The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13-05 ApplicationPH1ZA CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Chantilly Bridgewater Fredericksburg Leesburg Richmond Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES' Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Volley WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540 667 F 540.665.0493 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 Patton Harr"1st Associates,pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. August 26, 2005 Eric Lawrence Planning Director Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Russell Glendobbin Rezoning Request Dear Eric, This letter is our formal request to withdraw the application for rezoning filled on August 11, 2005 from consideration by Frederick County. Thank you for your action in this regard. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST ASSOCI ES, pc Charles addox, Jr., P.E., cc: Glen W. Russell FAX TRANSMISSION TO: 1 U env Y COMPANY: 1 N FAX C& Cos 04Qa COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Telephone: 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540 /665 -6395 Date: 1 t 123 DS Number of Pages (including cover sheet) Remarks: From the desk of: EC c Law P e n c� Date Time Destination Nov.22. 4:46PM Immediate TX Result Report Nov. 22.2005 4:48PM Fax Header) P. 1 File Mode TXtime Page Result User Name No. 540 665 0493 G3TES) 0 P. 2 OK 2626 Batch M Memory L Send later Fo rward Forwarding ECM S Standard D Detail F FI n Reduction on LAN —Fax c Delivery O RX Notice Pen. A RX Notice THE WINCHESTER STAR; Wednesday, August 31, 2005 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Frederick;County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, September 7, 2005. at 700 p.m. in the Board Room of .the Frederick' County Administration. Building, at' 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consid- PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #13-05 of; Russell Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust As ci- ates; PC to rezone!67 73 r a 8 RA (Rural Areas) D's i- -I er- form:Q� -'`t r single family ho tUr nest a waiver of the preser vati of restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation :Subdi vision -The properties are located, south. and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route. 673), approximately 3,250' feet west of the intersec- tion of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663) in the. Stonewall Magisterial Dis trict, and are identified by Properly Identifica• tion Number's (PINS)'43 -A -15B and 43 -A -16. Code Amendment of the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165- Article V, RA Rural Areas District, Section 50; Article 1V,`Sup- piementarylUse Regulations Section 48:10; Article XXIi,-Definitions ,Section 156. This amendment would permit,' supplemental design criteria, andrdefine Government Services offices in the Rural Areas Zoning District. Other Interested citizens may appear before the Com- mission to speak on the above ;Heins. .A copy of the agenda will be available at the Handley Library and the. Bowman Library the week of the meeting. Further information maybe obtained at the Department of Planning and. Development, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester; Virginia or by calling (540) 665 -5651. You can;also visit us: on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Planning Commission: 09/07/05 Board of Supervisors: 09/28/05 Action Pending WITIimiAw I Pending REZONING APPLICATION #13 -05 RUSSELL GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 24, 2005 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner PROPOSAL: To rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 130 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. LOCATION: The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -15B and 43 -A -16 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M1 (Light Industrial) RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Use: Use: Use: Use: Orchard Agriculture Industrial Vacant Orchard Residential Agriculture Rezoning #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 130 Single Family Detached Residential Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673 and 661. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell Glendobbin rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised August 4, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right -of -way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access as well as extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting into the proposed site and meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90 -4. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. Site Suitability: The proposed rezoning is within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 Site Drainage. Based on available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1). These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. Off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near property lines. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The closest existing citizens convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new developments. We are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment Frederick- Winchester Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the request Rezoning #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 3 as stated so long as public water and sewer are utilized. No private septic system may be used (drainfields). No neighboring wells or drainfields are to be negatively impacted and if they should be impacted, the Health Dept. will rescind its agreement to the request. Staff Note: The portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Department of Parks Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students, 18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: I have reviewed the above referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient as a proffer statement subject to the following: 1. Paragraph 1.2: Is this development to be limited to any particular type of single —family detached building types, or its it to be limited to one of the specific single family detached building types set forth in Section 165 -59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? It is is to be limited to a specific type, that should be set forth in the proffer. 2 Paragraph 2.1: I don't understand the reference to "Butcher" in this paragraph. 3. Paragraph 4.1: The time at which age restricted units would be "designated" should be specified. For example would those units be designated at the time of subdivision? 4. Paragraph 12.1: It should be noted that the inflation adjustment calculation provides for the cap of 6% per year to be non compounded. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmark Survey, there are Rezoning #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 4 Planning Zoning: 1) Site History 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It is also noted that the National Parks Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that his proposed rezoning would directly impact. The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R -3 (Residential General). Parcel 43 -A -16 was rezoned to A -2 (Agricultural General) in 1978 (Zoning Amendment Petition #003 -78). Parcel 43 -A -15B was re- mapped from R -3 to A -2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011 -80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re- mapping of the subject property and all other A -1 and A -2 zoned land to the RA District. In 2002, parcels 43- A -15A, 43 -A -16 and 43 -A -17 were subdivided to form a rural preservation subdivision (Glendobbin Ridge). 16 parcels with a minimum size of 2 acres were created. A 40% set -aside parcel with 36.54 acres (Parcel 43 -A -16) was created. As per section 165 -54D (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this parcel cannot be further subdivided. However, Section 165 -54D (3) states: Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty percent parcel and following a public hearing the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or included within the UDA as a result of future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten year restriction on rezoning. Therefore, a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions is included with this rezoning request. The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1 1J Rezoning #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 5 Land Use The subject sites are within the Urban Development Area (UDA). All of parcel 43 -A -16 and a portion of parcel 43 -A -15B are within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Any lots formed from the subject site that are outside of the SWSA are not eligible to receive public water and sewer service. The site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The sites have no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the properties do not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of surrounding uses is necessary. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision recently bought their lots with the expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west is the Spring Valley development. While five -acre lots in this area have been platted, most are undeveloped and the area is in agricultural use. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. The parcels to the north are zone RA and are in orchard use. A major rural subdivision (Welltown Acres Section 4) was platted there with 5 -acre lots, but it has not been developed. Three parcels immediately to the east are Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are in orchard and agricultural use. While there are specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District (200 feet between residences and orchards, 100 feet between residences and agriculture), there are no specific setbacks in the RP zone for orchards or agricultural use. Therefore, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between industrial and low density residential uses. In addition, RP zoning on the subject properties would have implications for the adjacent industrial properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastem portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right -of -ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7 -6). Rezoning #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 6 The future Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the County's Eastern Road Plan. This section of Route 37 is the highest priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. The applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right of way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state how much of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. The location of Route 37 and the required road efficiency buffer will be identified at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage Staff note: Should this rezoning be approved, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would alleviate any flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Any variation in the route at the final engineering stage would require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial site, further impacting this established industrial park 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain or wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick Poplimento Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. StaffNote: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7 Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project at Level of Service C conditions or better. The TIA does not model whether traffic will exit the development from a new road on site or from Union View Lane. Rezoning #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 7 Local Roads The applicant is proposing two entrances for this development. One new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. The second proposed access is through an existing private access easement which would connect the new development to Union View Road Union View Road at this time is not a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Road, although it is intended to be a VDOT Road. Union View Lane currently ends as a cul -de -sac. The applicant would need to work with VDOT to insure a safely engineered connection with Union View Lane. It is unclear if the applicant has the authority to connect a state road to Union View Lane via a private access easement. However, while staff generally encourages inter parcel connectors, one would not be required in the Subdivision Ordinance with this application. An inter parcel connector is only required between adjacent RP zoned properties, not between RP and RA properties (Section 165- 48.9). Further to this point however, the Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department commented that "Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access Should the connection with Union View Lane not be possible, the applicant would, at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage, need to obtain a subdivision waiver, as the length of the cul -de -sac would be approximately 1,800 feet. (A waiver is required if the length of the cul -de- sac is over 1,000 feet.) As stated in the VDOT comment, VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right -of -way needs, including right -of -way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. This includes the new entrance to the subject parcels which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. B. Sewer and Water The site will be served by a gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the applicant within the Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an 8 inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. Rezoning #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 8 As noted above, the portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. 5) Proffer Statement Dated August 4, 2005 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated May 1, 2005. This GDP shows (1) an interconnection with Union View Lane and (2) right of way dedication for Route 37. Staff note: The applicant has not proved to the satisfaction of staff that Union View Lane can be connected to the proposed development with a public road. If the applicant is unable to construct a public road connection, then the GDP would be in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance and is therefore not ripe for consideration. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 130 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The applicant has proffered a phasing plan which would allow building permits for no more than 60 dwelling units within any 12 month period. C) Transportation The applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. As stated above, the applicant has proffered an interconnection with Union View Lane. As noted previously, the applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right of way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Rezoning #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin August 24, 2005 Page 9 Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant has proffered $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). D) Monetary Contribution A monetary contribution in the amount of $10,206.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. A transportation contribution (see above) has also been proffered. E) Environment The applicant has proffered Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater management. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 09/07/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Two recommendations are required with this application. A recommendation on the rezoning request and a recommendation on the waiver request. Denial of the waiver request would leave the application incomplete and would effectively be a recommendation of denial for the rezoning. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the connection to Union View Lane can be accomplished in a manner consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site will be required for the future Route 37. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application and waiver request would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. June 23, 2005 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior VP Patton Harris Rust Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell Glendobbin Property Dear Chuck: CK Department of Planning and Development 540/665 -5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Russell Glendobbin Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. Staffs review comments are listed below for your consideration. Procedure. The subject property is in the Urban Development Area (UDA), therefore the applicant is eligible to seek a Board waiver of the division restriction on the set -aside (40% parcel) of the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. As per Section165- 54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this is accomplished through a rezoning, following a public hearing. Procedurally, the Board waiver and the rezoning would take place at the same public hearing. 2. Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the draft application, the subject properties are in the UDA and partially in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). I would point out that no portion of the subject sites are designated for residential use on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. Since this site is not in an area designated for residential development, it is not clear how the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As you are aware, Section165- 54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that a rezoning covering a preservation parcel will only be granted if the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Surrounding Area. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision bought their lots with the clear expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west are five -acre lots, which have yet to be developed. In fact, most subdivisions along 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 Page 2 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain Lots of five acres or greater. Also critical is the fact that the parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use. While the Comprehensive Plan seeks to separate industrial uses from residential uses, this proposal would considerably increase the number of residences, and thus residents, directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. Furthermore, it appears that the proposal is advocating using a large number of new residents as a buffer between industrial and low- density residential uses. The set -aside parcel currently serves as a very satisfactory buffer. 4. Sewer and Water. Only part of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) and thus eligible for water and sewer service. 5. Buffer. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance only requires a Category A Buffer between new RP and an existing MI Districts. The applicant should consider enhancements to the required buffer, such as that required when new M1 locates next to existing RP. 6. Route 37. The GDP shows the future Route 37 and a proffer indicates the right -of- way for Route 37 would be dedicated to the County at no cost. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance requires buffers and screening between the residential parcels and Route 37, which would be a major arterial road. The applicant may want to consider enhancements to the required buffer and screening. Also note that the alignment of Route 37 is at present not precise, and may impact more of the site than that shown on your plans. 7. Surveyed Plat. Please supply a surveyed plat of the subject properties, which shows all property lines and proposed zoning boundary lines. Metes and bounds should be provided to verify exact locations of lots and zoning boundaries. Deed. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. 9. Verification that taxes have been paid. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. 10. Adjacent parcels. The list of adjoining properties should include 43 -A -19 and 43- A-21. Also, ownership of parcel 43 -20 -3 has changed. Verify ownerships before the actual application is submitted. Page 3 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 11. Proposed Proffer Statement (Including Generalized Development Plan). A. Page 3 of the applications states the application is for 125 units. The proffer statement (1.1) states a maximum of 130 units. Please insure consistent numbers. B. Proffer 2.1 refers to the Butcher rezoning. Please correct. C. Proffer 3.1 states a contribution to the Board for fire and rescue in the amount of $889.00 per dwelling unit. This is not consistent with the amount listed on page 6 of 6 in the impact assessment. D. Proffer 4.1 mentions units designated as "age restricted This is not explained in the application. Please address. E. Proffer 11.1 states the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Specify the improvements and the timing of those improvements. F. Proffer 11.2 calls for a connection between the internal road network for the project and Glendobbin Ridge Road. Please be more specific on the details of this connection and the timing of the connection. 12. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency continents from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick Winchester Health Department, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Note: the proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. 13. Virginia Department of Transportation. I have received an email from Lloyd Ingram at VDOT stating that VDOT was not satisfied with the transportation proffers. VDOT's concerns will need to be addressed before this application is submitted. 14. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $9,823 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. 15. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Page 4 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell- Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 All of the above comments and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, �it�Q,CIM� Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bhd Attachment OUTPUT MSLE APPLICANT: LAND USE TYPE REAL EST VAL FIRE RESCUE Fire and Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation Public Library Sheriffs Offices Administration Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities METHODOLOGY: NOTES: Russell Glendobbin RP $17,043,000 1 SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Net Fiscal Impact Costs of Impact Credit: Required (entered in Capital Facilities col sum only) $63,567 $557,399 $327,887 $480,680 5199,550 534,692 $20,532 $26,349 $33,616 $1,744,271 Model Run Date 04/27/05 CMM $0 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES Project Description: Assumes 130 single family detached dwellings on 67 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Oiler Cap Equip Expend /Debt S. Taxes Other $91,202 $442,730 $16,823 $32,417 $140,442 1.0 $0 535,790 $478,520 0.0 1.0 1.0 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column (zero if negative); included are the one -time taxes /fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). $44,972 $9,702 $4,193 $0 Rev -Cost Bal Ratio to Co Avg NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. $58,868 $677,830 5484,605 $1,259,666 $0 0.533 0.715 Total Potential Adjustment For Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per (Unadiusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $63,567 $489 $533,932 5381,727 $984,238 $7,571 544,972 532,152 5167,398 $9,702 $6,937 $27,755 $21,016 $15,025 $5,506 $0 $0 $26,349 $68,207 548,764 $0 51,288 $213 $42 $203 $0 $9,690 $1,259,666 1 $9,6901 Map Features Rot. N Rt 37 Bypass Oparcels kewooes Road Cente Ines OSWSA w—ir Stearns CI Puddings A r e e Trans (El Tait REZ #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin (43- A -15B, 16) 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet j p CO o o r o m a) 7 O V u LL O 1 N in M o N Et m 8 S 00000 9 0010 Map Pastures PoPIi Brid„s CuNeR hakes/Rends AI rams rise— Steams N Retaining Halls Q Buildings Road centerlines ®r.,s N e\i Trade 0 Parcels pncullural It Forestal restricts e i Nuae church Refuge Church South Frederick REZ #13 -05 Russell Glendobbin (43- A -15B, 16) e APPII[abon N Rt37 aryav O Parcels Izxesmonaa Road Centerline O SVVSA Steama at P Buildings N UDA Tanks REZ 13 05 Russell Glendobbin (43- A -15B, 16) 4. Checklist: Location Map Plat Deed of property Verification of taxes paid REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ee Amount Pa. 1 4s. p s onrng Amendment Number s Date Received telleanng Pate e c� :BOS$Hearing Date; a, The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Patton Harris Rust Associates, pc (PHR +A) Telephone: 540- 667 -2139 Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Address: 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Telephone: 540- 662 -7083 Winchester, VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox Jr. P.E. (PHR +A) Telephone: 540- 667 -2139 Check the following items that have been included with this application. Agency Comments Fees Impact Analysis Statement Proffer Statement 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Undeveloped B) Proposed Use of the Property: RP- Single Family Detached 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663). USE ZONING 2 Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 67.73 RA RP 67.73 Total acreage to be rezoned Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification /Location: Parcel Identification Number 43 -A -15B 43 -A -16 Districts Magisterial: Stonewall High School: James Wood Fire Service: Clearbrook Middle School: James Wood Rescue Service: Clearbrook Elementary School: Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home 130 Townhome Multi Family Non Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office Service Station Retail Manufacturing Restaurant Warehouse Other 3 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right -of -way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. e 4 mar /J M. idox, r., Senio P Applicant(s) Patton Harris Rust Associat Owner(s) Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell P Date Date 1.//- 0 Date v G J 4 Name and Property Identification Number (PIN) Address Name: BHS, LC Property 43 -A -13 P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC Property 43 -A -14 P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC Property 43 -A -11 P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Betty G. McKown Property 43 -A -15 223 Payne Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Lenoir City Company (M1) Property 43 -19 -2 P.O. Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property 43- 9 -4 -73 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property 43- 9 -4 -72 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property 43- 9 -4 -71 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property 43- 9 -4 -70 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property 43- 9 -4 -68 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning ADJOINERS RUSSELL GLENDOBBIN Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right -of -way, a private right -of -way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2 floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. 5 Name and Property Identification Number (PIN) Address Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property 43- 9 -4 -67 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property 43- 9 -4 -66 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property 43- 9 -4 -64 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Harley E. Roxanne L. Ostlund Property 43 -20 -15 1950 Kathy Court Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Glen W. Pamela L. Russell Property 43 -20 -16 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Name: G M Homes Number Three LLC Property 43 -20 -13 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G M Homes Number Three LLC Property 43 -20 -10 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G M Homes Number Three LLC Property 43 -20 -9 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G M Homes Number Three LLC Property 43 -20 -7 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G M Homes Number Three LLC Property 43 -20 -6 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G M Homes Number Three LLC Property 43 -20 -5 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: Ralph A. Theresa K. Kaiser Property 43 -20 -4 6029 Sumner Road Alexandria, VA 22310 Name: Rosanna Mateo Property 43 -20 -3 13554 Shardlow Ct Bristow, VA 20136 Name: KSS, LC Property 43- 12 -3 -18 P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: KSS, LC Property 43- 12 -3 -1 P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: James Peyton Darlington Trust Property 43 -A -19 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Cheryl Grimm Morris Property 43 -A -21 P.O. Box 2802 Winchester, VA 22604 6 7HI5 IS CERTIFY THAT ON DEC.' 200 AT I MADE AN ACCURATE•, >URVEY. THE PREMISES SHOWN IEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO EASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS /ISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER N 68 °09'59 "W 313.40' CHAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. RR post PHIS LOT I5 LOCATED IN HUD FLOG ;ONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING ?o SHOWN ON FIRM MAP 510063 0105 EFFECTIVE JULY 17, 1978 O 4 4 2 P n AV o- t -°21 d G- 1: yJd D P O D 2 O c r d 5 0 IRS! CORNER STONE WALL 31.1851 RC P031 40 Y. RCENT RESERVE r-^.PCEL '3LENDOBBIN RIDGE N w iN P031 POST LLB FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662 -9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 POST 0 J LINE TABLE LI LZ L3 L4 L5 N 18'38'54 "W 5 74 "E N 16`1376 E N BO'Z011 N 15•5819 "E TAX MAP ID: 43 A- 151PORTII DEED REF. ITB BO P. TOO P03T I* J (043 R i ,4� n 0 ti O RS 1 O Q4 t °tip 1 a q V BOUNDARY SURVEY LAND OF BETTY G. MCK01 STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRG: O W OTh 168.57' 39.0t 47F-21' 39.95' 373.55. 9 Se 3 R 4 GIC n i ts UL 67 E 2 6 I U z N F 01 U> ro cc I u- Z W J 3_4- (0 m 1=" 1 0 N 0 m ry 0 U O DA ID M. R1RSIENAU NO. 1455 1. ND SURV£t0 lot 73 43 -9 -73 RA VACANT e 1 31 int O 0 u, SPRING MCKOWN 43- A -15 RA VACANT LOT 16 AU SURVEYING (540) 662 -9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 The proposed private driveway /rood is not bulk according to street specifications of and wig not bo maintained by. the Virginia Deportment of Itarsporlction or Frederick County. The improve- ment and maintenance of sed ddvowoy /road shell be the sole responsibility of the owners d lots which are prodded with access vie the driveway /coed. Said driveway /roads will not ba considered for Inclusion Into the stele secondary system until they meat the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Oepet nnent of hansportatlon. The cost of bringing said driveway /road to ecceptoble *Meets shell not be borne by the Virginia Department of Trensportalion nor by Frederick County. FINRL PLAT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN RIDGE STONENRLL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIR VALLEY SUBD. SECTION 4 ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MANSHALL MILLS INC. lot 72 RA i lot 71 RA lot 70 RA I 43.9 -72 VACANT; 43 -9 -71 VACANII VACANT N 68 °01 "W 1519.94' 1 -9 -70 f co So RRL co 40 o RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED PER SECTION 165 -540 OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE) S0' SRL SRAMR FIELD 5 68 °09'59 "E 1220 0 I 441.T 0 r rev 10/10.'02 Oppose the Rezoning of Glendobbin Road Subject: Oppose the Rezoning of Glendobbin Road Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:48:12 EDT From: Lclassic550 @aol.com To: seddy @co.frederick.va.us Ms. Eddy, As a current resident, tax payer, and voter of Frederick county I wish to express my opposition of the proposed rezoning of Glendobbin Road to support 130 additional homes. The following issues come immediately to mind: Glendobbin Road, Applepie Ridge Road, and Welltown Pike are already congested. It is currently difficult to exit the area via the above mentioned roads with the houses already in existence and the businesses in the surrounding area; and school is not presently in session. The road system in the area will not support the additional traffic estimate of 1300 vehicle trips per day and I question that estimate). The traffic situation will get worse once school is back in session. In addition, the industrial park, the traffic to and from the industrial park off of Welltown Road and Route 11 is congested and dangerous enough. Was this or has this been considered? Will Frederick County be responsible for the road up grades necessary to support the additional housing? Who will pay for the road upgrades necessary to support such a development? You and I! This means a tax increase to support someone else's development. If the houses are built, what impact will t have on the garbage disposal site located by the Virginia Farmers Market (Indian Hollow Rd)? An increase in garbage disposal will mean an increase in disposal requirement by the Indian Hollow Road site. Who will pay for this increased tonnage of garbage being disposed of at this site? You and I! In addition, will the site even handle the additional tonnage rate? If not, more money (taxes) will go toward enlarging the site or usage fees may be imposed on you and I. Water How will the housing project support the family dwellings with water? If all the homes are to have there own well systems; what impact will this have on the aqueduct system currently supporting the needs of you and I? However, if the county recommends a county or city water system be installed guess who pays for installing the system; You and I via tax dollars. What effect will this have on the environment? Think of the apple farms just below and surrounding the housing development. The run off from the lawn fertilizers will have an impact on the orchards. How about the reverse effect. What effect will the farmers have on the families? The farmers have to treat their crops by spraying pesticides. Who will complain about the environmental impact then? The new residences. Would this be healthy? No.lt will also effect the current residents of Gelndobbin Road. The fertilizers will enter the aqueduct and have a direct impact on our families. Will this be healthy? No. What about the impact to the wildlife in the area. We have fox, deer, rabbits, hawks, ground hogs, and many other animals that will be displaced by this development. Where will they go and how will it affect you and I? We may have more animals in and around our homes looking for food and shelter that was taken from them. This will allow for more disease and danger for your family and mine. Will this be healthy? No. What will this do for our property value? If they build homes of lesser value then our property values will decline. However, our taxes will not decline. We (the tax payers) will need to pay for the services to support such a development. I oppose the building of 130 single family structures on 1/3 acre lots on Glendobbin Road. I plan to attend the rezoning hearing and bring these issues to floor in opposition of the development. Concerned Tax Payer, Voter, and Resident of Frederick County 1 of 1 8/22/2005 8:36 AM