Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCoventry Courts Shawnee District - Backfilei#6 % * STAFF SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST * This application is not complete if the following are not included: SUBMISSION PACKAGE 1. Comments sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan; ✓ VDOT City of Winchester 1/ Sanitation Authority ✓ Inspections Dept. ✓ Fire Marshal F& j One copy of the subdivision application 15 copies of the plan on a single sheet One reproducible copy of the plan (if required) A 35mm. slide of the plan Date TRACKING Health Department / Parks & Recreation Road Naming Coordinator County Engineer CP, a,,.,,.a g�aq QJ Application received Fee Paid (amount $ J. Subdivision heard by Planning Commission. Action taken Subdivision heard by Board of Supervisors. Action taken Final plat submitted with review agency signatures and; deed of dedication Plat signed by Planning Director Plat signed by Subdivision Administrator bond estimate $ House numbering assigned Info added to annual report disk RECEIPT ".� 42,; AMOUNT DUE $ 's 1 �"0 - P.O. RQ WINGHESTER, VIRGINI.A AMOUNT PAIDr-- f1 RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS 1 l„ BALANCE DUE f)A `.I� THE SUM OF FOR Ct LJ�E.. l \ DOLLARS � PAID BY CASH CHECK y� i% I ...._"..� ' -5 1 (D ❑ OTHER 0 ISP BY�I..P DAY -TIMERS RE ORDER No. 3221 —Printed in USA _ _ W 1 March 14, 1995 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: County Position Regarding Coventry Courts Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 As promised at our meeting yesterday, I am putting the County's position concerning the Coventry Courts Development in writing in an effort to clarify any confusion. There is an approved Master Development Plan for the Coventry Courts project. This Preliminary MDP was approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 13, 1991, and received final approval on June 20, 1991. There was a subdivision submitted which went to the Planning Commission and received preliminary approval, however, there was never a final subdivision plat submitted, signed, or recorded. Section 144-13 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance states, in part, that "Failure to file the final plats within this time (six months) shall make approval of the subdivision design plan null and void." It is therefore our position that the subdivision plan was never approved and is not vested. This means that current subdivision requirements, including sidewalks if the development contains lots under 15,000 square feet, would now be required. I hope this helps to clarify any uncertainty regarding this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, r Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director KCT/rsa cc: James L. Longerbeam, Back Creek Supervisor 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 February 16, 1993 7 ! i Mr. Kris Tierney 8 VM Frederick County Department of Planning 9 Court Square, P. O. Box 601 _ Winchester, VA 22601 --- Re: Coventry Courts Subdivision Dear Mr. Tierney, I am writing to you about the Farmington Boulevard connection between Coventry Courts and Abrams Pointe. There are so many unresolved issues in relation to this connection, that it is impossible for us to move forward on this project in any way. Because of our personal circumstances we have explored the possibility of selling the property. We have received an offer, through an agent, but the deal cannot progress until we have specific answers to some questions I will pose to you. We ran into the same sort of difficulties when we attempted to solicit bids for construction ourselves. The agent who brought us the offer talked to the project manager for the owners of Abrams Pointe, who told him that they have no interest in the connection. The decisions that have been made by the Planning Commission have literally put control of our property into the hands of James Bowman, Fred Glaize, and their associates; we cannot construct our portion of the connection until such time as they choose to construct theirs, because of the amount of fill required on their side. It is also not feasible to� maintain a bond indefinitely so that construction can commence. Both we and our engineers have appealed to various county officials to assist in working out this conflict, however, we were continually told we would have to come to agreement with Chuck Maddox. Our engineers met with Mr. Maddox and proposed to move the road approximately 150 feet north of the present location, Mr. Maddox said he would not move his road one foot, and insisted we comply with his plan rather than to work out a fair compromise. When I talked to Robert Childress of VDOT on December 4, 1991, he confirmed Mr. Maddox's assertion that he, Mr. Maddox, had a dully approved set of plans for Abrams Pointe, that showed a cul de sac at thei`r­end of Farmington Boulevard and a right of way, but no engineering for the connection between the two developments. In order to clarify our position and to work out the problems, I need specific answers to the following questions: (1) Has the situation changed, are engineering plans for the Abrams Pointe side of the connection now available? -=(2) If there are now approved drawings for the Abrams Pointe side of the connection, may we have a copy? (3) If the engineering is not in place for the Abrams Pointe side of the connection, will they be allowed to begin construction without it? (4) Will the developers be allowed to begin construction on the Abrams Pointe project without bonding the road connection, or if a bond is required, will the bond remain in place until the construction on the connection is completed, even if completion cannot be achieved for an indefinite period of time because Coventry Courts is not yet developed? -,.(5) Are the developers of Abrams Pointe required to construct the road connection, or are they permitted to construct according to the plans which show only a cul de sac at that point? (6) If the Abrams Pointe developers are required to construct the connection on Farmington Boulevard, may we have a copy of the Planning Commission action which requires it? ��,: (7 ) If the developers of Abrams Pointe are not required to construct the connection of Farmington Boulevard to their property line, how will the situation be handled? That is, will we also be allowed to construct only to the cul de sac without a bond? (8) Who takes responsibility for the Abrams Pointe side of the road connection, if the developers are not required to do it? (9) Why was the Abrams Pointe development passed without \'= the requirement of construction of the connection with Coventry Courts, when the decision to make Farmington Boulevard a thru road was made before Abrams Pointe was approved? The construction of this road has no benefit for us and has greatly devalued our property. To have so many unanswered questions about the engineering and responsibilities for the construction of the crossing connecting Coventry Courts with the adjoining development, make the development of our property nearly impossible. Some how, all of these questions must be answered, and the problems worked out. We will appreciate your help in resolving the difficulties in this situation. Sincerely, Charles C. Longer Elaine B. Longer P.O. Box 528 Berryville, VA 22611 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator FROM: Wayne Miller, Zoning AdministratorP& SUBJECT: Coventry Courts DATE: September 2, 1992 The following is a sequential chain of significant events leading up to the approval of the Coventry Courts Subdivision. This subdivision for 38 single family lots on 14.5329 acres has been approved by the Planning Commission and is pending final administrative approval. The final approval cannot occur until the developer submits final plats, bonding, deed of dedication and addresses several conditions that were placed on the Planning Commission approval. 1. Preliminary Master Development Plan #004-90 was submitted to the Planning Commission for their consideration on April 18, 1990. This plan was for townhouses to be located on this property. Mr. Thomas Davis of Dove & Associates represented the application and requested that it be tabled since the staff recommendation was for denial based on the lack of a through connection to Greenwood Road from the JASBO property to the west. Staff noted that the need for an eventual connection to Greenwood Road -is indicated in the County's Transportation Plan. Also, the connection was of a concern to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The plan was tabled until the May 2, 1990 meeting. 2. Preliminary Master Development Plan #004-90 of Coventry Courts for townhouses was again considered on May 2, 199$B. Although the revised plan incorporated the through connection with Greenwood Road and the property to the west, the Planning Commission tabled the item until all review agency comments were addressed and the plan redesigned for single family detached dwellings only. 3. Revised Master Development Plan #004-90 was considered by the Commission on January 16, 1991. Mr. Edward W. Dove represented the developer and stated that they believed the plan was now compatible with the neighborhood since it was now designed to be 3S single family detached homes. This plan was 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA-22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page 2 Coventry Courts Memo September 2, 1992 unanimously approved with the staff recommendation to allow the plan to exceed the standards of disturbed steep slopes (up to 35%) and wooded areas (up to 40%) at the staff's discretion. 4. The Master Development Plan #004-90 for Coventry Courts was presented to the Board of Supervisors on February 13, 1991 and was approved with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 5. The subdivision application for Coventry Courts was presented to the Planning Commission on December 4, 1991. This plan was approved with the following conditions: a. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed. b. The developer must commit to installation of the culverts in the Farmington Boulevard extended area and construction of the storm water detention facility in this area. c. The developer must provide information to prove that lots 24, 25, 26 and 38 are buildable lots. d. The developer must submit individual lot site/grading plans for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 38. If lots are sold to other builders, the developer will be responsible for providing the new owner with the site/grading plan. e. This entire project will be bonded prior to final plat approval. Bonding will cover the Farmington Boulevard extension and culvert installation. In reference to item c. above, a note on the plan stated that construction on lot 26 would be achieved only through fills and retaining walls. There also appears to be a requirement for filling to permit building on the additional listed lots. The requirement for site/grading plans for the lots listed in item d. above is driven by the fact that this development is in an area of steep slopes and clearing limits further restrict the available building area on many lots. In conjunction with the steep slopes, engineering evaluation and high potential for drainage and storm water management problems dictate stringent control and requirements. I will be available to answer any questions or provide you with additional information. P/C review 1/16/' BOS relview 2/13, REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #004-90 COVENTRY COURTS 14.5240 Acres LOCATION: Greenwood Road, 2000' ± north of Senseny Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY I.D. NUMBER: 55000A000000000001850 PRESENT ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance), land use - Vacant ADJOINING ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance), land use - single family and vacant PROPOSED USE & IMPROVEMENTS: 38 Single Family detached dwellings. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Sanitation Authority: Third review -approved. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to preliminary master plan. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data form the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Forth Edition for review. Before starting any construction on the State's right-of-way the developer will need to -apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Developer should work closely with adjoining developer of Abrams Point Subdivision to determine exact location geometrics of the proposed Brookland Link Roadway. Inspections Department: This request for Master Development Plan approval, shall comply to Use Group "R" Residential Section 309.0 of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". Fire Marshal: See attached comments. Parks & Recreation: Preliminary Master Development Plan appears to meet the county's open space and recreation requirements. Coventry Courts RMDP Staff Comment Sheet Page -2- County Consulting Engineer: 1990. Planning & Development: See letter dated November 16, A MDP for this parcel came before the Commission in April of 1990, at which time the matter was tabled. The Commission indicated at that time that they would not be inclined to. approve a MDP for anything other than single family development. The current proposal is for 38 single-family detached dwellings on the 14.5 acre parcel. This housing type and density is consistent with the RP zoning of the parcel and the direction of the Commission at the April meeting. A second area of concern with the previous proposal was the lack of a through connection to the approved Abrams Point development to the west of this parcel. The current proposal shows this connection and neither VDOT or our engineer indicate a problem at this time. Changes Needed Cluster lots require an equivalent square footage be added to the required open space for any lot under 10,000 square feet. The open space indicated on the MDP lacks over 9,000 square feet of the open space needed, given the number of lots below 10,000 square feet. The area of steep slopes which is indicated to be disturbed exceeds the maximum 25% allowed by the ordinance by more than an acre. The total acreage indicated as disturbed does not appear to include the area required to be cleared for individual home sites. This would increase the total over what is now indicated. Some of the lots shown on the plan are totally within the steep slope area, while a number of others have a large portion of their area in steep slopes. The woodland area to be disturbed also exceeds the maximum allowed by nearly one and a half acres. Home sites do not appear to be included in this figure either. t Additional Information Required Information as to how woodland and steep slopes will be treated on lots which lay within these areas. Location of open space needs to be clearly indicated as well as location of environmental areas that will be disturbed. Information on how stormwater management is to be handled needs to be provided. The need for turn lanes at the intersection of Greenwood and the new through road to Abrams Point should be addressed. All information requested by review agencies. Staff Recommendation 1/16/91: Approval with corrections being made to the layout, such that maximum permitted disturbance to steep slopes and woodland area are not exceeded, and that all review agency and staff comments are addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 1/16/91: Approved with staff recommendations and the following conditions: 1. Calculation of amount of open space required to compensate for lots below 10,000 square foot must be indicated on the plan. This amount is in addition to the base required for cluster lots. 2. Information on the handling of stormwater needs to be provided on the plan. 3. The location and amount of woodland and steep slope areas as defined by the Zoning Ordinance need to be shown. The Planning Commission has granted a waiver of the limits set by the Ordinance to permit only that excess disturbance necessary to construct the connector road to Abrams -Point and in no case to exceed 35% of the steep slopes -or 40% of the woodland area. This should be clearly indicated on the plan. 4. All other review agency comments must be adequately addressed. PC Review - 12/04/91 COVENTRY COURTS 38 Single Family Lots on 14.5239 Acres LOCATION: Route 656, north of intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NO: 55000020000185 ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned R-P (Residential Performance). present use - vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned R-P (Residential Performance - and RA (Rural Areas) present use - residential, vacant and agricultural REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Va. Department of Transportation: See attached letter dated August 15, 1991 from Robert B. Childress. Inspections Department: This request for subdivision approval shall comply to Use Group "R", Residential, Section 309.0, of the BOCA National Building Code 111990" Fire Marshal: In the easement to the tot lot is the opening to an underground storm drain. As shown, access to the tot lot cannot be made without crossing this storm water area. This creates a very dangerous situation for small children. Past incidents involving children and high water clearly demonstrates the potential for serious problems with this design. This ditch/pipe arrangement was not shown on the master development plan that this agency reviewed on 11/27/90. See additional comments, attached. OA Sanitation Authority: Third review approved as noted - two items. County Engineer: See attached letter date April 5, 1991, from Paul Bernard. Also see memo from Ed Strawsnyder, Frederick County Engineer, dated September 16, 1991 and attached letter to Tom Davis, Dove and Associates, from Mr. Strawsnyder dated November 1, 1991. Parks & Recreation: See attached, dated April 2, 1991, from James M. Doran. Planning & Zoning: There are two exceptions where this subdivision plan is not in conformance with the approved Master Development Plan. These exceptions are the two storm drainage easements and their attendant structures. These are required by VDOT since the system traverses what will eventually become their right of way so this addition is considered necessary. Commission approval for this deviation is recommended. The temporary turn around at the northwest end of Farmington Boulevard would normally be located at the extreme of the property boundary. The depicted turn around is planned short of the boundary since taking it all the way would require about 30 feet of fill to bring the surface level up to that required. Since it will not encroach on any lot, this location is acceptable. The developer will be required to dedicate, and eventually complete, the street all the way to the property line. VDOT has advised that they will bond this section to insure that the developer will be held responsible for completion of the street in a timely manner. This development will be built in three phases. The developer intends to build phases two and three prior to building phase one. The storm water management plan is approved only for phases two and three. A storm water management plan for phase one must be submitted and approved prior to any construction in phase one. A separate E&S Plan will be required for the installation of the culverts under Farmington Boulevard due to the off site work that will be required. Appropriate easements must also be obtained. Bonding for phase one and the construction of the extension of Farmington Boulevard should be required prior to the start of any construction in this development. On sheet 11 of 11 of this plan the detail for construction of the extension of Farmington Boulevard and the culvert installation that will be required to connect this road 3 across the ravine to Abrams Pointe is shown. A comment on this sheet states "All proposed work shown hereon is future construction and is not a part of the construction during Coventry Courts development." Exception is taken to this statement since this connection will be required to be made by the developer and it will be part of this development construction. Two review agencies commented about the lack of entrance into the open space at the southwest perimeter of the property where the tot lot and picnic area are located. The developer has amended the plan to show easements in three locations to provide this access. These easements are between lots 13 and 14, 36 and 37 and 15 and 16. These easements should be marked with signage so residents know where the access points are. A major portion of this development is in an area of steep slopes and clearing limits further restrict the available building area on many lots. The County Engineer has recommended that an individual site plan be submitted for lots 25 through 29. Because of the steep slopes, engineering evaluation and high potential for storm water drainage problems, we recommend that individual lot site plans/grading plans be submitted by the developer for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 38. Lots 25, 26, 27 and 38 are questionable as to their suitability as a building lots. A note on the plan states that construction on lot 26 will be achieved only through major fills and retaining walls. A stability analysis would be required since fill will be necessary to prepare these lots for building. This lot is also significantly impacted by the drainage easement and drainage way located on the lot. As a practical matter, it will probably be cost prohibitive to develop these lots. _A significant portion of lot 38 is located in the storm water detention facility. It is doubtful that anyone would want to own a lot under that circumstance. It would be reasonable to require the developer to provide information that would prove that these lots are in fact suitable building lots. The driveways off of the streets will be an upslope on all of the lots in this development except lots 24, 25 and 26. The steepest of these will be approximately a 12% grade which is approaching the upper safe limit for driveways. Erosion and Sedimentation control will be critical during the construction grading of this development. 4 Effort must be made to insure all E&S protection is maintained and early stabilization of disturbed areas should -be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 12/04/91 MTG: Approval with the following conditions and/or requirements being complied with prior to final plat approval: 1. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed. 2. The developer must commit to installation of the culverts in the Farmington Boulevard extended area and construction of the storm water detention facility in this area. 3. The developer must provide information to prove that lots 24, 25, 26 and 38 are buildable lots. 4. The developer must submit individual lot site/grading plans for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 38. If lots that are required to have individual site plans are sold to other builders, the developer will be responsible for providing the new owner with the site/grading plan. 5. This entire project will be bonded prior to final plat approval. Bonding will cover the Farmington Boulevard extension and culvert installation. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 RESIDENT ENGINEER Fax - (703) 984-9761 August 15, 1991 Mr. Tom Davis Ref: Coventry Court Subdivision C/O Dove & Associates Route 656 P. O. Box 2033 Frederick County Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Tom: This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans dated July 16, 1991 to the above referenced location. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Please advise the developer accordingly. I offer the following comments: mnents: • A preconstruction conference be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT shall be cow prior to initiation of work. • Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. • Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department prior to inclusion into the Secondary Road System. Attached is a copy of the minimum requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. • All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. • The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require (forty-eight) 48 hours notice for inspections. • The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. These permits will require a minimum processing fee plus the salary and expenses of a State assigned Inspector. • If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway fronting lots, a minimum of four (41) feet shall be between the edge of pavement and the front of mailbox as shown on the attached sketch. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Tom Davis August 15, 1991 Page #2 Private entrances will be installed in accordance to the attached sketch. This is the developer's responsibility. • Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. • I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of-way be backfilled canpletely with C.R. Type 21 A Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer Qw4a 4 f By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/rf Attachments xc: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. Dwight W. Hawkins (w/ copy of plans) Mr. Robert W. Watkins Mr. H. Ed Strawsnyder Mr. Charles Longerbeam �. ATY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINl.. FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No, 031991265 Date Received 031991 Date Reviewed 040891 Applicant Name Dove and Associates Address P. 0. Box 2033 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name Coventry Court Phone No. 703-667-11o3 Type of Application Subdivision Current Zoning RP Ist Due Fire Co. le 1st Due Rescue Co. le Election District ^. ' - Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System _ Emergency Vehicle Access; - RECOMMENDATIONS Residential Sprinkler System X ----- -----' X Other Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Fire Lanes Required; Yes No X Comments: CE Roadway/Aisleway Widths; Adequate x Inadequate Not Identified Special Hazards Noted; Yes x No Comments: In the easement to the tot lot is the opening to an under- ground storm drain. As shown, access to the tot lot cannot be made without crossing this storm water area. This creates a very dangerous situation for small children. Past incidents involving children and high water clearly. - ' demonstrates the pote`_ ia. or serious problems w .h is design. This ditch/pipe arrangement was not shown on the master development plan that this agency reviewed on 11/27/90. Hydrant Locations; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Siamese Connection Location; Approved Not Approved Not IdentifiedX - ' Additional Comments: Access during construction must be maintained at all times for fire/rescue equipment. Provide temporary street signs and lot number signs during construction. -- Once hydrants are installed they are to remain "bagged" until fully operational. Please submit copiesoffuture plans, so 1st due fire company can review. Review Time 1.50hr---- -- '--------------- '- --------'---- ' ° ' L/ - ------ -- ------ -- ! Douglas A. Kzracofe ` ' Fire Marshal - - 66veaTr� 4vV+5. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS April 5, 1991 Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department Planning & Development 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA. 22601 0 qt_G. Re: Country Cts. Subdivision Plan 17555.071 Dear Wayne, I have reviewed the above plans and offer the following comments: A. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 1. The E & S narrative was placed on the plans, however, there are a few issues it needs to incorporate: OA?41` O ,once Dwelurface is denuded, it is to be brought to final grade as quickly as possible and stabilized.00 N Areas denuded are to be either permanently or temporarily stabilized within seven (7) days. c) The inspection and maintenance of E & S measures needs to be addressed. d) Stock piles of soil material are to be stabilized or protected with sediment traps. e) The removal of measures when the surface has been stabilized needs to be discussed. 2. Sediment traps or basins need to be used at the outfall locations prior to discharging to .the creek. 3. The stability of the ditch sections is questionable. Velocities may be the limits of the soil types in the area. Check dams will during construction. (The use of ditches in this _subdwu"son are not recommended. "^ 2 91991 ' ^,l..r..---- — t�7740 Nbples Mill Road, Suite 100, kirfaz, Virginia 22030 ■ 703385 3566 ■ F= 703.385.8319 Printed on � recycled mvr. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS B. GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1. The grading for.the building lots will be significant and in most cases critical. I recommend that lot grading plans or a master grading plan be required prior to building permit release for housing. 2. The use of ditch sections for lots this dense is inappropriate. Drainage complaints for surface run-off problems within the County have been excessive. I recommend curb and gutters. The slope of some of these ditches may make it difficult to establish good vegetative + cover and could require the use of stabilized linings. This is particularly true where ditches are in or against fill or where the slopes are in excess of 5 percent. 3. The slopes of the ditch lines need to be verified in the calculations. The lower portion of Farmington appears steeper that 4.3%. I read more like 6 to 7%. 4. Where possible, 3 to 1 slopes should be the maximum. If not possible or where original slopes exceed 3 to 1, special stabilization or flow diversion should be provided. Lots 25 and 26 are the area of concern. Curb and guttering will help control flow over this steep fill slope. 5. It is not clear how or where stormwater management is planned for .this project. The grading plan does not show or represent where it is to be placed. 6. How was the Stage -Volume Storage Chart developed? The designer needs to provide back-up calculations or support material. 7. The designer needs to provide the hydrology used to estimate the flow for the stormwater management comparison and routing table. I am not clear on how -the SWM comparison was developed. It is understood that the requirements for stormwater management are for this site only and not for off -site areas. However, the facility must be designed to handle the flows through the facility. The impacts of the 100 year storm on the facility needs also to be considered. 8. The water elevation for the 100 year storm should be established and indicated on the plans along the creekline. 9. When is the SWM facility to be constructed? It should be done as a part of this construction project. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS 10. The endwall detail for the weir and orifice is not real clear and doesn't stand out as a special design. The weir/orifice should be shown or represented in the elevation or at least in the section view. Also, it is not vlear how the weir is to be anchored into the precast structure. 11. The proposed structure and SWM calculations do not address current State standards for stormwater quality controls as referred in the .State Stormwater Management Regulations of December 1990. 12. The "C" factor 0.4 for the on -site existing condition appears high. The designer needs to justify this. C. ACCESS AND ROADS 1. I do not see any problem with the site access connections to Greenwood Road, however, traffic counts for Greenwood are needed to make this assessment. The intersection sight distance should be based on an eye height of 3.5 feet and object height of 4.25 feet. For a vehicle count of from 2001-4000 ADT, the sight distance should be a minimum of 400 feet which it appears will be available in both cases. 2. The designer needs to check with VDOT about the minimum curve radius for Herold Court. I believe the minimum radius needs to be 260 feet At the centerline. The plans indicate 250 feet. It depends on whether this area is considered mountainous or rolling. My interpretation would be rolling. VDOT may not accept this road into the system. 3. , Superelevation of Herold Court is not required provided the design speed limit of the road is 25mph or less. The designer should verify this with VDOT. 4. tGuardrails will be appropriate for the curve in this road along the fill slope. C . Who is going to build the road improvements including the special drainage structure for the extension of Farmington Boulevard, and when? ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS The above comments need to be addressed and resolved before I can recommend approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. Since ONOHUE SSOCIATES, Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB/j la cc: Tom Davis, Dove be Associates R/F/AI5 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & General Services 703/665-5643 FAX: 703/ 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator FROM: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director ofml. Engineering SUBJECT: Coventry Courts Subdivision DATE: September 16, 1991 I have reviewed the above plans and offer the following comments: 1. The storm water management plan proposed for this development is based on the construction of the culvert under Farmington Boulevard extended. Details of these twin, 66 inch diameter RCP culverts and end walls are shown on sheet 11 of 11. It should be emphasized that my approval is predicated on the construction of these culverts during the initial development of the project. These culverts are intended to serve as storm water detention and must be constructed at the same time as the initial site drainage. A drainage easement will be required within the area impacted by the upstream storm water flooding. This easement should be obtained prior to final approval of the subdivision plan. 2. An Erosion and Sediment Control plan should be provided for the construction of the culverts and wing walls under Farmington Boulevard. 3. Provide additional detail for weir/orifice section to be constructed with precast end wall section (i.e. elevations, reinforcing, etc.), 4. Many lots on the northwest side of Harold Court are very steep, especially lots 25 and 26 which border a proposed drainage way. We recommend that individual site plans be prepared for lots 25 through 29. In addition, stability analyses should be performed for these lots if fill is added to level the sites. 9 North Loudoun St. - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Wayne Miller Coventry Court September 16, 1991 The slope proposed between lots 25 and 26 appears to be approximately 2 to 1. This slope is relatively steep and will be difficult to maintain. We suggest the use of a perennial vegetation such as crown vetch to minimize maintenance efforts. HES:rls cc: file Parks & Recreation Director's Comments Coventry Courts — Site Plan I recommend that the required amount of usable open space be provided. The topography of this development makes the provision of the minimum required usable open space extremely important. In my opinion, the proposed recreation/picnic area is too close to Rt. 656. I doubt that anyone would want to picnic along Rt. 656. It is also my opinion that the tot lot is too close to Rt. 656. I� F-� Ft, I T; n 2 919c; i (Volt COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MEMORANDUM John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Wayne Miller, Zoning Coventry Courts September 2, 1992 AdministratorVAA& The following is a sequential chain of significant events leading up to the approval of the Coventry Courts Subdivision. This subdivision for 38 single family lots on 14.5329 acres has been approved --by the Planning Commission and is pending final administrative approval. The final approval cannot occur until the developer submits final plats, bonding, deed of dedication and addresses several conditions that were placed on the Planning Commission approval. 1. Preliminary Master Development Plan #004-90 was submitted to the Planning Commission for their consideration on April 18, 1990. This plan was for townhouses to be located on this property. Mr. Thomas Davis of Dove & Associates represented the application and-requested__.that it be tabled since the stAff recommendation was for denia __ a on the lac of a through connection to Greenwood.Road from the property to the west. Staff noted that the need for an eventual connection to Greenwood Road -is indicated in the County's Transportation Plan. Also, the connection was of a concern to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The plan was tabled until the May 2, 1990 meeting. 2. Preliminary Master Development Plan #004-90 of Coventry Courts for townhouses was again considered on May 2, 1990. Although the revised plan incorporated the through connection with Greenwood Road and the property to the west, the Planning Commission tabled the item until all review agency comments were addressed and the plan redesigned for single family detached dwellings only. 3. Revised Master Development Plan #004-90 was considered by the Commission on January 16, 1991. Mr. Edward W. Dove represented the developer and stated that they believed the plan was now compatible with the neighborhood since it was now designed to be 3S single family detached homes. This plan was 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA-22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Page 2 Coventry Courts Memo September 2, 1992 unanimously approved with the staff recommendation to allow the plan to exceed the standards of disturbed steep slopes (up to 35%) and wooded areas (up to 40%) at the staff's discretion. 4. The Master Development Plan #004-90 for Coventry Courts was presented to the Board of Supervisors on February 13, 1991 and was approved with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 5. The subdivision application for Coventry Courts was presented to the Planning Commission on December 4, 1991. This plan was approved with the following conditions: a. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed. b. The developer must commit to installation of the culverts in the Farmington Boulevard extended area and construction of the storm water detention facility in this area. c. The developer must provide information to prove that lots 24, 25, 26 and 38 are buildable lots. d. The developer must submit individual lot site/grading plans for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 38. If lots are sold to other builders, the developer will be responsible for providing the new owner with the site/grading plan. e. This entire project will be bonded prior to final plat approval. Bonding will cover the Farmington Boulevard extension and culvert installation. In reference to item c. above, a note on the plan stated that construction on lot 26 would be achieved only through fills and retaining walls. ..-There also appears to be a requirement for filling to permit building on the a i iona fisted lots. The requirement for site/grading plans for the lots listed in item d. above is driven by the fact that this development is in an area of steep slopes and clearing limits further restrict the available building area on many lots. In conjunction with the steep slopes, engineering evaluation and high potential for drainage and storm water management problems dictate stringent control and requirements. I will be available to answer any questions or provide you with additional information. PC Review - 12/04/91 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION COVENTRY COURTS 38 Single Family Lots on 14.5239 Acres LOCATION: Route 656, north of intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NO: 55000020000185 ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned R-P (Residential Performance). present use - vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned R-P (Residential Performance - and RA (Rural Areas) present use - residential, vacant and agricultural REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Va. Department of Transportation: See attached letter dated August 15, 1991 from Robert B. Childress. Inspections Department: This request for subdivision approval shall comply to Use Group "R", Residential, Section 309.0, of the BOCA National Building Code 111990" Fire Marshal: In the easement to the tot lot is the opening to an underground storm drain. As shown, access to the tot lot cannot be made without crossing this storm water area. This creates a very dangerous situation for small children. Past incidents involving children and high water clearly demonstrates the potential for serious problems with this design. This ditch/pipe arrangement was not shown on the master development plan that this agency reviewed on 11/27/90. See additional comments, attached. 2 Sanitation Authority: Third review approved as noted - two items. County Engineer: See attached letter date April 51 1991, from Paul Bernard. Also see memo from Ed Strawsnyder, Frederick County Engineer, dated September 16, 1991 and attached letter to Tom Davis, Dove and Associates, from Mr. Strawsnyder dated November 1, 1991. Parks & Recreation: See attached, dated April 2, 1991, from James M. Doran. Planning & Zoning: There are two exceptions where this subdivision plan is not in conformance with the approved Master Development Plan. These exceptions are the two storm drainage easements and their attendant structures. These are required by VDOT since the system traverses what will eventually become their right of way so this addition is considered necessary. Commission approval for this deviation is recommended. The temporary turn around at the northwest end of Farmington Boulevard would normally be located at the extreme of the property boundary. The depicted turn around is planned short of the boundary since taking it all the way would require about 30 feet of fill to bring the surface level up to that required. Since it will not encroach on any lot, this location is acceptable. The developer will be required to dedicate, and eventually complete, the street all the way to the property line. VDOT has advised that they will bond this section to insure that the developer will be held responsible for completion of the street in a timely manner. This development will be built in three phases. The developer intends to build phases two and three prior to building phase one. The storm water management plan is approved only for phases two and three. A storm water management plan for phase one must be submitted and approved prior to any construction in phase one. A separate E&S Plan will be required for the installation of the culverts under Farmington Boulevard due to the off site work that will be required. Appropriate easements must also be obtained. Bonding for phase one and the construction of the extension of Farmington Boulevard should be required prior to the start of any construction in this development. On sheet 11 of 11 of this plan the detail for construction of the extension of Farmington Boulevard and the culvert installation that will be required to connect this road 3 across the ravine to Abrams Pointe is shown. A comment on this sheet states "All proposed work shown hereon is future construction and is not a part of the construction during Coventry Courts development." Exception is taken to this statement since this connection will be required to be made by the developer and it will be part of this development construction. Two review agencies commented about the lack of entrance into the open space at the southwest perimeter of the property where the tot lot and picnic area are located. The developer has amended the plan to show easements in three locations to provide this access. These easements are between lots 13 and 14, 36 and 37 and 15 and 16. These easements should be marked with signage so residents know where the access points are. A major portion of this development is in an area of steep slopes and clearing limits further restrict the available building area on many lots. The County Engineer has recommended that an individual site plan be submitted for lots 25 through 29. Because of the steep slopes, engineering evaluation and high potential for storm water drainage problems, we recommend that individual lot site plans/grading plans be submitted by the developer for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 38. Lots 25, 26, 27 and 38 are questionable as to their suitability as a building lots. A note on the plan states that construction on lot 26 will be achieved only through major fills and retaining walls. A stability analysis would be required since fill will be necessary to prepare these lots for building. This lot is also significantly impacted by the drainage easement and drainage way located on the lot. As a practical matter, it will probably be cost prohibitive to develop these lots. A significant portion of lot 38 is located in the storm water detention facility. It is doubtful that anyone would want to own a lot under that circumstance. It would be reasonable to require the developer to provide information that would prove that these lots are in fact suitable building lots. The driveways off of the streets will be an upslope on all of the lots in this development except lots 24, 25 and 26. The steepest of these will be approximately a 12% grade which is approaching the upper safe limit for driveways. Erosion and Sedimentation control will be critical during the construction grading of this development. 4 Effort must be made to insure all E&S protection is maintained and early stabilization of disturbed areas should'be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 12/04/91 MTG: Approval with the following conditions and/or requirements being complied with prior to final plat approval: 1. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed. 2. The developer must commit to installation of the culverts in the Farmington Boulevard extended area and construction of the storm water detention facility in this area. 3. The developer must provide information to prove that lots 24, 25, 26 and 38 are buildable lots. 4. The developer must submit individual lot site/grading plans for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 38. If lots that are required to have individual site plans are sold to other builders, the developer will be responsible for providing the new owner with the site/grading plan. 5. This entire project will be bonded prior to final plat approval. Bonding will cover the Farmington Boulevard extension and culvert installation. COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 RESIDENT ENGINEER Fax - (703) 984-9761 August 15, 1991 Mr. Tom Davis Ref: Coventry Court Subdivision C/O Dove & Associates Route 656 P. O. Box 2033 Frederick County Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Tam: This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans dated July 16, 1991 to the above referenced location. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Please advise the developer accordingly. I offer the following c awkents: • A preconstruction conference be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT shall be conducted prior to initiation of work. • Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. • Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department prior to inclusion into the Secondary Road System. • Attached is a copy of the minimaml requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. • All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. • The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require (forty-eight) 48 hours notice for inspections. • The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. These permits will require a minimm processing fee plus the salary and expenses of a State assigned Inspector. • If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway fronting lots, a minimum of four (4') feet shall be between the edge of pavement and the front of mailbox as shown on the attached sketch. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Toga Davis August 15, 1991 Page #2 • Private entrances will be installed in accordance to the attached sketch. This is the developer's responsibility. • Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. • I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of-way be backfilled completely with C.R. Type 21 A Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer QO�a 4 e%lo By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/rf Attachments xc: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. Dwight W. Hawkins (w/ copy of plans) Mr. Robert w. Watkins Mr. H. Ed Strawsnyder Mr. Charles Longerbeam ATY OF FREDERICK, VIRGIN — FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 031991265 Date Received 031991 Date Reviewed 04Oe9l Applicant Name Dove and Associates Address P. O. Box 2033 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name Coventry Court Phone No. 703-667-1103 Type of Application Subdivision Current Zoning RP 1st Due Fire Co. 18 1st Due Rescue Co. 18 ' ------ ------ ' Election District -Shawnee ' - ' Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System -- - - RECOMMENDATIONS Residential SprinklerSystem X X Other ---' -- ` Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Fire Lanes Required; Yes No X Comments: Roadway/Aisleway Widths; Adequate x Inadequate Not Identified Special Hazards Noted; Yes x No Comments: In the easement to the tot lot is the opening to an under- ground storm drain. As shown, access to the tot lot cannot be made without crossing this storm water area. This creates a very dangerous situation for small children. Past incidents involving children and high water clearly. + demonstrates the potet sa ;or serious problems w ,h is design. This ditch/pipe arrangement was not shown on the master development plan that this agency reviewed on 11/27; 90. Hydrant Locations; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Siamese Connection Location} Approved Not Approved Not Identified X Additional Comments: Access during construction must be maintained at all times for fire/rescue equipment. Provide temporary street signs and lot number signs during construction. Once hydrants are installed they are to remain "bagged" until fully operational. Please submit 2 copies:of future plans, so 1st due fire company can review. Review -Time 1 .5o h►- Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire {"Marshal _.__ Gavea+ry 4VI+S. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS April 5, 1991 Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department Planning & Development 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA. 22601 (—D) A r445lh;,� Ltr'� Re: Country Cts. Subdivision Plan 17555.071 Dear Wayne, I have reviewed the above plans and offer the following comments: A. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 1. The E & S narrative was placed on the plans, however, there are a few issues it needs to incorporate: oar Q l ,once lurface is denuded, it is to be brought to final grade as quickly as possible and stabilized.ac, W NIC,A Areas denuded are to be either permanently or temporarily stabilized within seven (7) days. c) The inspection and maintenance of E & S measures needs to be addressed. d) Stock piles of soil material are to be stabilized or protected with sediment traps. e) The removal of measures when the surface has been stabilized needs to be discussed. 2. Sediment traps or basins need to be used at the outfall locations prior to discharging to the creek. 3. The stability of the ditch sections is questionable. Velocities may be Muqbing the limits of the soil types in the area. Check dams will `T 7N LI ed during construction. (The use of ditches in this Z5;A6io!n are not recommended. 111►1( I ' j 2 91991 1I11 u' 40 %Pks Mill Road, Suite 100, rwrfaz, Virginia 22030 ■ 703 385 3566 ■ Fax 703.385.8319 Phtued on 0�) nx)rkd paper. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS B. GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1. The grading for the building lots will be significant and in most cases critical. I recommend that lot grading plans or a master grading plan be required prior to building permit release for housing. 2. The use of ditch sections for lots this dense is inappropriate. Drainage complaints for surface run-off problems within the County i have been excessive. I recommend curb and gutters. The slope of some of these ditches may make it difficult to establish good vegetative cover and could require the use of stabilized linings. This is particularly true where ditches are in or against fill or where the slopes are in excess of 5 percent. r1;/3. The slopes of the ditch lines need to- be verified in the p calculations. The lower portion of Farmington appears steeper that 4.3%. I read more like 6 to 7%. 4. Where possible, 3 to 1 slopes should be the maximum. If not possible or where original slopes exceed 3 to 1, special stabilization or flow diversion should be provided. Lots 25 and 26 are the area of concern. Curb and guttering will help control flow over this steep fill slope. 5. It is not clear how or where stormwater management is planned for .this project. The grading plan does not show or represent where it is to be placed. 6. How was the Stage -Volume Storage Chart developed? The designer needs to provide back-up calculations or support material. 7. The designer needs to provide the hydrology used to estimate the flow for the stormwater management comparison and routing table. I am not clear on how -the SWM comparison was developed. It is understood that the requirements for stormwater management are for this site only and not for off -site areas. However, the facility must be designed to handle the flows through the facility. The impacts of the 100 year storm on the facility needs also to be considered. 8. ,The water elevation for the 100 year storm should be established and indicated on the plans along the creekline. 9. When is the SWM facility to be constructed? It should be done as a part of this construction project. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS 10. The endwall detail for the weir and orifice is not real clear and doesn't stand out as a special design. The weir/orifice should be shown or represented in the elevation or at least in the section view. Also, it is not vlear how the weir is to be anchored into the precast structure. 11. The proposed structure and SWM calculations do not address current State standards for stormwater quality controls as referred in the .State Stormwater Management Regulations of December 1990. 12. The "C" factor 0.4 for the on -site existing condition appears high. The designer needs to justify this. C. ACCESS AND ROADS 1. I do not see any problem with the site access connections to Greenwood Road, however, traffic counts for Greenwood are needed to make this assessment. The intersection sight distance should be based on an eye height of 3.5 feet and object height of 4.25 feet. For a vehicle count of from 2001-4000 ADT, the sight distance should be a minimum of 400 feet which it appears will be available in both cases. 2. The designer needs to check with VDOT about the minimum curve radius for Herold Court. I believe the minimum radius needs to be 260 feet At the centerline. The plans indicate 250 feet. It depends on whether this area is considered mountainous or rolling. My interpretation would be rolling. VDOT may not accept this road into the system. 3. , Superelevation of Herold Court is not required provided the design speed limit of the road is 25mph or less. The designer should verify this with VDOT. 4. (,Guardrails will be appropriate for the curve in this road along the fill slope. C . Who is going to build the road improvements including the special drainage structure for the extension of Farmington Boulevard, and when? ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS The above comments need to be addressed and resolved before I can recommend approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. Since ONOHUE SSOCIATES, Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB/j la cc: Tom Davis, Dove & Associates R/F/AI5 COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & General Services 703/665-5643 FAX: 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator FROM: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director ofAc. Engineering SUBJECT: Coventry Courts Subdivision DATE: September 16, 1991 ------------------------------------------------------------- I have reviewed the above plans and offer the following comments: 1. The storm water management plan proposed for this development is based on the construction of the culvert under Farmington Boulevard extended. Details of these twin, 66 inch diameter RCP culverts and end walls are shown on sheet 11 of 11. It should be emphasized that my approval is predicated on the construction of these culverts during the initial development of the project. These culverts are intended to serve as storm water detention and must be constructed at the same time as the initial site drainage. A drainage easement will be required within the area impacted by the upstream storm water flooding. This easement should be obtained prior to final approval of the subdivision plan. 2. An Erosion and Sediment Control plan should be provided for the construction of the culverts and wing walls under Farmington Boulevard. 3. Provide additional detail for weir/orifice section to be constructed with precast end wall section (i.e. elevations, reinforcing, etc.), 4. Many lots on the northwest side of Harold Court are very steep, especially lots 25 and 26 which border a proposed drainage way. We recommend that individual site plans be prepared for lots 25 through 29. In addition, stability analyses should be performed for these lots if fill is added to level the sites. 9 North Loudoun St. - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Wayne Miller Coventry Court September 16, 1991 The slope proposed between lots 25 and 26 appears to be approximately 2 to 1. This slope is relatively steep and will be difficult to maintain. We suggest the use of a perennial vegetation such as crown vetch to minimize maintenance efforts. HES:rls cc: file a Parks & Recreation Director's Comments Coventry Courts - Site Plan I recommend that the required amount of usable open space be provided. The topography of this development makes the provision of the minimum required usable open space extremely important. In my opinion, the proposed recreation/picnic area is too close to Rt. 656. I doubt that anyone would want to picnic along Rt. 656. It is also my opinion that the tot lot is too close to Rt. 656. { 2 91 f LI P/C review 1/16/, BOS review 2/13, REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #004-90 COVENTRY COURTS 14.5240 Acres LOCATION: Greenwood Road, 2000' ± north of Senseny Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY I.D. NUMBER: 55000A000000000001850 PRESENT ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance), land use - Vacant ADJOINING ZONING & USE: Zoned RP (Residential Performance), land use - single family and vacant PROPOSED USE & IMPROVEMENTS: 38 Single Family detached dwellings. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Sanitation Authority: Third review -`approved. Virginia DeRt. of Transportation: No objection to preliminary master plan. Before making any final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations and traffic flow data form the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Forth Edition for review. Before starting any construction on the State Is right-of-way the developer will need to -apply to this office for issuance of appropriate permits to cover said work. Developer should work closely with adjoining developer of Abrams Point Subdivision to determine exact location geometrics of the proposed Brookland Link Roadway. Inspections Department: This request for Master Development Plan approval, shall comply to Use Group "R" Residential Section 309.0 of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". _ Fire Marshal: See attached comments. Parks & Recreation: Preliminary Master Development Plan appears to meet the county's open space and recreation requirements. Coventry Courts RMDP Staff Comment Sheet Page -2- County Consulting Engineer: 1990. Planning & Development: See letter dated November 16, A MDP for this parcel came before the Commission in April of 1990, at which time the matter was tabled. The Commission indicated at that time that they would not be inclined to approve a MDP for anything other than single family development. The current proposal is for 38 single-family detached dwellings on the 14.5 acre parcel. This housing type and density is consistent with the RP zoning of the parcel and the direction of the Commission at the April meeting. A second area of concern with the previous proposal was the lack of a through connection to the approved Abrams Point development to the west of this parcel. The current proposal shows this connection and neither VDOT or our engineer indicate a problem at this time. Changes Needed Cluster lots require an equivalent square footage be added to the required open space for any lot under 10,000 square feet. The open space indicated on the MDP lacks over 9,000 square feet of the open space needed, given the number of lots below 10,000 square feet. The area of steep slopes which is indicated to be disturbed exceeds the maximum 25% allowed by the ordinance by more than an acre. The total acreage indicated as disturbed does not appear to include the area required to be cleared for individual home sites. This would increase the total over what is now indicated. Some of the lots shown on the plan are totally within the steep slope area, while a number of others have a large portion of their area in steep slopes. The woodland area to be disturbed also exceeds the maximum allowed by nearly one and a half acres. Home sites do not appear to be included in this figure either. r Additional Information Required Information as to how woodland and steep slopes will be treated on lots which lay within these areas. Location of open space needs to be clearly indicated as well as location of environmental areas that will be disturbed. Information on how stormwater management is to be handled needs to be provided. The need for turn lanes at the intersection of Greenwood and the new through road to Abrams Point should be addressed. All information requested by review agencies. Staff Recommendation 1116/91: Approval with corrections being made to the layout, such that maximum permitted disturbance to steep slopes and woodland area are not exceeded, and that all review agency and staff comments are addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 1/16/91: Approved with staff recommendations and the following conditions: 1. Calculation of amount of open space required to compensate for lots below 10,000 square foot must be indicated on the plan. This amount is in addition to the 2-5 =% base required for cluster lots. 2. Information on the handling of stormwater needs to be provided on the plan. 3. The location and amount of woodland and steep slope areas as defined by the Zoning Ordinance need to be shown. The Planning Commission has granted a waiver of the limits set by the Ordinance to permit only that excess disturbance necessary to construct the connector road to Abrams -Point and in no case to exceed 35% of the steep slopes -or 405% of the woodland area. This should be clearly indicated on the plan. 4. All other review agency comments must be adequately addressed. E Capital Improvements Plan Subcommittee Mr. Romine reported that the Subcommittee met with the School Board to discuss school needs. He said that the next meeting will be December 16. SUBDIVISIONS Subdivision Application of Coventry Court for 38 single-family homes to be located on Route 656, north of the intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road, in the Shawnee District. This property is identified by GPIN #55000020000185. Action - Approved Mr. Miller read the background information, agency review comments, and staff recommendations. Mr. Miller clarified that the staff is recommending that Farmington Boulevard be constructed only to the property line and not past the boundaries of this property, to connect to the Abrams Point property. Mr. Edward W. Dove, President of Dove & Associates, the engineers for this subdivision, said that the main issue involved with this development was the need for a road connection to Abrams Point and out to Greenwood Road. Mr. Dove anticipated that the cost of constructing the road (Farmington Boulevard) would be high because of the required grading and culverts, and he felt that construction needed to be coordinated between Coventry Court and Abrams Point. Mr. Dove asked that they be permitted to phase their plan so that development could proceed and revenue could be acquired to offset the cost of constructing the road. He said that in order to accomplish this, they have created a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Farmington Boulevard and have included two separate sets of stormwater calculations on the plan --one for Phases II and III and one for Phase I, which includes the extension of Farmington Boulevard. Mr. Dove said that the applicant is agreeable to submitting grading and site plans only for lots 19, 25, 26, 27, and 38, since the buildability of those lots were in question. Mr. Dove was not in favor of doing grading and site plans for all of the lots suggested by the Planning Staff. Mr. Dove also felt it was not reasonable to ask that the entire Farmington Boulevard be bonded before any work was done on the site. He felt it was reasonable to bond the road in sections, according to the phases built. He asked that the development be bonded section by section and that stormwater management be required section by section. 3429 3 Chairman Golladay stated that he would not be in favor of approving any lots that may have water problems without a grading/site plan. Mrs. Elaine Longerbeam, one of the owners of Coventry Courts, felt that the Abrams Point developers were unwilling to participate in the construction of the connecting road at this time. She felt it was unfair for the county to base approval of the Coventry Courts subdivision on the completion of the connecting road. Mrs. Longerbeam felt that each property owner should be required to bond Farmington Boulevard to their own property line. Mrs. Longerbeam also felt it was unreasonable to require grading and site plans for any additional lots other than those originally cited by Mr. Strawsnyder, the County Engineer, in his letter of November 1, 1991 to Dove & Associates. Mr. Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director of Engineering for Frederick County, came forward to address the stormwater issue. Mr. Strawsnyder said that approval the original plan relied on the construction of culverts and an embankment for stormwater management for Section I. He said that because this stormwater management plan relied on connection to the Abrams Point property, the Coventry Courts developers elected to abandon that approach in favor of a modified stormwater management plan for Sections II and III. Mr. Strawsnyder said that he reviewed and approved the calculations submitted. Mr. Dove said that to complicate matters further, a non -vacated residence was located on the Abrams Point property and had a prescriptive easement that ran directly through the proposed stormwater detention culverts. Mr. Charles Maddox, Jr., the engineer for the Abrams Point property, said that they revised their master plan (Abrams Point) to reflect the road connection as suggested by the Planning Commission and Board. Mr. Maddox said that they acknowledge that the road can be built and are not against building the road. Mr. Maddox noted that the connection would result in zero impact problems as far as Abrams Point was concerned. The Commission realized that the construction of Farmington Blvd would be an expensive endeavor, however, its construction was previously agreed to by all the parties involved at the time of master plan approval. Commissioners also felt that because a major portion of the development was in areas of steep slopes and there was also a high potential for stormwater drainage problems, that individual site plans were needed for the lots indicated by the staff. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the subdivision application of Coventry Courts for 38 single-family lots on 14.5239 acres with the following conditions and/or requirements being complied with prior to final plat approval: 3430 4 1. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed. 2. The developer must commit to installation of the culverts in the Farmington Boulevard extended area and construction of the stormwater detention facility in this area. 3. The developer must provide information to prove that lots 24, 25, 26, and 38 are buildable lots. 4. The developer must submit individual lot site/grading plans for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 38. If lots that are required to have individual site plans are sold to other builders, the developer will be responsible for providing the new owner with the site/grading plan. 5. This entire project will be bonded prior to final plat approval. Bonding will cover the Farmington Boulevard extension and culvert installation. Subdivision Application of Senseny Glen for 161 lots on 67.85 acres zoned RP and located north and adjacent to Senseny Road and east and adjacent to Apple Ridge Subdivision in the Shawnee District. This property is identified with GPIN #650000A0000041 and #650000A0000048. Action - Approved Mr. Miller read the background information, review agency comments, and the staff recommendations. Staff recommendations were for approval on the condition that all review agency comments be addressed prior to approval of final plats. Mr. Ron Mislowsky of G. W. Clifford & Associates, the engineers for the project, presented the subdivision to the Commission. The Commission discussed the fact that stormwater detention facility #2 overlays a major portion of Lot 93 and is also located in an area of a possible street connection to property to the east. They questioned whether or not Lot 93 was buildable. Mr. Mislowsky said that it was their position that lot 93 would not be built on until the pond was moved and the road put in. Mr. Mislowsky said that they felt Lot 93 would require a site plan. He added that they would submit individual site plans for all the lots suggested by the county engineer, plus any additional lots that the county engineer felt was necessary. Mr. Romine moved for approval with the condition that all review agency comments be addressed and that the useability of Lot 93 be resolved prior to approval of final 3431 r i COUNTY of FREDERICK i Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/67M682 December 22, 1991 Mr. Tom Davis, Project Engineer Dove & Associates 3078 Shawnee Drive P.O. Box 2033 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Tom: I have completed my review of the proposed final plats for Coventry Courts that you submitted to me and offer the following suggestions: 1. The cover page needs a place for the signature of VDOT, Sanitation Authority, Planning Commission and Subdivision Administrator. 2. Show the access easements between lots 13 and 14, 15 and 16, and 35 and 36. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a portion of the new subdivision ordinance pertaining to plat preparation. You may want to give some consideration to reviewing this for application to these plats. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. W. Wa*e Miller Zoning Administi WWM/slk enclosure THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 PC Review - 12/04/91 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION COVENTRY COURTS 38 Single Family Lots on 14.5239 Acres LOCATION: Route 656, north of intersection of Greenwood Road and Senseny Road MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NO: 55000020000185 ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned R-P (Residential Performance). present use - vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned R-P (Residential Performance - and RA (Rural Areas) present use - residential, vacant and agricultural REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Va. Department of Transportation: See attached letter dated August 15, 1991 from Robert B. Childress. Inspections Department: This request for subdivision approval shall comply to Use Group "R", Residential, Section 309.0, of the BOCA National Building Code 111990" Fire Marshal: In the easement to the tot lot is the opening to an underground storm drain. As shown, access to the tot lot cannot be made without crossing this storm water area. This creates a very dangerous situation for small children. Past incidents involving children and high water clearly demonstrates the potential for serious problems with this design. This ditch/pipe arrangement was not shown on the master development plan that this agency reviewed on 11/27/90. See additional comments, attached. 2 Sanitation Authority: Third review approved as noted - two items. county Engineer: See attached letter date April 5, 1991, from Paul Bernard. Also see memo from Ed Strawsnyder, Frederick County Engineer, dated September 16, 1991 and attached letter to Tom Davis, Dove and Associates, from Mr. Strawsnyder dated November 1, 1991. Parks & Recreation: See attached, dated April 2, 1991, from James M. Doran. Planning & Zoning: There are two exceptions where this subdivision plan is not in conformance with the approved Master Development Plan. These exceptions are the two storm drainage easements and their attendant structures. These are required by VDOT since the system traverses what will eventually become their right of way so this addition is considered necessary. commission approval for this deviation is recommended. The temporary turn around at the northwest end of Farmington Boulevard would normally be located at the extreme of the property boundary. The depicted turn around is planned short of the boundary since taking it all the way would require about 30 feet of fill to bring the surface level up to that required. Since it will not encroach on any lot, this location is acceptable. The developer will be required to dedicate, and eventually complete, the street all the way to the property line. VDOT has advised that they will bond this section to insure that the developer will be held responsible for completion of the street in a timely manner. This development will be built in three phases. The developer intends to build phases two and three prior to building phase one. The storm water management plan is approved only for phases two and three. A storm water management plan for phase one must be submitted and approved prior to any construction in phase one. A separate E&S Plan will be required for the installation of the culverts under Farmington Boulevard due to the off site work that will be required. Appropriate easements must also be obtained. Bonding for phase one and the construction of the extension of Farmington Boulevard should be required prior to the start of any construction in this development. On sheet 11 of 11 of this plan the detail for construction of the extension of Farmington Boulevard and the culvert installation that will be required to connect this road 3 across the ravine to Abrams Pointe is shown. A comment on this sheet states "All proposed work shown hereon is future construction and is not a part of the construction during Coventry Courts development." Exception is taken to this statement since this connection will be required to be made by the developer and it will be part of this development construction. Two review agencies commented about the lack of entrance into the open space at the southwest perimeter of the property where the tot lot and picnic area are located. The developer has amended the plan to show easements in three locations to provide this access. These easements are between lots 13 and 14, 36 and 37 and 15 and 16. These easements should be marked with signage so residents know where the access points are. A major portion of this development is in an area of steep slopes and clearing limits further restrict the available building area on many lots. The County Engineer has recommended that an individual site plan be submitted for lots 25 through 29. Because of the steep slopes, engineering evaluation and high potential for storm water drainage problems, we recommend that individual lot site plans/grading plans be submitted by the developer for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 38. Lots 25, 26, 27 and 38 are questionable as to their suitability as a building lots. A note on the plan states that construction on lot 26 will be achieved only through major fills and retaining walls. A stability analysis would be required since fill will be necessary to prepare these lots for building. This lot is also significantly impacted by the drainage easement and drainage way located on the lot. As a practical matter, it will probably be cost prohibitive to develop these lots. A significant portion of lot 38 is located in the storm water detention facility. It is doubtful that anyone would want to own a lot under that circumstance. It would be reasonable to require the developer to provide information that would prove that these lots are in fact suitable building lots. The driveways off of the streets will be an upslope on all of the lots in this development except lots 24, 25 and 26. The steepest of these will be approximately a 12% grade which is approaching the upper safe limit for driveways. Erosion and Sedimentation control will be critical during the construction grading of this development. 4 Effort must be made to insure all E&S protection is maintained and early stabilization of disturbed areas should -be required. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 12/04/91 MTG: Approval with the following conditions and/or requirements being complied with prior to final plat approval: 1. All review agency comments must be adequately addressed. 2. The developer must commit to installation of the culverts in the Farmington Boulevard extended area and construction of the storm water detention facility in this area. 3. The developer must provide information to prove that lots 24, 25, 26 and 38 are buildable lots. 4. The developer must submit individual lot site/grading plans for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 38. If lots that are required to have individual site plans are sold to other builders, the developer will be responsible for providing the new owner with the site/grading plan. 5. This entire project will be bonded prior to final plat approval. Bonding will cover the Farmington Boulevard extension and culvert installation. _ 1 �I RECEIVED AU6 2 0 199 ee h COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER ( 703 ) 984-4133 RESIDENT ENGINEER Fax - (703) 984-9761 August 15, 1991 Mr. Tom Davis Ref: Coventry Court Subdivision C/O Dove & Associates Route 656 P. O. Box 2033 Frederick County Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Tom: This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans dated July 16, 1991 to the above referenced location. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Please advise the developer accordingly. I offer the following comments: A preconstruction conference be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT shall be conducted prior to initiation of work. Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department prior to inclusion into the Secondary Road System. Attached is a copy of the minimum requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require (forty-eight) 48 hours notice for inspections. The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. These permits will require a minimum processing fee plus the salary and expenses of a State assigned Inspector. If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway fronting lots, a minimum of four (4') feet shall be between the edge of pavement and the front of mailbox as shown on the attached sketch. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Tom Davis August 15, 1991 Page #2 Private entrances will be installed in accordance to the attached sketch. This is the developer's responsibility. Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of-way be backfilled completely with C.R. Type 21-A Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/rf Attachments xc: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. Dwight W. Hawkins (w/ copy of plans) Mr. Robert W. Watkins Mr. H. Ed Strawsnyder Mr. Charles Longerbeam C jTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINI� FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No, 031991265 Date Received 031991 Date Reviewed 040891 _____ ____ Applicant Name Dove and Associates Address P. O. Box 2033 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name Coventry Court Phone No. 703-667-1103 Type of Application Subdivision Current Zoning RP 1st Due Fire Co. 18 1st Due Rescue Co. 18 __.... .......... Election District Shawnee RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System Residential Sprinkler System X ��� Automatic Fire Alarm System X Other Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate X Inadequate Fire Lanes Required; Yes _ Comments: Not Identified No X 0 Roadway/Aisleway Widths; �+ Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified Special Hazards Noted; Yes X No Comments: In the easement to the tot lot is the opening to an under- . ���������.... ... ground storm drain. As shown, access to the tot lot cannot be made without ������`... ����......... ��� crossing this storm water area. This creates a very dangerous situation for small children. Past incidents involving children and high water clearly demonstrates the pote ^al for serious problems v. n this design. This ditch/pipe arrangement was not shown on the master development plan that this agency reviewed on 11/27/90. Hydrant Locations; Adequate X Inadequate Not Identified ___ Siamese Connection Location; Approved Not Approved Not Identified X Additional Comments: Access during construction must be maintained at all times for fire/rescue equipment. Provide temporary street signs and lot number signs during construction. Once hydrants are installed they are to remain "bagged" until fully operational. Please submit 2 copies of future plans, so 1st due fire company can review. Review Time 1.50 hi Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal 66ve ,j �rY 4 v r fs . ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS April 5, 1991 Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator Frederick County Department Planning & Development 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA. 22601 q". Re: Country Cts. Subdivision Plan 17555.071 Dear Wayne, I have reviewed the above plans and offer the following comments: A. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION 1. The E & S narrative was placed on the plans, however, there are a few issues it needs to incorporate: a) Emphasize that once the surface is denuded, it is to be brought to final grade as quickly as possible and stabilized. <.Q rJ &-k.QA b) Areas denuded are to be either permanently or temporarily stabilized within seven (7) days. c) The inspection and maintenance of E & S measures needs to be addressed. d) Stock piles of soil material are to be stabilized or protected with sediment traps. e) The removal of measures when the surface has been stabilized needs to be discussed. 2. Sediment traps or basins need to be used at the outfall locations prior to discharging to the creek. 3. The stability of the ditch sections is questionable. Velocities may be pushing the limits of the soil types in the area. Check dams will be requited during construction. (The use of ditches in this subdivision are not recommended. ■ 11240 Wipks Mill Road, Suite 100, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ■ 703.385.3566 ■ Fax 703.385.8319 Priiued on g� recycled paper. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS B. GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 1. The grading for the building lots will be significant and in most cases critical. I recommend that lot grading plans or a master grading plan be required prior to building permit release for housing. 2. The use of ditch sections for lots this dense is inappropriate. Drainage complaints for surface run-off problems within the County have been excessive. I recommend curb and gutters. The slope of some of these ditches may make it difficult to establish good vegetative cover and could require the use of stabilized linings. This is particularly true where ditches are in or against fill or where the slopes are in excess of 5 percent. 3. The slopes of the ditch lines need to be verified in the calculations. The lower portion of Farmington appears steeper that 4.3%. I read more like 6 to 7%. 4. Where possible, 3 to 1 slopes should be the maximum. If not possible or where original slopes exceed 3 to 1, special stabilization or flow diversion should be provided. Lots 25 and 26 are the area of concern. Curb and guttering will help control flow over this steep fill slope. 5. It is not clear how or where stormwater management is planned for this project. The grading plan does not show or represent where it is to be placed. 6. How was the Stage -Volume Storage Chart developed? The designer needs to provide back-up calculations or support material. 7. The designer needs to provide the hydrology used to estimate the flow for the stormwater management comparison and routing table. I am not clear on how the SWM comparison was developed. It is understood that the requirements for stormwater management are for this site only and not for off -site areas. However, the facility must be designed to handle the flows through the facility. The impacts of the 100 year storm on the facility needs also to be considered. 8. The water elevation for the 100 year storm should be established and indicated on the plans along the creekline. 9. When is the SWM facility to be constructed? It should be done as a part of this construction project. ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS 10. The endwall detail for the weir and orifice is not real clear and doesn't stand out as a special design. The weir/orifice should be shown or represented in the elevation or at least in the section view. Also, it is not vlear how the weir is to be anchored into the precast structure. 11. The proposed structure and SWM calculations do not address current State standards for stormwater quality controls as referred in the State Stormwater Management Regulations of December 1990. 12. The "C" factor 0.4 for the on -site existing condition appears high. The designer needs to justify this. C. ACCESS AND ROADS 1. I do not see any problem with the site access connections to Greenwood Road, however, traffic counts for Greenwood are needed to make this assessment. The intersection sight distance should be based on an eye height of 3.5 feet and object height of 4.25 feet. For a vehicle count of from 2001-4000 ADT, the sight distance should be a minimum of 400 feet which it appears will be available in both cases. 2. The designer needs to check with VDOT about the minimum curve radius for Herold Court. I believe the minimum radius needs to be 260 feet at the centerline. The plans indicate 250 feet. It depends on whether this area is considered mountainous or rolling. My interpretation would be rolling. VDOT may not accept this road into the system. 3. Superelevation of Herold Court is not required provided the design speed limit of the road is 25mph or less. The designer should verify this with VDOT. 4. Guardrails will be appropriate for the curve in this road along the fill slope. 5. Who is going to build the road improvements including the special drainage structure for the extension of Farmington Boulevard, and when? ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS The above comments need to be addressed and resolved before I can recommend approval. If you have any questions, please let me know. Since ONOHUE SSOCIATES, Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB/j la cc: Tom Davis, Dove & Associates R/F/AI5 z:�. i COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & General Services 703/665-5643 FAX: 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator FROM: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director ofA�1. Engineering SUBJECT: Coventry Courts Subdivision DATE: September 16, 1991 I have reviewed the above plans and offer the following comments: 1. The storm water management plan proposed for this development is based on the construction of the culvert under Farmington Boulevard extended. Details of these twin, 66 inch diameter RCP culverts and end walls are shown on sheet 11 of 11. It should be emphasized that my approval is predicated on the construction of these culverts during the initial development of the project. These culverts are intended to serve as storm water detention and must be constructed at the same time as the initial site drainage. A drainage easement will be required within the area impacted by the upstream storm water flooding. This easement should be obtained prior to final approval of the subdivision plan. 2. An Erosion and Sediment Control plan should be provided for the construction of the culverts and wing walls under Farmington Boulevard. 3. Provide additional detail for weir/orifice section to be constructed with precast end wall section (i.e. elevations, reinforcing, etc.), 4. Many lots on the northwest side of Harold Court are very steep, especially lots 25 and 26 which border a proposed drainage way. We recommend that individual site plans be prepared for lots 25 through 29. In addition, stability analyses should be performed for these lots if fill is added to level the sites. 9 North Loudoun St. - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Wayne Miller Coventry Court September 16, 1991 The slope proposed between lots 25 and 26 appears to be approximately 2 to 1. This slope is relatively steep and will be difficult to maintain. We suggest the use of a perennial vegetation such as crown vetch to minimize maintenance efforts. HES:rls cc: file Parks & Recreation Director's Comments Coventry Courts - Site Plan I recommend that the required amount of usable open space be provided. The topography of this development makes the provision of the minimum required usable open space extremely important. In my opinion, the proposed recreation/picnic area is too close to Rt. 656. I doubt that anyone would want to picnic along Rt. 656. It is also my opinion that the tot lot is too close to Rt. 656. 0!,:-r c. c COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & General Services 703/665-5643 FAX: 703/678-0682 November 1, 1991 Mr. Tom Davis Dove and Associates 3078 Shawnee Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Revised Subdivision Plan Coventry Court Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Davis: The revised subdivision plan dated October 31, 1991, is approved for construction. This plan includes stormwater management for lots 15 through 38. This plan does not pre-empt the need for individual site plans for lots 19, 25, 26, 27 and 38. We also anticipate that the drainage easement reflected in the open space will be expanded to incorporate the limits of the stormwater detention basin. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harve E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Direc r of Engineering HES:rls cc: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator 9 North Loudoun St. - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST SUBDIVISION FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA Date: a9 -A U & 9 t Application # Fee Paid I AP91-11.AriT PI6orw-1 Applicant/Agent: L.o,4agr t,e,c,, Dave -r Assc, -sZkw Address: Py i'soX 51y 307`i -Sk&aNe¢ Dr,I"-k 3 erry J (tit , VA WING1,4t.4 O_r, VFW a A 4 0 1 Phone: 1 -703-(r3-)-Is'T9 I-703 667 t(o3 Owners name: C4.o,Nles l.en,�a,rloec.rr. Address: s&^.c.. aw aI&v -9- Phone: same ad gbav-e Please list names of all owners, principals and /or majority stockholders: s -0� me c..o a 6 o V-L Contact Person: i e vv% I�g .� ►s Phone: )-? a 3 4 6 I Ito Name of Subdivision: Co ve rj+ r y Go r t s Number of Lots 3 C6 Total Acreage J 4t 3 9 G 2E5 Property Location: rpr e eJrPJ� o 0, 30 0 ' O p r+�' e ..j .,� o o� 0 R a A a. Sen,00„.N, R &'.4, ve State Rt.#, distance and dir ction from intersection) Magisterial District -; l,o.,W rue e D t5-t rI c-+ Tax ID Number (GPIN) .5 5 2 18.5 Im -7- Property zoning and present use: 2e ►JE Rr OS Q, VA Lq n4 Adjoining property zoning and use: ZOO Q Rp U6.2 G JnQ Je fabe' a✓cg-amk eos+ RP.��►-z a5.sz�Ar�Gvit�.-�,� Has a Master Development Plan been submitted for this project? Yes V No If yes, has the final MDP been approved by the Board of Supervisors? Yes-_ No What was the MDP title? GO v eat' r y Goy ., S Does the plat contain any changes from the approved MDP? Yes No 4 If yes, specify what changes: Minimum Lot Size (smallest lot) 4s a D o 5 q pT Number and types of housing units in this development: Number 3 TypeS mAso -0- :Zc '- 75/7) COUN Y of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & General Services 703/665-5643 FAX: 703/678-0682 October 28, 1991 Mr. Tom Davis Dove and Associates 3078 Shawnee Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Stormwater Management Lots 15 through 38 - Coventry Court Frederick County, Virginia Dear Tom: We have received and attempted to review the revised stormwater management plan for the subject lots in the Coventry Court Subdivision. However, because of the illegible copy of the computer printout, we were unable to complete our review. Please submit a legible copy of these calculations so that we can determine the derivation of the flows tabulated on sheet 11A and evaluate the suitability of the proposed stormwater detention basin. HES:rls cc: file 1 Sincerely, Harvey Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Directo of Engineering 9 North Loudoun St. - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 s L, to COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 RESIDENT ENGINEER Fax - (703) 984-9761 August 15, 1991 Mr. Tom Davis Ref: Coventry Court Subdivision C/O Dove & Associates Route 656 P. O. Box 2033 Frederick County Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Tom: This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans dated July 16, 1991 to the above referenced location. The plans appear satisfactory and are approved. Please advise the developer accordingly. I offer the following comments: • A preconstruction conference be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT shall be conducted prior to initiation of work. • Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road and Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. • Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be coupleted to the satisfaction of the Department prior to inclusion into the Secondary Road System. • Attached is a copy of the minimum requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. • All drainage is to be carried within the right-of-way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. • The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require (forty-eight) 48 hours notice for inspections. • The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right-of-way. These permits will require a minimum processing fee plus the salary and expenses of a State assigned Inspector. • If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway fronting lots, a minimum of four (4') feet shall be between the edge of pavement and the front of mailbox as shown on the attached sketch. Mr. Tom Davis August 15, 1991 Page #2 • Private entrances will be installed in accordance to the attached sketch. This is the developer's responsibility. • Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. I suggest any utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right-of-way be backfilled completely with C.R. Type 21-A Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement settlement. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer Q46,i/ 16, exllolllt�a�� By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/rf Attachments xc: Mr. Robert L. Moore Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. Dwight W. Hawkins (w/ copy of plans) Mr. Robert W. Watkins Mr. H. Ed Strawsnyder Mr. Charles Longerbeam — - i COUNTY of FREDERICK Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Engineering & General Services 703/665-5643 FAX: 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator FROM: Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E., Director ofA�1. Engineering SUBJECT: Coventry Courts Subdivision DATE: September 16, 1991 I have reviewed the above plans and offer the following comments: The storm water management plan proposed for this development is based on the construction of the culvert under Farmington Boulevard extended. Details of these twin, 66 inch diameter RCP culverts and end walls are shown on sheet 11 of 11. It should be emphasized that my approval is predicated on the construction of these culverts during the initial development of the project. These culverts are intended to serve as storm water detention and must be constructed at the same time as the initial site drainage. A drainage easement will be required within the area impacted by the upstream storm water flooding. This easement should be obtained prior to final approval of the subdivision plan. 1-12. An Erosion and Sediment Control plan should be provided for the construction of the culverts and wing walls under Farmington Boulevard. Provide additional detail for weir/orifice section to be constructed with precast end wall section (i.e. elevations, reinforcing, etc.), ✓4. Many lots on the northwest side of Harold Court are very steep, especially lots 25 and 26 which border a proposed drainage way. We recommend that individual site plans be prepared for lots 25 through 29. In addition, stability analyses should be performed for these lots if fill is added to level the sites. 9 North Loudoun St. - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Wayne Miller Coventry Court September 16, 1991 The slope proposed between lots 25 and 26 appears to be approximately 2 to 1. This slope is relatively steep and will be difficult to maintain. We suggest the use of a perennial vegetation such as crown vetch to minimize maintenance efforts. HES:rls cc: file `mot -4� COUNTY of I=REDERICK Department of Pia�C�a�.nd Development x 703 W-5654 �4 REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMEN r 7 037t .P Frederick County Sanitation Auth y J U L 1991 P.0. Sox 618, Winchester, Virginia (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is locatedon they ' second floor of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name,, address and phone.number: C.` "*jcdQr1e56:nz o V'p- t A PO g,x 52% 3a-7 L .anre�iiriv aerrYSeI%k-C,VA %2.(a It �►►y L'%0 3)-16a tSefq :1 ° o -- -)o 3 (e 7 t t 0.3 Name of development and/or description of the request: Go A, � � 3� Lr,S � SJ2�t V I c 1 Lkn,, Location: 6 - -e e rJ %?.1 o o '�. San.i tati.on Autho i. ty Co=men.ts : 5IFR/,AS Sani.t. Signature & Date: (NOTICE TO SANITATION -, NOTICE It is your responsibility to possible in order to assist 2p�ease attach 770 copies of E RETURN THIS FORM TO r-PPLIC.U4T . ) TO APPLICANT complete this form as accurately as the agency with their review. Also, your plans and/or application -.or.. 9 Court P.O. Bo\ 60' - %Vinchester. Virinnia - 22601 1. COUNTY of FREDERICk I Department of Planning and Developmen REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMENTS 703/665-565i FAX 703 / 667-03 7 ( Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department P.O. Boa 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square,.Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. 4—ppn e, addres and phone number: 10 (,G-7-11 D1-> Name of development and/or description of the request: 600etS Location: Kv�jS Parks & Recreation Department Comments: See Attached Parks Signature and Date: 4/2/91 (NOTICE TO PARKS - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in ordrr to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach •3 copy of your plans and/or application form. 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virgi.lia - 22601 RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRC71NIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 EDINBURG. 22824 (703) 984-4133 Fax - (703) 984-9761 July 8, 1991 Mr. J. Thomas Tanner, Jr., P.E. Director of Operations Dove & Associates 11350 Random Hills Road, Suite 750 Fairfax, VA 22030 Dear Mr. Tanner: JUL - 91991 Ar WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Coventry Courts Subdivision Route 656 Frederick County We have reviewed the referenced project's revised site plans submitted with your letter of June 20, 1991. Our recommendations may be found on the plans marked in red and as follows: 1. As recently discussed by telephone, an additional right-of-way dedication along Route 656 for a future right turn lane at the Farmington Boulevard intersection will not be necessary at this time. 2. The revised pavement design on Herold Court appears satisfactory except the sub -base is to be increased to 8" in depth. Also, our new pavement designations should be used. 3. The double line of 66" pipe to be installed under the future extension of Farmington Boulevard appears adequate. However, drainage easements will be required to maintain the slopes and pipes as noted. 4. The storm sewer originally proposed along Herold Court will be necessary to intercept drainage from the culvert under Route 656 as noted on Sheets 2 & 6. Drainage easements should be clearly identified on the plan and profile sheets in addition to the grading plan sheet. 5. It appears the revised location of the proposed 10" watermain within the Route 656 right-of-way would be difficult to install considering the distance from edge of pavement, right-of-way width, existing cut section and existing utilities. Also, it would appear a lane closure would be necessary to complete the installation. Consideration should also be given to possible damages to the pavement structure of Route 656 due to construction activities which would need to be corrected. With this in mind we will be unable to offer any final comments on this location until additional detail/conditions and methods of installation are provided. TO A ni c on OTA TI(l nI rn� TF4 I=')ACT ('F NTI IRV Mr. J. Thomas Tanner, Jr. July 8, 1991 Page #2 Please revise and resubmit three (3) sets of plans for further review. Should any changes be deemed necessary, please design them to meet or exceed these recommendations. Should you have any questions concerning the above, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. J. C. Heatwole Mr. R. W. Watkins) "-EOUEST FOR SITE PLAN COMMENTS Virginia Department of Transportation Resident Engineer P.O. BOX 278� Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce St. in Winchester iL you prefer to hand deliver this form. A. pl ica.nt° s name, address and phone number: GPI -ems l�N C-tiL--� G(_G �o�lE 4r AsSo'-IDS _- Name of deveiopmer':. and/or description of the request: N on mto Vz— Dept. of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from W. H. Bushman to Dove & Associates dated 08/15/91. V^OT Signature and Date : !/►/_llIe� / Y . tNO:iZCE TO RESIDENT ENGINEER**'PLEAS E RETURN T�i2:3 FORD TO A: a��,IC T. ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT it- is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach three copj_es of your plans and/or application form. 29 -10- 2-LANE STREET Minimum (up to 0.25 mi.) From 0.25 to 0.50 mile Over 0.50 mile 4-LANE STREET Minimum (up to 0.25 mi.) From 0.25 to 0.50 mile Over 0.50 mile FEES AND SURETY SCHEDULE SUBDIVISION STREETS cTTPTvPv $ 3,750 $ 7,500 $ 1,500/tenth of mile and fraction thereof $ 7,500 $15,000 $ 3,000/tenth of mile and fraction thereof MAINTENANCE FEE $ 375/year 750/year 150/tenth of mile and fraction thereof/year 750/year 1,500/year 300/tenth of mile and fraction thereof/year A two lane street, 0.35 mile long, is processed for addition effective September 18. Therefore, surety is required for four -tenths mile and maintenance fee is required for ten months. Surety required: 57,500 Maintenance fee required: 5750 x 10/12 = 8625 A four lane street, 0.78 mile long, is processed for addition effective February 4. Therefore, surety is required for eight -tenths mile and maintenance fee is required for five months. Surety required: 8 x $3,000 = $24,000 Maintenance fee required: 8 x $300 x 5/12 = $1,000 Rev. 06/13/90 Subdivision streets may be considered eligible for acceptance into the State Secondary System when: built according to plans approved by the Department of Transportation, properly maintained since completion and rendering a public service (serving three (3) occupied dwellings or three (3) businesses per street). THE FODUNING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED TO THE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REQUESTING THE ADDITION: 1. One (1) copy of as -built construction plans showing: - Roadway geometrics - Drainage and drainage easements 2. Three (3) copies of the final plat with date & place of recordation, deed book number and page number 3. Signed permits covering all utilities, publicly or privately owned, to occupy or cross the right-of-way and quitclaiming any prior rights. 4. Bond to guarantee workmanship and performance of material for one year from date of acceptance. (See reverse side for schedule.) 5. Maintenance fee check payable to the "Virginia Department of Transportation". It is based on the length of the streets involved from the date of acceptance to the end of the fiscal year (June 30th). No maintenance fee is required if the addition is effective Julv 1st. (See reverse side for schedule.) ADDITIONS WILL BE MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY ON THE FIRST OF THE MONTH. ALL DATA IS TO BE IN THE EDINBURG RESIDENCY OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY THE 1ST OF THE PRECEDING MONTH. (30 DAYS) .,, SIGN FABRICATORS Allen -Morrison, Inc ............................... Telephone: (804) 846-8461 Lynchburg, Virginia 24501 Dominion Traffic Sign & Signal Co., Inc .............. Telephone: (804) 329-9246 1606 Magnolia Avenue (804) 329-1839 Richmond, Virginia 23222 Dowling Sign Co.. .............................. Telephone: (703) 373-6675 Post Office Box 696 1801 Princess Anne Street Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Ed Showalter Signs ............................... Telephone: (703) 743-7343 104 North Hawksbill Street Luray, Virginia 22835 FOSCO Fabricators ............................... Telephone: (815) 288-1441 Post Office Box 200 Dixon, Illinois 61021 Harlan Laws Corporation .......................... Telephone: (919) 596-2124 Drawer 15070 Durham, North Carolina 27704 Interstate Highway Sign Company .................. Telephone: (501) 565-8484 Post Office Box 2380 6005 Scott Hamilton Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72203 Korman Signs, Inc ................................ Telephone: (804) 262-6050 3U27 Lincoln Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23228 Lyle Southern, Inc ................................ Telephone: (919) 832-5704 417 Eby Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27610 Moore Sign Company ............................. Telephone: (804) 748-5836 Post Office Box 748 Chester, Virginia 23831 Old Dominion Sign & Manufacturing, Inc ............. Telephone: (804) 321-2102 Post Office Box 25188 704-8 Dawn Street Richmond, Virginia 23260 Talley Neon ..................................... Telephone: (804) 649-0325 1908 Chamberlayne Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23261 Visual Products, Inc ............................... Telephone: (304) 757-6230 Post Office Box 756 Nitro, `Jest Virginia 25143 The above list is only a random listing of sign fabricators who have reached our attention; it may not be complete and no endorsement is intended by their inclusion on this list. ROADSIDE SIGN RURAL DISTRICT i a 2 I LIMIT ROADSIDE SIGN r 50 BUSINESS O RESIDENCE DISTRICT I z I 'I_ r ROADSIDE ASSEMBLY H RURAL DISTRICT ♦.� 3 II 15 T z OVERHEAD) MOUNTING ROADSIDE SIGN RURAL DISTRICT NOT LESS rt - Z' 0 ► - -- - - - - - - - - �wEO Sw OY1.DER� WARNING SIGN WITH ADVISORY SPEED PLATE RURAL DISTRICT < > z' 25 YrM u OIL �y WARNING SIGN p ON ISLAND pgj�p IN THE LINE OF TRAFFIC III J O 2 r— s' MIN. PAVED SNOLLDEA Rgvre 2-1. Height and lateral location of signs —typical installations. 2A-9 ACUTE ANGLE INTERSECTION MINOR CROSSROAD 6' TO 12' CHANNELIZED INTERSECTION �4U�e MINIMUM URBAN INTERSECTION ;z s a DIVISIONAL ISLAND WIDE THROAT INTERSECTION figure 2-2. Typical locations for stop signs and yield signs. 2A-10 V2 D-3 FOR USE O_NALL _ROADS _ 6" C Series Letters 4" C Series Letters (Prefix & Suffix) Var. Lvmbcr ro be pressurc TreaTGC�, r No: Is orr-To be %d., 6d 7aiveHi2vi F��MG.rr I Each r cl SV,4cG 4wx4 �iTLr� �JEcrIb'J m ZOIR 51AIlDARD PRIVATE L•'11TRAi1Ci; 19' width with 9" CDR-3U Typical ' SccTiON c ,'• u I O04 N i Tj I TYPICAL t•1A1L130:; TRAWXYlul Same Stone Dentfi n-� llu..d.vr.v F-j�_,o 0-r OF HA t L lU ol- "i-o PEE F'L j4 H W %-r ti I B�cKs►pE OF 0-01 6- CM0, Scr--no J PE -I Surface— Crusher Run Aggregate i I No. 25 or 26 5 2' L Note: Lengths of culverts shown on road plans for entrances are approximate and shall be odjusted to obtain above roadway widths. Culverts if Note: All entrance grades shall start bock of the shoulder line. If drainage is necessary, the ditch line may be moved back to provide of least 9' of cover over pipe, as shown at right 12' or existing width whichever is greater. w U Z Ui Q U Z Z n wN w� Qo 16 MAIN ROADWAY PAVEMENT Entrances in fill to be some as above except location of culvert (when necessary) J \\\a C U (� j5 ar W 00 E S \" ` a'r o t Q tr Z N fn W U z Q I— z w rn w 1 s a \ z 1 z U Q d 0 a- O d \ W w O /\O N O O W E / > o' \� irzN W � � a -/ w J Q SPECIFICATION STANDARD PRIVATE ENTRANCES REFERENCE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT 514 of 602.02 HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION COMMENTS Frederick County Inspections Department ATTN: Kenneth L. Coffelt, Director P.O. Bog 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 Court Square in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: i 19 -4-Ai Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: --- C r \(,,, k, Inspections Department Comments: �p j l - dam' 1:�A LV-1 i i lCS �7 N� 00; 0 7�) L1 J �" l� 3^dL% l /�U�-� CL 2_ N TiG� Inspect. Signature & Date:'7 (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS - PLEASE RETURN IS FORM TO APPLICANT. NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. SUBDIVISION CHECKLIST The subdivision application is not complete if the items listed below are not present. If any items are missing the application will be returned to the applicant. It is recommended that the applicant meet with a member of the planning staff when submitting applications in order to review the materials for completeness. Submission Package 1. One set of comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan: VDOT City of Winchester Health Dept. _�/ Sanitation Authority _p,-- Inspections Dept. _� Parks & Recreation Fire Marshal Winc. Regional Airport Town of Middletown Town of Stephens City Superintendent of Schools (Information Only) Lord Fairfax Soil & Water Conservation District _,I,- County Engineer ✓ 2. 1 copy of the subdivision application 3. icopies of the plan on a single sheet N A 4. 1 reproducible copy of the plan (if required) "A 5. a 35mm. slide of the plan Ce n i -1- APPLICANT'S CHECKLIST Your site plan should include the following: Administrative Information Y N y 1. Name of proposed development. 2. Name and address of owner. L 3. Name and address of developer. _� 4. Name, address and phone number of designer. L 5. Certificate of surveyor, engineer or architect. 6. Date 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. General Site Information Y N 9. Location map (scale 1:2000) 10. Magisterial District of site 11. Scale of site plan (not to exceed 1:50) JL 12. North Arrow 13. Zoning of site 14. Use and zoning of adjoining properties Lots/Uses/Buildings and Structures Y N - 15. Surveyed boundaries for all lots and parcels 16. Acreage of all lots included in the plan 17. The location and dimensions of all required ,�. setbacks and yard areas N� 18. Location of all buildings, structures and uses 19. The proposed use of each building, structure and area pA 20. The location and type of all dwelling units N -A 21. Ground floor area and total floor area of all buildings with FAR calculations for commercial and industrial zoning district N. 22. The height of all buildings and structures L-11_ 23. The location and dimensions of all signs -7- Lots/Uses/Buildings and Structures (con't) Y N IVA 24. Location of outdoor lighting fixtures FVIA 25. Location and nature of outdoor storage areas ✓ 26. Location and area of common open space 27. Location and description of all recreation facilities 1 28. Location of sidewalks and pedestrian ways ,vyl 29. Location of outdoor trash receptacles Roads Y N 30. Name and number of existing and planned streets on and adjoining the site ✓ 31. Location of existing and planned streets on and adjoining the site 32. Dimensions, boundaries, width, pavement and construction of planned roads 33. Location and dimensions of all proposed entrances from public right-of-ways Utilities Y N 34. Location of all utilities, including sewer and water lines with the size of lines, mains and laterals 35. Location and width of all easements, including access, utility and drainage easements tf 36. Location and nature of fire lanes, fire hydrants and all other facilities necessary to meet the Fire Code requirements Parking Y N A 37. Calculations describing the required number of parking and loading spaces ri-A 38. Location and dimensions of all parking and loading spaces, driveways, parking aisles, curbing and other features to be used �-A 39. Location and dimension of all handicapped spaces Natural Features Y N 1/ 40. Existing and finished contour lines �i 41. Location of steep slopes, woodlands, floodplains wetland, sinkholes and other environmental features 42. Location of streams and drainage ways Landscaping Y N iv-fl 43. Landscaping plan describing location and types of plants to be used 44. Location of required buffers and screening with cross sections or profiles. Erosion and Sediment Control Y N 45. A stormwater management plan with run off calculations and location and description of facilities to be used 46. Soil erosion and sedimentation control plan with location, types and examples of provisions to be used O DOVE & ASSOCIATES 11350 RANDOM HILLS ROAD SUITE 750 FAIRFAX, VA. 22030 (703) 385-7414 TO �PeaQ,Pl �'� ejp JP1� P' 1�%NIN LETTER 6 TRANSMITTAL DATE I Job No: 2uG 9 ! ATTENTION 1 RE 1 G p v � 'ok y- �-j LCD Ij �S E ARE SENDING ❑ ATTACHED ❑ UNDER SEPARATE COVER VIA ❑ SAMPLES ❑ SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ CONTRACTS ❑ LITERATURE ❑ ENGINEERING DRAWINGS ❑ OTHER _ -A PLANS ❑ CHANGE ORDERS ❑ PRINTS LETTERS COPIES DATE NO DESCRIPTION I Gov.rC Low.w. r1 . • �n 44 i rp ..e F 1Pe YNh�S b e N e e s o 1 v ei b J>vt�.o``rlky R �avc{ ,. i19)]O ev %@� D rk bV��`arli •�t•Q y M D V¢ p 1 >r I,,t 'C.. /'+� NO v.+ Y'O L b V w1•�\ e N N Y•� D.S 1 1 l-.avaInk. 0%ve� ,stars ba,.., o6'4 to D S THESE ARE BEING SENT: ❑ FOR YOUR APPROVAL ❑ FOR YOUR USE ® FOR YOUR REVIEW ❑ FOR YOUR COMMENTS ❑ FOR YOUR SIGNATURE ❑ FOR YOUR NOTES Receive ,By ❑ APPROVED AS NOTED ❑ APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ❑ APPROVED AS CHANGED. ❑ REJECTED AS NOTED ❑ REJECTED AS CHANGED ❑ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ❑ RESUBMIT COPIES FOR APPROVAL ❑ SUBMIT COPIES FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ RENEW COPIES FOR SIGNATURE c� TITLE DATE �/ U ivision 08/20/91 Shawnee District