Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout011-97 Hogue Creek Country Market (Addition) - Gainesboro Dist. - BackfileReceived From _ Address 'A I L 13,5 4 � For U ` AMT PAID BALANCE DUE Date, 19 !0025657 CASH CHECK MONEY ORDER HBy Dollars $ I i� 01 1 SITE PLAN CHECKLIST The checklist below indicates all the information that needs to be submitted as part of the site plan application. All required information must be submitted prior to the final approval of any site plan. The Department of Planning and Development will review the application to ensure that it is complete. If any portion is not included or complete, the site plan application will not be accepted and returned to the applicant(s). Site Plan Package 1. One set of approved comment sheets are required from the following review agencies prior to final site plan approval. It is recommended that applicants contact the Department of Planning and Development to determine which review agencies are relevant to their site plan application. �EQi) f' o/ zI-IL25 j Wrginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) County Health Department Frederick County Sanitation Authority / S � 7 epartment of Planning and Development ' `� Inspectons Department S I V Fredenck County Engineer (Public Works) (� Fredenck County Fire Marshal Department of Parks and Recreation 2. One copy of the Site Plan application 3. Five Copies of the Final Site Plan for approval 4. One reproducible copy of the Site Plan (if required) 5. A 35mm slide of the Site Plan (if required) City of Winchester Town of Stephens City Town of Middletown Airport Authority Sod & Water Conservation District CALL S-A�-�7 Si&4 2 PMM ~ COUNTY of FREDERI(-K Department of Planning and Develdpment 5401665-5651 FAX 540/678-0682 Zoning Review of Business License Application Please provide the following information about your business. It is important that all of the requested information isprovided completely to ensure accurate review by Planning Department staff. Ifyou have any questions about this form or the zoning regulations of Frederick County, please contact the Planning Department at (S40) 665--S6S1. APPLICANT NAME: t-t )-49- UP 04t,fV /V V 7 r�G DAYTIME PHONE m: 7o 3- 779- oga5 BUSINESSnRADE NAME: D/vz- .S Tbp F&o jb S?oTGS j STREET ADDRESS (actual location of business - this address may be different from the mailing address): 47 S� N'o�TNw� sT�Rds p,`kt- �u/��NL-S�F/L V'•.�rl �� 6a.� OWNER(s) OF PROPERTY (if different from applicant): DESCRIPTION of BUSINESS: (-\ A S 93Z- %fh 0 5�-- F, APPLICANT SIGNATURE: Please Do Not Write Below This Line - For Plannin L-- DATE: 3--7 1f— o Review PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION # (PIN): ZONING DISTRICT: r�i4 IF BUSINESS IS HOME -BASED Home or Cotter e Occupation): 1. Number of Employ Other Than embers of Ho ehold: 2. New Construction or teration ' ed: Yes No 3. Business Located Wi House A^ Stru e Based upon the information provided by , e app1ican is the -use propo for the ove-referenced location permitted in the identified zoning district? YES NO STAFF COMMENT: 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 rN r PnDy 0 • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAY: 540/ 678-0682 November 12, 1997 Ed and Robin Menefee 4722 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Dear Mr. and Mrs. Menefee: Thank you for meeting with Kris Tierney and me on October 29, 1997 to discuss your concerns of the Hogue Creek Country Market expansion plan. I believe this discussion was quite informative and productive; we now have a much clearer understanding of your concerns and will make every attempt to address and resolve them. I hope that our discussions, and now this letter, will assist in clarifying your concerns. In a letter dated October 28, 1997 addressed to Kris Tierney, delivered to this office on October 29, 1997, you presented a number of issues concerning the Hogue Creek Market. Many of your concerns were in reference to the approved CUP (CUP #013-96) and the approved site plan (SP #011-97). A number of your concerns referred to your belief of the County's insufficient effort to inform the population of details about the market expansion. It is important to be aware that the CUP approval process involves public participation; public hearings are held to encourage public comments. Unless a particular issue of concern is raised, the planning department staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors may not view a particular aspect of the proposal as a potential problem. Below are the issues as listed in your October 28th letter, followed by a response. I hope you will find each response to adequately resolve your stated concern. The site plait with final approval fran the Department of Planning approved 1, 440 .square feet be,vond what was approved by the Board of Supervisors. This was a 30% increase over the footage approved in the CUP. Response: Based on the information provided in the CUP application, staff agrees that the site plan illustrated a greater increase in building size than previously approved. This was an error on behalf of staff, and efforts have been made to resolve the square footage discrepancy. Such efforts include the notification of the Hogue Creek Country Market owner, and the site plan engineer, that the previously approved site plan for this market is invalid. Two options are available to the market owner to rectify this situation. First, he could revise the site plan to allow for a building addition more in keeping with the 4,080 +/- square feet, as approved by the CUP. 107 Kurth Kent Street • Winchester. Vir-inia 22601-5000 Ed and Robin Menefee RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 2 November 10, 1997 Second, he could make application for a new CUP allowing for the additional square footage, and gain CUP approval by the Board of Supervisors. 2. Recently, Hogue Creek installed new automobile fuel pumps that expanded the sale of petroleum. The installation resulted in doubling the capacity to sell fuel by enabling twice as many cars to fuel at the same time. No word was ever said to its of any changes to the Juel service. How can expansion of capacity not require a CUP? Isn't building more square footage an expansion of capacity for a retail store? How was this not disclosed? The application disclosed it to the Health Department in a letter dated 7115196. Response: Based on the information provided in the CUP application, this facility is a country store with petroleum sales. The CUP application also contained a representation of how the site plan may be designed. This plan provides an illustration of four fuel islands and a canopy. By providing the text and the representative site plan, one is led to believe that the existing fuel service would be expanded. As no concern was voiced during the public meeting review of the CUP, the expansion of fuel services did not lead to discussions. Also, it is important to remember that fuel service already existed on the site, before the most recent CUP was approved. The mere expansion of sale volume would not, in and of itself, trigger the requirement for a CUP or public hearing process. 3. Hogue Creek also recently installed new diesel pumps and a 10, 000-gallon underground storage lank (UST) to replace a small above ground tank. This installation greatly increased diesel fuel capacity and resulted in greatly Increasing the sale of diesel fitel, which will likely, expand further once tractor -trailer drivers are aware of the service. Again, no word was ever mentioned to its of changing the fitel service; however, the Department of Planning approved this tank via correspondence from the applicant on 7.116197. How? On what authority? Response: As stated, diesel fuel sales already exist at the market. There was no concern indicated about the fuel/diesel service during the public meetings, therefore discussion did not ensue. The relocation of the diesel pumps was necessary to provide the drive-thru service portion of the food service, as requested in the CUP application. Placement of fuel service islands is addressed by the zoning ordinance, and the diesel pumps were located in conformance to this ordinance requirement. The installation of underground storage tanks does not require zoning approval. Therefore, the conversion of above -ground storage tanks to underground storage tanks does not require action on behalf of this department or the Board of Supervisors. 4. On the site plan the Department of Planning approved a 2,500 square foot canopy with 16 very high wattage lights. The canopy has been installed over the new automobile pumps i n front of the store and the original canopy has been relocated over the new diesel pumps at the front west Ed and Robin Menefee RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 3 November 10, 1997 side of the property. The new canopy illuminates light throughout our front yard and extends over 425 feet and into the next property. In addition, the light creates shadows as far into our yard as 350 feet. Our house is approximately 225 feet from the lights. Response: This department did approve a 100' by 25' canopy to be placed above the four fuel islands, as illustrated on the representative site plan included in the CUP application. While such canopies generally contain lighting, the department does not necessarily approve lighting, and did not address lighting for this canopy. The Zoning Ordinance states that "outdoor lighting be arranged to deflect glare away from adjoining properties and public streets". Staff has worked with business establishments in the past to reduce this light spillage onto adjoining properties, and will do the same on this site. The 16-light canopy lighting is in addition to the 6 dimmer lights that exist with the original canopy for a total of 22 lights. A driver has commented to us that the lights are so bright they are blinding to drivers that look into them. Response: Staff will work with the market to redirect and reduce this light glare. No word was mentioned of constructing a larger canopy. How was this not disclosed? We have discovered that it was disclosed on a site plan to the Health Department on a 7115196 letter from the applicant. How could such a light nuisance be allowed on the site plan without consideration to neighboring properties? Response: Again, the canopy was included in the representative site plan and lighting concerns will be addressed. Further, we were left with the impression the maximum size of a sign is 100 square feet. This canopy advertises fuel and is much larger and brighter then the previous canopy which still exists. How does this canopy conform to the ordinance? Response: You are accurate about the maximum size for a business sign. As for the canopy, current county sign regulations do not address a canopy as a business sign. 5. A "small " drive-thru to service the proposed restaurant was described to us at the public hearing and shown on the application drawing we received from the Dept. of Planning. However, the site plan required 2-way traffic around the store phis the drive-thru lane, resulting in 3 lanes of traffic behind the building. This 2-way traffic is used by tractor -trailers fueling at the newly installed diesel pumps and increases traffic closer to our home (approximately 150 feet away). Ed and Robin Menefee RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 4 November 10, 1997 Response: It is correct that the drive-thru was shown on the representative site plan. The size of the drive-thru lanes and adjacent access aisles were not discussed in detail during the CUP process, nor were concerns voiced. The travel lanes providing for circulation around the rear of the facility was illustrated on the representative site plan. These lanes are designed for parking space access and a drive-thru lane, and comply with the required zoning ordinance minimum width of 34 feet (22-foot driving aisle, 12-foot drive-thru lane). Before presentation to the Planning Commission, is the application reviewed by the Dept. of Planning or the applicant to ensure adequate space exists to accommodate an expansion? Would one not expect the conceptual plan to follow ordinances and indicate multiple lanes of traffic? Response: The CUP application is reviewed by staff, the site plan is not reviewed until submitted, normally this occurs after the CUP is approved. The conceptual plan, as submitted with the CUP application, is for generalization purposes and presented no obvious ordinance conflicts. To staffs knowledge, no issue was raised with regard to the number of lanes of traffic. Why was this not disclosed? Traffic behind the building is a critical issue for safety and in living by a business with regards to increased noise pollution, fuel fume pollution and lighting pollution. Response: This is not a question of information not being disclosed. Traffic flow around the market, as a problem, was not brought to the attention of the staff, the Commission, nor the Board. Therefore, it was not considered an issue that needed to be addressed during the CUP review nor the site plan review. 6. During the Planning Commission Hearing and in conversation with our supervisor we requested the operating hours be limited to the current hours. The original CUP in 1987 did not define hours. Current hours are Sun. -Wed S: 00 a.m. -10: 00 p.m., and Thurs.-Sat. 5: 00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Out of the blue, the approved December 1996 CUP establishes hours as 5: 00 a. in - 13: 00 p.m, with no limitation to the day of the week. How did the hours change." This sign is mach brighter and larger than the prior are and is a nuisance. Response: At the public hearing, the applicant expressed his intention of maintaining the same hours of operation, as you have indicated above. He also stated that he had no intention of being open 24 hours a day. Staff will look into this issue. 7. The plan presented at the hearing indicated 13 parking spaces oil the east side of the property Ed and Robin Menefee RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 5 November 10, 1997 line (adjacent to our property) and 17 spaces on the west side (store owner's side). The approved site plan has 29 spaces on our side and 17 spaces on the west side. The result of this change is the 29 spaces now wrap down the property line and around the backside of the building. Therefore, there will be more car traffic added to that of the drive-thru creating more noise near our house (150 feet away). The noise will be increased road noise, starting of car engines, and doors slamming. Response: The increase in parking spaces is required based on zoning ordinance requirements; the number of required parking spaces is calculated based on building square footage. This number of parking spaces will be revisited once the permitted building square footage is resolved. A reduction in square footage will reduce the number of required parking spaces. But, it is important to be reminded that the representative site plan is for generalization purposes only; the actual required number of parking spaces was not addressed nor reviewed based on the representative site plan. 8. To accommodate the foot traffic in the back, it appears a rear entrance under a covered porch has been approved by the Site Plan. We were not advised of any rear entrance or code requiring this. As a result, this entrance will encourage more traffic in the back creating more noise and light pollution. Adding another entry into the building for egress is a safety concern to me as the store was robbed less than two years ago. Response: Following conversations with representatives from the engineering firm, the rear of the building is not intended to be utilized as a customer entrance into the market. The access is intended for employees and deliveries only. Here again, in the absence of any public objections, the Planning Department, Commission, and the Board would not customarily be concerned with where customers are to enter a business establishment. 9. We understood from our supervisor, Richard Shickle, that the border between our property litre with Hogue Creek would be low dense landscaping in the front, and a taller dense one along the side arnd back. The site plan approved an 8-fool high fence that is 184 feet long. To "hide " this fence, the site plan has 9 white pines to be planted The border was a major concern to its and I had even asked how the border would be approved and if adjoining property owners could be apart of the approval process. I was advised that the Department of Planning would handle this appropriately with the site plan. Response: During the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings, there was indeed voiced concern regarding the protection of neighboring properties from debris, lighting, and noise. Staff was directed to address these concerns during site plan review with consideration towards a possible buffer. Staff elected to implement a comparable buffer/screen Ed and Robin Menefee RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 6 November 10, 1997 that is used throughout the county on other business developments: a board -on -board fence and periodic evergreen plantings continuing the length of the parking area. This fence will significantly reduce the impact from debris, lighting, and noise. Additional plantings located between the fence and the property line reduce the visual impact of the fence. It is our understanding, based on our meeting on October 29, 1997, that you now feel this is an adequate solution. 10. The CUP application did not note any major change to garbage location. The site plan was approved with the addition of a 20' x 10' Dumpsite. Although this maybe required by code, how will rodents be kept out and the smell contained? When will we hear the dump truck picking up trash? Response: The County requires that dumpster sites be enclosed with a board -on -board enclosure and have a latched gate. It is also required that the dumpster not be placed in the front yard of a site. The County does not regulate the hours that trash removal may occur. Additional issues not relating to the signed Site Plan but still greatly affect us include: A. Hogue Creek's wastewater dumps into our front yard. This was discovered earlier this month when intermittent streams on our property dried zip, but the front yard along Route 50 remained a wet swampy area with still wastewater. Investigation by my father-in-law discovered a pipe approximately 5 feet from the mutual property line that flows into our yard. Although the sewer was not noted on the CUP application, the Site Plan indicates the sewer field drain is within feet of the property line. Current wastewater flows are estimated at 353 gallons per day with an existing store size of 3,600 square feet. This waste flow is expected to increase to max. 950 gallons per day once the store/% estaurant is in operation. How is the water allowed to flow onto our property? How is it metered? Where does the Department of Planning or the Board of Supervisors think the wastewater will go once the volume triples? Isn't drainage a concern when approving a CUP? Response: This concern falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health Office of Water Programs. It has been forwarded to these agencies for their consideration. When we receive their comments, it will be forwarded to your attention. B. Upon inquiry with the State Health Department, we discovered the department had approved the CUP application based on the information provided in July 1996. The Health Department Ed and Robin Menefee RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 7 November 10, 1997 never received the revised site plan showing the increased 30% square footage on the retail space as approved in comment # 1 on the first page of this letter. Four of the five reviewing agencies were submitted the revised site plan with the 1,440 additional store footage. The applicant indicated this to the Planning Commission on a letter dated 3124197. The Health Department was the only review agency that did not submit updated comments to the site plan, but instead documentation indicates the Dept. of Planning accepted comments from 8121196. The Health Department letter of 8121196 indicates the wastewater treatment system is at 95% capacity based on the information in the CUP Application. The applicant's engineer defined the waste levels for a 7,680 square foot store/restaurant and a 1,100 square foot additional dwelling (which ivas dropped from the application). The Health Department in Lexington, VA advised my husband that when a system exceeds 95% capacity, upgrades to the system and a different permit are needed However, as noted above, once the Site Plan increased the square footage to a 9,120 square foot retail store/restaurant, how did this effect the 95% wasteflow treatment capacity? Why were updated comments not required from the Health Department? Response: The increased square footage, as previously stated, does violate the approved CUP. Once the square footage concern is addressed, this issue may be resolved. Nevertheless, we have forwarded these concerns to the Department of Health Office of Water Programs for their consideration. When we receive their comments, it will be forwarded to your attention. C. Last week, my husband discussed with VDOT our safety (or lack ofi in turning into out - driveway from the westbound deceleration lane, in addition to the overall safety of the intersection with the increased traffic. Most cars are not expecting us to turn before the store wid it may be a matter of time before we are hit from the rear. This was stated in our concerns during the Planning Commission Hearing. VDOT advised the statistics are not high enough to require any changes. The information given to VDOT by the applicant indicates that the maximum number of cars turning from the site during a peak traffic hour is 55 vehicles. This calculation is the number of cars after the 4, 080'retail store,1restaurant is added with a drive-thru service. We disclosed the actual traffic count is drastically above the national statistical calculation used in the application. The actual traffic counts that we conducted from 4: 00 p.m. to 5: 00 p.m. on Friday 10124 was 132 cars turning into the store in a one -hour peak traffic period This is before construction of the CUP application (but after installation of firel tanks, etc.) Neither count of course considers the cars exiting the store or those making a U-turn in the same intersection. During Ed and Robin Menefee RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 8 November 10, 1997 six minutes in the hour noted above, from 4: 00 p.m. and 4: 06 p.m., there were 23 cars entering the store. Our actual traffic counts are attached. The traffic is much higher since the fuel expansion. Response: This concern falls under the jurisdiction of the Virginia Department of Transportation, and have been forwarded to them for their consideration. Once we receive comments, it will be forwarded to you. D. During the Planning Commission hearing process another neighbor expressed concern for safety due to tractor -trailer parking on Route 50. When the Planning Commission asked the owner about it, he replied there are no parking signs posted and the store advised drivers not to do this. This appeased the Commission and our comments were ignored. Tractor -trailers continue to park on Route 50. We have pictures of a truck parked on the westbound deceleration lane during peak traffic on 10122 and another on Route 50 shoulder in front of the store in the morning of 10124 (the times we conducted traffic counts). Response: Based on conversations with the Sheriff's Office, the placement of "no parking" signs along the road right-of-way will enable the Sheriff's Office to enforce parking restrictions. The market may not be liable for the actions of the truck drivers who choose to ignore the "no parking" signs; their effort to advise customers about the "no parking" signs probably reduces the frequency of parking violations. I have forwarded this concern to VDOT and requested their comments. In summation, the Planning Commission has the authority to request a review of site plans if significant concerns exist and are brought to the staffs and Commission's attention. Without the Planning Commission's request, review and approval of site plans are left to the responsibility of the Zoning Administrator and staff. In terms of the accuracy of the approved site plan, staff believes that in essence, the only discrepancy between the approved CUP and the approved site plan is the 1,440-square-foot addition and the required parking associated with this addition. The presence of the diesel canopy, while not specifically identified on the representative plan included in the CUP application, is not considered to be an increase above and beyond the existing diesel service. Simply stated, if the fuel pumps already exist, placing a canopy above them does not change the pumps legal status. Details such as building entrance locations, dumpster locations, and sales volume are not typically addressed in the absence of voiced concerns. Staff will certainly investigate and address outdoor lighting and noise concerns. Each will be treated in accordance with our policy regarding zoning violations. We will make a concerted effort to work with the property owner to reduce the negative impacts associated with each. Ed and Robin Menefee RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 9 November 10, 1997 Based on our discussion, we now have a much clearer understanding of your concerns and will make every attempt to resolve those issues under our control. We will keep you informed of any developments with issues addressed by other agencies, and are available to further discuss this information should you feel that it is necessary. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence Planner II ERL/cc cc: Richard Shickle, Gainesboro District Supervisor Jim Longerbeam, Chairman, Board of Supervisors John R. Riley Jr., County Administrator UAERIC\COMMOI Ed and Robin Menefee 4722 Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 October 28, 1997 Mr. Kris Tierney Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Tierney, On Wednesday, October 22, 1997 my husband and I visited you regarding the Hogue Creek Market Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #013-96. During this meeting we reviewed the CUP Application process and the roles and respective authorities of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. More importantly, we discussed our complaints that the site plan approved by the Department of Planning on 5/14/97 differed from the information given us during the CUP public hearing and approval process in November and December 1996. Hence the purpose of this letter. After this meeting, we visited Richard Shickle from the Board of Supervisors on October 23, 1997 with the same questions and information. To establish some background, please note that in October 1996, my husband and I visited the Department of Planning numerous times regarding the Hogue Creek Market CUP Application after receiving notice of an upcoming hearing. At these visits we asked what the Hogue Creek Market application wanted to do, what were our rights as neighbors, how could we limit/prevent parts of the application and what type of conditions can be requested. We attended the November 1996 Planning Commission's public hearing, along with other neighbors, and spoke of our concerns and requested conditions in the event the application was approved. After the first hearing, we visited Richard Shickle and requested his assistance, which he kindly and professional gave us. All of our knowledge and subsequent actions were based on the information given us at the time by the Department of Planning and our supervisor. We did not want to see the store expand from a country store to a major mini -mart and drive-thru restaurant. However, we were led to believe by the Department of Planning that the Hogue Creek request was a reasonable one. To fight the expansion, we worked with Mr. Shickle to ensure appropriate protection of our right for a peaceful home and protect our property value as best as we could under the circumstances. Mr. Shickle met with the owner and at the time it appeared an understanding was reached. Mr. Shickle advised I did not need to send my letter to the other Board members detailing our concerns. He also advised we did not need to speak at the public hearing as he worked Page 2 Mr. Kris Tierney 10/28/97 out a compromise beforehand with the Hogue Creek Market's owners on the conditions my husband I agreed to accept. This is the reason my husband attended the Board's hearing but did not speak as indicated by the minutes (I was out of town). On Thursday, October 16, I visited the Department of Planning regarding recent construction by Hogue Creek Market. Upon seeing the final site plan for the first time, I learned what the Planning Commission advised prior to the public hearings (October 1996) and what we heard at the two hearings (November/December 1996), differed from the site plan approved by the Department of Planning (May 1997). This has been confirmed from conversations with people in the approval system. Below is a list of our issues. The CUP Application received from Hogue Creek Market on 9/16/96 requested approval to add retail space to the existing Country General Store, and add a small dwelling for a store manager, and provide space for a small drive -through type food service outlet. The additional dwelling was removed from the application. Issues: The site plan with final approval from the Department of Planning approved 1,440 square feet beyond what was approved by the Board of Supervisors. This was a 30% increase over the footage approved in the CUP. 2. Recently, Hogue Creek installed new automobile fuel pumps that expanded the sale of petroleum. The installation resulted in doubling the capacity to sell fuel by enablim4 twice as many cars to fuel at the same time. No word was ever said to us of any changes to the fuel service. How can expansion of capacity not require a CUP? Isn't building more square footage an expansion of capacity for a retail store? How was this not disclosed? The applicant disclosed it to the Health Department in a letter dated 7/15/96. Hogue Creek also recently installed new diesel pumps and a 10,000-gallon underground storage tank (UST) to replace a small above ground tank. This installation cueatly increased diesel fuel capacity and resulted in greatly increasing the sell of diesel fuel, which will likely expand further once tractor -trailer drivers are aware of the service. Again, no word was ever mentioned to us of changing the fuel service; however, the Department of Planning approved this tank via correspondence from the applicant on 7/16/97. How? On what authority? 4. On the site plan the Department of Planning approved a 2,500 square foot canopy with 16 very high wattage lights. This canopy has been installed over the new Page 3 Mr. Kris Tierney 10/28/97 automobile pumps in front of the store and the original canopy has been relocated over the new diesel pumps at the front west side of the property. The new canopy illuminates light throughout our front yard and extends over 425 feet and into the next property. In addition, the light creates shadows as far into our yard as 350 feet. Our house is approximately 225 feet from the lights. This 16-light canopy lighting is in addition to the 6 dimmer lights that exist with the original canopy for a total of 22 lights. A driver has commented to us that the lights are so bright they are blinding to drivers that look into them. No word was mentioned of constructing a larger canopy. How was this not disclosed? We have discovered that it was disclosed on a site plan to the Health Department on a 7/15/96 letter from the applicant. How could such a light nuisance be allowed on the site plan without consideration to neighboring properties? Further, we were left with the impression the maximum size of a sign is 100 square feet. This canopy advertises fuel and is much larger and brighter then the previous canopy which still exists. How does this canopy conform to the ordinance? 5. A "small" drive-thru to service the proposed restaurant was described to us at the public hearing and shown on the application drawing we received from the Dept. of Planning. However, the site plan required 2-way traffic around the store plus the drive-thru lane, resulting in 3 lanes of traffic behind the building. This 2-way traffic is used by tractor -trailers fueling at the newly installed diesel pumps and increases tragic closer to our home (approximately 150 feet away). Before presentation to the Planning Commission, is the application reviewed by the Dept. of Planning or the applicant to ensure adequate space exists to accommodate an expansion? Would one not expect the conceptual plan to follow ordinances and indicate multiple lanes of tragic? Why was this not disclosed? Traffic behind the building is a critical issue for safety and in living by a business with regards to increased noise pollution, fuel fume pollution and lighting pollution. 6. During the Planning Commission Hearing and in conversations with our supervisor we requested the operating hours be limited to the current hours The original CUP in 1987 did not define hours. Current hours are Sun. -Wed. 5:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m., and Thurs.-Sat. 5:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Out of the blue, the Page 4 Mr. Kris Tierney 10/28/97 approved December 1996 CUP establishes hours as 5:00 a.m. — 12:00 p.m. with no limitation to the day of the week. How did the hours change? This sign is much brighter and larger than the prior one and is a nuisance. 7. The plan presented at the hearing indicated 13 parking spaces on the east side of the property line (adjacent to our property) and 17 spaces on the west side (store owner's side). The approved site plan has 29 spaces on our side and 17 spaces on the west side. The result of this change is the 29 spaces now wrap down the property line and around the backside of the building. Therefore, there will be more car traffic added to that of the drive-thru creating more noise near our house (150 feet away). The noise will be increased road noise, starting of car engines, and doors slamming. To accommodate the foot traffic in the back, it appears a rear entrance under a covered porch has been approved by the Site Plan. We were not advised of any rear entrance or code requiring this. As a result, this entrance will encourage more traffic in the back creating more noise and light pollution. Adding another entry into the building for egress is a safety concern to me as the store was robbed less than two years ago. 9. We understood from our supervisor, Richard Shickle, that the border between our property line with Hogue Creek would be a low dense landscaping in the front, and a taller dense one along the side and back. The site plan approved an 8-foot high fence that is 184-feet long. To "hide'' this fence, the site plan has 9 white pines to be planted. The border was a major concern to us and I had even asked how the border would be approved and if adjoining property owners could be apart of the approval process. I was advised that the Department of Planning would handle this appropriately with the site plan. 10. The CUP application did not note any major change to garbage location. The site plan was approved with the addition of a 20" x 10' Dumpsite. Although this may be required by code, how will rodents be kept out and the smell contained? When will we hear the dump truck picking up trash? Additional issues not relating to the signed Site Plan but still greatly affect us include: A) Hogue Creek's wastewater dumps into our front yard. This was discovered earlier this month when intermittent streams on our property dried up, but the front yard along Route 50 remained a wet swampy area with still wastewater. Investigation by my father-in-law discovered a pipe approximately 5 feet from the • • Page 5 Mr. Kris Tierney 10/29/97 mutual property line that flows into our yard. Although the sewer field was not noted on the CUP application, the Site Plan indicates the sewer field drain is within feet of the property line. Current wastewater flows are estimated at 353 gallons per day with an existing store size of 3,600 square feet. This waste flow is expected to increase to max. 950 gallons per day once the store/restaurant is in operation. How is the water allowed to flow onto our property? How is this metered? Where does the Department of Planning or the Board of Supervisors think the wastewater will go once the volume triples? Isn't drainage a concern when approving a CUP? B) Upon inquiry with the State Health Department, we discovered the department had approved the CUP Application based on information provided in July 1996. The Health Department never received the revised site plan showing the increased 30% square footage on the retail space as approved in comment #1 on the first page of this letter. Four of the five reviewing agencies were submitted the revised site plan with the 1,440 additional store footage. The applicant indicated this to the Planning Commission on a letter dated 3/24/97. The Health Department was the only review agency that did not submit updated comments to the site plan, but instead documentation indicates the Dept. of Planning accepted comments from 8/21/96. The Health Department letter of 8/21/96 indicates the wastewater treatment system is at 95% capacity based on the information in the CUP Application. The applicant's engineer defined the waste levels for a 7,680 square foot store/restaurant and a 1,100 square foot additional dwelling (which was dropped from the application). The Health Department in Lexington, VA advised my husband that when a system exceeds 95% capacity, upgrades to the system and a different permit are needed. However, as noted above, once the Site Plan increased the square footage to a 9,120 square foot retail store/restaurant, how did this affect the 95% wasteflow treatment capacity? Why were updated comments not required from the Health Department? C) Last week, my husband discussed with VDOT our safety (or lack ot) in turning into our driveway from the westbound deceleration lane, in addition to the overall safety of the intersection with the increased traffic. Most cars are not expecting us to turn before the store and it may be a matter of time before we are hit from the rear. This was stated in our concerns during the Planning Commission Hearing. VDOT advised the statistics are not high enough to require any changes. 11 0 Page 6 Mr. Kris Tierney 10/28/97 The information given to VDOT by the applicant indicates that the maximum number of cars turning from the site during a peak traffic hour is 55 vehicles. This calculation is the number of cars after the 4,080' retail store/restaurant is added with a drive-thru service. We discovered the actual traffic count is drastically above the national statistical calculation used in the application. The actual traffic count that we conducted from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 10/24 was 132 cars turning into the store in a one -hour peak traffic period. This is before construction of the CUP application (but after installation of fuel tanks, etc.) Neither count of course considers the cars exiting the store or those making a U-turn in the same intersections. During six minutes in the hour noted above, from 4:00 p.m. and 4:06 p.m., there were 23 cars entering the store. Our actual traffic counts are attached. The traffic is much higher since the fuel expansion. D) During the Planning Commission hearing process another neighbor expressed concern for safety due to tractor -trailers parking on Route 50. When the Planning Commission asked the owner about it, he replied there are no parking signs posted and the store advises drivers not to do this. This appeased the Commission and our comments were ignored. Tractor -trailers continue to park on Route 50. We have pictures of a truck parked on the westbound deceleration lane during peak traffic on 10/22 and another on the Route 50 shoulder in front of the store in the morning of 10/24 (the times we conducted traffic counts). Needless to say, noise pollution, light pollution, traffic and congestion have increased since the expansion. Our estimation is that it will continue to increase even �cTreater. When is too much traffic, too much for a rural area? How much more traffic will there be once the approved CUP expansion is complete? Wouldn't the fuel expansion affect the approval of VDOT or the Board of Supervisors? How could all this be allowed to happen" How can the Board of Supervisors approve or not approve a request if realistic and accurate information is not provided during the time of the CUP application process'? How can the public (my husband and I) give input if the proposed application is not reality? Why does someone with a small antique shop need a public hearing notice to erect a sign (as noted by a recent public hearing newspaper ad), yet a store can go from the CUP approval to a site plan with the changes noted here and no public hearing is required? Page 7 Mr. Kris Tierney 10/28/97 This CUP was a major change. The approved store/restaurant expansion was a 213% increase over the current size. We need answers, and we need to know how each of these issues will be resolved. Last year, we received a 2-week notice from the Planning Commission on a Public Hearing to discuss an application that had been in the planning by the applicant for at least 8 months. Will we receive a reply in two weeks too? As you know, I originally discovered these discrepancies when I went to the Department of Planning on October 16, 1997. I brought some of the discrepancies to the attention of Andrew Evans as we reviewed the May 1997 Site Plan with the plan in the CUP application. As noted previously, this was the first time I saw the site plan. Although I did not ask for any specific action, Mr. Evans knew I was upset and that I felt very misrepresented. He said he would need to review it further. Mr. Evans noted many of the same differences between the application and approved site plan. Yesterday I received a call from Eric Lawrence advising the additional 1,440 square feet of retail space was not approved by the CUP and would be removed. Will a new sight plan be required? What about the remaining issues and questions noted herein? A written reply is kindly requested. Sincerely, Rpbin F. Menefee I Attachment Cc: Richard Shickle, Board of Supervisor, Gainsboro District Jim Longerbeam, Board of Supervisor, Chairman John Riley, County Administrator Andrew Evan, Zoning Administrator Mark E. Stivers Appendix A Hogue Creek Market — Actual Traffic Counts Wednesday, October 22 1997 Westbound Eastbound Entry Entry Total Total Per Hour 4:00 pm — 4:30 pm 42 4 = 46 93 4:30 pm — 5:00 pm 44 3 = 47 94 5:00 pm — 5:30 pm 39 8 = 47 89 5:30 pm — 6:00 pm 38 4 = 42 84 6:00 pm — 7:00 pm 68 15 = 83 83 Friday, October 24, 1997 Westbound Eastbound Entry Entry Total Total Per Hour 6:00 am — 6:30 am 7 22 = 29 63 6:30 am — 7:00 am 19 18 = 37 68 7:00 am — 7:30 am 17 14 = 31 58 7:30 am — 8:00 am 13 14 = 27 54 8:00 am — 8:30 am 14 13 = 27 4:00 pm — 4:30 pm 56 14 = 70 132 4:30 pm — 5:00 pm 52 10 = 62 131 5:00 pm — 5:30 pm 60 9 = 69 126 5:30 pm — 6:00 pm 45 12 = 57 95 6:00 pm — 6:30 pm 28 10 = 38 86 6:30 pm — 7:00 pm = 48 ►it • October 30, 1997 Doug Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Site Plan 4011-97 Dear Mr. Owens: • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 The Department of Planning and Development has recently been made aware of a discrepancy between the Conditional Use Permit and the Site Plan approved for the Hogue Creek Country Market. This discrepancy invalidates the approved site plan. On September 16, 1996, a CUP application (CUP #013-96) was submitted to this office for the Hogue Creek Country Market. This application addressed your interest in expanding the market. In particular, the application was for: an addition of 4,080 square feet to the market, drive-thru food service, and an accessory dwelling. A conceptual site plan was also submitted with this application. On this conceptual site plan, two additions totaling 4,080 square feet were indicated. The Board of Supervisors heard the CUP application during their December 11, 1996 meeting. It was during this meeting that the Board approved the business expansion but denied the request for an accessory dwelling. Several conditions were associated with this approval, two of which addressed a site plan requirement and a statement that required a new CUP should there be future expansion of this facility. A site plan (Site Plan 4011-97) was submitted to this department on March 3, 1997. After reviewing this plan, and having received favorable comments from the review agencies, staff believed the site plan addressed the zoning ordinance requirements pertinent to this site. The site plan was approved by the Zoning Administrator on May 14, 1997. It has only recently been brought to our attention that the additional square footage illustrated on the site plan totaled 5,520 square feet. This exceeds the Board of Supervisor's approved 4,080- square - feet addition by 1,440-square-feet. Therefore, the site plan is deemed invalid, as it does not conform to the approved Conditional Use Permit. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 2260 1 -3000 Page 2 Doug Owens RE: Hague Creek Country Market October 30, 1997 Based on this information, I would envision two alternatives available for consideration. The first is to revise the site plan to eliminate building additions that exceed 4,080 square feet. The second alternative is to submit a new Conditional Use Permit application for building additions totaling 1,440 square feet. It is imperative that this discrepancy be resolved. Please contact me so that we may further discuss this situation and the potential alternatives. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence Planner II ERL/bah Enclosure U:\.ERIC\CONfNION\SITEPLAiN\HOGUECRE.VIO o E pUND LA145 u 50 Lu p 1`,Q('(7Ln ,ie, ) ID^L: A AGICtd rur Q .Moo1 sr \ \ ac A R�Id vIL -•\ \ \ \ \ IL ap \ • Dace .0 t tor ., zmncDMAI Ili II7o sr ► — � �,Do 'yo / Lr. r 1VL' Al ACCESSORY / 10, i . J0 .- AI USE SE A/ • � � / � w wssoo.cr 14ES 0. _ j ,.Cf. mcumc 1 1) \ AN 1 AS f00d a.... P 4 MPS I�PY n OJSCPO~ Pow - Our"? cow wa am EMMM Cgit pQNTE—gi -&EMIT .is. 74 [..1 rl. aft s1..M vbgw. 27101 FAx TRANSMISSION FREDERICK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 107 N. KENT STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 540.665.5651 FAx: 540.678,0682 To: Mark Stivers Date: Fax #: 722-6169 Pages: From: Eric R. Lawrence Subject: In response to Menefee Request COMMENTS: April 13, 1998 2, including this cover sheet. I just received a copy of the attached concerning the Menefee request. Please contact me with any questions. Eric --- 0-961 F R ! 04 40 AN HALL NONA6 ETC FAX NO, 1540662416 P, 02 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTIICP!.W1P Or PROCESSIONAL CORPORATIONS W:-Bvu C. HALL 1I ;_ 2-1872) THOMAS V. MONAIIAN IRCT.AC01 CAM.,-IEL D. ENQ LE O. LLLAND N,AHAN Pf`A!'RT T. M:', ELL. JR. JAME:s A. KL E\ ;AJ L-Et E. BE'FL;K ATTORNEYS AT LAW CAS- m^RAET STOCeT LEESSu40,'maINIA GLCP"0NC 7C5-77)•1060 '=LECCFiER 703•^CI•AI � April 10, 1998 Manuel Sempeles, Chairman Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Conditional. Use Permit No. 013-96 Menefee "Petition for Review" Dear Manuel: 0 CACT OOSGAWCN S`4Cc- WInC,ICSTER, V-A01N:A -CLEF~O.ri. 6+0.6a F•ie00 ELCEtC—IrC 6-1•v62•a30• 4LEA�L RC-LY-0. F. O• Box 848 WINCHES -ER, VIRG:N:,a.22604.0848 At the request of Mike Ruddy, Y have reviewed the letter dated March 20, 1998 from Edward D. Menefee and Robin F. Menefee, purporting to submit a "Petition for Review" to the Board of Zoning Appeals to appeal the approval of a site plan for the Hogue Creek Country Market. Pursuant to the provision of § 15.2-2258, Code of Virginia, the provisions of § 15.2-2259, including theprovisions governing the appeals related to subdivision applications, apply to appeals relating to site plan applications. § 15.2-2259 provides that appeals shall be to the Circuit Court, and shall be filed within sixty (60) days of the action taken on the application. It is my opinion, therefore, that the Board of Zoning Appeals has no jurisdiction to hear and decade appeals relating to site plan applications, and that any such appeals must be to the Circuit Court in accordance with statute. If there is any further questions concerning the foregoing, please contact me. RTM/Iww s 0 FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 March 27, 1998 Edward and Robin Menefee 4722 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Appeal of the Hogue Creek Country Market Site Plan Dear Mr. and Mrs. Menefee: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 20, 1998, requesting an appeal of the Hogue Creek Country Market site plan's approval. In your letter, you provide three items as grounds for your appeal. This letter was forwarded to the Commonwealth Attorney's office to determine if the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) was the appropriate body to review the appeal. After reviewing your request, the Commonwealth Attorney's office advised staff that items #2 and 93 from your letter are not administrative decision appeals. These two items are appeals of the Board of Supervisors' decision to grant the Conditional Use Permit in December 1996. The Board of Zoning Appeals does not have jurisdiction over legislative decision appeals. Item 91 may qualify as an appeal, as it is concerning the Zoning Administrator's decision in approving the site plan. Such appeals should be filed with the Zoning Administrator and Board of Zoning Appeals within thirty (30) days of the appealed action, the appealed action would be the approval of the site plan on February 6, 1998. Therefore, the appeal should have been filed with this office by March 8, 1998. The appeal was not received by this office until March 23, 1998, not satisfying the 30-day appeal period. This office is not able to process your appeal request as I have explained above. Please contact me with any questions concerning this letter. Sinc ely, Eric R. Lawrence Zoning Administrator ERL/cc Attachment - Letter requesting appeal cc: Richard Shickle, Crainesboro District Supervisor Lawrence Ambrogi, Commonwealth Attorney G\ERIC,CO.�I,\ION9SLETIFR \IEXEFEE APL 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Menefee • • March 20, 1998 ✓ Eric Lawrence Zoning Administrator Dept. of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 4722 Northwestern Pike Winchester, VA 22603 (540) 877-1027 Frederick County Zoning Appeals Board 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 This is a petition for review of the Hogue Creek Country Market Site Plan approved under the Conditional Use Permit #013-96. The grounds to appeal the decision are based on these issues: 1) The site plan approved on February 6,1998 extends beyond the represented site plan and the intent of the CUP application presented by the applicant at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors' Public Hearings held on November 6 and December 11, 1997 respectively. 2) The decisions made in approving the site plan adversely impact surrounding proper- ties by reducing the enjoyment of our home and affecting the natural character and environment of the area. 3) The expansion of use approved with the installation of a 10,000 gallon Underground Storage Tank is believed to be a major expansion and not within the authority of the Department of Planning. As a result, tractor trailers now traverse the property creat- ing a significant amount of noise. This type of use could not have been clearly consid- ered by the Board of Supervisors when approving the special use permit. Our concerns were first addressed to the Department of Planning as early as October 1997. We made repeated attempts to identify what and how the department would finally ad- dress our concerns. We were not aware of anv site plan approval until February 19, 1998. We do not consider the site plan submission to be complete. A site plan submission cannot be complete until all plans, application materials, and required comments have been re- ceived. Your correspondence, dated November 12, 1997, promises that comments would be obtained from VDOT and that a reply would be forwarded to us. As of this date no reply has been received. A call to VDOT on February 20, 1998 indicated that no written re- quest for comments had been requested after November 12,1997. eX4 Edward D. Men fee /Robin F. L APR-10-98 FRI 04:40 AM HALL NO* ETC FAX NO, 1540662104 P,OI y'. WaIBUR c. HALL (I892.1972) THOMAS V. MON kHAN (RETIRED) SAMUEL D. P— GIZ O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. 4IITCHELL, M 1A.1IES A. KIMTKAR TEE E. BERM TRANSMIT TO: Name: MALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCNELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORAT10tiS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3 EAST XQ FI 'I' STREI1-r 9 EAST BOSCAWE.N SITtr- ' LEMURG, VIRGINIA WIN ASTER. VIRGD;IA TELEPHONE! 703-777.1050 TE[.E HONTE. U&662-3200 TELECOPTER 703-771.4113 TFl=OPIa 540-6624304 FAX 'T'RANSMTI'AL SHEET LATE: PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL PLEASE REPLY TO; P.O. BOX 848 VVINCHi'STEP- VIRGR4A 22604-0848 Location: t� Fax No. FD- ' FROM: Name:. Location: Fax No.. MFSSAG$: Winchester, Virginia (540) 662-4304 v U � ` (h., S d::�]7+ TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): �L — APR-10-98 FRI 04:40 AN HALL MO*N ETC FAX NO. 154066*4 P.02 *11 " HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP Or PROFESSIONAL conPORATIONS W!,.E'JP C. HALL (1292.1972) THOMA5 V. (M�ONANAN 1QCT,RC01 G SAMUEL D. NC -LE O. LCLAND MAHAN RC:AF"RT T. M1Y[14ELL. JR. _JA.MEs A. KLZN>,AP LzE E. SE'RLiK ATTORNEYS AT LAW J CAS" m+ RAET STPCr_T LEESSU4C, VIPI-I A T LLCPI.ONC 703.777.1050 TELECCF.-cR 703•Y', 1.41 �n April 10, 1998 Manuel Se•mpeles, Chairman Frederick County Board of Zoning Appeals 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Conditional Use Permit No. 013-96 Menefee "Petition for Review" Dear Manuel: 0 CAOT OpscnwEN S'Rcc- WINC1.CSTER, v.A61141A TELEP•iONkE c%.o•ee: •p2pp TELEGG�ica C••U•n6e•<3U� PLEA--'.: WC-LY TC. P. O. 60X 846 WINCHESTER, VIRGINV, 22604.0848 At the request of Mike Ruddy, I have reviewed the letter dated March 20, 1998 from Edward D. Menefee and Robin F. Menefee, purporting to submit a "Petition for Review" to the Board of Zoning Appeals to appeal the approval of a site plan for the Hogue Creek Country Market. Pursuant to the provision of § 15.2-2258, Code of Virginia, the provisions of § 15.2-2259, including theprovisions governing the appeals related to subdivision applications, apply to appeals relating to site plan applications. § 15.2-22.59 provides that appeals shall be to the Circuit Court, and shall be filed within sixty (60) days of the action taken on the application. It is my opinion, therefore, that the Board of Zoning Appeals has no jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals relating to site plan applications, and that any such appeals must be to the Circuit Court in accordance with statute. If there is any further questions concerning the foregoing, please contact me. ry tru yours, Rob rt T. Mitchell, Jr. RT1vI/lww 1 Hogue Creek Country Market Site Plan #011-97 Site Plan Actions December 11, 1996 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approves Conditional Use Permit application #013-96 for the Hogue Creek Country Market. Seven conditions are applied, ranging from hours of operation to the consideration of buffer and screening to protect adjoining properties. March 24, 1997 Application and preliminary site plan are submitted to this office. The review fee is not received until March 31, 1997. April 3, 1997 Preliminary site plan review. 12 issues identified. Letter mailed to engineer. Staff requested verification that all health permits are valid. April 23, 1997 Revised preliminary site plan, date April 18, 1997, is received by staff. Most previously identified issues have been addressed. Health department issues have been resolved, as per owner. Staff requests verification via letter from Health officials. April 25, 1997 Preliminary site plan review #2. 4 issues identified. Letter mailed to engineer. May 16, 1997 Site plan administratively approved. This was for building additions that totaled 5,500 square feet (9,120 square feet building), parking, and buffer and screening. July 16, 1997 Fax received from John Lewis, Project Engineer, requesting to: modify fuel canopy size; improve diesel island; and relocate existing canopy to diesel island. Proposed size concurs with approved CUP. Staff responds favorably to request. Requests updated illustration with seal identifying improvements. 2 August 5, 1997 Fax received illustrating proposed modifications to fuel and diesel island canopies. Beginning of October, 1997 Ed and Robin Menefee express an interest in the Hogue Creek Country Market. State that they feel that site plan does not adequately address the approved CUP and the concerns voiced during the CUP hearings. Feel that the site plan is not in conformance to the CUP. October 28, 1997 Robin and Ed Menefee meet with Kris Tierney and Eric Lawrence to discuss their concerns with the Hogue Creek Country Market site plan. Mr. Mark Stivers, Attorney for the Menefees, is present. The Menefees expressed their concern that the site plans does not comply with the approved CUP. Provide a letter, dated October 28, 1997, outlining their concerns and requesting a response to each issue. October 30, 1997 Staff informs Mr. Owens via letter that site plan #011-97 is invalid. It has been determined that the site plan permits more building square footage than permitted by the CUP. November 3, 1997 Mr. Owens called the Planning Office to acknowledge his receipt of letter dated October 30, 1997. Mr. Owens thought that his approved CUP and Site Plan were in agreement. Said that John Lewis would contact this office to discuss and resolve conflict. November 13, 1997 Staff responds to the Menefee letter dated October 28, 1997. Issues that concern outside review agencies, i.e., VDOT and Health agencies, have been forwarded for their responses. December 1, 1997 Staff representative, Eric Lawrence, meets with the Menefees at their residence to observe outdoor light concern. Staff confirms that the lighting is excessive; in particular, glare is being emitted from the new fuel island canopy. Will work with Hogue Creek Country Market to reduce glare on adjoining properties. December 2, 1997 Staff meets with John Lewis, Project Engineer, and Doug Owens to discuss the County's concerns. Issues discussed include: outdoor lighting; site plan and CUP conformance; trucks traveling around the building, disturbance of • K existing vegetation; and buffer and screening. December 4, 1997 Staff meets on site with Mr. and Mrs. Owens to discuss issues. Staff expresses interest in implementing buffer and screening to mitigate any possible negative impacts generated by truck traffic. All parties agree as to the necessary actions. Staff mails letter summarizing discussions of December 2 and 4. Dt,G S,7A rA/O�Fat MCS 1-IAT LtLHT SHIEL11 i�(gCCb..t Ll�^'� �a J/,/l� Co L Some � I — , M n . p,.... r i X i+.t u f� I h•� �� 0/1 ✓" l iiH . December 10, 1997 Mark Stivers, the Menefee's Attorney, contacts this office to review actions since last meeting. Staff bring Mr. Stivers up-to-date of discussions with the Menefee's and the Owens. Stivers expresses his concern that insufficient efforts and actions have been achieved. Eludes to possible legal actions. December 11, 1997 Mr. Owens contacted this office to voice his disapproval of issues in the October 30, 1997 letter and the December 4, 1997. Indicates that the County should provide legal argument that site plan is invalid. Mr. Owens said that he would contact this office within the week to schedule another meeting time to further discuss situation. J --, 70, Z 3 r1-_c U:I.ERIC`.COMMON\S rrEPLAMHOGUECRE. HIS 0 • FILE COPY i December 4, 1997 Mr. Doug Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Site Plan #011-97; CUP #13-96 Dear Mr. Owens: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and John Lewis on December 2, 1997, to discuss the Hogue Creek Country Market's site plan. While a number of issues were discussed, I would like to reiterate five significant issues that will need your immediate attention. These five issues are discussed in more detail below. 1. Invalid Site Plan. As you are aware, it has been determined that the Hogue Creek Country Market Site Plan (Site Plan #011-97) does not comply with the issued Conditional Use Permit (CUP #013-96). This discrepancy invalidates Site Plan #011-97. During our discussion, we agreed upon two alternatives to achieve an approved site plan. The first involved revising the site plan to more accurately reflect the approved CUP and, in particular, the conceptual site plan submitted with the CUP. This would require the removal of two building additions (totaling 1,550 square feet) to the eastern side of the building. The only building additions that should be illustrated on the revised site plan will be on the building's western side and total 4,080 square feet. We also agreed that the two fuel island canopies and the business sign should be shown in their proper configuration. The second alternative involved revising the CUP. This would involve the submission of a new Conditional Use Permit application, and the application's approval by the Board of Supervisors. 2. Building Permits. It is important that you be aware that this department will not approve any building permits associated with this market until a site plan has been approved. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • i Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Page 2 December 4, 1997 Therefore, it is imperative that attention be given to this matter so that you may maintain your business's expansion time table. Outdoor Lighting. This department has received complaints regarding the outdoor lighting, in particular the new canopy's lighting. The Zoning Ordinance states that "Outdoor lighting shall be arranged to deflect glare away from adjoining properties and public streets. Sources of light on a lot shall be hooded or controlled to prevent glare beyond the lot line." I visited the site on Monday, December 1, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. and confirmed the validity of the lighting complaints. During this visit, I observed that glare from this site could be seen well into and across the entire yards of adjoining properties. This lighting also appears to be a traffic hazard as it has the ability to `blind' drivers as they approach the facility. Most of the source of the excessive lighting is being emitted from the new canopy's lamps. Based on my observation, lighting on this property is in violation of Chapter 165 (Zoning Ordinance), Section 35.A of the Frederick County Code. It is imperative that this lighting violation be resolved in a timely manner. Additionally, please note that the County will not approve a site plans for the site until the lighting violation is resolved. 4. Gravel Driveway. The existing gravel drive around the rear of the building continues to produce concern for this department. It appears that the drive is being utilized by vehicles (trucks and passenger cars, alike) to gain access to the diesel pumps. As the use of this gravel surface continues, excessive dust is produced. Such dust is a nuisance to the adjoining properties and is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Hard surfacing this driveway, as illustrated on the submitted site plan, and as required by the Zoning Ordinance, would alleviate the dust; the hard surfacing would also bring the driveway into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. As a minimum effort and a temporary solution, the County would expect that the driveway be improved to a double prime -and -seal surface. When a site plan is approved, and building construction commences, you will be required to hard surface the driveway and install parking that complies with the business standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscape Buffer. During the Conditional Use Permit hearings for your CUP (CUP n013- 96), there was discussion concerning requirements to buffer your business from the adjoining El Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Page 3 December 4, 1997 properties; the Zoning Ordinance also requires such a buffer. It was mentioned that a landscape buffer would be required and, in fact, the CUP was approved with the condition that a buffer be considered along property lines. As complaints have been received by this department, it is important to now address this landscape buffer requirement. As we discussed, because vehicles use the driveway around the rear of the building, the buffer should be implemented. This buffer will not only reduce the visual effects of the paved surface but will also reduce the ability for debris to leave your property, as mentioned during the CUP hearings. Each of the above issues should be promptly addressed. Please note that the lighting issue should be addressed immediately as a potential traffic hazard exists. It is also important that each of these issues be addressed as soon as possible. Please keep me informed as to your progress in satisfying each of the issues. And again, thank you for meeting with me to discuss the Hogue Creek Country Market. Sincerely, Eric R Lawrence Planne- TT ERL/c cc: UAMCCo • � FILE COPY CO)UN"FY of FREDERICh Department of Planning; and Development 540/ 665-565 t FAX: 540/ 678-0682 November 10, 1997 Harold T. Eberly, District Engineer Department of Health Office of Water Programs 131 Walker Street Lexington, VA 24450-2431 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Sewage - NPDES Permit; Frederick County Dear Tom We have recently received citizen -generated inquiries concerning the Hogue Creek Country Market, in particular, the market's plans for expansion. Numerous questions have been poised to this department that we feel are best addressed by the Office of Water Programs. It is believed that your expertise and realm of responsibility cover such issues. Background In 1996, the market owners applied for, and were granted, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to expand the existing market by an additional 4,080 square feet. Such expansion would increase the available retail space and enable a food service drive-thru The Office of Water Programs provided comments on this application in a letter dated August 21, 1996, addressed to John C Lewis, the letter is attached A site plan for this expansion was reviewed and approved by the County in the spring of 1997 The approved site plan was inadvertently approved for an expansion totaling 5,520 square feet, this oversight has been acknowledged and efforts are underway to rectify the situation. The expansion will not exceed 4,080 square feet, bringing the total commercial square footage to 7,680 A 2,600 square foot dwelling also presently exists on this site Concern Below are the voiced concerns, word-for-word, for your review. 1. Hogue Creek's wastewater dumps into our front yard. This was discovered earlier this month when intermittent streams on our property, dried up, but the front yard along Route 50 remained a wet .sit,amp , area with still wastewater. Investigation by my father-iti-latir- II)- North Kent 1�trect • Winchester. Vire-,inia 22601-50011 Office of Water Programs RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 2 November 10, 1997 discovered a pipe approximately 5 feet from the mutual property line that flows into our yard Although the sewer was not noted on the CUP application, the Site Plan indicates the sewer field drain is within feet of the property line. [...is there a distance requirement from the property line? ... ERL] Current wastewater flows are estimated at 353 gallons per day with an existing store size of 3,600 square feet. This waste flow is expected to increase to max. 950 gallons per day once the store/restaurant is in operation. How is the water allowed to flow onto our property? How is it metered? Where does the Department of Planning or the Board of Supervisors think the wastewater will go once the vohlme triples? Isn't drainage a concern when approving a CUP? [...How would the Office of Water Programs address drainage?... ERL] 2. Upon inquiry with the State Health Department, we discovered the department had approved the CUP application based on the information provided in July 1996. The Health Department never received the revised site plan showing the increased 30% .square footage on the retail space as approved in comment #I on the first page of this letter. [...as stated above, this square footage discrepancy has been addressed ... ERL ]. Four of the , five reviewing agencies were submitted the revised site plan with the 1, 440 additional store footage. The applicant indicated this to the Planning Commission on a letter dated 3124 97. The Health Department was the only review agency that did not .submiil updated comments to the site plan, but inslead documentation indicates the Depl. of Planning accepted comments from 8121196. The Health Department letter of 8/21196 indicates the wastewater lreatinent system is at 95% capacity based on the information in the CUP Application. The applicants engineer defined the waste le've'Is for a 7,680 square foot storelreslailrailt and a 1, 100 square fool additional dwelling (which was dropped from the application). "I'he Health Department in Lexington, VA advised my husband that when a system exceeds 95% capacity, upgrades to the .system and a different permit are deeded However, as noted above, once the Site Plait increased the square footage to a 9,120 square foot retail store/restaurant, how did this effect the 95% waste flow treatment capacity? Why were updated comments not required from the Health Department? [...Understanding that the County will resolve the square footage discrepancy, what would be required of the market should they be interested in expanding the market, again, in the future? ... ERL] • Office of Water Programs RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Page 3 November 10, 1997 Request If you would provide a response to the above concerns, I would be most appreciative. I am compiling responses to many of the voiced concerns and believe you are in the best position to address them. I certainly appreciate your attention to this matter. This information will not only assist a concerned citizen's understanding but will also be useful to increasing my awareness of the Department of Health's requirements. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Z - Eric R. Lawrence Planner II ERL/cc Enclosure U \ERIC.CO\L\ION\SFMPL \\\IIOGUECR OWP I Al TINIA RANDOLPH L. GORDON, M.D., M.P.H. Department of Health ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER COMMISSIONER Office of Water Programs 131 WALKER STREET LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA 24450-2431 Environmental Engineering Field Office PHONE: (540) 463-7136 FAX: (540) 463-3892 21 August 1996 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - NPDES Permits (Hogue Creek Country Market) Mr. John C. Lewis, P.E. Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 24 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Lewis: This is in response to your letter of 15 July 1996 requesting comments on the proposed improvements to the Hogue Creek Country Market. Based on our review of the information provided and limited information in our files, we offer the following: 1. The projected wastewater flows (950 gallons per day [gpd]) should be within the treatment capabilities of the retail outlet's existing 1000 gpd wastewater treatment facilities. This observation is based on separate treatment facilities being provided for the retail outlet and existing residence and metered water use provided. 2. Neither the site plan nor available permit site sketches indicates the presence of chlorination, dechlorination, or post aeration facilities for the retail outlet treatment facility. Therefore, it appears that these unit processes will be needed to insure compliance with effluent discharge limits. i. The status of the NPDES permits should be verified. Discussions with the Department of Environmental Quality indicate that two permitted discharges exist for this property and that renewal of one permit, believed to be the existing residence, has not yet been accomplished. In accordance with the above comments, this office has no objection to the proposed Hogue Creek Country Nfarket improvements provided adequate treatment capacity is available, a valid discharge permit exists, and any necessary local approvals are obtained. ti P .a • Mr. John C. Lewis 2 21 August 1996 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - NPDES Permits (Hogue Creek Country Market) Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, 1 L'— Li c�-('� , Harold T. Eberly District Engineer HTE/bt/08213.doc cc Frederick County Health Department VDH - Richmond Central 0 FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICR Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-068_ December 4, 1997 Mr. Doug Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Site Plan AT11-97; CUP #13-96 Dear Mr. Owens: I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and John Lewis on December 2, 1997, to discuss the Hogue Creek Country Market's site plan. While a number of issues were discussed, I would like to reiterate five significant issues that will need your immediate attention. These five issues are discussed in more detail below. 1. Invalid Site Plan. As you are aware, it has been determined that the Hogue Creek Country Market Site Plan (Site Plan n011-97) does not comply with the issued Conditional Use Permit (CUP 'M013-96). This discrepancy invalidates Site Plan T011-97. During our discussion, we agreed upon two alternatives to achieve an approved site plan. The first involved revising the site plan to more accurately reflect the approved CUP and, in particular, the conceptual site plan submitted with the CUP. This would require the removal of two building additions (totaling 1,550 square feet) to the eastern side of the building. The only building additions that should be illustrated on the revised site plan will be on the building's western side and total 4,080 square feet. We also agreed that the two fuel island canopies and the business sign should be shown in their proper configuration. The second alternative involved revising the CUP. This would involve the submission of a new Conditional Use Permit application, and the application's approval by the Board of Supervisors. 2. Building Permits. It is important that you be aware that this department will not approve any building permits associated with this market until a site plan has been approved. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 i • • Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Page 2 December 4, 1997 Therefore, it is imperative that attention be given to this matter so that you may maintain your business's expansion time table. Outdoor Lighting. This department has received complaints regarding the outdoor lighting, in particular the new canopy's lighting. The Zoning Ordinance states that "Outdoor lighting shall be arranged to deflect glare away from adjoining properties and public streets. Sources of light on a lot shall be hooded or controlled to prevent glare beyond the lot line." I visited the site on Monday, December 1, 1997, at 7.30 p.m. and confirmed the validity of the lighting complaints. During this visit, I observed that glare from this site could be seen well into and across the entire yards of adjoining properties. This lighting also appears to be a traffic hazard as it has the ability to `blind' drivers as they approach the facility. Most of the source of the excessive lighting is being emitted from the new canopy's lamps. Based on my observation, lighting on this property is in violation of Chapter 165 (Zoning Ordinance), Section 35.A of the Frederick County Code. It is imperative that this lighting violation be resolved in a timely manner. Additionally, please note that the County will not approve a site plans for the site until the lighting violation is resolved. 4. Gravel Driveway. The existing gravel drive around the rear of the building continues to produce concern for this department. It appears that the drive is being utilized by vehicles (trucks and passenger cars, alike) to gain access to the diesel pumps. As the use of this gravel surface continues, excessive dust is produced. Such dust is a nuisance to the adjoining properties and is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Hard surfacing this driveway, as illustrated on the submitted site plan, and as required by the Zoning Ordinance, would alleviate the dust; the hard surfacing would also bring the driveway into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. As a minimum effort and a temporary solution, the County would expect that the driveway be improved to a double prime -and -seal surface. When a site plan is approved, and building construction commences, you will be required to hard surface the driveway and install parking that complies with the business standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Landscape Buffer. During the Conditional Use Permit hearings for your CUP (CUP T013- 96), there was discussion concerning requirements to buffer your business from the adjoining Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Page 3 Dezember 4, 1997 properties; the Zoning Ordinance also requires such a buffer. It was mentioned that a landscape buffer would be required and, in fact, the CUP was approved with the condition that a buffer be considered along property lines. As complaints have been received by this department, it is important to now address this landscape buffer requirement. As we discussed, because vehicles use the driveway around the rear of the building, the buffer should be implemented. This buffer will not only reduce the visual effects of the paved surface but will also reduce the ability for debris to leave your property, as mentioned during the CUP hearings. Each of the above issues should be promptly addressed. Please note that the lighting issue should be addressed immediately as a potential traffic hazard exists. It is also important that each of these issues be addressed as soon as possible. Please keep me informed as to your progress in satisfying each of the issues. And again, thank you for meeting with me to discuss the Hogue Creek Country Market. Sincerely, Eric R Lawrence Planner II ERiJcc cc: Richard Shickle, Gainesboro District Supervisor CL' q `L.JY,. �ti air f(n/ rva h f QItiG/ �o`i H C t (.✓!S /!J/ir/ LU�MCC0NM0rn5rrEPLA"0G ACRL vn 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 December 17, 1997 Eric R. Lawrence, Planner II LA,.,p 0,,UAA51 (" Frederick County Department of &<o-ALJCJ Planning & Developments 107 North Kent Street STf%��br1 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Site Plan No. 011-97; Conditional Use Permit No. 13-96 Dear Mr. Lawrence: We have received your letter of December 4, 1997, and have talked to you by telephone since receiving that letter. As you know, we clarified during our telephone conversation, that we have not reached any agreement regarding what alternatives are available or which of those alternatives we may elect to follow with respect to the issues addressed in your letter. We are still in the process of assembling information and trying to understand the nature of the complaints which you say have been lodged against Hogue Creek Country Market. We anticipate having the information needed shortly after the first of the year. At that time, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you again to determine the fairest, most reasonable way to resolve your concerns without adversely affecting the operation of our business. As you know, we have tried to do our very best to satisfy the County's requirements. In fact, the site plan which you refer to in your letter had been approved by your office. We will continue our good faith efforts to quickly and amicably resolve this matter. We note from your letter of December 4, 1997, that Mr. Shickle has taken an interest in this matter. Therefore, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Shickle and will copy future correspondence to him so as to provide him the opportunity to be fully informed regarding this matter. Very truly yours, o � ft1 0 0 Douglas L. Owens and Cal T rn f Penny Owens r— cc: Mr. Richard Shickle D m / v �. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 February 6, 1998 Mr. Doug Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Revised Site Plan Approval - Hogue Creek County Market Site Plan 011-97 Zoned RA with CUP 9013-96 Dear Doug: This letter is to inform you that the Frederick County Planning Department administratively approved Site Plan #011-97 on February 6, 1998. This site plan will replace any other site plan previously approved for this site. This site plan consists of a 4,080-square-foot addition to the existing market. The market will now contain a total of 7,680 square feet. In addition to the proposed building, there will be a bituminous concrete parking area, and an 8-foot high privacy fence along the eastern property line. This fence will also be complemented with eastern white pine trees. Because this facility is located adjacent to residential uses, you will be required to fully implement the privacy fence and evergreen plantings prior to constructing any of the other elements addressed on this site plan_. Attached are two copies of the approved plan. This will enable you to provide your contractor with an approved copy, and maintain a copy for your records. Please have the contractor contact this office to schedule an on -site inspection once all improvements are complete. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincer ly, Eric R. Lawrence Zoning Administrator Enclosure ERL\cc cc: John Lewis, Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation Real Estate Department Public Works Department u.\UUeX OKMOo PSrrEPLnrvIOGUECR-AP e 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/66.5-5651 FAY: 540/ 678-0682 February 6, 1998 Mr. Doug Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Revised Site Plan Approval - Hogue Creek Country Market Site Plan #011-97 Zoned RA with CUP #013-96 Dear Doug: This letter is to inform you that the Frederick County Planning Department administratively approved Site Plan #011-97 on February 6, 1998. This site plan will replace any other site plan previously approved for this site. This site plan consists of a 4,080-square-foot addition to the existing market. The market will now contain a total of 7,680 square feet. In addition to the proposed building, there will be a bituminous concrete parking area, and an 8-foot high privacy fence along the eastern property line. This fence will also be complemented with eastern white pine trees. Because this facility is located adjacent to residential uses, you will be required to fully implement the privacy fence and evergreen plantings prior to constructing any of the other elements addressed on this site plan, Attached are two copies of the approved plan. This will enable you to provide your contractor with an approved copy, and maintain a copy for your records. Please have the contractor contact this office to schedule an on -site inspection once all improvements are complete. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincer y, i Eric R. Lawrence Zoning Administrator Enclosure ERL\cc cc: John Lewis, Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation Real Estate Department Public Works Department U. M CSC O �,Af O M S I TU L AM} f OO UECR. AP R 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 February 3, 1998 Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. Attn: John Lewis 302 South Braddock Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Revised Site Plan Review - Site Plan 4011-97, Hogue Creek Market Dear John: I have reviewed the above referenced revised site plan received by this office January 28, 1998. Two comments are provided: 1. Clearly identify the boundaries of the existing building. 2. Extend the privacy fence to the edge of the proposed parking. This is necessary to capture vehicle headlights and debris from encroaching adjoining properties. This fence extension is necessary to replace the vegetation that has recently been removed. Please revise your site plan to address the above comments and those on the enclosed illustration. Once these comments have been addressed, submit five copies of the final site plan for approval. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, ric R Lawr ce Zoning Administrator ERL/bah Enclosure U:\ERIC\COMMON\SrMPLAN\IiOGUECRE.REI 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 .. r EX.— + LRIGHT 0.00, — ------- RIGHT RN LANE — �� ROUTE 50 N / r- -- VDOT MONUMENT, INSTAL _ __ _ _ _7ti• Ra FLUSH MOUf4I _ -N= O Ex r—zfl fla - 0.00� ATCH EX. PVMT. AREA (� x _ PROPOSED CANOPY LANDSCA AND 4 MPD ISLANDS ISLAND(T I .3 HDCP SP. ~' 3 SP O 9'X20' 2 S. O 9'X R4. XT D 1 ° 2 00• 22.p0 _ -- -. - F'� PROPOSED `` COVERED � ° - -, � .�,. � .. PORCH M 0 r o i I I 000 00,0 co _ c PRCP 4' T RN- DOWN NC. S/ ` \ 1 ` 0. TD - 29 SP. O 9'X20' LT REMOVE ORGANIC MATERIALS do BACKFILL W/21 B AS REQ cr 0 VR qo FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 January 28, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Hogue Creek Market Additions: CUP #13-96 and Site Plan #011-97 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Owens: This letter represents a summary of our meeting on Friday, January 23, 1998. This meeting was attended by: Mr. Richard Shickle, Mr. Russel A. Fowler, Mr. W. Wayne Miller, yourselves, and me. Our discussion addressed the County's concern with the Hogue Creek Market's expansion plan and your concerns with the County's requirements. Canopy Lights are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. As you have been notified via letter and conversations, the lighting on the new canopy violates the glare requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (§165-35.A). Previous conversations addressed utilizing 'lamp collars' that would shield the emitting light from adjoining properties. During this meeting, you indicated that the 'lamp collars' would not be a viable solution for you as the equipment and installation would be cost -prohibitive. As we discussed, this violation may be resolved with the installation of a 6-foot high privacy fence (board -on -board) along the eastern property line; the fence may also be utilized as an element of the buffer required by the CUP. It is possible that the fence, in combination with the terrain, may make a significant reduction in the light glare. At the terminus of the meeting, you were informed that efforts to resolve this violation should be initiated by the end of February 1998; the violation should be resolved by mid -March 1998. Mr. Fowler acknowledged this time frame. It was also mentioned that failure to make efforts to reduce the glare could result in a criminal complaint being filed against you. We have been aware of this violation for the past few months; the violation should be resolved by mid -March. Please keep this office informed of your progress. Approval of a Site Plan. The previously approved site plan indicated building additions of approximately 5,500 square feet; the approved CUP was for 4,080 square feet. Therefore, the recently approved site plan has been deemed invalid. This was previously stated in writing and in conversations. It is necessary to either submit a site plan which reflects the 4,080 square feet additions (size and location) suggested in the CUP application. Or, you may submit a revision to the CUP application requesting an increase in building square footage. Both of these options have been discussed in great detail. Please inform staff which option you prefer to utilize and we will work with you toward satisfying the requirements. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 1P Hogue Creek Market Letter Page 2 January 30, 1998 Expansion of the driveway. The driveway around the rear of the building was in existence prior to the CUP approval. Both yourselves and the County agreed that the width of the driveway has increased. This increase in driveway width has, in effect, enabled tractor trailer parking in the rear of the property. Increases in parking should be illustrated on a site plan, and be designed to comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements. At the CUP hearings, it was mentioned that a buffer would be required to lessen the impact of the building additions and the parking area on the adjoining properties. It is important that this buffer be implemented now that vehicles have begun utilizing this area for parking purposes. An appropriate buffer has been illustrated on the site plan; it should consist of a 6-foot high privacy fence, complemented with landscaping. Site plan approval is required prior to the initiating site improvements but since the driveway improvements have already begun, it is important that the buffer requirements be implemented. Understanding the weather constraints, this office would expect that the landscape elements of the buffer be installed by April 15, 1998. Vehicles are using the driveway and parking area; therefore, the buffer shall be installed. 4. Building Permits. This department will not authorize the issuance of any building permits for this site until the above mentioned Zoning Ordinance violations are resolved, and a site plan has been approved. I am always available to discuss the Zoning Ordinance requirements as it pertains to this site. It is also important to be aware that progress must be achieved toward complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The above mentioned deadlines should provide more than adequate time for the implementation of the necessary requirements. Please keep this office informed as to your progress in satisfying the above identified issues. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence Zoning Administrator ERL/cc cc: Richard Shickle, Gainesboro District Supervisor Russell A. Fowler, 29 N. Braddock Street, Winchester, VA 22601 U:\ERIC\COi\4NION\SFFEPLAN\HOGUECRE.VI3 F 0 R i. M OF- C] FAY, PHONE O�WILE AREA CODE MESSAGE ii SIGNED DATE NUMBER HOMECALF o? T I M M. It I it P H 0 N;-= D RETURNED YOUR CALL EXTENSION SE CALL VVILL CALL AGAIN CAN/lETO sl-:E YOU VVAN rS TO SEE YOU FORM 1003 __________________________ _'_ ----__---_-_--'_ . / � i � FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 January 28, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Hogue Creek Market Additions: CUP #13-96 and Site Plan 9011-97 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Owens: This letter represents a summary of our meeting on Friday, January 23, 1998. This meeting was attended by: Mr. Richard Shickle, Mr. Russel A. Fowler, Mr. W. Wayne Miller, yourselves, and me. Our discussion addressed the County's concern with the Hogue Creek Market's expansion plan and your concerns with the County's requirements. Canopy Lights are in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. As you have been notified via letter and conversations, the lighting on the new canopy violates the glare requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (§165-35.A). Previous conversations addressed utilizing 'lamp collars' that would shield the emitting light from adjoining properties. During this meeting, you indicated that the 'lamp collars' would not be a viable solution for you as the equipment and installation would be cost -prohibitive. As we discussed, this violation may be resolved with the installation of a 6-foot high privacy fence (board -on -board) along the eastern property line; the fence may also be utilized as an element of the buffer required by the CUP. It is possible that the fence, in combination with the terrain, may make a significant reduction in the light glare. At the terminus of the meeting, you were informed that efforts to resolve this violation should be initiated by the end of February 1998; the violation should be resolved by mid -March 1998. Mr. Fowler acknowledged this time frame. It was also mentioned that failure to make efforts to reduce the glare could result in a criminal complaint being filed against you. We have been aware of this violation for the past few months; the violation should be resolved by mid -March. Please keep this office informed of your progress. 2. Approval of a Site Plan. The previously approved site plan indicated building additions of approximately 5,500 square feet; the approved CUP was for 4,080 square feet. Therefore, the recently approved site plan has been deemed invalid. This was previously stated in writing and in conversations. It is necessary to either submit a site plan which reflects the 4,080 square feet additions (size and location) suggested in the CUP application. Or, you may submit a revision to the CUP application requesting an increase in building square footage. Both of these options have been discussed in great detail. Please inform staff which option you prefer to utilize and we will work with you toward satisfying the requirements. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Hogue Creek Market Letter Page 2 January 30, 1998 Expansion of the driveway. The driveway around the rear of the building was in existence prior to the CUP approval. Both yourselves and the County agreed that the width of the driveway has increased. This increase in driveway width has, in effect, enabled tractor trailer parking in the rear of the property. Increases in parking should be illustrated on a site plan, and be designed to comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements. At the CUP hearings, it was mentioned that a buffer would be required to lessen the impact of the building additions and the parking area on the adjoining properties. It is important that this buffer be implemented now that vehicles have begun utilizing this area for parking purposes. An appropriate buffer has been illustrated on the site plan; it should consist of a 6-foot high privacy fence, complemented with landscaping. Site plan approval is required prior to the initiating site improvements but since the driveway improvements have already begun, it is important that the buffer requirements be implemented. Understanding the weather constraints, this office would expect that the landscape elements of the buffer be installed by April 15, 1998. Vehicles are using the driveway and parking area; therefore, the buffer shall be installed. 4. Building Permits. This department will not authorize the issuance of any building permits for this site until the above mentioned Zoning Ordinance violations are resolved, and a site plan has been approved. I am always available to discuss the Zoning Ordinance requirements as it pertains to this site. It is also important to be aware that progress must be achieved toward complying with the Zoning Ordinance. The above mentioned deadlines should provide more than adequate time for the implementation of the necessary requirements. Please keep this office informed as to your progress in satisfying the above identified issues. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence Zoning Administrator ERL/cc cc: Richard Shickle, Gainesboro District Supervisor Russell A. Fowler, 29 N. Braddock Street, Winchester, VA 22601 U:\ERIC\CONIhIOMSFMPLAN\HOGUECRE.VI3 0 4k 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 December 17, 1997 Eric R. Lawrence, Planner II Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Site Plan No. 011-97; Conditional Use Permit No. 13-96 Dear Mr. Lawrence: We have received your letter of December 4, 1997, and have talked to you by telephone since receiving that letter. As you know, we clarified during our telephone conversation, that we have not reached any agreement regarding what alternatives are available or which of those alternatives we may elect to follow with respect to the issues addressed in your letter. We are still in the process of assembling information and trying to understand the nature of the complaints which you say have been lodged against Hogue Creek Country Market. We anticipate having the information needed shortly after the first of the year. At that time, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you again to determine the fairest, most reasonable way to resolve your concerns without adversely affecting the operation of our business. As you know, we have tried to do our very best to satisfy the County's requirements. In fact, the site plan which you refer to in your letter had been approved by your office. We will continue our good faith efforts to quickly and amicably resolve this matter. We note from your letter of December 4, 1997, that Mr. Shickle has taken an interest in this matter. Therefore, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Shickle and will copy future correspondence to him so as to provide him the opportunity to be fully informed regarding this matter. Very truly yours, m `moo Douglas L . Owens and ay, ;o .o () o Penny Owens r- ; cc: Mr. Richard Shickle 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 December 17, 1997 Eric R. Lawrence, Planner II Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Site Plan No. 011-97; Conditional Use Permit No. 13-96 Dear Mr. Lawrence: We have received your letter of December 4, 1997, and have talked to you by telephone since receiving that letter. As you know, we clarified during our telephone conversation, that we have not reached any agreement regarding what alternatives are available or which of those alternatives we may elect to follow with respect to the issues addressed in your letter. We are still in the process of assembling information and trying to understand the nature of the complaints which -you say have been lodged against Hogue Creek Country Market. We anticipate having the information needed shortly after the first of the year. At that time, we would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you again to determine the fairest, most reasonable way to resolve your concerns without adversely affecting the operation of our business. As you know, we have tried to do our very best to satisfy the County's requirements. In fact, the site plan which you refer to in your letter had been approved by your office. We will continue our good faith efforts to quickly and amicably resolve this matter. We note from your letter of December 4, 1997, that Mr. Shickle has taken an interest in this matter. Therefore, we are forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Shickle and will copy future correspondence to him so as to provide him the opportunity to be fully informed regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Douglas Owens and (ez T n rn Penny Owens cc: Mr. Richard Shickle ei.. COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA RANDOLPH L. GORDON, M.D., M.P.H. Department of Health ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER COMMISSIONER Office of Water Programs 131 WALKER STREET g LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA 24450-2431 Environmental Engineering Field Office PHONE: (540) 463.7136 FAX: (540) 463-3692 9 December 1997 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - NPDES Permits (Hogue Creek Country Market) Mr. Eric R. Lawrence County of Frederick Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Lawrence: This office has reviewed the comments concerning the Hogue Creek Country Market wastewater treatment works forwarded in your 10 November 1997 letter. Based on this review, the following comments are offered: Current criteria utilized in evaluating wastewater discharges to Intermittent streams or dry ditches stipulate that the discharge must be located entirely within the owner's property or within a recorded easement or a combination of the two, and extend from 250 to 500 feet below the point of discharge depending on treatment process. This criteria applies to new discharges of less than 1000 gallons per day and has only been in effect since July 1992. Commercial discharges, similar to Hogue Creek Country Market, in existence prior to July 1992 did not have minimum property setback distances although it was customary to obtain easements from downstream property owners for flows crossing their property. In that the Hogue Creek Country Market permit was originally issued in 1987 and processed through the Frederick County Health Department, they may have copies of any easements or conditions imposed at the time of the original permit issuance. 2. Discharges should be to a defined stream channel or drainway which is typically examined during the permitting process to determine acceptability for the proposed flow. Channel and drainway maintenance, however, is the property owner's responsibility. The channel or drainway should be sufficiently sloped, usually between 2% and 50%, to carry flow away from the discharge point and prevent ponding. Future expansion of the Hogue Creek Country Market would require a complete re- evaluation of their discharge permit and treatment system. This re-evaluation would be based on the fact that projected flows would exceed 1000 gallons per day, would change effluent discharge limits, and may require relocation of the discharge point to a year-round receiving stream. Any change in discharge limits would require substantial upgrading of the existing treatment plant's capacity and treatment capability. Perm requirements would increase significantly, going from yearly to monthly. • Mr. Eric Lawrence 9 December 1997 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - NPDES Permits (Hogue Creek Country Market) Hopefully, the above adequately addresses the concerns posed. If not, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yo ,I rs, Harold T. Eberly District Engineer HTE/bt/97120904.doc cc Frederick County Health Department VDH - Richmond Central � ii/ December 4, 1997 FILE COPY • •COUNTY of FREDERICK Mr. Doug Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Site Plan #011-97; CUP #13-96 Dear Mr. Owens: Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and John Lewis on December 2, 1997, to discuss the Hogue Creek Country Market's site plan. While a number of issues were discussed, I would like to reiterate five significant issues that will need your immediate attention. These five issues are discussed in more detail below. 1. Invalid Site Plan. As you are aware, it has been determined that the Hogue Creek Country Market Site Plan (Site Plan #011-97) does not comply with the issued Conditional Use Permit (CUP #013-96). This discrepancy invalidates Site Plan #011-97. During our discussion, we agreed upon two alternatives to achieve an approved site plan. The first involved revising the site plan to more accurately reflect the approved CUP and, in particular, the conceptual site plan submitted with the CUP. This would require the removal of two building additions (totaling 1,550 square feet) to the eastern side of the building. The only building additions that should be illustrated on the revised site plan will be on the building's western side and total 4,080 square feet. We also agreed that the two fuel island canopies and the business sign should be shown in their proper configuration. The second alternative involved revising the CUP. This would involve the submission of a new Conditional Use Permit application, and the application's approval by the Board of Supervisors. 2. Building Permits. It is important that you be aware that this department will not approve any building permits associated with this market until a site plan has been approved. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Page 2 December 4, 1997 Therefore, it is imperative that attention be given to this matter so that you may maintain your business's expansion time table. Outdoor Lighting. This department has received complaints regarding the outdoor lighting, in particular the new canopy's lighting. The Zoning Ordinance states that "Outdoor lighting shall be arranged to deflect glare away from adjoining properties and public streets. Sources of light on a lot shall be hooded or controlled to prevent glare beyond the lot line." I visited the site on Monday, December 1, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. and confirmed the validity of the lighting complaints. During this visit, I observed that glare from this site could be seen well into and across the entire yards of adjoining properties. This lighting also appears to be a traffic hazard as it has the ability to `blind' drivers as they approach the facility. Most of the source of the excessive lighting is being emitted from the new canopy's lamps. Based on my observation, lighting on this property is in violation of Chapter 165 (Zoning Ordinance), Section 35.A of the Frederick County Code. It is imperative that this lighting violation be resolved in a timely manner. Additionally, please note that the County will not approve a site plans for the site until the lighting violation is resolved. 4. Gravel Driveway. The existing gravel drive around the rear of the building continues to produce concern for this department. It appears that the drive is being utilized by vehicles (trucks and passenger cars, alike) to gain access to the diesel pumps. As the use of this gravel surface continues, excessive dust is produced. Such dust is a nuisance to the adjoining properties and is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Hard surfacing this driveway, as illustrated on the submitted site plan, and as required by the Zoning Ordinance, would alleviate the dust; the hard surfacing would also bring the driveway into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. As a minimum effort and a temporary solution, the County would expect that the driveway be improved to a double prime -and -seal surface. When a site plan is approved, and building construction commences, you will be required to hard surface the driveway and install parking that complies with the business standards of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Landscape Buffer. During the Conditional Use Permit hearings for your CUP (CUP #013- 96), there was discussion concerning requirements to buffer your business from the adjoining Hogue Creek Country Market Additions Page 3 December 4, 1997 properties; the Zoning Ordinance also requires such a buffer. It was mentioned that a landscape buffer would be required and, in fact, the CUP was approved with the condition that a buffer be considered along property lines. As complaints have been received by this department, it is important to now address this landscape buffer requirement. As we discussed, because vehicles use the driveway around the rear of the building, the buffer should be implemented. This buffer will not only reduce the visual effects of the paved surface but will also reduce the ability for debris to leave your property, as mentioned during the CUP hearings. Each of the above issues should be promptly addressed. Please note that the lighting issue should be addressed immediately as a potential traffic hazard exists. It is also important that each of these issues be addressed as soon as possible. Please keep me informed as to your progress in satisfying each of the issues. And again, thank you for meeting with me to discuss the Hogue Creek Country Market. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence Planner H ERL/cc cc: Richard Shickle, Gainesboro District Supervisor CC CL A `WZvy �ti cXhClt% (is R(IC /CJ/Ilft�/"r, Va h C GIJ! s� U.\ERIC�COMMON\SrrEPLAMHOGUECRE. Vl2 Novf-t-,Nt -n -,�, , I-fi') \, �o A,NM. nk.3 E O'� 6cLEP oVi7 t c-L 7o kA\ S R U Et P-F of �-r `�f\n--r-P, T T 1 IPLz1 M€ 1-0 ��scUSS �1t� �-�Sal..v� GO,JFUC� J51�%c. 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICI{ Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 March 6, 1998 Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Hogue Creek Market Additions: CUP #13-96 and Site Plan #011-97 Buffer and Screening Requirements Dear Mr. and Mrs. Owens: As we spoke briefly on March 2, 1998, allow me to reiterate that it is important to adhere to the approved site plan. The fence to be provided along the parking area is required in order to reduce the impact of exterior lighting and to catch debris from blowing onto the adjoining properties. On a site visit Sunday, March 1, 1998, I evaluated the topography along the eastern side of this site. Based on this visit, I feel that it is important to place the fence along the parking area, as illustrated on the approved site plan. This placement adjacent to the parking areas will more effectively capture light and debris, minimizing the impact on the adjoining properties. During our telephone conversation, we agreed to this fence location. During this site visit, I noticed that you have not initiated the construction of this fence. In my letter of January 28, 1998, I wrote in reference to the lighting violation: "As we discussed, this violation may be resolved with the installation of a 6-foot [the approved site plan actually requires an 8-foot fence, hence 8-foot should be installed] high privacy fence (board -on -board) along the eastern property line; the fence may also be utilized as an element of the buffer required by the CUP. It is possible that the fence, in combination with the terrain, may make a significant reduction in the light glare. At the terminus of the meeting, you were informed that efforts to resolve this violation should be initiated by the end of February 1998; the violation should be resolved by mid -March 1998. Mr. Fowler acknowledged this time frame.... We have been aware of this violation for the past few months; the violation should be resolved by mid -March. Please keep this office informed of your progress." 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Owens, Douglas RE: Hogue Creek Market March 6, 1998 I understand that you have installed the lamp collars/shields on the canopy lamps. This effort has reduced the direct glare associated with the canopy. It is my belief that the fence will also significantly reduce this canopy glare, and bring the site into compliance with the lighting glare portion of the Zoning Ordinance. I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. Fowler, dated February 27, 1998, received in my office March 2, 1998. Mr. Fowler states your intention of constructing the fence by April 15, 1998. He further states that I proposed this deadline. In fact, I wrote that "Understanding the weather constraints, this office would expect that the landscape elements of the buffer be installed by April 15, 1998." This landscape element would pertain to the evergreen trees that are illustrated on the approved site plan. The fence should be constructed by mid -March. Understanding that we may have had a mis- communication on the actual deadline, allow me to establish a new deadline as a compromise: The required 8-foot high board -on -board fence shall be constructed by March 31, 1998. The required evergreen plantings should be installed by April 15, 1998. I realize that you are continuing your efforts to comply with the Zoning Ordinance and the established deadlines. Please continue to keep me informed on your progress toward satisfying the ordinance requirements. Eric R. Lawrence Zoning Administrator ERL/bah cc: Richard Shickle, Gainesboro District Supervisor Russell A. Fowler, 29 North Braddock Street, Winchester, VA 22601 R 'tzr&-LEWIS, P.L.C. FAX trAnsm:&.>-`-- f ,.rl-LEWIS, PLC 5405525793 • 07-16-97 02:25Pt9 TO 6780682 16 #8 P.112 to Erec t- John Lewis Date: 07/16/97 Eric Lawrence Time: 3:18 PM Company: Frederick County Planning FAX #: 678-0682 number of pages including this one:2 Eric: The owner of Hogue Creek Country Market wished to modify the approve site plan by the following: 1, relocated ex. canopy to diesel pump island 2. add a 10000 gallon UST @ diesel island 3. build main canopy @ 100' x 25' Please let me know if these changes require a revision to the site plan. cc; Doug Owens 877-2476 it ` T7> i1 Cr f�ic (i.J /may t— VOICE:540-662-5792 FAX:544-662-5763 ..r<: .>. Z601w COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAY: 540/678-0682 May 16, 1997 Doug Owens 4780 Northwestern Pike Winchester, Virginia 22603 RE: Site Plan Approval - Hogue Creek Country Market Addition Site Plan #011-97 Zoned: RA w/CUP #013-96 Dear Mr. Owens: This letter is to inform you that Frederick County administratively approved site plan #011-97 on May 13, 1997. This site plan consists of a 9,120 square foot building (7,920 square foot retail and 1,200 square foot food service). In addition to the proposed building, there will be: 59 parking spaces within an asphalt treatment and concrete wheel stops; a 8-foot high board -on -board fence, 184 feet in length, will be constructed along the eastern property line, screening the parking facility from the adjacent property; 9 eastern white pines, minimum of 6-foot in height, will be planted along the eastern property boundary; a canopy will be constructed above 4 MPD islands; the diesel fuel pump will be relocated; and a concrete dumpster pad and fence enclosure will be constructed. All exterior lighting shall be placed and shielded from releasing light onto adjoining properties. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Hogue Creek Country Market Site Plan Approval May 16, 1997 Attached are two copies of the approved plan. This will enable you to provide your contractor with an approved copy, and maintain a copy for your records. Please have the contractor contact this office to schedule an on -site inspection once all improvements are complete. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence Planner II Enclosure ERL\bah cc: John Lewis, Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. Richard Shickle, Gainesboro District Supervisor Jerry Copp, Virginia Department of Transportation Roy Jennings, Real Estate Public Works Department . Asitepl an\hoguecre. apr 0 0uP �reerOif-�7 Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Engineering Department Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Engineering Dept. 107 N. Kent Street RECEIVED Attn: Director of Engineering Fourth Floor P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA Ic''9 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 665-5643 "7 (540) 665-5643 FREDzR;�.. Co. Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: VALN-[�'VLt-4- Address:Z > I t I-IG� uc� , V a ZZEao Phone Number: yLk-,:, - CoCnZ-_ a5 Z Name of development and/or description of the request: 6�2 enema GAG lam- G c.�c.1-L�2�( V`-prt2_.Lc`T , +• • (•, ' s i . i� 0 • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 April 3s 1997 Mr. John Lewis Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Preliminary Site Plan Review of the Hogue Creek Country Market Building Addition Site Plan #011-97 Dear John: I have reviewed the above referenced site plan, received by this office March 24, 1997. The following comments will need to be addressed in order to proceed with approval of this site plan. Please provide: 1. Details for the enclosure of the dumpster. 2. The height of all proposed buildings. 3. Location of all utilities. This includes sewage disposal devices, and wells and their associated protection areas. In addition, all electric and telephone utilities should be placed underground. 4. Contour lines that address the proposed changes. 5. Raised islands of at least 9-feet-wide at the end of the parking bays along the front of the building. Two islands have been provided, but it is not clear that they meet the requirements. 6. Clarity to the ADA parking spaces. It appears that one of the three spaces does not have access to a passenger loading zone. Is the sidewalk at the same grade as the parking lot? Is a ramp necessary? 7. Dimensions for the proposed Diesel Fuel Pump island. Is there adequate distance on either side of the island for both vehicle fueling and thru traffic? A minimum distance of 34 feet is necessary. 8. Wheel stops for parking spaces throughout the site. 9. Additional driving aisle width to accompany two-way traffic, in addition to the food service Drive-Thru lane. A 34-foot traffic aisle is neccesary to accomplish this. Only 30 feet have been provided on the submitted plan. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • 0 The Hogue Creek Country Market Building Addition Mr. John Lewis Page 2 April 3, 1997 10. The location for the Drive-Thru menu board and speaker. The vehicle stacking lane calculations should begin at the menu board. 11. The location of a proposed retaining wall as mentioned in the "Proposed Fence Detail." 12. Sidewalks from the rear parking area to the building entrance. This allows for safe pedestrian access from their vehicles to the building. Enclosed is a red -lined copy of this site plan. Please revise your site plan to address the above comments, those on the red -lined copy, and those comments provided to you by the review agencies. In reviewing the Conditional Use Permit approval, it appears that the Virginia Department of Health approved the Conditional Use Permit with the understanding that certain issues will be satisfied. You will need to provide this office with documentation that all Department of Health conditions have been achieved. You will need to provide this office with the complete approved comment sheets from all required review agencies. The required review agencies include: Virginia Department of Transportation, Inspections Department, County Engineer, Fire Marshal, Health Department, and the Planning Department. Once all agency comments have been addressed, please resubmit one copy of the revised site plan to this department for final review. If the revised site plan satisfies all agency comments, we will request five copies of the final site plan and recommend the site plan for approval. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sin rely, Eric R. Lawrence Planner II ERL\cc Enclosure COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 April 25, 1997 Mr. John Lewis Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Preliminary Site Plan Review of the Hogue Creek Country Market Building Addition Review #2 Site Plan 9011-97 Dear John: I have reviewed the above referenced site plan, received by this office April 23, 1997. There are four outstanding comments that should be addressed. L. Remove the one wheel stop that has been placed in the ADA access aisle. It's placement in the aisle hinders the aisle's use. 2. Remove General Notes item #10 from Sheet 1 of 2. This statement, concerning buffers, is not entirely accurate. 3. Provide the date of all revisions. 4. Provide the date and signature with the Professional Engineer seal. Please revise this site plan to address the above comments and those comments provided to you by the review agencies. Once you have gained approval from the review agencies, please resubmit one copy to this office for final review. If the revised site plan satisfies all agency comments, we will request five copies of the final site plan and recommend the site plan for approval. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Since ely, Eric R. Lawrence Planner II ERL\bah ... \common\.siteplan\hoguecre. re2 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS tel.: (540)662-5792 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 fax.: (540)662-5793 Winchester, VA 22601 18 APRIL 1997 Mr. Eric Lawrence Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: HOGUE CREEK COUNTRY MARKET SITE PLAN Dear Eric: Along with this letter you will find a copy of the revised site plan addressing your comments dated April 3, 1997. The comments have been addressed as follows: l . The dumpster screen is similar in construction to the proposed fence. 2. The height of the proposed buildings is noted on the drawings. 3. All known utilities are shown. No new utility lines are proposed. 4. Contour lines are shown on the drawings. 5. Islands are shown and dimensioned on the drawings. 6. The ADA spaces are delineated on the drawings. The sidewalk is typically at grade. 7. The diesel island is dimensioned on the plans. 8. Wheel stops are called for on the drawings. 9. The aisle width has been increased to 34'. 10. The location of the speaker board is shown. There is enough stacking space in front of the board, however please provide substantiation that the stacking must begin at the board rather than the window. 11. There is no proposed retaining wall on the site. 12. A sidewalk has been added at the rear of the building. Regarding the Health Department approval, the components mentioned in the approval letter from Mr. Eberly have been shown on the drawings. Also, it is my understanding from the owner that both discharge permits are now current. Regarding the buffering requirement of the CUP, the fence and pine trees shown on the drawings should meet the intention of the requirement. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, J in C. Lewis, P.E., C.L.A. ile: 96040061 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. • • Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Inspections Department Mail to: Frederick County Inspections Dept. Attn: Building Official P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 665-5650 Hand deliver to: 107 N. Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5650 RECE� ;_p 111A,� 2141997 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: L,,3 Address:STD _`'o Phone Number: ,- 4c--.D (oCpz S 2 Name of development and/or description of the request: l�r-)/ k l ry � l7__J& l�� C VLk- t_t�'R-_t VA_ � YA Location of property: P�la Inspections Department's Comments: Inspections Dept. use only Date received Incomplete Date reviewed Signature and Date Signature and Date (revisi Comments are on the form Date revision received Date Approved �s Incam c - • 0 Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 309 Mercantile Use Group (M) of the BOCA National Building Code/1993. Other codes that apply are title 24 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommmodations and in Commercial Facilities. Building shall have a min. 3 ADA parking spaces with unloading. Check section 503 (table) for height and area limitations for type of construction. Question fire rating of existing storage buildings located less than 10' from new addition. ADA 20% rule shall apply for additions and renovations. COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.SP97-0022 Date Received 3/24/97 Date Reviewed 4/1/97 Applicant Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. Plan Rev. Date: 3/20/97 Address 302 S. Braddock St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name Hogue Creek Market Type of ApplicationSite Plan 1st Due Fire Co. 15 1st Due Rescue Co. 15 Tax I.D. No. RECOMMENDATIONS Phone No. 540-662-5 792 Current Zoning RA /CUP Election DistrictGainesboro Automatic Sprinkler SystemXX Residential Sprinkler System Automatic Fire :Harm SystenKX Other IN REQUIREMENTS � X �a Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate XX Inadequate Not Ident �d 4✓ � Fire Lanes Required Yes XX No Comments Posted Fire Lanes required to ensure access to the structure "s all times. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate XX Inadequate Not Identified Special Hazards Noted Yes No XX Comments Hydrant Locations Adequate Inadequate Not IdentifiedXX Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Additional Comments Attached? Yes No XX Plan Approval Recommended? Yes XX No Signature Title CO1VIMONWE.­�LTH of VIRGINLA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 1,1031 OLD VALLEY PIKE RLSRRYf OPP P O BOX 2ENGINEER COmmlSslot, IR TLLL IS' 0) 7&+ SGOO EDINBURG. va 2282•� 027fi FAX 1540) 0e4 ,Go% April 25, 1997 Mr. John Lewis, P.E. C/O Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock St., Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear John: Ref: Hogue Creek Country Market Route 50 (Northwestern Grade) Frederick County We have received your revised site plan dated April 22, 1997 for the referenced project. It appears all of our earlier review comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Please advise the owner of our approval. r. A one-way sign will be needed at the western exit of the site, set in the median to alert exiting vehicles. It will be acceptable to install the required right-of-way monument in accordance with placement for entrances and yards. The appropriate land use permit may now be applied for to cover work within the Route 50 right-of-way. The permit is issued by this office and will require a minimum processing fee and surety bond coverage. Once satisfactory application has been made, a permit will normally take approximately thirty days to process and issue. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincere) G� Barry J. Sweit�zer, Roadway Engineer For: Robert B. Childress Permits & Subdivision Specialist Supervisor BJS/rf Enclosure xc: Mr. R. B. Childress Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. Kris Tierney WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING • Request For Site Plan Comments Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportaa,w Atten: Resident Engineer t P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (540) 984-5600 ��flandl deliver to: = _EocaI VDOT Office == A/' E-;150 Commerce -Street -I @�Al16nchester, VA '(540) 722-3460 ,c.�...1' Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the VDOT with their review. Please attach four copies of your site plan with this sheet. Applicant's name: TtILI 70;1a L, L`rt I 17L G Address: -io Z Cj • 1�.' V-,0,0 (JoGI, CrC WLII.LG,JI2rST(aIt2. v" Z2(—o 1 Phone number: Gj lkcp - (ofoZ. - :5, 1`-12 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location of development: Virginia Department of Transportation's Comments: See attached letter to Mr. John Lewis from VDOT dated April 25. 1997. 1 �4i�1 TTi /i�ft COMMONWEALTH of VIRG INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVIDEDINBURG RESIDENCY CO-MM R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE O1d611SSIONER P.O. BOX 270 EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278 April 25, 1997 Mr. John Lewis, P.E. C/O Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock St., Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear John: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984.5607 Ref: Hogue Creek Country Market Route 50 (Northwestern Grade) Frederick County We have received your revised site plan dated April 22, 1997 for the referenced project. It appears all of our earlier review comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Please advise the owner of our approval. A one-way sign will be needed at the western exit of the site, set in the median to alert exiting vehicles. It will be acceptable to install the required right-of-way monument in accordance with placement for entrances and yards. The appropriate land use permit may now be applied for to cover work within the Route 50 right-of-way. The permit is issued by this office and will require a minimum processing fee and surety bond coverage. Once satisfactory application has been made, a permit will normally take approximately thirty days to process and issue. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call. Sincerel . Barry J. Sweitzer, Roadway Engineer For: Robert B. Childress BJS/rf Permits & Subdivision Specialist Supervisor Enclosure xc: Mr. R. B. Childress Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. Kris Tierney WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING • • Request For Site Plan Comments Virginia Department of Transportation Mail to: Virginia Department of Transportation Atten: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (540) 984-5600 Nand deliv Local VDOT 1550 C RECEIVED VDOT EDINBURG RESIDENCY MAR 2 6 M 10 JAC 17 NKS LI N7S KDC l :i ;;'LS f7je VJH 11 RLF t@ R8G i M ❑ MDY L7 CHD �.-n Qmot-- omm , �- Winchester, VA (540) 722-3460 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the VDOT with their review. Please attach four copies of your site plan with this sheet. Applicant's name: T ��TOYU �-�` `"5 Fk- G Address: Rio Z S fJoGk c�rT S-[� Z�o l.u�►Lc+��sT��2 V4- Phone number: Gj �� - �doZ - �-IG1 'Z Name of development and/or description of the request: I At,�r,A o C c 3 6p A r{i Q--f w� t4 ✓1-I� Location of development: C7�x-�'C3 50 , V�, w�'[ t= i C4-�D - Virginia Department of Transportation's Comments: See attached letter to �tr. John Lewis from VDOT dated April 251997- VDOT Use only „ f���(�, Date received `1 Date revision received�q �i► Date approved'i Incomplete Incomplete I �, Date r©viewed "7 Date reviewed Signature and Date Signature and Date (revision} ' COMMONWEA,LTH of vIRQINI.'� DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG. VA 22824.0278 April 2,1997 Mr. John Lewis, P.E. C/O Painter -Lewis Associates 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear John: JERRY A. COPP HESIUENT ENGINEER TELE (540)984.5600 FAX (540) 984 5607 Ref: Hogue Creek Country Market Route 5 (Northwestern Pike) Frederick County We have received your preliminary plans dated March 20, 1997 for the referenced project. A field review has been held and we have the following comments as shown in red on the plan: 1. Please address the anticipated traffic volumes eastbound on Route 50 desiring to turn left into the proposed site and expansion. Address the potential need for a left turn lane to facilitate the traffic flow. 2. We need Trip Generation Traffic Volume and Source (I.T.E. Manual, 5t1, Edition), traffic volume of existing road, and anticipated left and right turn volumes. Miscellaneous notes shown in red on the plan will also need to be addressed. When you have addressed the above comments, please submit six sets of the plans for final approval. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Barr j weitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Robert B. Childress Permits & Subdivision Specialist Supervisor BJS/ rf Enclosure xc: Mr. R. B. Childress, Mr. S. A. Melnikoff, Mr. Kris Tierney 0 WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Request For Site Plan Comments Frederick County Engineering Department Mail to: Frederick County Engineering Dept. Attn: Director of Engineering P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 665-5643 Hand deliver to: 107 N. Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5643 R E C E N E D - - i Z FR2f)z:';i7.: rO. I Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Address: Z y cam. ZZ1�o Phone Number: "--2-`E`9 - (nCo 2-_ 5-Ie�t 2- Name of development and/or description of the request: Engineerin De artment's Comments: RevIe4,- CIL 5ire d•-, � ' e) a off. Z AU Coy, i o C4,n hjeoe v c 1 SO ,-c ( Q t S cJ'►ro tvt? b nIif 60cs �p4 I-,,/ aeve (. Re b+ S lP Engineering Dept. use only Date received Date revision received Date approved s 1 / 77 Incomplete Incomplete Date reviewed Date evi Signature and Date Signature and Date (revis' COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA RANDOLPH L. GORDON, M.D., M.P.H. Department of Health ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER COMMISSIONER Office of Water Programs 131 WALKER STREET LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA 24450-2431 Environmental Engineering Field Office PHONE: (540) 463-7136 FAX: (540) 463-3892 21 August 1996 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - NPDES Permits (Hogue Creek Country Market) Mr. John C. Lewis, P.E. Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 24 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Lewis: This is in response to your letter of 15 July 1996 requesting comments on the proposed improvements to the Hogue Creek Country Market. Based on our review of the information provided and limited information in our files, we offer the following: 1. The projected wastewater flows (950 gallons per day [gpd]) should be within the treatment capabilities of the retail Outlet's existing 1000 gpd wastewater treatment facilities. This observation is based on separate treatment facilities being provided for the retail outlet and existing residence and metered water use provided. 2. Neither the site plan nor available permit site sketches indicates the presence of chlorination, dechlorination, or post aeration facilities for the retail outlet treatment facility. Therefore, it appears that these unit processes will be needed to insure compliance with effluent discharge limits. 3. The status of the NPDES permits should be verified. Discussions with the Department of Environmental Quality indicate that two permitted discharges exist for this property and that renewal of one permit, believed to be the existing residence, has not yet been accomplished. In accordance with the above comments, this office has no objection to the proposed Hogue Creek Country Market improvements provided adequate treatment capacity is available, a valid discharge permit exists, and any necessary local approvals are obtained. Mr. John C. Lewis 2 21 August 1996 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - NPDES Permits (Hogue Creek Country Market) Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Harold T. Eberly District Engineer HTE/bU08213. doe cc Frederick County Health Department VDH - Richmond Central ..* Lord Fairfae Environmental Healy. District 41) 800 Smithfield Avenue N, P. O. Box 2056 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722-3480 FAX (540) 722-3479 Counties of Clarke, Frederick, Page, Shenandoah, Warren, and City of Winchester April 12, 1996 Mr. John Lewis Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 24 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester, Va. 22601 Re: Hogue Creek Country Market- Expansion of Business Facilities (per site plan by Painter -Lewis dated April 2, 1996) Dear John, The Hogue Creek Country Market is currently served by a discharging sewage disposal system with a capacity of 1000 gallons per day. This system was permitted by the State Water Control Board in 1989. The health department cannot comment favorably on this proposal until the applicant adequately addresses the following: 1) Proposed design water use figures based on the following figures must be submitted by the applicant: 100 gpd per restaurant seat (The health department has some major concerns about the use of discharging sewage disposal systems for restaurants due to the increased waste load generated. If this is allowed, an adequate grease trap would be required.) 25 gpd per employee 150 gpd per bedroom 10 gpd per customer vehicle (existing and proposed retail store and gas pumps) 2) For this proposed change of use, an easement must be obtained for the discharge from the existing discharging sewage disposal system. The treated effluent should discharge into a channel that meets the requirements of the Alternative Discharging Regulations. Such easements are required to be 25 feet on either side of the low point of the channel and 500 feet in length along the channel. 3) An Operation Permit for the sewage disposal system must be obtained from the Office of Water Programs in Lexington, (540) 463-7136. 4) The existing well must be upgraded (if necessary) to meet the requirements of a public water supply for the new proposal. Lewis April 12, 1996 Page 2 All permits for this system and any new construction on it should be obtained through the Office of Water Programs. The local health department has jurisdiction over discharging sewage disposal systems serving single family homes of less than or equal to 1000 gallons per day water use. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Doug Dailey, Kell Vanover, Environmental Health Specialist Senior Env onmental Health Supervisor DD/dd I 6 • March 26, 1997 Mr. John Lewis Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 A E�,�►V EO REp�, Of ngl"A�NG RE: Preliminary Site Plan Review of the Hogue Creek Country Market Building Addition Site Plan #00??-97 Dear John: I have reviewed the above referenced site plan, received by this office March 24, 1997. The following comments will need to be addressed in order to proceed with approval of this site plan. Please provide: 1. Details for the enclosure of the dumpster. 2. The height of all proposed buildings. 3. Location of all utilities. This includes sewage disposal devices, and wells and their associated protection areas. In addition, all electric and telephone utilities should be placed underground. 4. Contour lines that address the proposed changes. 5. Raised islands of at least 9-foot-wide at the end of the parking bays along the front of the building. Two islands have been provided, but it is not clear that they meet the requirements. 6. Clarity to the ADA parking spaces. It appears that one of the three spaces does not have access to a passenger loading zone. Is the sidewalk at the same grade as the parking lot? Is a ramp necessary? 7. Dimensions for the proposed Diesel Fuel Pump island. Is there adequate distance on either side of the island for both vehicle fueling and thru traffic? A minimum distance of 34 feet is necessary. 8. Wheel stops for parking spaces throughout the site. 9. Additional driving aisle width to accompany two-way traffic in addition to the food service Drive-Thru lane. A 34-foot traffic aisle is neccesary to accomplish this. a • Page 2 The Hogue Creek Country Market Building Addition Mr. John Lewis March 26. 1997 Only 30 feet have been provided on the submitted plan. 10. The location for the Drive-Thru menu board and speaker. The vehicle stacking lane calculations should begin at the menu board. 11. The location of a proposed retaining wall as mentioned in the "Proposed Fence Detail." 12. Sidewalks from the rear parking area to the building entrance. This enables for safe pedestrian access from their vehicles to the building. Enclosed is a red -lined copy of this site plan. Please revise your site plan to address the above comments, those on the red -lined copy, and those comments provided to you by the review agencies. In reviewing the Conditional Use Permit approval, it appears that the Virginia Department of Health approved of the Conditional Use Permit with the understanding that certain issues will be satisfied. You will need to provide this office with documentation that all Department of Health conditions have been achieved. You will need to provide this office with the complete approved comment sheets from all required review agencies. The required review agencies include: Virginia Department of Transportation, Inspections Department, County Engineer, Fire Marshal, Health Department, and the Planning Department. Once all agency comments have been addressed, please resubmit one copy of the revised site plan to this department for final review. If the revised site plan satisfies all agency comments, we will request five copies of the final site plan and recommend the site plan for approval. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Eric R. Lawrence Planner II U ; �� ' ra ),jr—S ERL\bah Enclosure SITE PLAN APPLICATION Department of Planning and Development Use only. Date application received ( -T< Application # to I Complete. Date of acceptance Incomplete. Date of retum. 1. Project Title: 2. Location of Property (street address) t��r��z3'!� , VW Z L. 3 3. Property Owner: Address: �Z`�o Qlc� 122-r1>�� �+s�2-►-t P �1F-3 l,l� � Y�LG �'sS-C `3 Y�., r � ✓a. ZZloy � Telephone: Jo - F � Z z 4. Applicant/Agent t ^AZ`z tZ- - Lc "` S c h L� Address ��� �' (2-P-t7D L3 z--,X� ��N G�coST�Uz 014 Telephone: �oCOZ 2 76 5. Designer: Address: Telephone: Contact: 6 • 1] 6. Is this an original or revised site plan? 7a. Total acreage of parcel to be developed: 7b. Total acreage of parcel: 8. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number: b) Current Zoning: c) Present Use: d) Proposed Use: e) Adjoining Property Use(s) f) Adjoining Property Identification Number(s) g) Magisterial District(s) Original Revised ,5.0(o C� .L9G ���- A -tR.o A �� -s� -col , �-{-o - �-t�c►y3 G-1 W I ►�� i3c9 � I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Planning Department. I also understand that all required material will be complete prior to the submissi n of my site plan. Signature: Date: _'z2- 7 t�', AR 1997 RE DEFT, OF PLi.f�N1NC; v� BND DEVELOWLt" � V� COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA RANDOLPH L. GORDON. M.D.. M.P.H. Department of Health ROCKBRIDGE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER COMMISSIONER Office of Water Programs 131 WALKER STREET 9 LEXINGTON. VIRGINIA 2"50-2431 Environmental Engineering Field Office PHONE (540) 463-7136 FAX: (540) 463-3892 21 August 1996 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - NPDES Permits (Hogue Creek Country Market) Mr. John C. Lewis, P.E. Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. 24 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Lewis: This is in response to your letter of 15 July 1996 requesting comments on the proposed improvements to the Hogue Creek Country Market. Based on our review of the information provided and limited information in our files, we offer the following: 1. The projected wastewater flows (950 gallons per day [gpd]) should be within the treatment capabilities of the retail outlet's existing 1000 gpd wastewater treatment facilities. This observation is based on separate treatment facilities being provided for the retail outlet and existing residence and metered water use provided. 2. Neither the site plan nor available permit site sketches indicates the presence of chlorination, dechlorination, or post aeration facilities for the retail outlet treatment facility. Therefore, it appears that these unit processes will be needed to insure compliance with effluent discharge limits. 3. The status of the NPDES permits should be verified. Discussions with the Department of Environmental Quality indicate that two permitted discharges exist for this property and that renewal of one permit, believed to be the existing residence, has not yet been accomplished. In accordance with the above comments, this office has no objection to the proposed Hogue Creek Country Market improvements provided adequate treatment capacity is available, a valid discharge permit exists, and any necessary local approvals are obtained. 0 0 Mr. John C. Lewis 2 21 August 1996 SUBJECT: Frederick County Sewerage - NPDES Permits (Hogue Creek Country Market) Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Harold T. Eberly District Engineer HTE/bU08213.doc cc Frederick County Health Department VDH - Richmond Central SITE PLAN CHECKLIST The checklist below indicates all the information that needs to be submitted as part of the site plan application. All required information must be submitted prior to the final approval of any site plan. The Department of Planning and Development will review the application to ensure that it is complete. If any portion is not included or complete, the site plan application will not be accepted and returned to the applicant(s). Site Plan Package 1. One set of approved comment sheets are required from the following review agencies prior to final site plan approval. It is recommended that applicants contact the Department of Planning and Development to determine which review agencies are relevant to their site plan application. 2 3 4 5 Virginia Cecartrnent of Transportation (VDOT) Frederick County Sanrtat;on AutMonty Department of Planning and Development Inspec^ons Cepartrnent Frederick County Engineer (Putaic Works) Frederick County Fire Marsnal Cecartment of Parks and Recreation One copy of the Site Plan application Five Copies of the Final Site Plan for approval One reproducible copy of the Site Plan (if required) A 35mm slide of the Site Plan (if required) C-) K . CL.Lp County Health Ceoartment Cty of Winchester Town of Stephens Cty Town of Middetown Airport Authority Sod & Water Conservation Cistnct C� • Site Plan Information Checklist The following information must be inc!uded cn your site plan. If your site plan is incomplete or is missing information, it will not be reviewed and returned to you for revisions. Administrative Information Y N General Site Information Y N 1. Name of proposed development. 2. Name, address, and phone number of owner. 3. Name, address, and phone number of developer. 4. Name, address, and phone number of designer. 5. Certificate of surveyor, engineer, or architect. 6. Oate plan prepared and date of revisions. 7. A listing of all conditions placed on the site as a result of a conditional use permit or conditional zoning approval. 8. A space labeled "Approved by the Zoning Administrator" for the approval signature and date of approval. 9. A description of setbacks or conditions placed on the site as a result of a variance approval. (Reference the variance application number.) 10. Location map (scale 1:2000) 11. Magisterial District �^A�JFrga.o 12. Scale of site plan (not to exceed 1:50) 13. North Arrow 14. Zoning of site 15. Use, zoning, and Property Identification Number (PIN#) of all adjoining properties. This inc:udes properties located across right-of-ways, streams, and railroad tracks. 16. Surveyed bcundanes for all lots and parca!s. u • • General Site (can't) Y N 17. Acreage of all lots included in the plan. _yam. 18. The locaticn and dimensions of all required setbacks and yard areas. _ 19. The location and type of all dwelling units. NA 20. Location and description of all recreation faclities. 21. Location of sidewalks and pedestnan ways. NQ 22. Location and area of common open space. 23. The location, height, and dimensions of all signs. _ 24. Location, height, and specifications of outdoor lighting fixtures. 25. Location and nature of outdoor storage areas. 26. Location of outdoor trash receptacles and dimensions of structure (fencing, etc.) required to enclose receptaCes. Building Information Y N 27. The height of all buildings and structures. l ?,' Opev;�IL_ 28. Location of all buildings, structures and uses. 29. The proposed use of eacli building, structure and area. 30. Ground floor area and total floor area of all buildings with PAR calculations for commercial and industrial zoning distric*.s. Roads Y N 31. Name and number of existing and planned streets on and adjoining the site. 32. Location of existing and planned streets on and adjoining the site. 33. Pasted speed limit of existing adjacent roads. 34. Location and dimensions of all proposed entrances from public right-of-ways. I 35. Location of all entrances on adjoining roads within 2C0 feet of the proposed or existing entrance. 26. Oimensions, boundaries, width, pavement, and construction of planned roads. Utilities Y N ru 37. Location of all utilities, including sewer and water lines with the size of lines, mains, and laterals. 38. Location and width of all easements, including access, utility, and drainage easements. 39. Location and nature of fire lanes, fire hydrants, and all other facilities necessary to meet Fire Cade requirements. Parking Y N _ 40. Calc,:ladcns describing the required number of parking and loading spaces. 41. Location and dimensions of all parking and loading spaces, driveways, parking aisles, curbing and other features to be used. 42. Location and dimension of all disabled parking spaces and ramps. Natural Features Y N 43. Existing and finished contour lines. 44. Location of steep slopes, woodlands, floodplains, wetlands, sinkholes, and other environmental features. 45. Location of streams and drainage ways. Landscaping Y N 46. Landscaping plan describing location and types of plants to be used. 47. Location �r7,, ired buffers and screening with cross sectons or profiles. 0 I✓ C. �E,�ne,,.�� (,c P Erosion and Sediment Control Y . N I 48. A stcrmwater management plan with run off calculations and location and description of facilities to be used. 49. Sail erosion and sedimentation control plan describing the location and methods to be used to minimize erosion and sedimentation during development 12 Request For Site Plan Comments Department of Planning and Development Mail to: Hand deliver to: Department of Planning and Development 107 N. Kent Street Attn: County Planner Fourth Floor P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 665-5651 (540) 665-5651 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the site plan with this sheet. Applicant's Name. ?�, NCam-- S , P �,G Address: Phone Number: 5-161 Z Name of development and/or description of the request: L1 G. � lid C V e-0_ k— VA 14 �1 Location of property: Sc_., ` Planning and Development's Comments: Planning and Development use onlY Date received Incomplete Date reviewed Signature and Date — Signature and Date (revision) Date revision received Incomplete Date reviewed Date approved ' MAR1997� o RECEIVED AEPT. OF PLANNING r•. NOD DEVELOPMEQQ PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS tel.: (540)662-5792 302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 fax.: (540)662-5793 Winchester, VA 22601 24 MARCH 1997 Mr. Eric Lawrence Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: HOGUE CREEK COUNTRY MARKET SITE PLAN Dear Eric: Along with this letter you will find a site plan for proposed additions to the existing market on Route 50 west of Winchester. I have requested site plan comments from the Fire Marshal, Engineering, VDOT, and Inspections. The Health Department commented during the CUP review. If there are other agencies which must review these plans, please let me know. Included herein are the following items: • 2 copies of the plans • Site Plan application • Site Plan comment sheet Please call me with the review fee amount, so the review can proceed. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, JojkXC. Lewis, P.E., C.L.A. cc: D.Owens file: 9604001 PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.0