HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06 CommentsWILBUR C. HALL (1892 -1972)
S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET
THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 1999)
SAMUEL D. ENGLE LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540.662.3200
ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540.562 -4304
JAMES A. KLEN KAR E Iawyers@hallmonahan.com
STEVEN F. JACKSON May 3, 2006
DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. May G
HAND DELIVERY
Susan K. Eddy, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of Planning
Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Susan:
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
0
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN E. MITCHELL
Re: Orrick Commons (Orrick Cemetery Company, Inc.)
Proposed Proffer Statement
L.
PLEASE REPLY TO'
P. 0. Box 848
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848
1 have reviewed the above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement, revised as
of April 13, 2006. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally
in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the
Code of Virginia, subject to the following comments:
1. It should be noted that the proffer on commercial development set
forth in Paragraph 1.1 provides that the "commercial development" on the property
shall not exceed a maximum of 158,000 square feet, but that pursuant to Paragraph
1.4, the proffers only require a minimum of 55,000 square feet of "commercial
building space." In any event, the proffers in Paragraph 1.1 and 1.4 should be
clarified as to what the square footage requirement applies, preferably having the
requirement apply to "usable floor area
Susan K. Eddy
May 3, 2006
Page 2
2. It should be noted that the proffer in Paragraph 8.2 for a pedestrian-
bicycle trail along the frontage of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road is in lieu of
sidewalks.
It should be also noted that I do not believe that I had access to the current
Generalized Development Plan with respect to these proposed proffers. While I had
a copy of the Generalized Development Plan dated November 15, 2005 in my review
of the previous Proposed Proffer Statement dated December 6, 2005, for this
development, the text of the current proposed proffers indicates to me that there were
some revisions to the Generalized Development Plan which previously had been
provided to me. In any event, I assume that the staff will be reviewing the proffers
as they relate to the items on the Generalized Development Plan.
It should be further noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers
as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific
property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding
that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission.
me.
RTM /ks
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL
If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact
my yours,
Robert T. Mitc
January 26, 2006
Mr. Patrick Sowers
Patton, Harris, Rust Associates, pc
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons
Dear Patrick:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665 -5651
FAX: 540/665 -6395
I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for Orrick Commons.
This application seeks to rezone 22.06 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2
(Business General) District and 33.61 acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP
(Residential Performance) District. In general, staff is supportive of this mixed -use
project at an important crossroads in the Senseny Road corridor. I would also point out
that the emerging Urban Development Area (UDA) study is supportive of this type of
neighborhood center. Staff's review comments are listed below.
1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is not within the limits of any small area
plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The land use plan identifies the entire
Senseny Road corridor for residential uses. 'However, the Plan (6 -72) does call
for neighborhood business uses in the vicinity of residential areas. Given this key
intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, and the existing B2 zoned
properties at this intersection, it is reasonable to develop the western portion of
the Orrick property for neighborhood commercial development.
2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive
Policy Plan designates Senseny Road and Greenwood Road as improved major
collectors. This translates to a four -lane divided boulevard section, such as is
being implemented with Warrior Drive. The applicant will need to ensure that the
application addresses expansion plans for these roads and that all road
improvements, especially turn lanes, respect the long -term road center line.
3. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a
number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include
landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. While this is
not specifically a business corridor, it will be a commercial node at a prominent
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
Page 2
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons
January 26, 2006
crossroads and similar standards should be applied. While the application speaks
of design guidelines, few are included in the proffer statement. These design
elements should all be incorporated into this application.
4. Illustrative Site Plan. The applicant has provided staff a copy of an illustrative
site plan. This is not part of the rezoning application and is not proffered.
However, there are many good design features on the site plan. These include
siting the commercial building close to Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, with
the parking out of view of the street; a boulevard style main entrance on Senseny
Road; and landscaped parking lots. I would encourage you to consider making
these part of the proffer statement.
5. B2 (Business General) Uses. The applicant should consider restricting some of
the uses allowed in the B2 District, such as car washes, due to the proximity of
this property to residential uses.
6. Impact Analysis Transportation. The applicant has noted a desire to
accommodate automobile and pedestrian traffic. I would strongly suggest that
the applicant consider a commitment to specific design features including curb
and gutter, sidewalks throughout the development and a multi- purpose trail along
both Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. Again, ensure that the pedestrian
access is consistent with the long term plans for Senseny Road and Greenwood
Road
7. Interparcel Connections. The properties adjacent to the Orrick Property along
Senseny Road could redevelop in the future. It would be beneficial for the Orrick
development to leave opportunities for inter parcel connections to these
properties.
8. Road Network. Verify with VDOT that all proposed roads and related
improvements in the power line easement will be allowed.
9. Impact Assessment Statement Wetlands. The application notes the presence
of one intermittent stream in the northwest corner of the site. County and USGS
maps indicate that there is another stream in the northeast corner of the site. This
should be addressed.
10. Traffic Impact Analysis. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was based on
144,200 square feet of commercial development. The proffer statement calls for
up to 158,000 square feet of commercial floorspace. Traffic impacts will thus be
greater than those modeled in the TIA. Please correct.
Page 3
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons
January 26, 2006
11. Traffic Impact Analysis. TIA Table 1 lists 2008 "Other Developments The
TIA has double counted one project. The Butcher Property is the same as
Briarwood III, which is now known as Steeplechase. It will contain 69 single
family detached units.
12. Traffic Impact Analysis. TIA Figure 9 shows the 2008 Build -Out Lane
Geometry and Levels of Service. Site Driveway #1 on Greenwood Road is
projected to have level of service B(D). The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for
Level of Service C or better on roads adjacent to and within new development.
Even with the suggested improvements in the TIA, Level of Service C is not
provided at site Driveway #l. Similarly, Level of Service D(F) is projected for
the intersection of Channing Drive and Senseny Road. As you are aware, the
improvements to this intersection are proffered by others, but the other
responsible party is not obliged to put in the improvements until his first B2 site
plan is submitted or until residential traffic warrants the improvements. Given
this proposed B2 rezoning, it is possible that the improvements by others may not
take place for many years. (I would note that the D(F) level of service at this
particular intersection will result with or without this proposed development.)
13. Traffic Impact Analysis. It is important to understand that the application must
address transportation based on the Comprehensive Plan as well as the impacts
projected in the TIA.
14. Proffer Statement Land Use. Proffers 1.1 and 1.3 are unnecessary as they
repeat the Zoning Ordinance. Proffers should be an enhancement to County
ordinances, not a restatement of ordinances.
15. Proffer Statement Land Use 1.4. The applicant has proffered a maximum of
175 age restricted units provided as a mixture of single family detached and
multi family units, as allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. 1 suggest that the
maximum number of units not be specifically proffered. Since the County is
undertaking its UDA study and densities may change, deleting the maximum
number of units will keep options open. Also, I would suggest using the word
single family, rather than single family detached. Again, this keeps options open.
16. Proffer Statement Home Owners Association 3.2. This proffer states that
the HOA will not be responsible for open space dedicated to public use. This
contradicts proffer 8.1 which states that the HOA will be responsible for the 3.5
acre park which will be open to the public.
Page 4
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons
January 26, 2006
17. Proffer Statement Transportation. The transportation proffers are missing a
timing element. Each proffer must state specifically what event triggers the
proffer; for example before the issuance of the first building permit.
18. Proffer Statement Transportation 6.2. The applicant will need to verify with
county staff and VDOT that there is sufficient right -of -way to accommodate the
long range road plans.
19. Proffer Statement Transportation 6.4. This proffer refers to a transportation
proffer associated with the Channing Drive Rezoning. The developer of that
project is not obligated to build or provide funding for a portion of the new turn
lane at Senseny Road and Greenwood Road until he begins his commercial
development. Therefore, the applicant may be responsible for 100% of the
improvements called for in proffer 6.4. Please restate proffer.
20. Proffer Statement Transportation 6.5. The applicant will need to verify with
county staff and VDOT that this is sufficient right -of -way to accommodate long
range road plans.
21. Proffer Statement Transportation 6.6. This would be an appropriate place to
include the pedestrian design features sought in paragraph 6 above.
22. Proffer Statement Building Materials. This would be an appropriate place to
include the design features sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 above.
23. Proffer Statement Park. Proffers go beyond ordinance requirements.
Therefore, the County will view the 3.5 acre park and its amenities as above and
beyond the Zoning Ordinance requirements for open space and recreation units
24. Proffer Statement Landscaping. Proffer 9.1 as written is unnecessary as it
repeats the Zoning Ordinance. This would be an appropriate place to include the
enhanced landscaping sought in paragraphs 3 and 4 above.
25. Proffer Statement Signage. Proffer 11.1 as written is somewhat redundant as
it repeats the Zoning Ordinance. The reference to Exhibit A is too vague. This
would be an appropriate place to include limits on the number, size, design and
placement of signs as sought in paragraph 3 above.
26. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The GDP is an opportunity to illustrate
many of the design features that will be included in this application.
Page 5
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons
January 26, 2006
27. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). It appears from the Proffered GDP that
the entrance to the property on Greenwood Road does not line up with Green Park
Drive. The Zoning Ordinance, Section 165 -29, requires new driveways to align
with other access features. The entrance on Greenwood must align with Green
Park Drive. The County will not accept a proffered GDP that conflicts with the
Zoning Ordinance.
28. Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The GDP should show that a road
connection will be provided between the commercial portion of the site and the
residential portion. It may not be in the best interest of the future residents of
Loganberry Avenue to have that road as the connection between the commercial
development and Farmington Boulevard. Internal access within the Orrick site
would be a better option. Also, road access from Farmington Boulevard to
Ladyslipper Road will need to be provided.
29. Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Commercial Entrances. The GDP
shows two main entrances to the commercial portion of the site: one on Senseny
Road and one on Greenwood Road. The applicant should make explicit that no
other commercial entrances will be provided along Senseny Road or Greenwood
Road for the future outparcels.
30. Development Impact Model. As you are aware, Frederick County has a new
Development Impact Model. Staff only runs the model for applications with a
mix of commercial and residential development, and only gives credit for
commercial floorspace that is proffered. Therefore, staff has run the new model
for this development based on 55,000 square feet of retail space, 88 single family
detached units and 87 multi family units (the mix currently allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance). The results of the model run are attached. The results are only
relevant for this precise retail floorspace and the 88/87 split. Any other
combination of floorspace, number of residential units or types of residential units
will lead to a different result. The applicant is expected to address the impacts of
development as contained in the model output.
31. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the
following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of
Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County
Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick
County School Department, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick
Winchester Health Department, Winchester Regional Airport, Greenwood Fire
and Rescue Company and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority. The
proposed proffer statement has been forwarded by staff to the Frederick County
Page 6
Mr. Patrick Sowers
RE: Proposed Rezoning of Orrick Commons
January 26, 2006
32. Adjoining Property Owners. Please add two properties (PIN# 55 -A -194 and
55D- 1 -34A) to the list of adjoiners. Also. a number of the adjacent property
owners have changed; please update. Six PINS (55J -1 -9 -194 through 55J -1 -9-
199) are incorrectly listed; please correct.
33. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per
acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $8,617.00 is due upon
submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of
January 27, 2005. Fees may change.
All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately
addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me
with questions regarding this application. I look forward to working with this you on this
unique project.
Sincerely,
fAz.
Susan K. Eddy, AICP
Senior Planner
SKE/bhd
Attachment
Attorney. Once attorney comments are received by the Planning Department,
they will be forwarded to your office. Attorney comments are required for
acceptance of the rezoning application.
cc: Paramount Development Corporation, c/o David Harner, 607 Briarwood Drive,
Suite 5, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29572
Orrick Cemetery, Inc., 501 S. Braddock St., Winchester, VA 22601
WILBUR C. HALL (1892
THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924 -1999)
SAMUEL D. ENGLE
0. LELAND MAHAN
ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR.
JAMES A. KLENKAR
STEVEN F. JACKSON
DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR.
Dear Susan:
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
1 E. 7 EAST MARKET STREET
LEESBURG, VIRGINIA
TELEPHONE 703 7771050
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
January 30, 2006
Susan K. Eddy, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of Planning
Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL
9 EAST BOSOAWEN STREET
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
TELEPHONE 540-662 -3500
FAX 540 642 4304
E IOwyers @halhOOnahan COT
Re: Orrick Commons (Orrick Cemetery Company, Inc.)
Proposed Proffer Statement
JAN 3 1 2006
J
PLEASE REPLY TO:
P. 0. Box 848
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 -0848
I have reviewed the above referenced proposed Proffer Statement. It is my
opinion that the proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the
requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia,
subject to the following comments:
1. A paragraph should be added to the initial paragraphs which contains
a description of the property, to include a description of the general location of the
property, the title owner, the acreage, and a citation to the land records (deed book
and page number, or instrument number) where the owner of the property acquired
title.
2. With respect to the proffer set forth in paragraph 1.1 and 1.3, these
paragraphs really do not constitute proffers, as they merely say that the property in
the B2 district and RP district will be developed in accordance with the B2 zoning
regulations and the RP regulations, respectively. This is not a proffer to do something
Susan K. Eddy
January 30, 2006
Page 2
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL
which is more than is already required by ordinance. The second sentence of each of
these two proffers would appear to be redundant, and also suggests that the County
may approve development on the property which is not in accordance with the zoning
ordinance regulations.
3. With respect to the proffers set forth in paragraph 1.2, which sets
forth a maximum of 158,000 square feet of commercial development, I would note
that this proffer does not contain a proffer for a minimum square footage of
commercial development (except as may be implied by proffer paragraph 1.6).
4. While the second paragraph on page 1 of the proffers states: "The
improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the time of development of that
portion of the Property adjacent to or include the improvement or other proffered
requirement, unless otherwise specified herein it is my recommendation that the
individual proffers be more specific as to when the proffered improvement will be
completed. This would apply to proffer paragraphs 6.2 (traffic signal, construction
of left turn lane, construction of right turn lane); proffer paragraph 6.5 (dedication of
right -of -way); proffer paragraph 6.6 (interconnected pedestrian network); and proffer
paragraph 8.1 (construction of 3.5 acre park).
5. With respect to the proffer contained in paragraph 6.6 (interconnected
pedestrian network), I would recommend that the proffer set forth the minimum
t
-design requirements IOr file pedestrian network, unless those o uvb� re C are
adequately addressed by ordinance.
6. I would note that in proffer paragraph 7.1, the last two sentences are
very general in nature. If the architecture and color scheme are important to the
County's consideration of this rezoning request, then these last two sentences should
be made somewhat more specific.
Susan K. Eddy
January 30, 2006
Page 3
7. Paragraph 9.1 does not really constitute a proffer, as the applicant
would be required to meet the landscaping requirements of the Frederick County
Code in any event. The second sentence of this paragraph does not constitute an
enforceable proffer.
8. Does the proffer in pa 1 1.1 (Signage) intend to li mit signage
the proffer paragraph -'t:` bpi a
to that shown on Exhibit A and thereby prohibit free standing signs? If so, that
should be specifically stated.
It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to
whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific
property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding
that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission.
me.
RTM /ks
HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN MITCHELL
If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact
yours,
g j p trulY
f *I iN
Robert T. Mitch.
Virginia Department of Transportation Comments:
See attached comments from VDOT dated January 18, 2006.
VDOT Signature Date:
1 j a r
Notice to Advisory Board Please Return This Form to the Applicant
Rezoning Comments
Mail to:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation
Attn: Resident Engineer
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
Mailing Address:
both roadways.
Current Zoning: RA
Virginia Department of Transportation
Hand deliver to:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation
Attn: Resident Engineer
14031 Old Valley Pike
Winchester, VA 22601
Appl cant x`Please fill "out the information•aas accurately as possible inrorder to assist the rgrnia
Department of; Transportation with their; review`+ Attach three copies,o'f your `applicationsform,,
,location map, profferstatement, impact analysis, and any other t:a
pertinent
information.
Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667 -2139
c/o Patrick R. Sowers
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:
The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Senseny Road (Rt 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt 656) with road frontage along
Zoning Requested: RA/B2 Acreage: 55.6708
Orrick Commons
1 0
GREGORY A. WHIRLEY
ACTING COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
EDINBURG, VA 22824
VDOT Comments to
Orrick Commons Rezoning
January 18, 2006
The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have
significant measurable impact on Routes 656 and 657. These route are the VDOT
roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced.
VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Orrick Commons
Rezoning Application dated December, 2005 addresses transportation concerns
associated with this request.
While the proposed proffers appear acceptable, VDOT offers the following comments:
6.1 acceptable
6.2 acceptable
6.3 acceptable
6.4 acceptable
6.5 initially acceptable, but VDOT reserves the right to require additional dedications
upon review of the site plan /entrance design.
It should be noted that if 250' of separation from the proposed Greenwood entrance
and Greenpark Drive cannot be achieved, the developer may be required to align the
Greenwood entrance with Greenpark Drive. This would also require the developer to
enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT.
Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans
detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip
Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment
on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and
off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right
of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office
and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment.
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Fire Marshal's Comments:
C� H7�74G1E
Fire Marshal's Signature Date
Notice to Mars)a
A -drAr
Please Return This Form to the Applicant
Rezoning Comments
Mail to:
Frederick Co. Fire Marshal
107 N. Kent St.
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 665-6350
'Applicant:, Please fill out the rnformation'as as "possible 111 order to assist the Frederick
County'Fi're Marshal with his review' 'Attach a copy'of your application form,rloeatron map,
proffer statement, impact analysis; and any other, pertinent information. a t ,w'
Applicant's Name:
Mailing Address:
both roadways.
Frederick County Fire Marshal
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Phone: (540)667 -2139
c/o Patrick R. Sowers
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Hand deliver to:
Frederick Co. Fire Rescue Dept.
Attn: Fire Marshal
Co. Administration Bldg., 1 Floor
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:
The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Senseny Road (Rt 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt 656) with road frontage along
Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RA/B2 Acreage: 55.6708
Orrick Commons
13
Control number
RZ05 -0015
Project Name
Orrick Commons
Address
117 E. Piccadilly St.
Type Application
Rezoning
Current Zoning
RA
Automatic Sprinkler System
Yes
Other recommendation
Emergency Vehicle Access
Not Identified
Siamese Location
Not Identified
Access Comments
Additional Comments
Plan Approval Recommended
Yes
Date received
12/16/2005
Tax ID Number
55 -A -201
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
Maintain access during all phases of construction,
City
Winchester
Recommendations
Automatic Fire Alarm System
Yes
Requirements
Hydrant Location
Not Identified
Roadway /Aisleway Width
Not Identified
Reviewed By
J. Bauserman
Applicant
PHR &A
Fire District
18
Title
Date reviewed
12/19/2005
State Zip
VA 22601
Rescue District
18
Fire Lane Required
Yes
Special Hazards
No
Date Revised
Applicant Phone
540 -667 -2139
Election District
Redbud
Residential Sprinkler System
No
Municiple water supply for firefighting must be available as soon as combstible materials arrive on site.
PLANS APPROVED
RIME u' S IAL, FREDE i- i MC coiui r
Control number
MDP05 -0008
Project Name
Crosspointe Center
Address
117 E. Piccadilly St. Suite 200
Type Application
Prelim. MDP
Current Zoning
RP B2
Automatic Sprinkler System
Yes
Other recommendation
Emergency Vehicle Access
Not Identified
Siamese Location
Not Identified
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
Access Comments
Additional Comments
Plan Approval Recommended
Yes
Date received
11/22/2005
Tax ID Number
75 -A89
City
Winchester
Recommendations
Automatic Fire Alarm System
Yes
Requirements
Hydrant Location
Not Identified
Roadway /Aisleway Width
Not Identified
Reviewed By
Jeffrey S. Neal
Applicant
Patton Harris Rust Associates
Fire District
11
Date reviewed
12/5/2005
State Zp
Va 22601
Signature
Title
RE
Rescue District
11
Residential Sprinkler System
Yes
Fire Lane Required
Yes
Special Hazards
No
Date Revised
Applicant Phone
540 662 -2092
Election District
Shawnee
PLA2� APPRoV
GAL, FREDERICK COUNTY
Mr. Patrick R. Sowers
Patton Harris Rust Associates, p.c.
117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Orrick Commons
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Patrick:
January 6, 2006
Provide a detailed wetlands delineation with the master
development plan (MDP) submittal. A copy of the MDP should be
submitted to the Corps of Engineers for their review and comment.
107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665 -5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning application for Orrick Commons
and offer the following comments:
Refer to page 3 of 6, C. Site Suitability: Include a discussion of the existing power
line right -of -way and the impact on the proposed road network and related utility
development.
Refer to page 5 of 6, D. Transportation; The discussion references the
requirement for a right turn lane on westbound Senseny Road for vehicles turning
north onto Greenwood Road. Considering this location is outside of the proposed
rezoning boundaries, indicate if sufficient right -of -way is available at this location.
Refer to page 6 of 6, F. Site Drainage: Indicate what types of low impact
development techniques will be employed within the proposed development. Also,
delineate how much of the existing vegetation will be preserved as riparian buffers.
All permanent storm water management facilities shall be highlighted in the MDP.
Refer to page 6 of 6, G. Solid Waste Facilities: This discussion indicates that the
homeowners' association (HOA) will be responsible for trash collection within the
residential portion of the project. However, the proffer statement, paragraph 3.2
indicates if they decide to use a commercial collection company." This latter
Orrick Commons Rezoning
Page 2
January 6, 2006
HESIrIs
portion of item iii should be removed from the proffer statement, thereby making
this a definite requirement of the HOA.
Refer to page 3 of 7, proffer statement, paragraph 5. I We applaud the use of
BMP facilities. However, the maintenance of these facilities shall be included in
the responsibilities of the HOA or commercial property owners.
6. Refer to page 10 of the Traffic Impact Analysis by Patton Harris Rust
Associates: Revise the data in Table II to reflect the actual commercial
development of 158,000 square feet, proposed in the Introduction paragraph (page
I of 6) of the impact analysis.
I can be reached at 722 -8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above
comments.
cc: Planning and Development
file
Sincerely,
Harvey J Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E.
Director of Public Works
C: \Program Niles \WordPerfect Office 11\ kkondaVfE\ IPC O \1\IENTS \orrirkrommonsrezeom.wpd
Inspections Department Comments: Z
v
Go'/- r e V/ PR
Public Works Signature Date:
Notice to Inspection Dept. Please Return TlyRorm to t
Applicant
Rezoning Comments
Mail to:
Frederick Co. Inspections
Attn: Building Official
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 665-5643
Frederick County
Department
RECEIVED Commons
DEC 16 2005
Inspections Department
PIALICCWWORX COO
6 INSP�i101�
Hand deliver to:
Frederick Co. Inspections Department
Attn: Building Official
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Applicant:. Please fill•out the information as accurately as possible in order to' assist the Inspections,
Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer
statement, impact analysis, and any other- pertinent information.
0'
Applicant's Name:
Mailing Address:
both roadways.
Current Zoning: RA
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc
c/o Patrick R. Sowers
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540) 667 -2139
Location of Property:
The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Senseny Road (Rt 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt 656) with road frontage along
Zoning Requested: RA/B2 Acreage: 55.6708
12
Fred -Winc Service Autherity''s Cominentyr
no Cc,n'lm 0t6
Frcd-Winc Service Au ho `ty's
Signature Date: Ult t4,C '2 i PC7I 2)
Notice to Fred -Wiuc Service Authority Please.Return Tfiis:Form to the Applicant
Feb 15 06 04:49p FRED WING SERV AUTHORITY 540 722 1103
Rezoning Comments
Mail to:
Fred -Winc Service Authority
Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director
F.6: Box 43
Winchester, VA 22604
(540) 722-3579
frtderick- Winchester Service Authority
Hand deliver to:
Fred -Wine Service Authority
Attn: Jesse W. Moffett
=1417 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Orrick Commons
ApptirAnt:_. Please fill out. the as accurately as in order to assist the
Department of Public Works with their review. Attatfraropy ofyourapglication form, location
neaps phi st t i4opeettana}ysis and'atry other pertinent information
Applicant's Name: 'Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc
Mailing Address: c/a Patrick It Sowers
117E Piccadit }y Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Location of Property:..
The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Senseny Road (Rt 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt 656)with road frontage along
both roadways,
Current Zoning: RA
Zoning Requested:.. RA/B2
Phone: (540) 667 -2139
Acreage:- 53.6708
24
p. 2
1
Sanitation Authority Comments:
r0///n9,4 W /7, 705g IA/ATf.4 57SW4-7?
COti/y/1,&1/ A1AUDF i4/ Ti ,¢i°/°L/C.l ral"
7
Sanitation Authority Signature Date: AA.- AR CASe oS
Notice to Sanitation Author' Please Return This Form to the Applicant
Rezoning Comments
Mail to:
Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority
Attn: Engineer
P.O. Box 1877
Winchester, VA 22604
(540) 868-1061
Applicant's Name:
Mailing Address: c/o Patrick R. Sowers
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
both roadways.
Current Zoning: RA
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
Hand deliver to:
Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority
Attn: Engineer
315 Tasker Road
Stephens City, VA
Location of Property:
The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Senseny Road (Rt 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt 656) with road frontage along
Zoning Requested: RA/B2 Acreage: 55.6708
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accuratelyias possible in order to assist the Sanitation
Authority with their review. Attach ar-copy of, your application form,, location map, proffer
statement, impact analysis, and any other
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Phone: (540)667 -2139
0819/ cl<
C0714,14.04/5
16
Fredrick— Winchester Health De artment's Comments: br,
v
Signature Date: l2 /4
Notice to Health Department Please Return This Form to the Applicant
Rezoning Comments
Mail to:
Frederick- Winchester Health Dept.
Attn: Sanitation Engineer
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 722-3480
Applicant's Name:
Mailing Address:
both roadways.
Current Zoning: RA
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc
c/o Patrick R. Sowers
117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Frederick Winchester Health Department
Hand deliver to:
Frederick Winchester Health Dept.
Attn: Sanitation Engineer
107 North Kent St., Suite 201
Winchester, VA 22601
(540) 722 -3480
i)11005
o uG oS I Lc1a.00
Applicant Please fihrout information -as accurately as 'possible in order`to assist the Frederick
Winchester Health Department with their review `Attach a copy of your application fornt,,
locationamap,proffer statement impact analysis, and any other, pertinenfinformation.,: s
Phone: (540) 667 -2139
Location of Property:
The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Senseny Road (Rt 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt 656) with road frontage along
Zoning Requested: RA/B2 Acreage: 55.6708
Orrick Commons
S- ►a -a
nexar15
17
Dept. of Parks Rcreation-Coinments:
The proposed plan appea rs .to provide armonetary proffer consistent with the
county model fo-r ihis .housing type. The deteloper has' also' indicated that a
public recreational park, including playground eguipment equivalent to monetary
value of the -required-recreetional. units, will be- located within the 3.5 acres
of open space provided. Plan also shows a bike trail, meeting Frederick County
Parks and Recreation Department standards, alo Senseny Roa and Greenwood Road
syWaritctfyaiie maintained by the development. /47,4
Notice to Dept. of Parks Recreation L Please turn This to the A ant
2- 16 -06; ..CCP[d.;FPEDERICF Co PgrKs
Rezoning Comments
Mail to:
Frederick County
Dept .of Parks Recreation_
107 North Kent Street
Winchester,'VA 22601
(540) 665-5678
Frederick County Department of Parks Recreation
alai Please itll out the Orntuo
enL` 11 eoFeatrar[ w�
t's- 1 a Y"'{*ad7r'�
loeat�onfmap iroffer,stafe ke analy
as ewate15? -p $o ible
et of
is abd•,any; otli perti e
Applicant's Name: Patton Har isRust&- Associates pc
Mailing Address: c/o Patrick R. Sowers
Hand deliver to:
FredericicCbunty
Department of Parks Recreation
Co. Administration Bldg., 2 Floor
t07 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
117 E. Pk, adittYStreet, Suite 2
Winchester,VA 22601
Location of Property:
The subject property is locate&in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Senseny Road (Rt 657) -and Greenwood Road (Rt 656) -with road frontagealong
both roadways.
Current Zoning: RA Zoning-Requested:- RA/B2-• Acreage: 554708
;5405559957 1/
Phone: (540)467 -21 -39
Orrick Commons
14
Administrative Assistant to
the Superintendent
Dear Mr. Sowers:
SMK:dkr
Mr. Patrick Sowers
Patton, Harris, Rust Associates, pc
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Orrick Commons Rezoning Proposal
era''
Frederick County Public Schools
Visit us at www.frederickkl2va.us
January 16, 2006
e-mail:
kapocis@frederick.k12.va.us
This letter is in response to your request for comments regarding the rezoning application
for the proposed Orrick Commons rezoning project. Based on the information provided, it is
anticipated that the proposed 175 single family and multi family units will have no impact on the
school division upon built -out due to the units being age restricted.
Respectfully yours,
cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools
Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration
Charles Puglisi, Director of Transportation
Stephen M. Kapocsi
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent
540- 662 -3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604 -2546 FAX 540- 662 -3890
Winchester Regional Airport's Comments
at ('+,C(9..
Winchester Regional Airport Signature Date:
0ItSi 1 7, I (n1
Notice to Winchester Regional Airport Please Return This Form to the Applicant
Rezoning Comments
Mail to:
Winchester Regional Airport
Attn: Executive Director
491 Airport Road
Winchester, VA 22602
(540) 662-2422
Applicant's Name:
Mailing Address:
Location of Property:
both roadways.
Winchester Regional Airport
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
Hand deliver to:
Winchester Regional Airport
Attn: Executive Director
491 Airport Road
Winchester, VA
Applicant: Please fill out the,information as'aceurately as possible in order to assist the Winchester
Regional-Airport with their' review. "Attach' a copy of your application form, location map,
proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information.
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667 -2139
c/o Patrick R. Sowers
The subject property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of
Senseny Road (Rt 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt 656) with road frontage along
Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RA/B2 Acreage: 55.6708
Orrick Commons
21
February 6, 2006
WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT
Patrick R. Sowers
Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc
117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, Virginia 22601
Re: Rezoning Comments
Orrick Commons
Redbud Magisterial District
Dear Mr. Sowers:
491 AIRPORT ROAD
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602
(540) 662 -2422
The above referenced proposal was reviewed. While the proposed development
lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the
proposed site plan should not impact operations at the Winchester Regional
Airport.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe
operations of the Winchester Regional Airport.
Sincerely, Pn(V-M"U1/44
Serena R. Manuel
Executive Director
January 19, 2006
Mr. Patrick Sowers
Gilbert W. Clifford Associates
117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments
Orrick Commons Rezoning; PIN# 55 -A -201
Dear Mr. Sowers:
Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact
historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by
the I -IRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures
located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted
that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify
any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact.
Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely,.
Candice E. Perkins
Planner II
CEP /bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665 -5651
FAX: 540 /665 -6395