Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStonewall Industrial Park Lots 15A and 15B Stonewall District - BackfileI'i i CFi; COMMONWEALTH H of VIR�INI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG,22824 �// WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN ! COMMISSIONER \ 703 ) - 984-4133( r RESIDENT ENGINEER May 3, 1991 Mr. Thomas T. Gilpin, Vice President Ref:, -Stonewall Industrial Park The Lenoir City Company `- -Routes F-732 & 862 P. O. Box 117 Frederick County Boyce, VA 22620 Dear Tom: We are in receipt of your letter of April 23, 1991. The submitted plat which details a drainage easement along Route 862 in the referenced development appears to be in order. The next step is for you to have a deed of dedication made to the County of Frederick for recordation along with the plat. Once prepared we would be more than happy to review the document for accuracy prior to recordation. I would like to remind you Land Use Permit 7#855-00734 issued to your agent, E. R. Neff Excavating, to cover this work expires June 5, 1991. In order for us to mark the permit complete and release Neff's surety bond the above will need to be addressed prior to the expiration date. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please give me.a call. Sincerely, RBC / rf xc: Mr. R. W. Watkins Mr. John Neff William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY A (703) 984-4133 October 26, 1988 Mr. Thomas T. Gilpin, Vice President The Lenoir City Company Post Office Box 117 Boyce, Virginia 22620 Dear Tom: Ref: 11 Indus_tria ark Commercia Entrances Lots 15A & 15B - Tyson Drive Frederick County This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter to my office dated September 29, 1988 and copy of a letter to Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin dated October 11, 1988. In review of the entrances in the field, I offer the following comments pending addition of the street into the Secondary System. Lot 15A - You stated in your letter to Mr. Gyurisin the facility being served by this Lot was rather small and was primarily office space. Providing this is the primary use of the entrance, the 30' entrance width face to face of the gutter pan on the Standard CG-6 is acceptable in lieu of the 50' width as stated in comments to the Frederick County Planning Department. - Standard CG-6 curb and gutter required and tie into exiting Standard CG-6 on Lot 15B. - As shown on the site plan and as constructed, the edge of the entrance width is on the property line separating Lots 15A and 15B. In accordance to our policy the edge of commercial entrance widths must be a minimum of 12.5' from the adjoining property lines to prevent encroachment. I will need a letter from the property owner of Lot 15B stating there is no objection to the location of the entrance and the encroachment of the radii curb and gutter fronting the property. Also, it is understood should an additional commercial entrance be desired fronting Lot 15B a minimum of 25' is required between the entrances. - Entrance pavement structure for this entrance will be 8" CR Type 21-A Aggregate Base, 3" Bituminous Concrete Type B-3 with 1 1/2" Bituminous Concrete Type S-5 Surface. - Entrance pavement to slope away from edge of pavement on Tyson Drive 3/4":1' for 10". - Twin line of 42"x29" CM pipes to be extended at both ends or some acceptable method of obtaining embankment fill over the culverts and slopes. Mr. Thomas T. Gilpin A October 26, 1988 - Page Two - - Commercial entrance width of 50' is acceptable. - Entrance pavement structure for this entrance will be 8" CR Type 21-A Aggregate Base, 3" Bituminous Concrete Type B-3 with 1 1/2" Bituminous Concrete Type S-5 surface. - Entrance pavement to slope away from edge of pavement on Tyson Drive 3/4':1' for 10'. Should you have any questions, please advise. Sincerely, C. William Lam Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior For: J. B. Kessler Assistant Resident Engineer CWL/rh xc: Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin 1-616p t5` OCT l988 v N DEP ' Of PLANNING �< AND BUILDING `/>. P.O. Box 220 Lenoir City, Tennessee 37771 (615) 986-8027 P.O. Box 117 Boyce, VA 22620 (703) 837-1110 THE LENOIR CITY COMPANY October 11, 1988 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Planning and Zoning Department - Frederick County 9 Court Square Winchester, Va. 22601 Dear Steve, Thank you for meeting with me last Tuesday,—October-4,—concerning the Valley Wallboard subdivision in Stonewall Industrial Park. To summarize our conversati n you stated that the acceptance by your department of the 30 foot driveway in the site plan presented by Valley Wallboard was incorrect and that it was an issue that had "fallen through the cracks". I stated that we wished to avoid any such mistakes in the future, particularly one such as this where VDOT had required a 50 foot commercial entrance. I stated that I hoped VDOT would cooperate with us and allow a 30 foot entrance in this instance since the facility being served was rather small and was primarily office space. You added that had the road been in the system there would have been an additional safequard since Valley Wallboard would had to have received a permit for the entrance from VDOT. Steve, if I.am mistaken on any of these facts, please contact me as soon as possible. This is an important issue which we need to resolve if we are to have Tyson Drive taken into the state highway system. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely _yours, homas T. Gilpin Vice -President cc: Robert C. Adams Robert W. Watkins �13 �� Kenneth N. Gilpin, Jr. �Q (� M. Tyson GilpinCb C. William Lam n ��IT�e TTG/ca u7'na `v71 cnrl� fiPJD EUILDIP:G 02 HAROCJ C KING. COMMISSIONER EDGAR BACON, J')•:ES'L''L , BRISTT)L DISTRICT STFPHENA MUSSEL WHITE. RUM'UXE, SALGM U/STt/CT JAMES L. D—DSON. JR.. LI WHURG. LYN(:HHURG DISTRJR M PHILMORE HOWLETTE. R/CH.Y()ND. RICH —ND DISTRICT C ROGER MACRON. 17RGJNM hrl (,H. SHF,TlLX D/STRICT H R HUMPHREYS. JR . WEE X EREMPJ(;KSBIJRG DISTRICT CONSTANCE R. KINCHELOE. (LTPEP£R. 0.11£PER DISTRICT RORERI W SMALLE F. BERRYnTLLE, STAL.V UN DISTRICT JOSEF� M GUIFFRE. AIEXANORJA. NORTNER.N KRGINTA DISTRICT T EUGENE SMITH, MILLIN, ATLARGEUNBA.Y ROBERT A GUICKE. BLICRSTUA'E, AT Iw GE RURAL COMMONWEALTH of VIRQ11 DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATI 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RIC OND, 21219 Edinburg,�irginia 22824 (703) 984-4133 February 18, 1985 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. C/O Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 20 South Cameron Street P , 0. Box 2104 Kii%Chester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: OSC.AR K MABPY GEPUTY co-5sil-E, J. M. WRA♦ JR CHIEF ENGINEER J T. WARREN DIRECTOR OF OPEPA PONS JACK HODOE DIRECTOP OF ENGINELRJNG COGPEfl RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTANC N J.G. FE13 1986 ALR1 DI RECEIVES DEPT. OF PLANNIMG AND DEVELOPMENT, P(AN 116 AND PIIOGPANMRIO ES. JP Ref: Stonewall Industrial Park Proposed Street Extension Frederick County As requested, a review of the above referenced subdivision has been made. Our comments, recommendations and requirements are as follows: 1. Plan Sheet 2 of 6: The 20' drainage easement between the 60' right-of-way street and Red Bud Run should be a 30' width in order fo maintain the drainage ditch. 2. Plan Sheet 3 of 6: The typical section should be changed to show a 8' fill shoulder. Due to the drainage problem above Lenoir Drive, it is recommended the pipe at Station 24+75 be deleted and this area drained to the proposed three lines of 57"X38" pipe at Station 15+40. The modified roadway ditch along the north side of this street should be sufficient width and depth to accommodate a ten year storm and proposed entrance 'pipes. The outfall ditch from the pipes at Station 15+40 should b-- increased to a 8' bottom and minimum 3.5' depth. Additional easements may be necessary along the south side of the street for the slope maintenance. 3. Plan Sheet 6 of 7: The plans show a proposed storm water management plan «'hich will divert water towards Route 661 rather than as originally approved across the Crown Cork property to Red Bud Run. We are not in favor of this plan due to the complaints we received from property owners concerning drainage when we constructed Route 661. As noted on the attached print of Plan Sheet 5, Protect `0661-034-140, C501; drainage from the 50"X31" pipe arch installed at Station 34+40 flows across the back portion of adjacent lots which have existing septic system. We feel any increase in drainage at this point may revive the old complaints. If the county approves the storm water management plan, an agreement would have to be made between the County and the Department for the County to accept responsibility of the drainage diversion and outfall from Lenoir Drive including maintenance and liability of the detention basin to the 60" pipe under Route 81. TD AF1ICD/I0TATIF11L1 - ANBCD IY`^.'C I ICCT IKICC Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (703) 984-4133 February 18, 1985 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. C/O Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 20 South Cameron Street P. O. Box 2104 vIiinchester, Virginia 22601 - 2 - Ref: Stonewall Industrial Park Proposed Street Extension Frederick County If the use of a detention facility is found acceptable to the County, then a complete set of plans and computations for the detention, basin showing the contours and methods of flood routing will be required for us to review. For your information, I am attaching a copy of an agreement between Shenandoah County and the Department which was executed several years ago as a sample copy of that this agreement would consist of. The pavement depth and design has previously been determined. Therefore, the CBR tests will not be required on this street. A permit must be applied for and approved where tieing into the existing State's right-of-way. Any proposed mailboxes should be placed back of the proposed ditch line for maintenance reasons. Enclosed you will find a copy of the minimum requirements and data for subdivision streets prior to acceptance into the State's Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely , E . D . Walker Inspector For: W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer l-DW/ks A I tack. xc: 11,-. R. L. tMoore Mr. Robert: 11'. `latkins Mr. C. E. tMatt:ox N.-Ir. Thomas T. Gilpin Mr. .Tnhn R . Rilev ii • i i ( • ,7 AGREEMENT COUNTY OF SHENANDOAH AND THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION j THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 6th day of Novem.-ber 1978, by and between the County of Shenandoah, Virginia, hereinafter called "County", and the i Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Highways and Transport- ation, hereinafter called "Commonwealth". I W I T N E S S E T H: THAT, WHEREAS, the County and others are in thb process ' of developing some land in the vicinity of the intersection West of Edinburg, Virginia, of State Route 686,_ g. in the area knoi,m as Section Two and Three of the Massanutten View Sub- division as shown on Plat attached hereto, Section Two and Three; and j WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the development of this `I I section of Massanutten View Subdivision will increase the runoff i of storm water and cause drainage problems to exist along the watercourse between the subdivision and Stoney Creek, the j elimination of which will be beneficial to all of the parties { involved; and { f iHER=,:'�S, the County and others desire that the roads w..:L .ni n _.._ subdivision be taken into and be made a part of the Commonwealth's Secondary_ Highway System and be maintained by the Commonwealth; and tdz:ER,AS, the Co-mnriwealth is authorized by statute to make I to the .Second?ary System of Highways and certain a3iti.ons `' emnowered to establis': reasonable standards and requir--mcnts `or such additions- aricl i i one suc'"i reasonable S:.andard for the acceptance of net:r roads of nf_w sundivi-,ions inl,p the Secondary System of i I a Highways is that there shall be a continuous drainage easement from such roads to natural watercourses or an executed agree- ment with the appropriate governing body, whereby the local i I� governing body assumes the responsibility for .the future j� maintenance and operation of an alternate method determined by I the Commonwealth as satisfactory for handling this storm I drainage; and i WHEREAS, both the County and the Commonwealth acknowledge that this standard is desirable to assure safe thoroughfares for the traveling public, with maximum security to neighboring landowners; and WHEREAS, the County has adopted a general policy regarding the handling of storm waters resulting from development occurring in Shenandoah County which permits the use of on -site storm water detention and/or retention facilities, provided such facilities are designed to the prescribed criteria; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to carry out and accomplish certain work, and to determine and agree upon the manner of doing said -word; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter stipulated to be kept and performed, it is agreed between the parties hereto as follows: A. THE COUNTY SHALL: 1. Construct or cause to be constructed, at no cost to the Commonwealth, an adequate on-s.ite storm water detention facility to intercept the peak storm water runoff expected to recur on an average of once in 25 years and emergency spillways based on a 100-year frequency storm from the roads and other areas within Section ''wo and Three of the Massanutten View Sub- division.. r 2. Maintain or cause to be maintained at no cost to the Commonwealth, the on -site storm water detention facility noted in one (1) above so as to hermit it to function as designed and in such a manner as not to result in nuisances, health or safety hazards, or damage by reason of increased drainage to property in this area to be affected. 3. Secure all rights -of -way or right-of-way easements necessary to cover the construction and maintenance of the detention facility noted in one (1) above, and to have its construction completed prior to the request for the addition of the streets in Sections Two and Three on the Massanutten View Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways. 4. Indemnify and hold ha ,less "the Commonwealth from any and all claims for taking and/or damaging under Article I, Section 11, of the Revised Constitution of Virginia of property of any and all landowners who might be adversely affected by drainage which exits the boundaries of Sections Two,and Three, Massanutten View Subdivision. 5. Indemnify and hold harmless the Department from any and all costs or expenses incurred as a result of the deriial, settlement and/or litigation of such claims for taking and/or damages from drainage from Sections Two and Three, Massanutten View Subdivision. 6. Reimburse the Denartment for repairs to roadways damaged as a result of the lack of an adequat.^ design and/or uroper maintenance to the on=site storm water detention facility `_or Sections'T`.ao and Three, Massanutt=n View Subdivision. o. 7. The County agrees to prohibit any future development in the watershed upstream of this proposed detention facility prior to provisions, as are mutually agreed upon by the Countv and the Commonwealth,'beina made to adequately provide for the anticipated increased runoff caused by such future developments. B . THE COtiL'4ONWEALTH SHALL: 1. Add to the State Secondary Highway System and maintain the roads in Sections Two and Three of the Massanutten View Subdivision that, upon inspection, are found to ibe designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the standards and procedures of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. I i IN j•7IT11ESS �•tHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this !I i�agreement as of the day and year first written above. z ) ATTEST COUNTY OF SHENANDOAH I i I � ; i' ATTEST CO'-LNSO:1•I-EP?TH OF VIRGINIA �'D+i T l DEPARTMENT OF HI•GFti-MYS Legal Review AND=tNSPORT_. TO'; i"Q Fiscal Rt 1 ic.W i q-z y -8r No di sVi bu fi oh 54�cl. of readq 6nmP 124e- , / Stonewall Industrial Park Stonewall District