HomeMy WebLinkAbout75-06 Glaize Components - Industrial - Shawnee - Backfile (2).1%
SITE PLAN TRACKING SHEET
Date:
11 /�,�� File opened
1"n— Reference Manual updated/number assigned
D-base updated
I 0 File given to Renee' to update Application Action Summary
loj —
CLOSE OUT FILE:
o� n! Approval (or denial) letter mailed to applicant/copy made for file
Do A7 File stamped "approved", "denied" or "withdrawn"
1 J3 of Reference Manual updated
a D-base updated
�7 File given to Renee' for final update to Application Action Summary
d/, I - DI _
_�/) ���) -�_ 0 l
'�� cr� �j. i�e c
U:\Bce\Common\Tracking shecis\Si¢ Plan Tracking wpd
Revised 02/07/03
SITE PLAN APPLICAI`ION CHECKLIST
The checklist shown below specifies the information which is required to be submitted as part of the site plan
application. The Department of Planning & Development will review the application to ensure that it is
complete prior to accepting it. If any portion of the application is not complete, it will be retained to the
applicant(s).
(1) One (1) set of approved comment sheets are required fz-om each relevant review
agency prior to final approval of a site plan- It is recommended that applicants
contact the Department of Planning & Development to determine which review
agencies' are relevant to their site plan application. A list of potentially relevant
review agencies is shown below:
Frederick County Department of Planning & Development
Department of GIS (Geographic Infonnation Services)
Frederick County Sanitation Authority
✓ Frederick County Building inspections Department
Frederick County Department of Public Works
Frederick County Fire Marshal
Frf,9. ck County Health Department
Frederick County Department of Parks & Rxcreatian
Virginia Department of Transportation (VD0-F)
City of �Vmzhester
Town of Stephens City
Town of bliddletown.
Frederick County / VTinchester Airport Autholity
(2) One (1) copy of the Site Plan application form.
(3) Payment of the site plan review fee.
(4) One (1) reproducible copy of the Site Plan (if required).
DATE
11 z-"z % it ��. 9308
IVD F
RECEco
t
co
r
O
PQ iS6Y
S H
G'i'� CLa�1O
m
2
� � N
,
ADDRESS
SG.�
V �
h `DOLLARS ] 00
cco
i :.�'l
.12 S-U'Ad/mod S
o
� a. va "o
N
El FOR RENT
Vj
>
❑ FOR
�L
o o va > ^
7,
Cf _ /� _ S-0 I yam,
7& V
•
II ���III��
U bA .Yi NLn N
�
" �?
.j/n
BY / 0` .
u CJ O
C:) J
C" C. vl
J
AMT. OF
CASH
ACCOUNT
AMT. PAID
I � � `r
CHECK
5
BALANCE
MONEY
DUE
ORDER
I
December 22, 2010
COUNTY oi' FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
1 AX: 540/665-6395
Subject: LETTER TO FILE — CAMPFIELD, LLC (PIN#64-A-801)
Building Permit #1752-2010
On October 21, 2010, a meeting was held with Mark Cheran, Candice Perkins, Ron Mislowsky and JP Carr
to discuss a site plan submitted to the County for a new warehouse at the Probuild Site. At that
meeting, Staff agreed to allow the warehouse site plan to proceed by only addressing parcel 64-A-80M
with the submitted site plan. At that meeting, JP was informed that any future revisions to the ProBuild
parcel (64-A-80J) would require a new site plan and that site plan would need to address parking lot
upgrades. There were no disagreements during that meeting as to the future expectations for the
ProBuild site. Also discussed at that meeting was the removal of the lean-to that was attached to the
main building; staff was informed that the lean-to would not be rebuilt.
On December 1, 2010, a permit was applied for to demolish an existing garage area (referred to as lean-
to) on a structure located at 296 Arbor Court and construct a new attached shed roof building in its
place. The lean-to appears to have been constructed sometime between 1987 and 1988 without the
approval of a site plan and, therefore, was constructed in violation of the County Code. On December
15, 2010, staff received a call from JP Carr with Campfield, LLC who stated that the lean-to needed to be
demolished and rebuilt because it was unsafe. Staff informed Mr. Carr that Planning Staff would sign off
on this permit to alleviate the safety concern but would be unable to sign off on any further revisions on
the property without approval of a new site plan.
Please note that any new site plans submitted for parcel 64-A-80J and/or 64-A-80M will need to
address necessary upgrades and revisions to the site. Upgrades include, but are not limited to, the
gravel parking lot which appears to have been installed'sometime in the late 1980's. This parking lot
was not installed per the requirements of the County Code. Staff will not sign off on anV additional
building permits without the submission and approval of a site plan for the property that complies
with the Code of Frederick County.
Candice E. Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
CEP/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 e Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
COLJNTY of FREDE RICK
Inspections Department
John S. Trcnary, Building Official
5401665-5650
Fax 5401678-0682
December 21, 2010
Mr. Joseph Mohr
190 Stonymeade Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
RE: 296 Arbor Court, Tax Map Number 64-A-80J
Dear Mr. Mohr:
This letter is in reference to your building permit applied for on December 1, 2010
for 296 Arbor Court, for a storage building 82 x 28.
Please note that the permit is currently in the Frederick County Zoning
Department pending the approval and signature of the Zoning Administrator, as
part of Section 103.11 Functional design of the 2006 Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code.
103.11 Functional design. The following criteria for functional design is in
accordance with Section 36-98 of the Code of Virginia. The USBC shall not
supersede the regulations of other state agencies which require and govern the
functional design and operation of building related activities not covered by the
USBC including but not limited to (i) public water supply systems, (ii) waste water
treatment and disposal systems, (iii) solid waste facilities. Nor shall state
agencies be prohibited from requiring, pursuant to other state law, that buildings
and equipment be maintained in accordance with provisions of this code. In
addition, as established by this code, the building official may refuse to issue a
narmif jinfil fha annliranf hac ciinnliarl rartifirafac of fiinrfinnal riocinn annrn�ial
from the appropriate state agency or agencies. For purposes of coordination, the
locality may require reports to the building official by other departments or
agencies indicating compliance with their regulations applicable to the functional
design of a building or structure as a condition for issuance of a building permit or
certificate of occupancy. Such reports shall be based upon review of the plans or
Mohr Letter
Page Two
conditions shall not be the responsibility of the building official, but rather the
agency imposing the condition.
Note: Identified state agencies with functional design approval are listed in the
"Related Laws Package" which is available from DHCD.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
V
John S. Trena
Building Code fficial
cc Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator
Campfield, LLC
Eric L-awrence
From:
John Trenary
Sent:
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:26 AM
To:
Eric Lawrence
Cc:
Jay Tibbs
Subject:
RE: ProBuild
Attachments:
Arbor court 296-1.doc; Arbor Court 296-2.doc
Eric,
Attached is a scanned copy of the letter sent on Dec. 21,2010 about the permit for 296 Arbor Court.
Regards,
John S. Trenary
-----Original Message -----
From: Eric Lawrence
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:00 AM
To: John Trenary
Subject: Fwd: ProBuild
Begin forwarded message:
From: JP Carr <icarr a, laize.net>
Date: December 21, 2010 4:01:31 PM EST
To: Candice Perkins <cperkins a co.frederick.va.us>, "Ronald A. Mislowsky"
<Ronald.Mislowsky@phra.com>, John Riley <•ri ile , cr co.frederick.va.us>
Cc: Mark Cheran <nicheran c2co.frederick.va.us>, Eric Lawrence
<elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us>
Subject: RE: ProBuild
December 21, 2010
Mr. John Trenary:
Building Official
County of Frederick Inspections Department
107 N. Kent St.
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: 296 Arbor Ct., Tax Map Number 64-A-80J
Dear Mr. Trenary:
In reference to your letter on this date, the owners of 296 Arbor Ct. are requesting that the
County of Frederick stop withholding or delaying the building permit applied for on
December 1, 2010 without cause.
Unofficially, Ms. Perkins has informed Glaize that there is an issue with the lower
parking lot at the ProBuild site. This parking lot was constructed in the 1990s. It can be
found on the site's current site plan and previous site plans in 1996 and 1999. The
parking lot was in existence and a permitted use at the time of construction for the new
office space (circa 1997), bathroom additions (mid-2000s) and Armory Rd. construction
project (2008). For the County to state that it is an "unpermitted addition" to the site plan
is to ignore all previously approved site plans, building permits and inspections at that
site.
The lot has long been a permitted use or the County would have objected prior to
issuance of previous building permits at that location. Why this issue is causing a delay
in the issuance of this specific building permit (to remove and replace a damaged
structure) is a matter that Planning has not properly explained. Retroactively removing a
previously approved site plan use is what they are suggesting. This is unacceptable
reason to delay or deny the currently submitted building permit.
Please provide specific cause to deny based on section 103.11 of the code. If Mark
Cheran is delaying approval, we request that he show cause for the delay. We appreciate
your input.
Regards,
JP Carr
Cc: FLG, Mark Cheran, Candice Perkins, John Riley, Steven Pettler, Esq.
From: Candice Perkins[mailto:cperkins(abco.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:14 AM
To: JP Carr; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Mark Cheran; Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
JP,
In response to your email, the unpermitted addition and the gravel parking lot would not
be a grandfathered use as any additions to industrial uses have required site plans for
more than 20 years. Both of these improvements would still be considered site plan
violations. Also, during the meeting we had a few weeks ago with Mark and Ron we did
discuss the removal of the unpermitted structure, however rebuilding it was not
discussed, we were had the understanding that ProBuild did not want this structure.
Now, in an effort to rectify the issue with the unpermitted building (you stated it was a
safety issue) Zoning is willing to sign off on the building permit. Please note that this
will be the only permit that we sign off on for this property until the parking lot is
upgraded per the approved 2006 site plan. Any future additions or revisions to parcel 64-
A-80J will require the parking upgrade and we will not sign off on any building permits
that are applied for on that property.
If the above is acceptable we will sign off on the pending permit, please advise.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins rr co.frederick.va.us
\A,NvNv.co.frederick.va.us
From: JP Carr [mailto:jcarra(�glaize.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:14 AM
To: Candice Perkins; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
Candice:
I did speak with Ron about this. In our meeting we told you that we would be submitting
a building permit application to remove and rebuild the "unpermitted" structure of the
snow damage. It was never our intent to just remove that structure and it was never
conveyed as such. I told you and Mark that we were submitting a building permit.
Basically, Nve would like to know the formal grounds for rejecting this building permit.
As you review this, I would refer you to the subdivision plan for the Armory Access Rd.
This plan, approved by the County planning staff, shows an "existing parking lot," as is,
and future parking lot on the site in question. The intent in 2008 was that the plan would
show the current and future plan for that area so that the road and storm -water facilities
could be constructed. If the County had such strong opinions about the existing parking
lot, they should have been addressed at the time the Access road was being constructed
and GIFTED to the County. If the County didn't object at the time of the road
construction, I can't see how you have grounds to object to it now.
If your argument is that the Armory Road plan is separate from ours, then the Armory
Road's storm water facilities are an unpermitted addition and we'll need to go back and
address that, too. Sounds like we may have improperly granted that land and use of the
storm water facilities to the County and need to go back and re -work the whole thing.
Don't forget that the parking lot and "unpermitted addition" were constructed in the more
than 20 years ago and have long -since been a grandfathered use. You'll need to show me
rules and regulations from the when they were constructed that show what we could and
could not construct at that time.
Candace, you can probably tell by my tone that I'm a bit exasperated by this issue.
ProBuild has intentions to expand their operating at that location, and you'll have plenty
of legitimate chances to object to that parking lot. The County's argument here is weals.
Let's get the damaged structure removed and replaced and save this issue for when
there's a real change necessary.
Regards,
JP Carr
From: Candice Perkins[mailto:cperkins(a)co.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:09 AM
To: Ronald A. Mislowsky; icarr glaize.net
Cc: Eric Lawrence
Subject: FW: ProBuild
Ron,
Have you spoken to J.P. regarding the issue below? I received a message from him
regarding this site and I think we need to meet again.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540)665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins@co.frederick.va.us
www.co.frederick.va.us
From: Candice Perkins
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:44 PM
To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Cc: Mark Cheran
Subject: ProBuild
Ron,
When we met a while back regarding the ProBuild site plan we briefly discussed the
"existing unpermitted additions". I was under the impression that that the unpermitted
addition was going to be demolished and the site plan was revised to only account for the
property with the proposed new warehouse so that the issues on the adjoining property
didn't have to be addressed at this time. Now we have a building permit to demo and
rebuild that unpermitted addition which we cannot issue. Do you have any information
regarding this issue?
Thanks,
Candice
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540)665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins@co.fi-ederiqk.va.us
NvxvNv.co.fi-ederick.va.us
5
12/21/2010 16:08 GLAIZE 4 6656395 N0.929 D02
I-
CAMPF'IELD1...,LC
P.O. BOX BBB
WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 222604088E
PHONE: 540-662.2092
FAX: 54"62-8016
December 21, 2010
Mr. John Trenary:
Building Official
County of Frederick Inspections Department
107 N. Kent 5t.
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: 296 Arbor Ct., Tax Map Number 64-A-80J
Dear Mr. Trenary:
In reference to your letter on this date, the owners of 296 Arbor Ct. are requesting that the County of
Frederick stop withholding or delaying the building permit applied for on December 1, 2010 without
cause.
Unofficially, Ms. Perkins has informed Glaize that there Is an issue with the lower parking lot at the
ProBuild site. This parking lot was constructed in the 19905. It can be found on the site's current site
plan and previous site plans in 1996 and 1999. The parking lot was in existence and a permitted use at
the time of construction for the new office space (circa 1997), bathroom additions (mid-2000s) and
Armory Rd. construction project (2008). For the County to state that it is an "unpermitted addition" to
the site plan is to Ignore all previously approved site plans, building permits and inspections at that site.
The lot has long been a permitted use or the County would have objected prior to issuance of previous
building permits at that location. Why this issue is causing a delay in the issuance of this specific
building permit (to remove and replace a damaged structure) is a matter that Planning has not properly
explained. Retroactively removing a previously approved site plan use is what they are suggesting. This
is unacceptable reason to delay or deny the currently submitted building permit.
Please provide specific cause to deny based on section 103.11 of the code. If Mark Cheran is delaying
approval, we request that he show cause for the delay. We appreciate your input.
Regards,
AtLX-4--
Carr
Cc: FLG, Mark Cheran, Candice Perkins, John Riley, Steven Pettler, Esq.
Candice Perkins
From:
Candice Perkins
Sent:
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 2:16 PM
To:
Eric Lawrence
Subject:
ProBuild Issues
In response to the issues out at the ProBuild Site:
In an email to JP on December 15`f' 1 offered a solution to this issue. It was stated by JP to our office that this lean-to
presented a safety issue and therefore in an effort to rectify the issue Planning was willing to sign the building permit.
He was informed that the permit for the lean-to would be the only permit we would be able to sign until the gravel
parking lot was upgraded. He was told that any future additions or revisions to parcel 64-A-80J would require a new site
plan and this new site plan would need to show the parking upgrade.
"Please note that this would be the case with ANY property, we are not perpetuating the use of improvements
installed in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. JP stated that he did not agree with this. Even if the gravel parking lot
was installed legally (which is not the case with the parking lot in question) we would still require the upgrade with the
submission of any new site plans.
Please see responses to JP's statements:
Did Candace show you those site plans? I just spoke to Ron about this and he tells me the parking lot was approved on a
site plan when we added to the office space (probably right after the Glaize Lumber sale in 1997).
The gravel parking lot showed up as an "existing employee parking lot" on a site plan from 1989. Gravel has not been a
permitted surface material since the 70's, therefore installation of a gravel parking lot would not have been permitted.
They have been using this parking lot for some time now and it kept being validated as an existing parking lot when it
should not have, and therefore the next site plan for the property needs to address the issue.
Site History:
The first building on the property was constructed sometime between February of 1981 and August of 1985 — we do not
have a site plan for the first building on the site. The gravel parking lot was not shown on the first site plan we have for
the Glaize Property (#25-84). The second site plan we have for this site was for an addition (42-89), this is the first
mention of the gravel parking lot —this plan labels this parking as "employee parking". The gravel parking lot in question
appeared sometime between 1987 (which was when SP 425-84 was approved) and 1991 when it was noted on SP#03-
91. It should be noted that paving requirements existed in the 1980's and therefore a gravel parking lot would not have
been permissible. Granted, staff back in 1989 should have realized that the parking lot was added in violation of the
approved site plan and in violation of the County Code and the violation should have been rectified at that time.
This "existing" parking area was then shown on site plans from 1991, 1993, 1996 and 1999. The site plan from 2006
shows this parking lot being paved and expanded.
The shed was a lean-to and didn't need a permit for construction when constructed in the 80s, I'm told (pre -dates me).
Incorrect statement - every addition requires a permit.
The main building was constructed sometime between 1981-1985, for some reason there isn't a site plan on file for that
structure. There was a large addition site planned in 1985, this plan did not show the lean-to and it did not show the
parking lot being added. The lean-to has never been referenced on any of the approved plans for that site, it does
appear on the 1988 aerial photos (probably constructed sometime between 1987-1988).
There's an approved site plan from 2006 that shows the lot can be paved if we choose, but there's nothing that says we
have to pave it.
There is an approved site plan from 2006 that shows the parking lot being paved and a proposed parking addition. What
needs to be understood is that any future additions to the ProBuild site will require a site plan. That site plan will need
to show the parking lot being upgraded to current standard. The parking improvements will need to be completed
before we can sign off on any certificate of occupancy.
Either way, all this wasn't an issue when the Armory Rd. was built. The drainage, parking lots, storm water, road, etc.,
were all discussed and approved by staff at that time. Staff then issued building permits, storm -water permits, etc., etc.
The plan that shows the road to the Armory was just that — a road plan. The gravel parking was not addressed when the
Armory Road was built because Planning does not sign off on road plans —they are not site plans.
Why the sudden epiphany that we need to construct a parking lot, and why now? It's an infatuation with them.
Recently a site plan was submitted to the County for a new warehouse on the ProBuild site, review comments from our
department stated that they would need to upgrade the parking lot. A meeting was held with Mark Cheran, Candice
Perkins, Ron Mislowsky and JP Carr to discuss the issue. At that meeting Staff agreed to allow the warehouse site plan
to proceed (it is located on a adjacent lot, but ProBuild is the primary use) by showing the warehouse as the primary use
on the adjacent lot. At that meeting JP was informed that any revisions to the ProBuild parcel (64-A-80J) would require
the parking lot to be addressed. EVERYONE agreed to this, there were no disagreements as to what needed to happen
in the future. It was specifically told to JP that we wouldn't sign anything else on that property until the parking was
upgraded.
The solution I offered to JP was more than fair. In the meeting we all had we told him that nothing else would be
approved on 64-A-80J (we were informed at that meeting that the lean-to would be coming down — but not rebuilt)
without the parking lot upgrade being shown on the next site plan. After that meeting the permit for the lean-to
shows up and we are revisiting the same conversation we had a the end of November. We are now stating that we
will sign off on the lean-to, but nothing else. This is the only option we can agree to and we are trying to avoid having
the exact same discussion when ProBuild wants to do additional improvements out at that site.
I'm sure the lot will probably get paved one day. It's just not going to be by us.
Any future improvements will require a site plan, the site plan will require the upgrade of the parking lot. Campfield/JP
or ProBuild can do the improvements, either way a C/O will not be issued until someone does it.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkinsCcDco.frederick.va.us
www.co.frederick.va.us
Mike Ruddy
From:
Len Bogorad [LBogorad@rcico.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:15 PM
To:
Mike Ruddy
Cc:
Tammy Shoham
Subject:
FW: Siteplans
Great, thanks. We will be in a conference room. Please call us at 301.907.6600, x4145.
Leonard Bogorad
Managing Director
RCL�:
Real Estate Advisors
7200 Wisconsin Avenue, 71' Floor
Bethesda, MD 20814
P: 240 644 1005
F: 240 644 1311
E: Ib000rad(a)rcico.com
W: v vw.rcico.com
The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
named above. If you are not an intended recipient or if you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copy of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail or telephone,
then promptly and permanently delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.
From: Mike Ruddy[mailto:mruddy@co.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 3:06 PM
To: Len Bogorad
Subject: RE: Siteplans
Hi Len,
Alex and I will call you at 10 tomorrow.
Thanks.
Mike.
From: Len Bogorad [mailto:LBogorad@rcico.com)
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:32 AM
To: Mike Ruddy
Cc: Tammy Shoham
Subject: Re: Siteplans
Mike,
Thanks for all of the useful information yesterday.
It does look like we are going to have to dig into the data (probably assessment data) more to refine what the current
development status is of land in the county. These are parcels that might be showing up as not vacant but are in fact
only partially developed; and parcels in a particular land use category such as urban center that are already developed,
but not necessarily with uses that are consistent with that land use category. We have some ideas for how to do this,
but what is actually possible will depend on what data is available and how time consuming it will be to manipulate it.
As we discussed yesterday, could you figure out who the best person to talk with about this would be? Would Alex Gray
know what is possible with assessment data, or do we need to start by talking with someone in the assessors office?
Whichever the right person is, would it be possibe for you to set up a time for a phone call with them? It would be great
to start the discussion before the holidays, in which case we could talk today before 3 or after 5, or tomorrow from 10-
11 or 3-5.
If it won't be possible to talk this week, perhaps we could set up a day and time to talk after New Year's Day. We are
available Mon (1/3) 9-12 or 2-3, Tues 9-330, and Wed 9-530.
Thanks,
Len and Tammy
From: Mike Ruddy[mailto:mruddy@co.frederick.va.us)
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 11:27 AM
To: Len Bogorad
Subject: FW: Siteplans
From: Alex Gray
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 2:20 PM
To: Mike Ruddy
Subject: Siteplans
Here you go..
Alex Gray
GIS Analyst
Frederick County Virginia
Dept of Planning & Development
107 N Kent Street
Winchester, virginia 22601
540-665-5651
www.frederickcountvva.gov/planning
2
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX:540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Department of Planning
and Development
FROM: James M. Stewart, Erosion and Sediment Control Program Administrator,
Department of Public Works
SUBJECT: Request to Establish a Bond Amount — Wakeland Manor — Phase 14
DATE: December 21, 2010
I have reviewed the Bond Estimate prepared by Michael Tucker of BC Consultants dated
July 15, 2010, for the subject project. Based on my review of the estimate in the amount of
$628,103.16 and a site inspection, it is my recommendation that a total amount of $628,103.16
will be adequate to cover the costs associated with performing the work for the subject project.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact nie.
JMS/rls
cc: file
Candice Perkins
From:
Eric Lawrence
Sent:
Monday, December 20, 2010 3:25 PM
To:
Candice Perkins
Subject:
Fwd: ProBuild
Begin forwarded message:
From: "John Riley" <'r� iley@co.fi-ederick.va.us>
Date: December 20, 2010 3:08:54 PM EST
To: "Eric Lawrence" <elawrenc(@,co.fi-ederick.va.us>
Subject: FW: ProBuild
Got some talking points for me on this latest statement?JR
From: JP Carr [mailto:jcarr@glaize.net]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 4:35 PM
To: John Riley
Subject: RE: ProBuild
Jolm:
Did Candace show you those site plans? I just spoke to Ron about this and he tells me the
parking lot was approved on a site plan when we added to the office space (probably right after
the Glaize Lumber sale in 1997). The shed was a lean-to and didn't need a permit for
construction when constructed in the 80s, I'm told (pre -dates me). There's an approved site plan
from 2006 that shows the lot can be paved if we choose, but there's nothing that says we have to
pave it.
Either way, all this wasn't an issue when the Armory Rd. was built. The drainage, parking lots,
storm water, road, etc., were all discussed and approved by staff at that time. Staff then issued
building permits, storm -water pennits, etc., etc. Why the sudden epiphany that we need to
construct a parking lot, and why now? It's an infatuation with them.
I'm sure the lot will probably get paved one day. It's just not going to be by us.
JP
From: John Riley[mailto:iriley(abco.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 4:12 PM
To: JP Carr
Subject: RE: ProBuild
Apparently there was no building permit for the shed or site plan for the parking lot;they were
just constructed with no pennits;Did JP good have the property prior to Fred?JR
From: JP Carr [mailto:icarr glaize.net]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:39 PM
To: John Riley
Cc: Elaine Markle
Subject: FW: ProBuild
John:
We have refused the compromise of accepting liability to construct the lot. Now we're at a
stand -still. You can read the entire chain of events below. If the answer is still no, no big deal.
The existing, damaged structure will be removed and ProBuild will understand that any future
improvements to the facility will have a $40,000 minimum add -on.
I appreciate your attention to this matter. Have a Merry Christmas.
JP
From: Candice Perkins [ma iIto: cperkinsO co. frederick.va.us]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 11:24 AM
To: JP Carr; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Mark Cheran; Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
JP,
Per my previous email below we offered you a solution. If you have documentation that the
addition was previously approved you can send it to us.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins(a co.frederick.va.us
w-ww.co.fredcrick.va.us
From: JP Carr [mailtoJcarr glaize.net]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 11:20 AM
To: JP Carr; Candice Perkins; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Mark Cheran; Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
What's the final verdict?
JP
From: JP Carr [mailto:icarr(a)glaize.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:21 AM
To: 'Candice Perkins'; 'Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Cc: 'Mark Cheran'; 'Eric Lawrence'
Subject: RE: ProBuild
Candace:
I still disagree with the parking lot issue and we believe we have strong legal grounds otherwise.
If this permit is issued "conditionally" I do not accept. If you wish to issue the permit and
address the parking lot at a later date, that's fine, but we are not conceding the issue on the
parking lot construction at this time.
JP
From: Candice Perkins[maiIto: cperkinsOco.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:14 AM
To: JP Carr; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Mark Cheran; Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
JP,
In response to your email, the unpermitted addition and the gravel parking lot would not be a
grandfathered use as any additions to industrial uses have required site plans for more than 20
years. Both of these improvements would still be considered site plan violations. Also, during
the meeting we had a few weeks ago with Mark and Ron we did discuss the removal of the
unpermitted structure, however rebuilding it was not discussed, we were had the understanding
that ProBuild did not want this structure.
Now, in an effort to rectify the issue with the unpermitted building (you stated it was a safety
issue) Zoning is willing to sign off on the building permit. Please note that this will be the only
permit that we sign off on for this property until the parking lot is upgraded per the approved
2006 site plan. Any future additions or revisions to parcel 64-A-80J will require the parking
upgrade and we will not sign off on any building permits that arc applied for on that property.
If the above is acceptable we will sign off on the pending permit, please advise.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins[(Dco. frederick. va.us
www.co.frederick.va.us
From: JP Carr [mailto:jcarr(a)glaize.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:14 AM
To: Candice Perkins; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
Candice:
I did speak with Ron about this. In our meeting we told you that we would be submitting a
building permit application to remove and rebuild the "unpermitted" structure of the snow
damage. It was never our intent to just remove that structure and it was never conveyed as such.
I told you and Mark that we were submitting a building permit. Basically, we would like to
know the fortnal grounds for rejecting this building permit.
As you review this, I would refer you to the subdivision plan for the Armory Access Rd. This
plan, approved by the County planning staff, shows an "existing parking lot," as is, and future
parking lot on the site in question. The intent in 2008 was that the plan would show the current
and future plan for that area so that the road and storm -water facilities could be constructed. If
the County had such strong opinions about the existing parking lot, they should have been
addressed at the tithe the Access road was being constructed and GIFTED to the County. If the
County didn't object at the time of the road construction, I can't see how you have grounds to
object to it now.
If your argument is that the Armory Road plan is separate fi-om ours, then the Armory Road's
storm water facilities are an unperinitted addition and we'll need to go back and address that,
too. Sounds like we may have improperly granted that land and use of the storm water facilities
to the County and need to go back and re -work the whole thing.
Don't forget that the parking lot and "unpermitted addition" were constructed in the more than
20 years ago and have long -since been a grandfathered use. You'll need to show me rules and
regulations from the when they were constructed that show what we could and could not
construct at that time.
Candace, you can probably tell by my tone that I'm a bit exasperated by this issue. ProBuild has
intentions to expand their operating at that location, and you'll have plenty of legitimate chances
to object to that parking lot. The County's argument here is weak. Let's get the damaged
structure removed and replaced and save this issue for when there's a real change necessary.
Regards,
JP Carr -
From: Candice Perkins[ma iIto: cperkins(aOco.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:09 AM
To: Ronald A. Mislowsky; lcarr glaize.net
Cc: Eric Lawrence
Subject: FW: ProBuild
Ron,
Have you spoken to J.P. regarding the issue below? I received a message from him regarding
this site and I think we need to meet again.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins n,co.frederick.va.us
Nvxv\v.co.firederick.va.us
From: Candice Perkins
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:44 PM
To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Cc: Mark Cheran
Subject: ProBuild
Ron,
When we met a while back regarding the ProBuild site plan we briefly discussed the "existing
unpermitted additions". I was under the impression that that the unpermitted addition was going
to be demolished and the site plan was revised to only account for the property with the proposed
new warehouse so that the issues on the adjoining property didn't have to be addressed at this
time. Now we have a building permit to demo and rebuild that unpermitted addition which we
catuiot issue. Do you have any information regarding this issue?
Thanks,
Candice
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkinsP.co. frederick. va.us
w-ww. co. frederick. va. us
Candice Perkins
From: JP Carr Dcarr@glaize.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Candice Perkins; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Mark Cheran; Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
Candace:
I still disagree with the parking lot issue and we believe we have strong legal grounds otherwise. If this permit is issued
"conditionally" I do not accept. If you wish to issue the permit and address the parking lot at a later date, that's fine, but
we are not conceding the issue on the parking lot construction at this time.
JP
From: Candice Perkins [mailto:cperkins co.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:14 AM
To: JP Carr; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Mark Cheran; Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
JP,
In response to your email, the unpermitted addition and the gravel parking lot would not be a grandfathered use as any
additions to industrial uses have required site plans for more than 20 years. Both of these improvements would still be
considered site plan violations. Also, during the meeting we had a few weeks ago with Mark and Ron we did discuss the
removal of the unpermitted structure, however rebuilding it was not discussed, we were had the understanding that
ProBuild did not want this structure.
Now, in an effort to rectify the issue with the unpermitted building (you stated it was a safety issue) Zoning is willing to
sign off on the building permit. Please note that this will be the only permit that we sign off on for this property until the
parking lot is upgraded per the approved 2006 site plan. Any future additions or revisions to parcel 64-A-80J will require
the parking upgrade and we will not sign off on any building permits that are applied for on that property.
If the above is acceptable we will sign off on the pending permit, please advise.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
coerkins(@co.frederick.va.us
www.co.frederick.va.us
From: JP Carr [mailto:'cl arr(@glaize.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:14 AM
To: Candice Perkins; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
Candice:
I did speak with Ron about this. In our meeting we told you that we would be submitting a building permit application
to remove and rebuild the "unpermitted" structure of the snow damage. It was never our intent to just remove that
structure and it was never conveyed as such. I told you and Mark that we were submitting a building permit. Basically,
we would like to know the formal grounds for rejecting this building permit.
As you review this, I would refer you to the subdivision plan for the Armory Access Rd. This plan, approved by the
County planning staff, shows an "existing parking lot," as is, and future parking lot on the site in question. The intent in
2008 was that the plan would show the current and future plan for that area so that the road and storm -water facilities
could be constructed. If the County had such strong opinions about the existing parking lot, they should have been
addressed at the time the Access road was being constructed and GIFTED to the County. If the County didn't object at
the time of the road construction, I can't see how you have grounds to object to it now.
If your argument is that the Armory Road plan is separate from ours, then the Armory Road's storm water facilities are
an unpermitted addition and we'll need to go back and address that, too. Sounds like we may have improperly granted
that land and use of the storm water facilities to the County and need to go back and re -work the whole thing.
Don't forget that the parking lot and "unpermitted addition" were constructed in the more than 20 years ago and have
long -since been a grandfathered use. You'll need to show me rules and regulations from the when they were
constructed that show what we could and could not construct at that time.
Candace, you can probably tell by my tone that I'm a bit exasperated by this issue. ProBuild has intentions to expand
their operating at that location, and you'll have plenty of legitimate chances to object to that parking lot. The County's
argument here is weak. Let's get the damaged structure removed and replaced and save this issue for when there's a
real change necessary.
Regards,
JP Carr
From: Candice Perkins [ma iIto: cperkins co.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:09 AM
To: Ronald A. Mislowsky; jcarr(a glaize.net
Cc: Eric Lawrence
Subject: FW: ProBuild
Ron,
Have you spoken to J.P. regarding the issue below? I received a message from him regarding this site and I think we
need to meet again.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins(@co.frederick.va.us
www.co.frederick.va.us
PJ
From: Candice Perkins
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:44 PM
To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Cc: Mark Cheran
Subject: ProBuild
Ron,
When we met a while back regarding the ProBuild site plan we briefly discussed the "existing unpermitted additions". I
was under the impression that that the unpermitted addition was going to be demolished and the site plan was revised
to only account for the property with the proposed new warehouse so that the issues on the adjoining property didn't
have to be addressed at this time. Now we have a building permit to demo and rebuild that unpermitted addition which
we cannot issue. Do you have any information regarding this issue?
Thanks,
Candice
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins@co.frederick.va.us
www.co.frederick.va.us
Candice Perkins
From: JP Carr Dcarr@glaize.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:14 AM
To: Candice Perkins; Ronald A. Mislowsky
Cc: Eric Lawrence
Subject: RE: ProBuild
Candice:
I did speak with Ron about this. In our meeting we told you that we would be submitting a building permit application
to remove and rebuild the "unpermitted" structure of the snow damage. It was never our intent to just remove that
structure and it was never conveyed as such. I told you and Mark that we were submitting a building permit. Basically,
we would like to know the formal grounds for rejecting this building permit.
As you review this, I would refer you to the subdivision plan for the Armory Access Rd. This plan, approved by the
County planning staff, shows an "existing parking lot," as is, and future parking lot on the site in question. The intent in
2008 was that the plan would show the current and future plan for that area so that the road and storm -water facilities
could be constructed. If the County had such strong opinions about the existing parking lot, they should have been
addressed at the time the Access road was being constructed and GIFTED to the County. If the County didn't object at
the time of the road construction, I can't see how you have grounds to object to it now.
If your argument is that the Armory Road plan is separate from ours, then the Armory Road's storm water facilities are
an unpermitted addition and we'll need to go back and address that, too. Sounds like we may have improperly granted
that land and use of the storm water facilities to the County and need to go back and re -work the whole thing.
Don't forget that the parking lot and "unpermitted addition" were constructed in the more than 20 years ago and have
long -since been a grandfathered use. You'll need to show me rules and regulations from the when they were
constructed that show what we could and could not construct at that time.
Candace, you can probably tell by my tone that I'm a bit exasperated by this issue. ProBuild has intentions to expand
their operating at that location, and you'll have plenty of legitimate chances to object to that parking lot. The County's
argument here is weak. Let's get the damaged structure removed and replaced and save this issue for when there's a
real change necessary.
Regards,
JP Carr
From: Candice Perkins[mailto:cperkins(?bco.frederick.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:09 AM
To: Ronald A. Mislowsky; jcarr(d)glaize.net
Cc: Eric Lawrence
Subject: FW: ProBuild
Ron,
Have you spoken to J.P. regarding the issue below? I received a message from him regarding this site and I think we
need to meet again.
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins(@co.frederick.va.us
www.co.frederick.va.us
From: Candice Perkins
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 2:44 PM
To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Cc: Mark Cheran
Subject: ProBuild
Ron,
When we met a while back regarding the ProBuild site plan we briefly discussed the "existing unpermitted additions". I
was under the impression that that the unpermitted addition was going to be demolished and the site plan was revised
to only account for the property with the proposed new warehouse so that the issues on the adjoining property didn't
have to be addressed at this time. Now we have a building permit to demo and rebuild that unpermitted addition which
we cannot issue. Do you have any information regarding this issue?
Thanks,
Candice
Candice Perkins, AICP
Senior Planner
Frederick County Department of
Planning & Development
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 665-5651
(540) 665-6395 (fax)
cperkins(@co.frederick.va.us
www.co.frederick.va.us
L13
U� 41IJ o�()XIDERICK
Department o1' Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
February 23, 2007
Mr. Jonathan Welling
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: Approval of Site Plan #75-06; Glaize Components
Property Identification Number (PIN) 64-A-80J
ti.
Dear Jonathan:
The above -referenced site plan was approved on February 23, 2007. The site plan is approved for the paving
of an existing parking lot and the construction of a new parking lot at the existing Glaize Components facility
located on Arbor Court in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
I am providing you with three copies of the approved site plan. Please forward these copies to the appropriate
representative(s). Furthermore, advise the owner(s) that a copy should be kept for future reference, and an
approved copy must be kept on the construction site throughout the development process. Once site
development is complete, the owner(s) should contact this office to schedule an on -site inspection. Do not
hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
I `
,�0"'j
Candice E. Perkins
Planner II
cc: Glaize Components, 296 Arbor Court, Winchester, VA 22602
Gene Fisher, Shawnee Magisterial District Supervisor
June Wilmot and Robert A. Morris, Shawnee Magisterial District Commissioners
Jane Anderson, Real Estate
Commissioner of Revenue
CEP/bad
Attachment
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Potion Harri•ust & Associates •
December 7, 2006
Candice Perkins
Frederick County C 7 2006
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RC: Glaize Components
Candice,
We have the following continents to review letter dated December 5, 2006.
P
H1.
Handicap Space — It is unclear what benefit the new handicap space at its
proposed location will serve. The additional handicap space be relocated to
the existing parking lot, or a ramp and gate provided.
The additional handicap space has been relocated to the to the existing
paved lot. Regarding the steps between the two lots, there is in fact a
fence at this location. This has been shown on the plans.
2. Building Addition - A building addition was added without permits at some
time as indicated on the plan. A permit is being applied for by the property
owners, indicate the location of this area on the plan.
The un-permitted building addition has been shown.
3. Entrance - Curb and gutter is being provided on one side of the existing
,."
entrance but not the other. If the entrance is to be modified, the entire
entrance should be upgraded to VDOT standards.
i,,; ; ;o;,ES
_ ;,. ;•
We have VDOT approval for this entrance design. VDOT has not asked
to upgrade the owner side of the entrance.
OFFICES
4. New Road - With the Careers Valley rezoning, a road was proposed that stubs
to the property line and is intended to connect with Arbor Court at some time;
provide the proposed location of this road.
.:. •
The 50' right-of-way for an inter -parcel connection from Governors Hill
to the property line has been shown (per proffer 15.1.2). This extension
PE':':Sl': %: �'• OFFICE
has been shown to Arbor Court.
Regards,
W:_, VI:GINL.
o:: CE
PATTON H�A,JRRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES
�>> 2 1 3E'
Jonathan Welling, E.I.T.
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
R+A 117 East Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
PH
T 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
To:
From:
Date:
Project Name/Subject:
PHR+A Project file Number:
cc:
E
Memorandum
Candice Perkins, Frederick County Planning and Development
Jonathan J. Welling, E.I.T.
February 16, 2007
Glaize Components
I have revised the plan per your con-unents dated 2/13/07 and have provided 5 copies of the plan for final
approval. Attached you Rill also find copies of all required agency approvals as you have requested.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you.
F E B 1 6 2007
E
n
U
Mr. Jonathan J. Welling, E.I.T.
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c.
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Site Plan Continents - Glaize Components
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Welling:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/ 678-0682
January 18, 2007
- i ri 1 6 2007
We have completed our review of the site plan received December 7, 2006, for the
parking lot improvements and future parking lot expansion for Glaize Components. We offer no
comments at this time. Therefore, we recommend approval of the subject site plan.
Sincerely,
r
q1e C. Wilder
Deputy Director
JCW/rls
cc: Planning and Development
file
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Jonathan J. Welling
From: Ronald A. Mislowsky [Ronald.Mislowsky@phra.com)
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:28 PM
To: Jonathan Welling
Subject: FW: Glaize Components - Route 1000, Frederick County - VDOT Approval
please keep all for your records.
Ron
--Original Message -----
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (mailto:Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Ingram,
Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:22 P14
To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; 'Mark Cheran (mcheran@co.frederick.va.us)'
Subject: Glaize Components - Route 1000, Frederick County - VDOT Approval
We have received your site plan dated October, 2006 for the referenced project. Please
advise the owner of our approval. Also please provide six
(6) sets of approved construction plans with signed seal for VDOT distribution.
The appropriate land use permit may now be applied for to cover work within the Route
1000 right-of-way. The permit is issued by this office and will require a minimum
processing fee, surety bond coverage, and the salary & expenses of a State assigned
Inspector. A copy of any/all recorded plats of dedication for drainage easements or
additional right-of-way required for implementation of this proposed project should be
provided to VDOT prior to issuance of any land use permits. Dedication should be made to
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Once satisfactory application has been made, a permit will normally take approximately
thirty days to process and issue. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Lloyd A. Ingram
Transportation Engineer
VDOT - Edinburg Residency
Land Development
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
(540) 984-5611
(540) 984-5607 (fax)
1
1cx o
R' -
_ H
VIRGINIA
Control number
SP06-0075
Project Name
Glaize Components
Address
117 E. Piccadilly St.
Type Application
Site Plan
Current Zoning
M
Automatic Sprinkler System
Yes
Other recommendation
Emergency Vehicle Access
Adequate
Siamese Location
Adequate
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
Access Comments
Additional Comments
Pi�FnS approved. 2s Subnlliied.
Frederick Country lire and Rescue
Department
Office of the Fire (tarsi-121
P!an Review and GdE't' ment-s.
Date received Date reviewed Date Revised
12/7/2006 12/12/2006
Applicant
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
City State Zip Applicant Phone
Winchester VA 22601 540-667-2139
Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District
64-A-80J 21 21
Recommendations
Automatic Fire Alarm System
Yes
FequIrem, anits
Hydrant Location
Adequate
Roadway/Aisleway Width
Adequate
Election District
Shawnee
Residential Sprinkler System
No
Fire Lane Required
Yes
Special Hazards
No
Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature Q
Yes Jeffrey S. Neal
Title kr�-6 �I_Y`
• •
Request for Site Plan Comments
Frederick County Inspections Department
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Inspections Dept. 107 N. Kent St.
Attn: Building Official Fourth Floor
107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601
Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650
(540) 665-5650
Plea -se bZlttTieeai�faMA:sPleas a 11�1� ith this sheet.
_��
HC parking shall not exceed 2% across the unloading area and min. 8' with 8' stripped Van
Appl4gjSWr*ace r&ll<@fl.�f W#i*0Age USBC 2003.
Address: c/o Jonathan J. Welling
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone Number: (540) 667-2139
Name of development and/or description of the request: Glai7e Components
Location of property: 296 Arbor Court
Inspections Development's Comments:
Inspection Dept. use only
Date received Date revision received Date approved 1e7
g ECEI V ED
otc � � zao6
3�REDc.RICK COUP(i� Glr�
p j i ^ WARY & IIrSPECt1
E
Paving of gravel parking lot consisting of 34 parking spots. Total provided is 50 parking spaces.
Four Handicap Parking Spaces provided and adding the fifth. Maximum 2% (1:48) slopes and
Curb Access per ICC/ANSI Al 17.1-2003
HC parking shall not exceed 2% across the unloading area and min. 8' with 8' stripped Van
Accessible space required. Refer to handicap signage USBC 2003.
•
•
Mr. Jonathan J. Welling, E.I.T.
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c.
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Site Plan Comments - Glaize Components
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Welling:
January 18, 2007
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
5401665-5643
FAX: 540/ 678-0682
We have completed our review of the site plan received December 7, 2006, for the
parking lot improvements and future parking lot expansion for Glaize Components. We offer no
continents at this time. Therefore, we recommend approval of the subject site plan.
JCW/rls
cc: Planning and Development
file
F r_ -3 5 zoo;
Sincerely,
� r
f�1 C�
J e C. Wilder
Deputy Director
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Request for Site Plan Comments
Frederick Countv Inspections Department
Mail to: Hand deliver to:
Frederick County Inspections Dept. 107 N. Kent St.
Attn: Building Official Fourth Floor
107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601
Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650
(540) 665-5650
aY P1easFour M"i to QecEN
§�B���l E14-aOff"A8% k ttfi MRR% ekPleas c��t� QCj AI nth this sheet.
HC parking shall not exceed 2% across the unloading area and min. 8' with 8' stripped Van
APPIik&*�tj6hpWace r&jj*d. j# J&§kAj�4(ALqjgke USBC 2003.
Address: c/o Jonathan J. Welling
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone Number: (540) 667-2139
Name of development and/or description of the request: Glaize Components
Location of property: 296 Arbor Court
Inspections Development's Comments:
,) a Corm&�TS nn V%o.c�L
Inspection Dept. use only
Date received
Incomplete
Date reviewed
Signature and Date
SigMature and Date (revision)
Date revision received Date approved ///07
RECEIVED
pC, 01 7g5
� ftEDERICK COUNIY �
�'iiUCYJ6RK & INSPECIIAM
•
LI
Paving of gravel parking lot consisting of 34 parking spots. Total provided is 50 parking spaces
Four Handicap Parking Spaces provided and adding the fifth. Maximum 2% (1:48) slopes and
Curb Access per ICCJANSI A117.1-2003
HC parking shall not exceed 2% across the unloading area and min. 8' with 8' stripped Van
Accessible space required. Refer to handicap signage USBC 2003.
u
Jonathan J. Welling
From: Ronald A. Mislowsky [Ronald. Mislowsky@phra.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:28 PM
To: Jonathan Welling
Subject: FW: Glaize Components - Route 1000, Frederick County - VDOT Approval
please keep all for your records.
Ron
-----Original message -----
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [mailto:Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Ingram,
Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:22 PM
To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; 'Mark Cheran (mcheran@co.frederick.va.us)'
Subject: Glaize Components - Route 1000, Frederick County - VDOT Approval
We have received your site plan dated October, 2006 for the referenced project. Please
advise the owner of our approval. Also please provide six
(6) sets of approved construction plans with signed seal for VDOT distribution.
The appropriate land use permit may now be applied for to cover work within the Route
1000 right-of-way. The permit is issued by this office and will require a minimum
processing fee, surety bond coverage, and the salary & expenses of a State assigned
Inspector. A copy of any/all recorded plats of dedication for drainage easements or
additional right-of-way required for implementation of this proposed project should be
provided to VDOT prior to issuance of any land use permits. Dedication should be made to
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Once satisfactory application has been made, a permit will normally take approximately
thirty days to process and issue. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Lloyd A. Ingram
Transportation Engineer
VDOT - Edinburg Residency
Land Development
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
(540) 984-5611
(540) 984-5607 (fax)
0
0
�SCK Frederick COUnty Ciro* and ResGUe
Department
a H Office of the Fire Marshal
w' w
flan Review and Comments
VIft'GINIA"
Control number Date received Date reviewed Date Revised
sP06-0075 12/7/2006 12/12/2006
Project Name Applicant
Glaize Components Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Address City State Zip Applicant Phone
117 E. Piccadilly St. Winchester VA 22601 540-667-2139
Type Application Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District
Site Plan 64-A-80J 21 21
Current Zoning Election District
M Recommendations Shawnee
Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System Residential Sprinkler System
Yes Yes No
Other recommendation
Emergency Vehicle Access
Adequate
Siamese Location
Adequate
Emergency Vehicle Access Comments
Access Comments
Additional Comments
Plans approved as submitted.
RIeClUirrerments
Hydrant Location
Adequate
Roadway/Aisleway Width
Adequate
Fire Lane Required
Yes
Special Hazards
No
Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature
Yes Jeffrey S. Neal Title _k_6 r \
•
January 18, 2007
Mr. Jonathan J. Welling, E.I.T.
Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c.
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RC: Site Plan Comments - Glaize Components
Frederick County, Virginia
Dear Mr. Welling:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/ 678-0682
We have completed our review of the site plan received December 7, 2006, for the
parking lot improvements and future parking lot expansion for Glaize Components. We offer no
comments at this time. Therefore, we recommend approval of the subject site plan.
Sincerely,
Joe C. Wilder
Deputy Director
JCW/rls
cc: Planning and Development
file
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
i Glaize Components - Rout 1000, Frederick County - VDOT Approval
Page 1 of 1
Mark Cheran
From: Funkhouser, Rhonda (Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd
[Lloyd.ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 3:22 PM
To: 'Ronald A. Mislowsky'
Cc: Ingram, Lloyd; 'Mark Cheran (mcheran@co.frederick.va.us)'
Subject: Glaize Components - Route 1000, Frederick County - VDOT Approval
We have received your site plan dated October, 2006 for the referenced project. Please
advise the owner of our approval. Also please provide six (6) sets of approved
construction plans with signed seal for VDOT distribution.
The appropriate land use permit may now be applied for to cover work within the Route
1000 right-of-way. The permit is issued by this office and will require a minimum processing
fee, surety bond coverage, and the salary Et expenses of a State assigned Inspector. A copy
of any/all recorded plats of dedication for drainage easements or additional right-of-way
required for implementation of this proposed project should be provided to VDOT prior to
issuance of any land use permits. Dedication should be made to the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Once satisfactory application has been made, a permit will normally take approximately
thirty days to process and issue. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Lloyd A. Ingram
Transportation Engineer
VDOT N Edinburg Residency
Land Development
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
(540) 984-5611
(540) 984-5607 (fax)
1/1 1/2007
n
U
0
December 5, 2006
Mr. Jonathan Welling
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
H 7 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Re: Comments for Site Plan #75-06; Glaize Components
Property Identification Number (PIN) 64-A-80J
Dear Jonathan:
COUM 4,filMt �CK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
FAX: 540/ 665-6395
Planning Staff has reviewed the above -referenced site plan to determine if administrative approval can be
granted. At this time, administrative approval cannot be granted. This site plan is denied until the issues in
this letter, as well as all issues of the other review agencies, have been adequately addressed. Please review
Staff's comments listed below and then prepare a revised site plan which adequately addresses each concern.
Review Comments:
I) Handicap Space. It is unclear what benefit the new handicap space at its proposed location will
serve. The additional handicap space should be relocated to the existing parking lot, or a ramp and
gate provided.
2) BuildinlZ Addition. A building addition was added without permits at some time as indicated on the
plan. A permit is being applied for by the property owners; indicate the location of this area on the
plan.
3) Elitrance. Curb and gutter is being provided on one side of the existing entrance but not the other. If
the entrance is to be modified, the entire entrance should be upgraded to VDOT standards.
4) New Road. With the Carper's Valley rezoning, a road was proposed that stubs to the property line
and is intended to connect with Arbor Court at some time; provide the proposed location of this road.
Once you have adequately addressed all of these comments, please resubmit a copy for my review. I will need
all approved review agency comment sheets and at least five copies of the final plan for approval. Comment
sheets are required from the following agencies: the Frederick County Inspections Depm7rnent, the Frederick
County Deparonent of Public Works (County Engineer), the Frederick County Fire [Marshal, and the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Peel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Candice E. Perkins
Planner II
CEP/bad
cc: Glaize Components, 296 Arbor Court, Winchester, VA 22602
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
0
•
SITE PLAN APPLICATION
Department of Mi—iri fig'and Development Use only.',, .
Date application received ! r> < ttr Application #
Complete. Date of acceptance
Incomplete. Date of return.
1. Project Title:
Glaize Components
2. Location of Property:
296 Arbor Court
(Address):
3. Property Owner:
Glaize Components
Address:
296 Arbor Court
Winchester, VA 22602
Telephone:
540-665-0078
4. Applicant/Agent:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Address:
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Telephone:
540-667-2139
5. Designer:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Address:
117 E. Piccadilly Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Telephone:
540-667-2139
Contact:
Jonathan J. Welling
Gov212V
6a. Is this a standard or `minor' site plan?
6b. 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)
0 Adjoining Property Identification Number (s)
g) Magisterial District (s)
Standard • Minor ✓
Original ✓ Revised
0.22 Ac.
13.35 Ac.
64-A-80J
M-1
Industrial
Industrial
Industrial, Agricultural, Airport
64-A-80Q, 80I, 80A, 78, 79, 82
Shawnee
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
submission of my site plan.
Signature
Date ����
Patton Harris 10"I & Associates
E ng n� t=r, „r �;:y.,,� . Pinar Ind -if),- Alchilacts
November 20, 2006
Candice Perkins
Frederick County Planning
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Glaize Components
n
�J
. n' % 2 1 2006
Candice,
We have revised the site plan in response to your conments dated 24 October- 2006.
�i� We have also provided a formal submission and a site plan review fee Of $1,700 to the
Treasurer of Frederick County.
CORPORATE' We offer the following response to your comments.
Chantilly .
1. The existing site currently has two entrances, one of which will be
VIRCINIA OFFICES
llllpl-OVCd with Ch1S site plan. The owner plans for both entrances to
Eindgewater
Channlly remain.
ChallollesVllle,
( redeiict sburci 2. We have provided curb and gutter and required landscaping for the Phase
teeshurc 2 parking. In regards to the existing gravel lot, we feel it should be
Newporl Nev's acceptable to pave this lot without adding curb and gutter as it does not
Virginia Beach currently exist. Also, this will be an added cost for the owner and they
w'r" heSlef would likely decide not to pave if they were required to rriake these
Woodbridge
additions.
LABORATORIES:
Chantilly 3. We have not added the entrance between the two parking lots. The owner
f rederlc ,sbulU
does not want to add a break in the existing security fence and add an
MARYEAND OFFICES. additional gate between the two lots.
Bolhtnore
Columbia
Frederick Regards,
Germantown
Hollywood Patton Ha1rriF/s/F RLISt & Associates
AA OFFICE
llonlown
WEST VIRGINIA Jonathan Welling, E.I.T.
OFFICE.
I'Mrimsbuig
T 540 667 2139
F 540 665 0493
1 17 East Piccadilly Strr:el
Suite 200
Winchester, VA
22601
Document Approval Form
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR
APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR
APPROVAL.
IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE
COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LrAE TO HAVE COMPLETED.
INITIALS DATE & TIME
Bernie
Mark
Susan
Eric
Mike
Kevin
John
Lauren
COMMENTS:
Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time):
U:\Pam\Common\Document Approval Form.wpd