Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202200020 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2022-09-12�$ 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: September 13, 2022 Subject: SDP2022-00020 — Chipotle HTC — Final Site Plan; 2nd Submittal 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. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. 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? Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. c. As several trees and shrubs are proposed to be removed, it would be helpful for staff analysis to provide revised calculations. Comment addressed. 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. Comment addressed. 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)] 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 Review Comments Page 2 of 3 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.) Comment addressed. 2) [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. Comment addressed. 3) [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. Provide a copy of the deed/agreement referenced in the comment response. 4) [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. Provide the square footage and identify the areas where the required landscaping within a parking area is located — 5% of the paved parking. (18-37.7.9.6(a)) 5) [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. (a) 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.) Comment addressed. 6) [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. Comment addressed. 7) [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. Comment addressed. ii) 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. Comment addressed. iii) 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 Review Comments Page 3 of 3 separated by a planting strip. The 12-ft. travel lane does not appear to be the 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. Comment addressed. Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Department of Community Development at areitelbachgalbemarle.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: 1. The ARB comment response letter refers to keynote 3 on Sheet A2.2. That note says, "not used." Please clarify. 2. Comment #3 from the ARB action letter read (in part): "Revise the plans and elevations to show the locations of building- and ground -mounted equipment and to show how the equipment will be screened." The equipment was added to the roof plan, but not the elevations. Typically, equipment locations/heights are shown on the elevation drawings with a dashed line. If I've missed that in the drawings, please let me know. Otherwise, provide updated elevation drawings showing the rooftop equipment. Albemarle County Building Inspections Betty Slough, bslough@albemarle.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by planning staff. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Richard Nelson, melson2serviceauthoritv.org — Review pending; comments will be forwarded to applicant upon receipt by planning staff.