Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB201600213 Review Comments Road Plan and Comps. 2018-09-12Phone 434-296-5832 � OE ALgx,, `IRGINZP County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Memorandum To: Bobby Jocz REV. 3: David James From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: January 6, 2017 (revised) REV. 1: May 22, 2017 REV. 2: July 20, 2017 REV. 3: September 12, 2018 Subject: SUB201600213 Belvedere Phase IIB - Road Plans Fax 434-972-4126 The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the road plans referenced above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 2. [COD] Provide information and details on how the landscaping requirements for the two open spaces on the corners next the Village Green, will be met. The description of Block 4 green space, on page 12 of the C.O.D., specifies "intensive landscape amenities" for these "edges". REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: g) In the plant schedule no size is specified for the Nikko Blue French Hydrangeas. Include the plant size for the hydrangeas in the plant schedule. REV. 2: Comment not addressed. Provide plant size at time of planting on all plants in all plant schedules. Both Nikko Blue French Hydrangea and Snowmound Spirea do not have sizes specified. The plant size for the small pocket parks are necessary for bonding purposes. REV. 3: Comment addressed. 3. [COD] The format and extents of the content of the table provided on the cover sheet for Belvedere Residential Densities does not match those shown on the previous subdivision plats such as SUB2014-178. Revise the table to be the same format as the two tables shown on Sheet No. V2 of SUB2014-178 but updated to be current and include the proposed development. Both "Tables 1 & 2: Comparison with Approve Rezoning" should be provided and not combined into one table with reduced content as shown on the current submission of the Road Plan. The maximum number of residential lots in Block 7 does not match those shown in the C.O.D. but a variation requested (#53) has been submitted and is under review. Either the requested variation will need to be approved or the road plan modified to match the residential densities specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: f) The proposed single family detached unit count for Block 4 in the "Belvedere Phase IIB Proposed" portion of the residential density chart should be 19 and not 18 because of the added "Lot 48" in this revision of the road plan. This change will also impact the total at the bottom of this column. Note additional comments on 19 additional units in Block 4 not being allowed in the C.O.D. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The chart has been updated for the 19 units. However, see other comments in reference to the 19 units being beyond the maximum in the C.O.D. for Block 4. The modification to the chart, under "Approved Rezoning", for the 19 units in Block 4 will not be correct unless variation request #53 is approved for this change in the C.O.D. j) Once all of the comments area addressed above check and update all the values within the "Total Platted/Proposed" portion of the chart, including the totals at the bottom. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The "Total Platted/Proposed" for Block 7 has not been updated to carry the changes through the chart. Revise the "Total", "Min." and "Max." values in "Total Platted/Proposed" for Block 7 for each of "Phase 2A-1", "Phase 2A-2" & "Phase 213". The values for "Phase 2A-l" are missing, "Phase 2A-2" are missing & "Phase 2B" are incorrect. 1) Variation request #53 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #53 is under review and awaiting resubmittal. Either the variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved. m) [REV. 2: NEW COMMENT] Provide a title for the last columns of the density cart. Maybe "Remainder". n) FREV. 2: NEW COMMENT] The "Total" "Min." in the "Remainder" portion of the chart should be the following because they have met their minimum or the minimum was zero: i. Block 1 = 0 ii. Block 2 = 0 o) FREV. 2: NEW COMMENT] It appears that Block 6 has not yet met the minimum number of carriage house units. Please specify if there is still a remaining undeveloped lot in Block 6. p) FREV. 2: NEW COMMENT] Blocks 4 & 7 have a range of Carriage House Units that are allowed. The minimums required for each of the blocks must be met. If you know how many will be built then fill in the "remainder portion of the chart appropriately. If it is uncertain at this time whether any Carriage House Units above the minimum will be built then for Blocks 4 & 7, in the "Remainder" portion of the chart, under "Carriage House Unit" "Max" and "Total" "Max" put "TBD" q) FREV. 2: NEW COMMENT] For Block 8, in the "Remainder" portion of the chart, under "Total" "Min" it should specify "42" and not "63" since the minimum for "SFA/TH" is zero. r) FREV. 2: NEW COMMENT] In the "Total Platted/Proposed" section of the chart, under the "Total" "Max." column, the total at the very bottom is incorrect. It shows "702" and it appears it should be "620". REV. 3: Comment not addressed but will be withdrawn (see comment #47). IMPORTANT: The chart has not been revised to address these comments and it has ALSO not been revised to match the most current version of the charts submitted with the variation request. However it will be withdrawn for this Road Plan with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. [COD] This road plan exceeds the maximum approvable number of lots in Block 7; this plat brings the total number of Block 7 lots to 36. The COD maximum is 34. A variation request has been submitted for a modification in maximum number of lots in Block 7. Until variation request #53 is approved or the road plan is modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. this road plan will not be approved. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #53 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #53 is under review and awaiting resubmission. Either the variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved. REV. 3: Comment not vet addressed but will be withdrawn (see comment #47). IMPORTANT: However it will be withdrawn for this Road Plan with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. 5. [14-302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved/green space and amenities (Table 4). Provide a table that includes all of the information from Table 4 Green Space Tabulation in the most recent Code of Development (As Revised: July 22, 2014), as the `Approved with Rezoning', and that also specifies what has already been provided & platted, what is proposed with Phase IIB, the difference from the rezoning, and totals for all of Belvedere. Provide the deed book and page number for the open spaces provide and platted. Refer to SUB201400178 Belvedere Phase IIA-2 Final Subdivision Plat, Sheet No. V1, for an example. The total Open Space number provided on the current submission of the Road Plan does not match what is shown in the C.O.D. A variation request (#54) has been submitted to modify Table 4 Green Space Tabulation and is currently under review. Either the requested variation will need to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) The "Platted" "Other Green Space" for block 9 is 0.43 ACs more than shown in SUB2014-178. However, that appears to have been an oversite in the chart for SUB2014-178, since an open space of that size does exist in Block 9A and the area of 18,892 SF (0.43 AC) is shown in the plat recorded as Deed Book 3545 Page 1. Therefore this change is accepted. However, a note should be added below the chart in the subdivision plan that specifies where that additional 0.43 AC came from. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. A note has been added. However, edit the note to also include the mention of SUB2014-88, which is the project number for the Phase IIA-1 recorded plat. b) Variation request #54 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #54 is under review and awaiting resubmission. Either the variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 3: Comment not addressed but will be withdrawn (see comment #47). IMPORTANT: The chart has not been revised to address these comments and it has ALSO not been revised to match the most current version of the charts submitted with the variation request. However it will be withdrawn for this Road Plan with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. 7. 114-302(A)14 & COD] Land to be dedicated in fee or reserved/green space and amenities (Table 4). The conservation area shown on the Application Plan in Block 9 is specified in the C.O.D. to be a minimum of 0.73 acres. A variation has been requested (#54) that would modify the minimum required area. Either the requested variation will need to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: b) Variation request #54 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 2: Comment not fully Addressed. Variation request #54 is under review is awaiting resubmission. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved or the road plan modified to match the open spaces specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be able to be approved. REV. 3: Comment not addressed but will be withdrawn (see comment #47). IMPORTANT: The chart has not been revised to address these comments and it has ALSO not been revised to match the most current version of the charts submitted with the variation request. However it will be withdrawn for this Road Plan with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. 8. [14-302(B)8 and COD] Yards. There are proposed lots in Block 9 are reduced to less than 60' width, which do not meet the requirement of Block 9 for 60 + lot widths (see the bottom of page 8 in the COD). A variation request (#55) has been submitted for the widths of Block 9 lots but is still under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved, or the lot widths shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Variation request #55 has been resubmitted and is under review. Either the submitted variation will have to be approved, or the lot widths shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #55 is under review and awaiting resubmission. Either the variation will have to be approved, or the lot widths shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan. REV. 3: Comment not addressed. Address the following: a) Revise Table 9 on the cover sheet to correctly word the proposed variation #55. Revise it based on the most recent submission of the variation request. b) Although approval of variation request #55 will no longer be required for the approval of this Road Plan it is with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. c) See comment #47. [COD] A third section is required for Belvedere Blvd. Two different sections have been provided for Belvedere Blvd. One of them is adjacent to the Village Green and has a median. The other is farther away from the Village Green and does not have a median. A third section will be required for the portion of the Blvd that is beyond the border of the Neighborhood Model District (NMD) because that portion of the Blvd must meet all standard street design standards, such as 9' wide parallel parking spaces. This has also been specified in the recent planning comments for SUB201600212 Belvedere Phase 4A — Road Plans. Road sections approved with the ZMA and its variations do not apply to areas beyond the NMD border. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has specified that a waiver request will be submitted, under Section 4.12.2(c)(2), to allow 8' wide parallel parking spaces in the portions of the roads that are not part of the NMD. No waiver request has been received. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has submitted the waiver request. Address the following and then resubmit the waiver request: a) Resubmit the waiver request for the parallel parking request only. See comment number 15 on why the request should not longer be paired with the private alley request. REV. 3: Comment addressed. Address the following: i. Since a portion of Fowler Street now also shows a 8' wide parking area that portion of the road will also need to be included in the waiver request. H. On the street section (Sheet 6) for the west portion of Fowler Street, Barnett Street & Shelton Street revise the label on the parking area to not include "informal". If the waiver request is granted the label should read 118' Onstreet Parking" on both sides of the street as the other sections state. W. Resubmit the waiver request for the parallel parking request ONLY. See comment number 15 on why the request should no longer be paired with the private alley request. b) In the waiver request either supply a separate exhibit or correctly state the name, project number, date, revision date and page for the existing plan submission that is being referenced as an exhibit for the request. REV. 3: Comment addressed. Address the following: a) Address the comment. In the waiver request ALSO either supply a separate exhibit or correctly state the name, project number, date, revision date and page for the existing plan submission that is being referenced as an exhibit for the request. b) Note that this is the first submission where any portion of parallel parking along Fowler Street has been shown to be below the minimum width specified in the County Code. This change has not been previously discussed with planning or engineering and no waiver request has been submitted for the reduction in parking width along this street. 10. [COD] Revise the plan view and sectional street view of Belvedere Blvd, in the portion of the road with a median, to match either the Street Standards in the C.O.D. (page 33) or previously submitted variation request #57 that is currently under review. A minimum planting strip of 6' is shown in both the C.O.D. and the submitted variation request. A planting strip is not currently shown as being provided in either the plan view or the section view of this portion of the Blvd on the Road Plan. Also, note that either the submitted variation request will have to be approved, or the road standards shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has resubmitted the variation request #57 and it is under review. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #57 is under review and awaiting resubmission. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. REV. 3: Comment addressed. Minimum planting strip has been provided and it has been determined that variation #57 is no longer required. Although a street section was not in the C.O.D. for that section of the Blvd. it was shown in the plan view on the Application Plan. 4 11. [COD] Revise Table 8 Road Standards. The table does not match either the Street Standards in the C.O.D. (page 33) or previously submitted variation request #57 that is currently under review. The table specifies that there will be parking on both sides of Road H and I, although the road plan show and variation #57 requests that there be parking only on one side of these streets. Also, each of the rows for roads H and I should specify whether the standard is for the West or East side of the Blvd. Note that either the submitted variation request will have to be approved, or the road standards shown on the Road Plan will have to be revised to match the C.O.D., prior to the approval of this road plan. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Applicant has resubmitted the variation request #57 and it is under review. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. REV. 2: Variation request #57 is under review and awaiting resubmission. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. REV. 3: Comment not fully addressed. The road sections (sheet 6) now show parking on both sides of Road H & I and Variation request #57 has been withdrawn. However the following must be addressed: i. In all plan views of the west side of Road H & I show parking spaces on both sides of the road. ii. In all plan views of the west side of Road H & I show the center line of the road in the correct location for having parking on both sides of the road. iii. Ensure the transition from the east to the west side of Roads H & I is carefully engineered through the intersection with Belvedere Blvd, since the road sections are changing from one side to the other. 12. [COD & SP2007-541 A variation request has been submitted (#57) that would if approved reduce the onstreet parking in the neighborhood from what was specified in the C.O.D. That variation request is currently under review. This road plan show parking on only one side of the Roads H & I on the west side of Belvedere Blvd. Either that variation request will have to be approved, or the Road Plans modified to match the C.O.D. (with any modification required by VDOT, Engineering or Fire Rescue) prior to the approval of this Road Plan. The C.O.D. provides parking on both sides of the road for Roads H & I to the west of the Blvd. This plan also shows parking on only one side of Fowler Street. In reference to the requested reduction in parking specified in variation request #57 keep in mind the following: 1) SP2007-54 was approved with conditions for on -street parking to support the SOCA facility proposed with that application. One of the conditions was to provide street widths to accommodate on -street parking as approved by Engineering. 2) The previously approved variations #16, 17 & 18 (approved on 9/17/09) for the Neighborhood Center mentions that "...Part of the parking requirements may be satisfied using on -street parking, if determined by the County as appropriate..." 3) There are also significant parking needs for the residences within the neighborhood. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Applicant has resubmitted the variation request #57 and it is under review. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. Also, as part of the variation resubmittal additional information appears to have been provided in reference to at least some of the specified parking requirements listed in this comment. That additional information is under review. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Variation request #57 is under review and awaiting resubmission. The subdivision plan will not be approved until the road sections match those specified in the C.O.D. or the variation is approved. REV. 3: Comment not fully addressed. The road sections (sheet 6) now show parking on both sides of Road H & I and Variation request #57 has been withdrawn. However the following must be addressed: i. Address the comment #11 above in reference to Roads H & I. ii. In all plan views of the west side of Fowler Street show parking spaces on both sides of the road. iii. In all plan views of the west side of Fowler Street show the center line of the road in the correct location for having parking on both sides of the road. iv. Ensure the transition from the east to the west side of Fowler Street is carefully engineered through the intersection with Belvedere Blvd, since the road sections are changing from one side to the other. 13. [SP2007-54 condition of approval #6, 32.5.2(b),] Soccer field parking. The applicant shall demonstrate as a condition offinal site plan approval that the on -site parkingprovided for the use, including on -site on -street parking, is adequate for the proposed use. The Special Use Permit (SP) specifies that parking for the SOCA fields are to be provided in their immediate area and the proposed SOCA fields are adjacent to the area of this road plan. Therefore, any consideration of parking requirements on these streets, and variation request #57 that is currently under review, must consider whether the conditions of the SP will be met. This Road Plan will not be able to be approved until it has been shown that the parking requirement for the SOCA fields will be met. REV. 1: Comment not addressed. This Road Plan will not be able to be approved until it has been shown that the parking requirement for the SOCA fields will be met. It appears that REV. 2: Comment not addressed. This Road Plan will not be able to be approved until it has been shown that the parking requirement for the SOCA fields will be met. It has been specified as part of the variation request #57 review that it be shown how the SP parking requirements will be met. REV. 3: Comment not fully addressed. Address comments #11 & 12 above, providing onstreet parking on both sides of Roads H, I and Fowler Street on the west side of the Blvd. IMPORTANT: Please note that if the SOCA fields are ever built, based on SP2007-54, that sufficient on -site (within the field parcel/area) Parkin will be required to be provided where street parking does not meet the portion of the requirement previously discussed. The sufficiency of on -street parking will be evaluated at that time and the number of required on -site parking spaces may be above the quantities previously discussed and stated. 18. [Comment] Adjust the text for Table 9 on the coversheet in the following ways: d. Note that this Road Plan will not be approved until either Variation #56 is approved or the setbacks and setback table is revised to match those in the approved C.O.D. REV. 1: Comment not yet addressed. Proposed variations have not yet been approved. The variations have not been resubmitted since comments were sent on January 19, 2017. REV. 2: Comment not yet addressed. Proposed variations are under review and awaiting resubmission. REV. 3: Comment not addressed but will be withdrawn (see comment #47). IMPORTANT: This comment is being withdrawn for this Road Plan with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. 26. [C.O.D. & 32.7.9.51 Landscaping Along Streets. Revise the landscape plan on Sheet No. 16 to provide the required street tree calculations to assure compliance with the C.O.D. and ordinance. In the calculations provide the amount of street frontage for all of the roads in the road plan and show that the minimum distance between street trees has been met. REV. 1: Comment not fully addressed. The notes on the landscaping sheet do not appear to be complete and in some cases do not appear to be correct. Address the following: a) In SUB2014-152 Belvedere Phase II Road Plans, on sheet 13, there are two notes (not numbered) to the right of the "Minimum Planting Requirements" from the Code of Development (COD) that are not shown on this road plan. Those notes are required. Add them to the road plan. These notes are in reference to yard planting requirements and are separate from those required for the street trees. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. The notes have been added. However, within the wording of the 2nd note it is referring to the location of the "Minimum Planting Requirements" chart on the same page. Since the orientation of the notes to the chart are not same in this road plan it is necessary to slightly edit the note. Change "to the left" to read instead "above" in the note. REV. 3: Comment addressed. IMPORTANT: However, please note that if any trees are eliminated in order to avoid conflicts with utilities or storm pipes and structures that an alternative location for the trees must be found and a landscaping easement within the front yards of some of the lots may be required. 34. FNEW COMMENT — ZMA2004-71 Density. The addition of a single family detached (SFD) lot in Block 4 increases the proposed SFD for the Road Plan to 19 units. 14 SFD lots have previously been platted in Block 4. There is a maximum of 32 SFD for Block 4. The proposed 19 units would create a total of 33 SFD units in Block 4 which is not allowed within the C.O.D. Either reduce the number of proposed units back down to 18 or submit a variation request for a modification for the maximum number of lots in Block 4. Until a variation request is approved or the road plan is modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. this road plan will not be approved. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. It is understood that the additional lot for Block 4 will be incorporated with Variation request #53. The variation request will have to be approved or the road plan modified to meet the requirements specified in the approved C.O.D. before this road plan will be approved_ REV. 3: Comment not addressed but will be withdrawn (see comment #47). IMPORTANT: The chart has not been revised to match the most current version of the charts submitted with the variation request. However it will be withdrawn for this Road Plan with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. 35. FNEW COMMENT — ZMA2004-71 Split zoning. The Lot labeled as "Lot 48" in this road plan is shown as being a split zoned lot. Staff strongly recommends against creating split zoned lots. It is recommended that the plan be modified to develop single zoned lots. "Lot 48" is split zoned in such a way that any building site is split almost in half. Because of this the plans and plat must demonstrate the proposed use, setbacks, and code of development standards can be met in each of the two districts for the lot created. The zoning, proposed use, and density data shown in the plans and plats must be updated to include this information for this one split zoned lot. REV. 2: Comment not fully addressed. Zoning has stated that the note provided on the setbacks for Lot 48 appear to be appropriate. However, the note states that the side setback is 5' while the setback lines are shown as 5' on one side and 3' on the other. Revise the setback lines to match the wording of the note or discuss with review planner if needed. REV. 3: Comment not fully addressed. The note in the upper left corner of Sheet 3, about Lot 48 (now labeled as 228) being split zoned no longer applies based upon NMD line change discussions with zoning and should be removed from the Road Plan. Remove this note. 44. FNEW COMMENT] Revise the note in the upper right hand corner of Sheet No. 3 about the 6' maintenance easements to include lots 57 and 197 through 201. Add a label and leaders in Block 9 to show that the easement applies to those lots, since they have 3' side setbacks. REV. 3: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following: a) Revise the note to state that all lots with side setbacks of less than 4'-11" shall have a 6' maintenance easement along their side yards. Please note that all lots currently proposed appear to show 3' side setbacks and therefore this easement specified in the C.O.D. will be required on all the lots. b) Add labels for this requirement to the Block 9 area. 45. FNEW COMMENT] Revise the "Table 4 Green Space Tabulation — Proposed with Variation #54" and "Platted" sections so that the 0.05 AC conservation area adjacent to Lot 201 is shown in the "Open Space Block 9" row and not the "Block 9 Preservation Easement" row. REV. 3: Comment not addressed but will be withdrawn (see comment #47). IMPORTANT: The chart has not been revised to match the most current version of the charts submitted with the variation request. However it will be withdrawn for this Road Plan with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. 46. FNEW COMMENT] Once the open space chart for the variation requests is updated to include the open space for Blocks 1 & 2 ensure that the information is include in the open space chart for this road plan. REV. 3: Comment not addressed but will be withdrawn (see comment #47). IMPORTANT: The chart has not been revised to address these comments and it has ALSO not been revised to match the most current version of the charts submitted with the variation request. However it will be withdrawn for this Road Plan with the understanding that it must be met and revised appropriately in both the Variation Requests and in the subdivision plat. 47. REV. 3: [NEW COMMENT] IMPORTANT: It appears that the comments addressed were those from the 5/22/17 comments and not the most recent planning comments from 7/20/17 which were sent out from Engineering on 7/24/17. Because of this many comments above were not addressed. Also, it appears that many variation request related items have not been updated to match the most recent submissions of those variation requests. Because a road design variation is no longer being requested, and in order to minimize the impact of the errors mentioned on the approval timeline, the plan reviewer has withdrawn many of the comments associated to the variations still being requested that have not been vet been approved (#53, #54 & #55). With this in mind do ONE of the following: a) Add a note to the cover sheet that states that "ROAD PLAN ONLY: The tables, lot layouts, open spaces, setbacks, etc. shown on this plan that are not for Road Plan or wall design purposes have not been reviewed or approved. Also, the lot layout and open spaces shown are based upon variation requests that have not been approved at this time. Amendment to the Road Plan may be required if the variations are not approved and/or if any information shown on this Road Plan was based upon on inaccurate information." OR b) Inform the planning reviewer that you wish to address the variation request related comments previously specified above, and ensure this road plan accurately portrays all variation requests that have been submitted to date. If that is the applicant's choice then the planning reviewer will revise the comments above to ensure enough detail has been provided to do so. 48. REV. 3: [NEW COMMENTI Revise the existing parcel boundary lines, Tax May Parcel numbers, deed book and page number, and acreage of the parcels in the existing conditions sheet to represent the current parcels based upon recent Boundary Line Adjustment. 49. REV. 3: [NEW COMMENT] Revise Sheet 4 (Utility Plan) to be complete. it appears that most Phase TIB lavers have been turned off. The roads, lots, etc. are not being shown. Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(c�r�,albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext.3250 for further information.