HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202200020 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-05-27�$ County of Albemarle
m COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Memorandum
To: Ryan Perkins, PE; Kimley-Horn (rvan.perkins@kimley-horn.com)
From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner II, Planning Division
Date: May 27, 2022
Subject: SDP2022-00020 — Chipotle HTC — Final Site Plan
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4579
Telephone: 434-296-5832
WWW.ALBEMARLE.ORG
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community
Development will recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items 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.)
New Comments — First Review of Chipotle HTC — Final Site Plan (SDP2022-00020):
1. [32.5.2(a)] The application number for this project is SDP2022-00020. Revise the cover sheet to
include this number.
2. [32.5.2(a)] Include the appropriate legal instrument/deed book and page number for the subject
property under the owner information section on the cover sheet.
3. [18-32.7.9] Landscapingplan
a. 23 IG are identified in the planting schedule. However, there appear to be only
21 labeled on the landscaping plan. Where are the other two proposed to be
located?
b. Provide the final site plan application number for the site plan that includes the
existing vegetation proposed to be used to satisfy the landscaping
requirements.
c. As several trees and shrubs are proposed to be removed, it would be helpful for
staff analysis to provide revised calculations.
d. Since existing vegetation is proposed to be used to meet landscaping
requirements, include a completed and signed copy of the Tree Conservation
Checklist with the site plan. It can be included on one of the landscaping plan
sheets.
Comments from SDP2021-00080 — Chipotle Hollvmead Town Center — Initial Site Plan
Action Letter:
The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2021-00080 are in gray font. Follow-up
comments from the review of the final site plan, SDP2022-00020, are in black font. Please address these follow-
up comments as well.
1) [32.5.2(a)] Clarify what is being demolished on the existing conditions sheet. Comment
addressed.
Review Comments
Page 2 of 5
2) [32.5.2(a)] The Planning/Zoning contact information on the cover sheet can be removed.
Otherwise, revise it with the Community Development Department at 434-296-5832.
Comment addressed.
3) [32.5.2(a)] Remove' development area" as an overlay district. Comment addressed.
4) [32.5.2(a)] Remove the note on the cover sheet that steep slopes are N/A. There are managed
steep slopes on this property. Also add Steep Slopes — Managed to the list of applicable
zoning overlay districts. Comment partially addressed. There continues to be a note on
the cover sheet that states, "Steep Slopes: N/A." Remove this note. (It is located under
the open space percentage and above the flood zone note.)
5) [32.5.2(a)] For the setbacks note on the cover sheet, identify that the front setback is a minimum,
that there is no maximum setback, and that the side and rear setbacks are separation in
accordance with the building code. Comment partially addressed. Include the rear setback
requirement in the setbacks note. Similar to the side setback, it is in accordance with the
building code.
6) [32.5.2(b)] The number of parking spaces required by this development needs to be provided
in the parking schedule on the cover sheet. It does not appear that there is sufficient parking
provided on the site to accommodate the number required by the ordinance. If these additional
parking spaces are provided through a shared parking agreement, with neighboring properties,
provide the deed book and page numbers of the recorded agreement. Sufficient parking has
not been provided on the site. Provide proof of a shared parking agreement with
neighboring property(ies) that will accommodate the required amount of parking.
7) [32.5.2(b)] On the landscape plan, provide the maximum amount of paved parking and
other vehicular circulation areas. This item does not appear to have been included in
the landscaping plan. The "paved parking/vehicular circulation area within LOD"
is blank. This area is likely different from what is existing with the current building,
as the drive -through lane adds more circulation area than currently exists.
8) [32.5.2(d)] There are managed steep slopes on this property. Identify the location(s) of those
slopes on all sheets of the plan. Comment addressed.
9) [32.5.2(f)] Indicate on the cover sheet whether the site is located within a water supply watershed.
Comment addressed.
10) [32.5.2(i)] Identify the shared access easements on this property, as it appears travelways are
shared with the Target property to the north. Comment addressed.
11) [32.5.2d); 32.5.2(1)] Identify the existing and proposed stormwater management, drainage,
and utility easements. Comment addressed.
12) [32.5.2(m)] Identify the location of the ingress and egress to the site and the distance to the
nearest street intersection centerline. Comment addressed.
Review Comments
Page 3 of 5
13) [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements.
(a) Where is the loading area proposed to be located? Comment addressed.
(b) What are the stairs and ramp for on the east side of the building? It does
not appear that there is a door or entrance on that side of the building for
that sidewalk to lead to. Comment addressed.
(c) Provide a lighting plan with the final site plan that complies with section
4.17 of the zoning ordinance. Comment addressed.
(d) What is the feature between the brick screening wall and the dumpsters? Label
this recycling feature on the site layout sheet, as it doesn't appear to be
labelled on the details sheet. (It looks like it may already be labelled;
however, the font for both this feature and on the dumpsters is not legible.)
14) [32.5.2(p)] Provide a landscape plan with the final site plan that complies with section 32.7.9 of the
zoning ordinance. Landscaping plan has been provided. See above in section entitled "New
Comments — First Review of Chipotle HTC — Final Site Plan (SDP2022-00020)" for comments
related to this landscaping plan.
15) [5.1.60] Supplementary Regulations for Drive -Through Windows.
i) 5.1.60(b). Identify the landscaping area between the drive -through lane and the public
street (Route 29) and how it complies with section 32.7.9.5 of the zoning ordinance, with
at least 10 feet in depth. Provide the depth of the existing landscaping and the height
of the existing screening wall for staff to be able to confirm that the existing elements
are sufficient to meet the requirements for the new drive -through lane.
ii) 5.1.60(e). Provide the required planting strip of a minimum of five feet in width between
the drive -through lane and the sidewalks on the north, south, and east sides of the
building. On the south side, it appears the planting strip is only 4.4' wide — it needs to be
extended to five feet in width. On the east side, there does not appear to be the required
planting strip between the drive -through lane and the ramp/stairs. On the north side, there
does not appear to be the required planting strip between the proposed new drive -through
lane and the existing sidewalk adjacent to the parking spaces. Comment addressed.
iii) 5.1.60(f). The required five-foot wide designated pedestrian travelway needs to be
provided at all locations where it is proposed that pedestrians would cross the drive -
through lane. At a minimum, it appears this element needs to be provided on the east
side of the building where the stairs and ramp are located. Also, why are the ramp and
stairs on the opposite of the building from the parking lot and sidewalk? Comment
addressed.
iv) 5.1.60(g). The drive -through lane must be at least 11 feet wide. Comment addressed.
v) 5.1.60(i). Provide the distance to the nearest intersection of a private street or
travelway that does not contain parking. Comment addressed.
vi) 5.1.600). Provide the length of the drive -through lane as measured from the
center of the first window or service point. It must be a minimum of 100 feet.
Comment addressed.
vii) 5.1.60(k). Provide the length of the drive -through lane beyond the drive -through
window. It must be at least 20 feet. This comment does not appear to have been
addressed.
viii)5.1.60(1). Provide the direction of travel of the drive -through lane and the adjacent
12-ft. wide travel lane. They must be going in the same direction, or otherwise be
separated by a planting strip The 12-11. travel lane does not appear to be the
Review Comments
Page 4 of 5
required width of twelve feet at the location of the dumpster pad. It appears the
corner of the dumpster enclosure may intrude into the travel lane, reducing the
width below twelve feet. Provide the width of the lane at that point.
Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Department of Community Development at
areitelbach@albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3261 for further information.
Comments from Other Reviewing Departments, Divisions, and Agencies
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski(2albemarle.org — Requested changes; see the comments below:
The final site plan will be reviewed by the ARB on May 16, 2022. Comments will be provided after that meeting.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Matt Wentland, mwentlandgalbemarle.org— Requested changes; see the comments below:
1. The VSMP plan will need to be approved prior to Site Plan approval.
2. Show the width of the travelway at the comer of the dumpster enclosure. It appears to be less than the 12'
minimum.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Andy Slack, aslackkalbemarle.org —No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Betty Slough, bslou hg�a albemarle.org — Requested changes; see the comments below:
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Retaining walls greater than 3 feet in height require a separate building permit. Walls exceeding 4 feet in height
require a stamped engineered design also. Walls require inspections as outlined in the USBC.
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Accessible parking spaces, access isles, and accessible route shall be installed in accordance with ICC ANSI
A117.1-09 and the 2018 Virginia Construction Code.
Add the following to the general notes page:
All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over sidewalks.
Replace Note #2 in the Building Inspections Notes with:
All water, sewer and fire lines require NEW inspection and testing procedures. The ACSA performs any testing
and inspections of the public sewer and water main(s).
Review Comments
Page 5 of 5
The Albemarle County Building Inspections Department(ACBID) does a visual inspection and witnesses the
testing of the building drain, water service pipe and the sprinkler lead-in connection.
The developer/contractor is responsible to retain a Special Inspector as outlined in the updated Albemarle County
Policy for Site Utilities to perform the visual inspection and testing of all utilities
not covered by the ACSA or ACBID. This includes building sewers, water and fire line branches between the
main and the meter(s)/building(s).
The Special Inspector's report must be submitted and approved by the Albemarle County Engineering
Department prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being issued.
Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue
Howard Lagomarsino, hlagomarsino@albemarle.org — No objections at this time.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, melsonanserviceauthority.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant
upon receipt by planning staff.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Doug McAvoy, dou as.mcavoy@vdot.vir ig nia.gov —No objections at this time; see the attached comment
memo.
(Z)
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
May 05, 2022
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: Hollymeade Town Center Chipotle — Initial Site Plan
SDP-2021-00020
Review #2
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
(804)786,2701
Fax: (804) 786,2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Kimley-Horn, dated 22 October
2021, revised 01 March 2022, and find it to be generally acceptable.
If further information is desired, please contact Willis Bedsaul at (540) 219-5492.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
Doug McAvoy, Jr., P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING