Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14-06 Comments (2)l August 16, 2007 Andrew J. Tapscott, Esq. Hunton Williams LLP Riverfront Plaza, East Tower 951 East Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23216 RE: Zoning Certification 2255 Northwestern Pike Property Identification Number (PIN): 52 -A -252 Zoning District: B -2 (Business, General) If you have any questions contact me at 540- 665 -5651. Sincerely, Mark R. Cheran Zoning Administrator Attachments MRC/bhd 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 Dear Mr. Tapscott: In response to your letter this office received on August 13, 2007, for a zoning certification for the above referenced property, we have examined our records with respect to the parcel and advise you, as of this date: The property is identified as Tax ID No. 52 -A -252; Frederick County is responsible for any administration of the Code of Frederick County as related to this property. The property is zoned B -2 (Business, General) and is subject to the Code of Frederick County. This property is subject to the proffers assigned from Rezoning #14 -06 approved February 28, 2007. I have provided a copy of the proffers and the B -2 section of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed use of this property for a bank is permitted under the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The property is currently in compliance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. TO: Finance Department FROM: Pam Deeter, Office Assistant II SUBJECT: Return of Sign Deposit DATE: March 12, 2007 Please send a check in the amount of $50.00 to: RSA/pd 15 FILE COPY MEMORANDUM The amount of $50.00 was deposited in line item #3- 010 013030 -0007. Mr. Glaize had a deposit for one sign for Rezoning #14 -06 for Glaize Property. He has returned the sign and is therefore entitled to the return of the deposit. You may pay this through the regular bill cycle. George Glaize Jr. 30 S. Cameron St. Winchester, VA 22601 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 i tnpo15980001 /2006 /CJ 9601 a )1 Pd by DEPT OF PLANNING BALANCE DUE INCLUDES PENALTY /INTEREST THRU THE Check CKS 10 /2nnF 00 0 0 00 0 0 .00 ■itcet Pct o ottsa♦esOve s ts te tact tot et o(tbe ets ss \$b Gott o tcoy vo t Ots a sptttao c�� P t o ax Gp O( to e 4•tto e e ay 93.3_ \aG a s at. oc N jt S I t o 0o ..„2. l tta of p a o o (fet t qt to ♦O *Ott '0ts tot "et agc n S t GIsr zsbete \`ct 5 de aa60.1`. ay be 0 8> m t a P e Be a e p♦1 5e e hes ao •nes5 F c\ ace e b es V s' c oo 10 T A X R E C E I P T ERICK COUNTY WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR .0. BOX 225 WINCHESTER ZONING APPLICATIONS VA 22604 -0225 Previous Balance Principal Being Paid Penalty Interest Amount Paid *Balance Due Ticket Date Register: Trans. Dept Acct# Pd by DEPT OF PLANNING Check 37845.12 CKS BALANCE DUE INCLUDES PENALTY /INTEREST THRU THE MONTH 10/2006 00015990001 10/06/2006 CJO /CJ 29601 ZASP 3388.00 3388.00 .00 .00 3388.00 .00 PAINTER- LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS tel.: (540)662 -5792 116 South Stewart Street fax.: (540)662 -5793 Winchester, VA 22601 email: office @painterlewis.com February 2, 2007 Mr. George Glaize, Jr. 30 S. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: GLAIZE 1.38 ACRE TRACT ON ROUTE 50 REZONING #14 06 Dear George: As a result of the vote at their December 20 meeting, the Planning Commission is insisting that no parking be allowed between the front of any building and the Route 50 right -of -way in the Round Hill Route 50 corridor. I am concerned that by proffering this design standard you will adversely impact the marketability of the tract. I would like to be satisfied that this issue has been thoroughly reviewed particularly with respect to the following: 1) The design principles for the Round Hill Route 50 Corridor state that development should be encouraged to place buildings "close" to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear. By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommends disap- proval of the rezoning application unless we proffer to eliminate all parking between Route 50 and any building on the parcel. See the attached page from the Comprehen- sive Plan that contains the design principles. The term "close" is not defined. However, under the current ordinance, buildings cannot be placed closer than 50' from the right of -way, that is, at the building restriction line(BRL). 2) The design principles for Round Hill recognize that "smaller tracts" along the south side of Route 50 should be treated differently than "larger tracts While these terms are not clearly defined, it is my impression that the subject tract is considered by the Planning Commission to be a "smaller tract since they have accepted the proffer to create a 20' landscaped easement rather than a 50' landscaped easement along Route 50. At the same time, if required to prohibit parking in front of the building, we are essentially providing the 50' easement anyway as a result of the current require- ment for a 50' BRL. The exception is that drive aisles are allowed. This seems incon- sistent. 3) At the November 1 Planning Commission meeting, the commissioners were not satis- fied with the proffers and tabled the application. At that meeting, there was no discus- sion of the prohibition of parking between Route 50 and the building front although it was mentioned in the staff report. At the December 20 meeting, it was evident that the only issue preventing a recommendation for approval of the application was the front yard parking issue. It is my impression that the commissioners feel that the appear- ance of the Route 50 corridor will be improved through the application of this design standard. I don't disagree that additional green space along the corridor is desirable. I am concerned that proffering this design standard may have an adverse impact on the Mr. George Glaize, Jr.. January 9, 2007 marketing of this tract. I could not glean from the commissioners' responses that they shared my concern. In the case that all parties understand that the implementation of this design standard is the most beneficial approach for commercial development along Route 50 in Round Hill, then the Zoning Ordinance should be amended so that it is applied evenly to all commercial development. (I would suggest that the county also consider a reduction in the front yard depth. This would allow the buildings to be set closer to the right -of -way, it would provide more development area on the tracts, and it would promote pedestrian access.) The language in the Comp Plan is simply a guide and the proffers are voluntary. 4) In the application all other design elements of the Round Hill plan have been proffered including the 20' landscape easement along Route 50. Under the current Zoning Ordi- nance for B2 zoning, it is possible to locate parking at the 5' parking restriction line. By proffering this landscape easement, you have agreed to eliminate any development on an additional 15' along the Route 50 frontage. 5) The application contains a proffer that restricts the amount of parking in front of the building to two rows with one access aisle. This proffer is intended to eliminate larger expanses of parking along the Route 50 corridor. It is also reflective of the City of Win- chester corridor enhancement design requirement that restricts building setbacks to a maximum of 85'. 6) The elimination of parking from the Route 50 front yard will adversely impact the mar- keting of the tract for retail usage. Typically, a retail development will face Route 50 to maximize store exposure and provide parking facilities which will have direct access to the store front. 7) Attached to this letter is an email from Susan Eddy dated December 28 which con- tained a sketch which showed the development of a restaurant on the tract. The sketch showed adequate parking for the building "without parking in the front In the staff report dated January 3, prepared for the January 10 Board of Supervisors meet- ing, Susan states in the conclusion that "staff has shared with the applicant's represen- tative ideas for how the site could be designed to accommodate B2 uses while provid- ing parking behind the building It would be unfair to the design community and to you if the Board of Supervisors were to deny this application based on this sketch for the following reasons: a) The sketch shows a restaurant use. We are not proffering to develop the tract for a restaurant use. b) The building on the sketch contains 4800 square feet on a single story. Using this size of a building makes simple the task of eliminating parking from the front yard. c) The sketch doesn't show site services such as loading area, trash pick -up area, or escape lane from the drive through. These types of design elements which I consider critical to site function are not shown, and therefore the sketch does not fully illustrate the impacts resulting from the front yard parking restriction. d) The application supports a speculative rezoning. As such, we want to retain as many development options as possible including straight retail, office, and medical office. It is my opinion that the site could contain at least 13,000 square feet of re- tail space, 20,000 square feet of office space, or 17,000 square feet of medical of- fice space. Page 2 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. Mr. George Glaize, Jr.• January 9, 2007 8) Attached are typical retail concept plans which illustrate that the prohibition of parking in front of the building will likely result in the following: a) a reduction in the amount of floor area that could otherwise be constructed on the parcel; b) a reduction in the number of parking spaces that are located such that access is direct to the building facade; c) orientation of the building facade toward Route 803. d) building services, trash pick -up and loading, may conflict with customer parking. Sincerely; John C. Lewis, P.E., C.L.A. File: 0507007 Page 3 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. Susan Eddy From: John Lewis [jclewis ©painterlewis.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:38 PM To: Susan Eddy Subject: FW: Glaize Property Susan: this is an exact copy of the dots I sent to the Board member except, I did not send them the GasPumpLayout(3). But I think some clarification of the "no parking in front of the building" design principle would be helpful if we were to construct a C store in this lot. I am available to meet on this subject at any time if you think that is appropriatel Thanks John John C. Lewis Painter- Lewis, P.L.C. 116 S. Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: 540-662-5792 Fax.: 540 662 -5793 From: John Lewis mailto :jclewis @painterlewis.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 10:52 AM To: John Riley ariley @co.frederick.va.us) Cc: glaize @verizon.net Subject: FW: Glaize Property John: Attached to this email is correspondence from Susan Eddy with her sketch of the site development, a letter outlining my concerns with the planning commission position on the development of the site, and two drawings showing the potential difference in site development when parking is and is not permitted along Route 50. I appreciate your input. I'll see you on the 16th at 2:30. Thanks John, W E From: Susan Eddy mailto :seddy @co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:59 PM To: John Lewis Cc: Eric Lawrence Subject: Glaize Property 2/2/2007 John C. Lewis Painter Lewis, P.L.C. 116 S. Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.: 540 662 -5792 Fax.: 540 662 -5793 Page 1 of 2 Page 2 of 2 I am aware that you are not in the office until January 5 but I am out of the office from January 4 -9. The Glaize Property rezoning is scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on January 10th. At the public meeting before the Planning Commission on December 20th, you made a number of comments related to the 50' front yard setback and the design standard in the Round Hill Plan prohibiting parking in front of the building. In order to satisfy myself that it is possible to achieve both of these, I had a simple sketch prepared for the site showing a building the same size as the Chick Filet being constructed at Winchester Gateway. It is in fact possible to site such a building without parking in the front. It is a simple sketch, so not everything is included. However, it shows 57 parking spaces, when only 48 were required for the Chick Filet at Winchester Gateway. Please contact me to discuss this further. In my absence, please contact Eric Lawrence. Regards, Susan Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540 665 -5651 2/2/2007 PAINTER- LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS tel.: (540)662 -5792 116 South Stewart Street fax.: (540)662 -5793 Winchester, VA 22601 email: office @painterlewis.com February 2, 2007 Mr. George Glaize, Jr. 30 S. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: GLAIZE 1.38 ACRE TRACT ON ROUTE 50- REZONING #14 -06 Dear George: As a result of the vote at their December 20 meeting, the Planning Commission is insisting that no parking be allowed between the front of any building and the Route 50 right -of -way in the Round Hill Route 50 corridor. I am concerned that by proffering this design standard you will adversely impact the marketability of the tract. I would like to be satisfied that this issue has been thoroughly reviewed particularly with respect to the following: 1) The design principles for the Round Hill Route 50 Corridor state that development should be encouraged to place buildings "close" to Route 50 with landscaped parking lots in the rear. By a unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommends disap- proval of the rezoning application unless we proffer to eliminate all parking between Route 50 and any building on the parcel. See the attached page from the Comprehen- sive Plan that contains the design principles. The term "close" is not defined. However, under the current ordinance, buildings cannot be placed closer than 50' from the right of -way, that is, at the building restriction line(BRL). 2) The design principles for Round Hill recognize that "smaller tracts" along the south side of Route 50 should be treated differently than "larger tracts While these terms are not clearly defined, it is my impression that the subject tract is considered by the Planning Commission to be a "smaller tract since they have accepted the proffer to create a 20' landscaped easement rather than a 50' landscaped easement along Route 50. At the same time, if required to prohibit parking in front of the building, we are essentially providing the 50' easement anyway as a result of the current require- ment for a 50' BRL. The exception is that drive aisles are allowed. This seems incon- sistent. 3) At the November 1 Planning Commission meeting, the commissioners were not satis- fied with the proffers and tabled the application. At that meeting, there was no discus- sion of the prohibition of parking between Route 50 and the building front although it was mentioned in the staff report. At the December 20 meeting, it was evident that the only issue preventing a recommendation for approval of the application was the front yard parking issue. It is my impression that the commissioners feel that the appear- ance of the Route 50 corridor will be improved through the application of this design standard. I don't disagree that additional green space along the corridor is desirable. I am concerned that proffering this design standard may have an adverse impact on the Mr. George Glaize, Jr• January 9, 2007 marketing of this tract. I could not glean from the commissioners' responses that they shared my concern. In the case that all parties understand that the implementation of this design standard is the most beneficial approach for commercial development along Route 50 in Round Hill, then the Zoning Ordinance should be amended so that it is applied evenly to all commercial development. (I would suggest that the county also consider a reduction in the front yard depth. This would allow the buildings to be set closer to the right -of -way, it would provide more development area on the tracts, and it would promote pedestrian access.) The language in the Comp Plan is simply a guide and the proffers are voluntary. 4) In the application all other design elements of the Round Hill plan have been proffered including the 20' landscape easement along Route 50. Under the current Zoning Ordi- nance for B2 zoning, it is possible to locate parking at the 5' parking restriction line. By proffering this landscape easement, you have agreed to eliminate any development on an additional 15' along the Route 50 frontage. 5) The application contains a proffer that restricts the amount of parking in front of the building to two rows with one access aisle. This proffer is intended to eliminate larger expanses of parking along the Route 50 corridor. It is also reflective of the City of Win- chester corridor enhancement design requirement that restricts building setbacks to a maximum of 85'. 6) The elimination of parking from the Route 50 front yard will adversely impact the mar- keting of the tract for retail usage. Typically, a retail development will face Route 50 to maximize store exposure and provide parking facilities which will have direct access to the store front. 7) Attached to this letter is an email from Susan Eddy dated December 28 which con- tained a sketch which showed the development of a restaurant on the tract. The sketch showed adequate parking for the building "without parking in the front In the staff report dated January 3, prepared for the January 10 Board of Supervisors meet- ing, Susan states in the conclusion that "staff has shared with the applicant's represen- tative ideas for how the site could be designed to accommodate B2 uses while provid- ing parking behind the building It would be unfair to the design community and to you if the Board of Supervisors were to deny this application based on this sketch for the following reasons: a) The sketch shows a restaurant use. We are not proffering to develop the tract for a restaurant use. b) The building on the sketch contains 4800 square feet on a single story. Using this size of a building makes simple the task of eliminating parking from the front yard. c) The sketch doesn't show site services such as loading area, trash pick -up area, or escape lane from the drive through. These types of design elements which I consider critical to site function are not shown, and therefore the sketch does not fully illustrate the impacts resulting from the front yard parking restriction. d) The application supports a speculative rezoning. As such, we want to retain as many development options as possible including straight retail, office, and medical office. It is my opinion that the site could contain at least 13,000 square feet of re- tail space, 20,000 square feet of office space, or 17,000 square feet of medical of- fice space. Page 2 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. Mr. George Glaize, Jr• January 9, 2007 8) Attached are typical retail concept plans which illustrate that the prohibition of parking in front of the building will likely result in the following: a) a reduction in the amount of floor area that could otherwise be constructed on the parcel; b) a reduction in the number of parking spaces that are located such that access is direct to the building facade; c) orientation of the building facade toward Route 803. d) building services, trash pick -up and loading, may conflict with customer parking. Sincerely; John C. Lewis, P.E., C.L.A. File: 0507007 Page 3 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. DEVELFNT OATH 1. TAX NAP NUMBER: 52 —A -252 2. EXISTING ZONING: RA 3. PROPOSED ZONING: B2 4. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES: front— 50' (U.S. Route front= 35' (VA Route au.,) side= none none 5. PROPOSED RETAIL 6. PARCEL AREA: 1.38 acres (60,250 sq. ft.) 7. GREENSPACE REQUIRED: 15% (9,037.5 sq. It.) 8. GREENSPACE PROPOSED: 22.3% (13,450 sq. ft.) 9. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA COVERAGE: 77.7% (46,800 sq building footprint= 13,600 sq. ft. asphalt pavement= 30,200 sq. It. concrete pavement= 3,000 sq. It. 10. PARKING SETBACK RESTRICTION LINES: all property lines: 5' 11. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 13,600/200= 68 spaces required(RETNL) parking shown= 68 spaces (Including 3 NC) 40 Salle 1" 40 ft 0 40 V)7 C• 044 PROPOSED /BUI OPN /13,60C sq. R. l RIGHT -IN ONLY ENTRANCE i 1\ NORTHWESTERN PIKE US ROUTE 50 TLJ S itmoRC SE9PwC.Y N 7415754" A BRI. MAIN "SITE' 'ENTRANCE, 1- 0 0_ F U Q Z O N CN N Y Z a 0 Q' I m U W N w U CL N O Z E D_ celu N_ 8 cD J SURVEY. PL —PLC 2' DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: SS 0507007 SCALE: DATE: I' -40.0' 01/03/07 SHEET: RESERVE_20(2)1 1 DEVELFNT OATH 1. TAX NAP NUMBER: 52 —A -252 2. EXISTING ZONING: RA 3. PROPOSED ZONING: B2 4. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES: front— 50' (U.S. Route front= 35' (VA Route au.,) side= none none 5. PROPOSED RETAIL 6. PARCEL AREA: 1.38 acres (60,250 sq. ft.) 7. GREENSPACE REQUIRED: 15% (9,037.5 sq. It.) 8. GREENSPACE PROPOSED: 22.3% (13,450 sq. ft.) 9. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA COVERAGE: 77.7% (46,800 sq building footprint= 13,600 sq. ft. asphalt pavement= 30,200 sq. It. concrete pavement= 3,000 sq. It. 10. PARKING SETBACK RESTRICTION LINES: all property lines: 5' 11. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 13,600/200= 68 spaces required(RETNL) parking shown= 68 spaces (Including 3 NC) 40 Salle 1" 40 ft 0 40 V)7 C• 044 PROPOSED /BUI OPN /13,60C sq. R. l RIGHT -IN ONLY ENTRANCE i 1\ NORTHWESTERN PIKE US ROUTE 50 TLJ S itmoRC SE9PwC.Y N 7415754" A BRI. MAIN "SITE' 'ENTRANCE, 1- 0 0_ F U Q Z O N CN N Y Z a 0 Q' I m U W N w U CL N O Z E D_ celu N_ 8 cD J SURVEY. PL —PLC 2' DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: SS 0507007 SCALE: DATE: I' -40.0' 01/03/07 SHEET: RESERVE_20(2)1 1 DELLOP_AliTDAIAL 1. TAX MAP NUMBER: 52-A-252 2. EXISTING ZONING: RA 3. PROPOSED ZONING: B2 4. BUILDING RESTRICE0N LINES: Hoot- 50' (U.S. Route 50) front- 35' (VA Route 803) side= none rear= none 5. PROPOSED USE RETAIL 6. PARCEL AREA 1.38 acres (60.250 eq. ft.) 7. GREENSPACE REQUIRED: 152 (9.037.5 sq. ft.) 8. GREENSPACE PROPOSED: 23.66 (14.230 eq. (t.) 9. PROPOSED IMPERMOUS AREA COVERAGE: 76.46 (46.020 building footprint= 12.720 sq. ft. asphalt pavement- 30.300 sq, ft. concrete pavement= 3.000 sq. ft. 10. PARKING SETBACK RESTRICTION UNES: all property lines: 5' 11. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 12,720/200= 64 spaces required(RETAIL) parking shown: 66 spaces (Including 3 FIC) 40 0 Scale 1" 40 f t 40 Atan 'AM en M.steM tt.4 Mat; taer aytN: NORTHWESTERN PIKE US ROUTE 50 "'N RIGHT-IN ONLY ENTRANCE 1 1 1 i 1 k i. i I 1 1 i 1 1,, MENG RETAINING WALL BUILDING 7 12,720_34 ft. CA-CIRAI/n." x 737411134" 1 241.00 Ks4 In ta MA1NYSITE ENTRANCE LLI NJ GrLr 0 g 8 SURVEY PL-PLC DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: 55 0507007 SCALE: DATE: 1"-40.0' 01/03/07 SHEET: RESERVE_50 1 1 DEVEI OP GNT DATA: 1. TAX MAP NUMBER: 52 —A -252 2. EXISTING ZONING: RA 3. PROPOSED ZONING: B2 4. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES: front- 50' (U.S. Route 50) front= 35' (VA Route 803) aide= none r•ar= none 5. PROPOSED USE: RETAIL 6. PARCEL AREA: 1.38 acres (60,250 eq. ft.) 7. GREENSPACE REQUIRED: 155 (9,037.5 sq. ft.) 8. GREENSPACE PROPOSED: 19% (11.645 sq. R.) 9. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA COVERAGE: 8075 (48,605 sq. /t.) building footprint= 5,360 sq. fl. asphalt pavement= 40530 sq. ft. concrete pavement= 2,715 sq. ft. 10. PARKING SETBACK RESTRICTION LINES'. RIGHT IN ONLY all property lines: 5' ENTRANCE 11. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: 5.350/200— 27 epoces required(RETAIL) parking shown= 31 spaces (Including 2 HO) 40 0 40 ifetIo• Scale 1" 40 ft NORTHWESTERN PIKE US ROUTE 50 J 0 RETAIN INC WALL PROPOSED RETAIL BUILDING 5,360 sq. ft. .20'! MN/IY'IPf 74c0 ny7 ri N 73787/' _ME sc 5' PARKING 5 CN N 7370$!' 7 BILM• 8 i MAIN SITE ENTRANCE I I .7 II 1 a 0 in 0_ w U Q Z O 1 N in I U Z c0 0 LJ I I- O LJ 0_ in N Y O Q' a Z E G 4 N 0 L O o N J SURVEY PL —PLC C.I: 2' DRAWN BY: JOB NO.: RED 0507007 SCALE: DATE: 1' =40.0' 01 /10 /07 SHEET: LAYOUT 3 1/1 ,J rC C PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 January 8, 2007 Mr. Eric Lawrence Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: GLAIZE PROPERTY REZONING #14 -06 Dear Eric: Because of time off for the holidays, I have been unable to adequately prepare for the pend- ing Board of Supervisors meeting on January 10. By way of this letter, I am requesting that the hearing for the rezoning be postponed until the February 14 meeting. Sincerel Jahn C. Lewis, P.E., C.L.A. C: G. Glaize File: 0507007 ra i i -71.-1 S In l; 1 {i JANA N! 8 2007 LI PL /PLANi1H z: ir'. O�.t;ENT tel.: fax.: email: (540)662 -5792 (540)662 -5793 office@painterlewis.com PAINTER- LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS tel.: (540)662 -5792 116 South Stewart Street fax.: (540)662 -5793 Winchester, VA 22601 email: office @painterlewis.com January 8, 2007 Mr. Eric Lawrence Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: GLAIZE PROPERTY REZONING #14 -06 Dear Eric: Because of time off for the holidays, I have been unable to adequately prepare for the pend- ing Board of Supervisors meeting on January 10. By way of this letter, I am requesting that the hearing for the rezoning be postponed until the February 14 meeting. Sincerely; John C. Lewis, P.E. C.L.A. C: G. Glaize File: 0507007 December 5, 2006 ncere Enclosure File: 0507007 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ms. Susan Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick Co, Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 I F n I Engineering Administrative Assistant PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. tel.: fax: email: RE: Proposed Rezoning of Glaize Property Round Hill (540)662- 5,792D EC (540)662 -5793 office @painterlewis.com Dear Ms. Eddy, Enclosed, please find for your records, a notarized Proffer Statement with the corrected number of proffers, #7 has been added) for the above referenced project. Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions or if you require additional information. 5 2006 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. PAINTER- LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSUL77NGENGINEERS tel.: (540)662- 5792N0V 2 7 2006 116 South Stewart Street fax: (540)662-5p3 Winchester, VA 22601 email: office @painterIewis.com November 27, 2006 Ms. Susan Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick Co, Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Glaize Property Round Hill Dear Ms. Eddy, Enclosed, please find for your review and comment a copy of the Proposed Proffer Statement for the above referenced project. Revisions have been made per your meet- ing with Mr. John Lewis, November 8, 2006. Once you have had an opportunity to re- view, we look forward to receiving your comments for the revisions. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if you require additional in- formation. Sincerely, Atelt ill Fries Engineering Admin. Asst. PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. Enclosure File: 0507007 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. Yf u fV! =kk MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Si< RE: Glaize Property Rezoning (REZ #14 -06) DATE: November 20, 2006 Please contact me if your have any questions. SKE/bhd COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 At the Planning Commission Meeting on November 1, 2006, the Glaize Property Rezoning (REZ #14 -06) was postponed for 30 days, in order for the applicant to address issues raised by the Planning Commission and staff. Staff has met with the applicant's representative, Mr. John Lewis, but revised plans have not yet been submitted. Therefore, the application will not be considered at the December 6t Planning Commission meeting. The application will be returned to the Planning Commission when revised plans that address Commissioner's concerns are received. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 116 South Stewart Street Winchester, VA 22601 December 1, 2006 Ms. Susan Eddy, AICP Senior Planner DEC 1 2006 Frederick Co, Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Glaize Property Round Hill Dear Ms. Eddy, Sincerely, Jill Fries Engineering Administrative Assistant PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. Enclosure File: 0507007 tel.: (540)662 -5792 fax: (540)662 -5793 email: office @painterlewis.com Please feel free to contact this office if you have any questions or if you require additional information. 'T Enclosed, please find for your review a revised Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit 5) and revised, notarized Proffer Statements, for the above referenced project. This is the document that should be forwarded to the Planning Commission. PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. PAINTER- LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS tel.: (540)662 5792 116 South Stewart Street fax: (540)662 5793 Winchester, VA 22601 email: office @painterlewis.com October 13, 2006 Ms. Susan Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick Co, Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Glaize Property Round Hill Dear Ms. Eddy, Enclosed, please find for your review a revised Generalized Development Plan (Exhibit 5) and revised Proffer Statements, for the above referenced project, as you requested October 11, 2006. The GDP has been revised by removing the building and parking in- formation from the parcel. The Proffers have been revised by adding a statement that connects the completion to an event to allow for a measurable outcome of the proffered item. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if you require additional in- formation. Sincere) ill Fries Engineering Administrative Assistant PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. Enclosure File: 0507007 PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. October 5, 2006 Ms. Susan Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick Co, Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Enclosure File: 0507007 PAINTER LEWIS, P.LLC� OCT CONSULTING ENGINEERS L 116 South Stewart Street F Winchester, VA 22601 PLk Sincerely, Jill Fries Engineering Administrative Assistant PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C. 6 2006 7 (e ?!T RE: Proposed Rezoning of Glaize Property Round Hill tel.: (540)662 -5792 fax: (540)662 -5793 email: office @painterlewis.com Dear Ms. Eddy, Enclosed, please find a corrected submittal for the above referenced property. As per our conversation on 10/04/06, I have made the adjustments and rectified omissions for the submittal listed above. This submission includes: an Impact Analysis Statement, Proffer Statement, Special Limited Power of Attorney and agency comment sheets. Please attach the fee check which was submitted on 10/3/04 with the incomplete pack- age. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused in the review of this application. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if you require additional in- formation. PAINTER LEWIS, P.L.C.