Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA200400007 Review Comments Waiver, variation or substitution requirement 2018-06-08 1 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126 Memorandum To: Scott Collins (scott@collins-engineering.com) From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: January 19, 2016 Rev. 1: June 16, 2017 Rev. 2: April 10, 2018 Rev. 3: June 8, 2018 Subject: ZMA200400007 Belvedere Variation #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 Rev. 2: ZMA200400007 Belvedere Variation #53 #54 #55 & #57 Rev. 3: ZMA200400007 Belvedere Variation #53 #54 & #55 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 Rev. 3: Variation #53, 54, & 55: 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. Rev. 3: 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:] 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. Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. Provide a comment response letter, with the responses numbered based on the numbering of this comment letter, with the next resubmission of each of the variation requests. Please note that additional designations have been added, in place of bullets, for items still needing to be addressed in order to allow for the comment response letter to be clearly numbered. 2 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: a) [NEW COMMENT] – 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 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 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. 3: 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. 6. [NEW COMMENT - Rev. 2] 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.” Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 3 Variation #54: Request to modify the preservation/conservation/open space areas within blocks 7 & 9. Rev. 3: Variation #54: Request to modify the preservation/conservation/open space areas within blocks 7, 9 & 10. 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. Rev. 3: 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:] Note that with this third submission of the variation request significant changes were made to the supporting documents and the information supplied. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 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: a) 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 may need to be updated again once comments below have been addressed. b) 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 4 Additional information requested: 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: a) 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: i. 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”. ii. 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”. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. b) 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: i. 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”. ii. 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. Rev. 3: 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: a) 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. b) 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: a) 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. Chart has been added. Specific comments on chart will be addressed in comment #13. 5 b) 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. c) Include the change specified above in the variation description. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 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: a) See Rev. 1: comment for #6 above. b) See Rev. 1: comment for #2 above. Rev. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) See Rev. 1: comment for #7 above. b) See Rev. 1: comment for #3 above. Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) See Rev. 1: comment for #3 above. b) See Rev. 1: comment for #13 below. 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. Rev. 3: 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. 6 11. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 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: a) 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. Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. The “Rivanna River Bottom Land” has been shown in “Exhibit F”. However addressed the following: i. Remove the line dividing the proposed Greenway area from the rest of the “Rivanna River bottom Land”. ii. What appears to be the future Greenway parcel is hatched and colored as if it is “Preservation Area” instead of “Conservation Area”. Revise the exhibit to show it as the correct type of open space, as it is specified to be “Conservation Area” in the C.O.D. b) Clearly label the park letter for, the size of, and delineate the extents for, all open space areas in Block 10. Address the following: i. Park L is not labeled and no size is specified for it. Label the open space and specify its size. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. ii. Park M is not shown at all on the exhibit. Show Park M on the exhibit, label it with its letter and size. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. iii. 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. iv. 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. v. Each area of Conservation Area and Preservation Area within Block 10 must show their individual acreages. Rev. 3: Comment withdrawn. vi. Show the dividing lines between Linear Park J and the other Conservation Areas in Block 10. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 7 vii. 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. c) 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 make up 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. Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. See comment #13 below. 13. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 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 green 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. Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following items: a) The chart shown shows a negative tally of open space (far bottom right of the chart). Therefore the chart appears to show that the requirements of the Code of Development are not being met. Revise the table so that it show at least the minimum required open space is being provided. b) The column title “Proposed with Phase IIB” should be revised to say “Proposed with Phase IIB and Variation Request”. c) The areas of the proposed open spaces for both Block 10 and the River Bottom Land should be shown in the “Proposed with Phase IIB and Variation Request” and the “Difference from Rezoning – Through Variation #54” columns. d) Revise the information in the “Platted” columns for Blocks 1 & 2 to address the following: i. The Block 1 Open Space of 0.4 has no data in the “Platted” or “Difference From Rezoning – Through Variation #54” columns. This information appears to be provided on Deed Book 3543 Page 225 (Sheet 3 of 11 and page 14 of the PDF). Add the information from the plat to the table and tally it in the “Difference from Rezoning – Through Variation #54” columns. ii. The Deed Book and Page number provided under the “Platted” column for Park “A” does not appear to be correct. It is not a plat and it does not appear to be for the same parcel. Provide the correct information in the chart and ensure that the areas provided for that park are accurate. Revise the “Difference from Rezoning – Through Variation #54” columns as needed. iii. In the “Platted” columns provide the Deed Book and Page number for the recorded subdivision plat, or where not separately platted the County’s SDP number, for the document that created the “Open Space Block 2” areas. Also, ensure that the areas values specified in the “Platted” columns are accurate and they are tallied correctly in the “Difference from Rezoning – Through Variation #54” columns. iv. In the “Platted” columns provide the Deed Book and Page number for the recorded subdivision plat, or where not separately platted the County’s SDP number, for the document that created the “Block 2, Commons and Greenway” areas. Also, ensure that the areas values specified in the “Platted” columns are accurate and they are tallied correctly in the “Difference from Rezoning – Through Variation #54” columns. 8 v. Please note that Block 8 is not being considered at this time. Therefore, all of Block 8’s open space will have to be provided through its site plan and/or subdivision plat processes. e) If you need assistance in finding any approved site plan or subdivision plat our records management department can be of assistance. All recorded plats however should be acquired from the County Circuit Court Clerk’s office. 14. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 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. Rev. 3: 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. 16. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 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. Rev. 3: Comment still valid. Read comment in reference to interdependence of variation request. 17. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 2:] With the inclusion of Block 10 there appears to be some inconsistency at the intersection of Fowler Street and Farrow Drive. Address the following: a) 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. Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. Although the NMD line has been modified in this last submission the issue with the location of the NMD line must be finalized before the variation request can be supported by staff and it is ensured that all of requirements of the ZMA C.O.D. and Application Plan will be met with the variation based on the finalized NMD line location as discussed in our meeting on 6/7/18. Once the NMD line location is finalized staff will contact you about accessing the updated GIS information. Prior to resubmission please send a PDF showing the proposed Open Space areas, based on the updated NMD line, so that staff can confirm that the Conservation, Preservation and General Open Space are in the correct location. b) Area outside of the NMD are should not be shown to be the provided and required opens space areas for Belvedere NMD. Rev. 3: Comment not fully addressed. This comment will be reevaluated once Zoning has decided is the NMD needs to be modified. See other comments. c) Avoid split zoned lots. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. However, please note that it is possible to create split zoned properties, under certain circumstances. In order to avoid complication with zoning and building setbacks it is best to avoid split zoned parcels if possible. d) The ZMA Application Plan shows the Conservation Open Space extending to Fowler Street (Road J). Rev. 3: Comment addressed. 9 18. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 2:] 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. Rev. 3: Comment to be addressed in conditions of approval if the variation request is approved. Applicant has included in variation request letter that, “Note with the approval of this variation, the 0.05 acres of Conservation area within Block 9 Open Space will be landscaped to meet the requirements of a screening and buffering landscaped open space area, in accordance with Albemarle County Regulations.” The condition of approval that will be drafted for any staff report will include that the screening that is to be provided must be “F approved by the Zoning Administrator.” 19. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 3:] Revise the Preservation Areas and Conservation Areas on Exhibit D to designate the open space areas correctly. There are multiple location on Exhibit D that do not appear to accurately represent the boundaries of the preservation and conservation areas as they were shown in the ZMA Application Plan. Refer back to the ZMA Application Plan Exhibit 5C and work with the planning reviewer to more accurately represent these areas on the exhibit. 20. [NEW COMMENT Rev. 3:] Revise Exhibit E to show the preserved slopes. Ensure that the proposed layout creates a building site on each parcel. Refer to the County’s Steeps Slopes Overlay District regulations. 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. Rev. 3: Comment addressed. Planning staff will be able to support this variation. Additional information requested: 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: · 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’+/-“ Rev. 3: 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 psaternye@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for further information.