), 32.5.2(f)] The 9' retaining wall is acting as a dam for the stream that may cause flooding on neighboring properties in the event of heavy rainfall. Have any studies been conducted to assess the max flow of this stream to assure that the 60" storm sewer pipe is adequate to avoid such flooding? If so, please provide copies of the study to myself and Engineering. This item may pose an issue for the development during the WPO plan review of the project. Please work with Engineering staff to address this concern prior to final site plan approval. Also, the `New 60" HDPE Storm Sewer' discharges water into the existing swale on TMP 61K-5-D-4. Will piping the water under the proposed buildings increase the velocity/flow of discharged water potentially increasing erosion on the neighboring property and/or impact properties downstream? During the WPO plan review and prior to final site plan approval please work with Engineering staff to address this concern. Rev 1: Plans have been revised to terrace the retaining wall into two separate 5' tall walls, and detention pipes. The WPO plan shall be approved prior to final site plan approval. The site plan shall reflect approved WPO. 15. [32.5.2(p) & 32.7.9.71 Screening. The proposed outfall of the stream shall be screened from the adjacent residential lots (TMP 061KO-05-OD-00400& 061KO-09-00-003130). Provide the required screening on the final site plan's landscape plan. Rev 1: The outfall will contain rip -rap and open pipe is not proposed. Based on this design screening is not needed. 16. [32.5.2(a), 15.4.1, 3.1] Maintenance of existing wooded areas. For the undisturbed areas to qualify for a 10% density bonus, demonstrate in an exhibit that the area meets the definition of "Wooded Areas" per section 3.1 of the ordinance. Provide the exhibit and a conservation plan as specified in section 32.7.9 prior to final site plan approval and/or final subdivision plat approval. Rev 3: Comment addressed. On the final subdivision plat, show the conservation area and provide the following note: "Lot acreages shown hereon were calculated under the Bonus Level Cluster development requirements. Lots shown hereon comply with section 15.4.1 "Environmental standards " by conserving acreage area that comprises % of the total area of the subdivided parcels. " Final: Item shall be addressed prior to final subdivision plat approval. 17. [32.5.2(a), 15.4.31 Affordable housing. Clearly identify the affordable unit on the final subdivision plat. Rev 2. Comment addressed (Lot 2). 3 18. [32.5.2(a), 15.5, 15.3, 4.71 Cluster Development. On the plan clearly distinguish what area is being counted towards the required Open Space B & C, and omit the square footage for the road and parking from the open space totals. Rev 1: It appears this development truly only contains 25,837 SF of open space (A, B, C, and D) which is to be maintained by the HOA. The plans have been revised to provide open space within residential lots, specifically 6,466 SF; however, this is not permitted. Revise to omit the 6,466 SF from the open space calculations. Rev 2. Comment addressed; however, there appears to be a residual note on sheet 1, which claims 33,692 SF of total parcel area in shared space. Omit this note. Rev 3. Comment addressed. On the final subdivision plat list who shall own and maintain the open space. An open space maintenance agreement approved by the County Attorney's office shall be required prior to final subdivision plat approval. Final: Shall be addressed on final subdivision plat. 19. [32.5.2(a), 15.5, 15.3, 4.71 Cluster Development. On sheet C1, under Impervious Area Schedule, 33,500 SF is listed under "Area in open space", however, on sheet C3 open space A-D add up to 27,676 SF. Correct and coordinate calculations throughout the plans. Rev 1: The plans have been revised to provide open space within residential lots, specifically 6,466 SF; however, this is not permitted, and this acreage shall not count towards the open space totals of the development. Revise the calculations on sheet 1 to only list open space that meets the definition of open space. Staff believes the true amount of open space for this development (A, B, C, and D) is 25,837 SF. Please confirm and revise the calculations on the plan. Rev 2. Comment addressed; however, there appears to be a residual note on sheet 1, which claims 33,692 SF of total parcel area in shared space. Omit this note. Rev 3. Comment addressed 20. [32.5.2(d)] Prior to final site plan approval provide a temporary grading and construction easement or license agreement for the installation of the proposed DI and New 15" HDPE Storm Sewer on TMP 061 KO-05-OC-01300. Also, revise the plan to provide this property owner's name and TMP. Final: Comment no longer relevant as there is no work proposed on adjoining neighbor's property; rather, the work will take place in the existing right-of- way. 21. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(n)] Dimensions. On the plan provide the dimensions of the proposed structures. Final: Comment addressed. 22. [Comment] On the plans provide the deed book page reference information for the existing 30' Joint Access Easement. Staff research determined that the maintenance agreement for this join access easement is DB 1654-291. Revise accordingly. Rev 1: Comment addressed. 23. [Comment] The adjacent property owner of TMP 061KO-10-00-OOOA1 has a portion of his existing driveway on land that is part of your development and property (TMP 061KO- 10-00-OOOA2). It appears that some grading is taking place on a portion of his driveway that is on your land. He has contacted County staff (Engineering and myself) and is very concerned with this aspect of the plans and does not want this to take place. It is recommended that you contact this citizen and try and work out this issue. I have his contact information and will provide it to you upon your request. Final: The developer has been made aware of this recommendation. 24. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan approval: - If lighting is proposed: Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17] Final: Comment addressed. No lighting proposed. - A landscape plan in accordance with [Sec. 32.7.9]. Final: A landscape plan has been provided. Detailed landscape comments are provided below in "Additional Comments". Additional Comments 1. [32.7.2.2, 14-410(H), 14-4221 Streets and Travelways. Each private street and travelway within a development shall be designed and constructed to the standards for private streets in chapter 14. Provide curb or curb and gutter, sidewalks and landscape strips on both sides of the new private road and the public road. Otherwise submit the applicable variation or exception request pursuant to Sections 14-410(I) and 14-422(F) and 14-203.1 for consideration. Rev 3: The above sections of the subdivision ordinance were sited in error and have been determined not to apply to this development or the request; rather it has been determined that Section 32.3.5 permits variations and exceptions of the required improvements listed under Section 32.7.2.2, which utilize the private road standards in Chapter 14 but are not varied or excepted by Chapter 14. Because of this error the agent has chosen to utilize the exception requests and iustifications provided by the applicant and apply them to Section 32.3.5 to act on. Restating the request: The applicant has requested to provide sidewalks on one side of the roadway. The applicant has also requested to omit landscape strips on both sides of the roadway. Considerations and Finding: Based on the numerous varying design proposals that have been submitted by the applicant it should be noted that the applicant has chosen to develop the current proposal as a public street within the existing publically dedicated right-of-way, and develop a private street for the remainder. In considering the request the agent has examined the surrounding neighborhood, which is a historic neighborhood that was oriOnall designed without sidewalks and landscape strips. As lots are redeveloped sidewalks are established along the frontage, void of landscape strips. Current VDOT standards do not require sidewalks and landscape strips on both sides of the public roadway. The agent finds there is an unusual situation involving the existing previously dedicated but not accepted 50' public right-of-way that is acting as a constricting factor for the installation of the required improvements. Additionally, the current proposal is not served by a through street but rather a deadends street that serves 9 proposed units. Taking into consideration the above circumstances the agent approves the exception requests to permit sidewalks on one side of the roadway and omit landscape strips throughout, which will results in an improvement that substantially satisfies the overall purpose of the ordinance in a manner that equally meets the desired effect of the requirement. Additionally the improvement facilitates public safety, health, and welfare of residents in the neighborhood by providing enhanced pedestrian access from the units down the hill. As a condition of the approval for the exception to omit landscape strips, landscape easements shall be provided between the driveways on individual lots 1-3 to provide the required street trees, and all other requires street trees shall be planted within the open space areas adiacent to the right-of-way and in parking islands, as depicted on the 1p ans. The comment has been addressed. 2. [14-403, 14-412] Lot frontage. Private street easements shall be a minimum of 30' wide to provide frontage for the proposed lots. Prior to final site plan and final subdivision plat approval revise the required easement. Rev 2: Comment still unresolved. On the plans clearly label, dimension, and depict the width and location of the proposed private street easement. The private street easement shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide to provide frontage for the all of the lots. Currently the easement necks down to 20 feet adiacent to Lots 4-9, this is not approvable. Increase the width of the easement to 30 feet in this area. This will not affect the setbacks for these lots because areas in narking bays shall not be considered as Part of the Private road for Purposes of determining front yard setback as Provided for in Sec 4.6.3(a) of County Code. Rev 3. Comment Addressed. 3. [Comment] Various pages throughout the site plan depict the existing asphalt parking fronting TMP 061KO-05-OD-00400 as remaining in the 50' public right-of-way; however, these spaces shall be removed unless VDOT approves their location on the road plan and is willing to maintain them. Rev 2. Comment addressed by removing these spaces. 4. [32.5.2(i)] Streets. Label the proposed extension of Inglewood Drive as "Public Road". Rev 2. Comment addressed. 5. [4.11.3, 4.11.41 Structures within easements. A portion of the rear deck for Lot 1 is within an existing 20' waterline easement. Either provide approval from the easement holder that the deck is permitted within the easement or revise the plan to take the deck completely out of the easement. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed improvements. How is daily household trash going to be disposed of for these units? Depict the location, dimensions, and screening of a dumpster for use by the residents. If each lot is going to have it's own trash container for curbside pickup, where are these containers going to be stored when not in use? If stored behind the lots how are the middle units going to gain access over surrounding lots? Provide a note on the plan. Rev 3. Comment Addressed. 6a. [4.12.19, 32.7.9.7(E)] Trash Enclosure. The minimum height of the wooden fence surrounding the trash enclosure shall be 6 feet tall. Currently it is 5 feet tall, revise. Rev 3. Comment Addressed. 6b. [4.12.19, 32.7.9.7(E)] Dumpster Enclosure. Will the trash enclosure house a dumpster or is it merely housing trashcans? If a dumpster is proposed, the concrete pad shall be extended 8 feet beyond the front of the dumpster. If it is merely for trashcans, what is proposed will suffice. Rev 3. Comment Addressed. 7. [32.7.9.41 Landscaping. Throughout the plan there are numerous conflicts between required landscaping and proposed/existing easements. - Four (4) Green Vase Zelkova street trees proposed within the 20' storm easement Rev 2. Comment no longer relevant, as Engineering does not anticipate these trees will effect the storm drainage pipe within the easement because they are far enough away as well as the type of tree being planted. - Three (3) Autumn Blaze Maple parking lot trees fronting Lots 7-9 proposed within 20' and 30' storm easements Rev 3. Comment addressed. - Two (2) Green Vase Zelkova street trees fronting Lots 1 and 2 overtop of the sewer line connections Rev 3. Comment addressed. Either revise the location of the proposed easements to avoid conflict with proposed plantings or revise the planting locations. If the plantings are to remain provide written documentation from the easement holders that they are permitted. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 8. [32.7.9.41 Landscaping. All required plantings located outside of the right-of-way on individual lots shall be within landscape easements which shall be depicted on the final subdivision plat and recorded with a maintenance agreement approved by the County. Rev 2. Comment partially addressed; however, these easements shall be extended to the private street easement or the private sidewalk/landscape easement to provide for access to maintain these street trees. Lots effected: Lots 1-3 and Lot 9. Rev 3. Comment Addressed. 9. [32.7.9.5(d), 15.4.1, 2.4.11 Location and spacing of street trees. The site is short two (2) of the required street trees. Based on the prevalence of easements these two (2) trees shall be located in either open space areas onsite or in the rear yards of Lots 1 - 6 within an easement. Rev 2. Comment not adequately addressed. The site is now short 3 street trees that the applicant is requesting to substitute with preserved trees; however, this is not acceptable to the agent as the site is already benefiting from tree preservation areas for a bonus density increase of 10%. Bonus factors shall not be permitted for any improvement or design feature already required by the ordinance. Thus the applicant needs to choose: do they want to use the preservation area these trees are located in towards bonus density increase of 10% or do they want to use this portion for street tree requirements. It is suggested that applicant provide the remaining 3 street trees within the public right-of-way or directly behind the 4 street trees within the storm drainage easement. Rev 3. Comment Addressed. 10. [32.7.9.6(b)] Landscaping within parking area. Swap out the plantings fronting Lots 7-9 from large shade trees to shrubs. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 11. [32.7.9.7(3)] Screening. Provide a single row of evergreen screening (trees or shrubs) at the base of all retaining walls on Lots 2-6. This screening will help reduce the visual impacts of these walls on the neighboring property. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 12. [32.7.9.5(c)] Minimum caliper of street trees. Correct the typographical error on sheet C6 under Required Street Tree from 1-1.5" to 1.5". Rev 1. Comment addressed. 13. [Design Standards Manual] For safety reasons provide a slightly opaque fence (minimum of 4' tall) atop the 5' retaining wall on Lot 2. Also, provide a typical detail. Provide guardrail or fencing atop the 9' tall retention wall adjacent to Lot 7. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 14. [Comment] Revise the title of the plan from SDP2015-20 to SDP2016-7. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 15. [Comment] The final site plan shall not be approved until all approvals are granted from various SRC reviewers. Rev 3. Comment still relevant. Additional Comments on Revision 16. [32.7.9.51 Street Trees. The revised measurement of road frontage (445 LF) is not correct and shall be revised to its previous measurement (765 LF). Assure you measure both sides of the existing and proposed street. Also revise the amount 2 of required street trees. Rev 2. Comment addressed, the new road frontage calculations (685' are correct). 17. [32.7.9.71 Screening. Evergreen trees for screening purposes shall be a minimum of 4' tall at the time of planting. In the landscape schedule provide their height at the time of planting. Rev 2. Comment addressed. Additional Comments based on plans submitted to the County on August 29, 2017 but dated August 8, 2017 1. [Pursuant to Conversations with Justin Shimp] Page C4 has an out of date note on it that reads "Unimproved Inglewood Drive 50' RIW to be vacated". Omit this note as it no longer represents what is being proposed. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 2. [Pursuant to Conversations with Justin Shimp] Page C3 "line hooks" for a possible R/W vacation are also out of date and shall be removed as it no longer represents what is being proposed. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 3. [Pursuant to Conversations with Justin Shimp] Throughout the plans, assure the road is labeled as public to the point it is proposed public. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 4. [4.12.16(C)] Minimum Parking Space Size. The carport/parking area fronting Lot 1 is not 18 feet long for the entire width of the carport; rather, where it is dimensioned it is the only portion that meets the 18 feet length. As you move towards the public road, it drops to 16 feet long. Revise to assure the entire carport is 18 feet long. Rev 3. Comment addressed. 5. [4.12.16(e)] Bumper Blocks. On the cover sheet provide a note that states: "The County Engineer has waived the requirement for bumper blocks for parking fronting Lots 4-9 as provided under Sec 4.12.16(e). " Rev 3. Note provided; however, Engineering is requesting bumper blocks in this location (see attached Engineering comments). 6. [32.5.2(i), 4.6.3, 15.2.1(3), 15.3, 4.19(6)] Setbacks. After re-examining the development proposal and the definitions of infill development, the setbacks for this development are truly non-infill by definition. Revise the setbacks listed on the cover sheet as follows, also correct the dimensions for the setbacks throughout the plan as follows: Front Minimum - 5 feet from right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside the right-of-way. Front Maximum - 25 feet from right-of-way or the exterior edge of the sidewalk if the sidewalk is outside the right-of-way. Rear Minimum - 20 feet Side Minimum & Maximum — none (see non-infill building separation) 10' Notably, all buildings meet these setbacks as currently laid out; however it's a matter of how you dimension and label them on the plans. When measuring the setbacks for lots 4-9 the setbacks shall be measured from behind the sidewalk thus it meets the minimum for these lots at 7'. Additionally, Lots 1-3 measure the setback from behind the sidewalks which appear to be 20'. Revise the labels. Staff has provided references to the County Code. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18, if the applicant fails to submit a revised plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter, then the application shall be deemed voluntarily withdrawn. Please contact Christopher Perez at the Division of Current Development at cperez@albemarle. org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3443 for further information.