Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout17-05 ApplicationJuly 28, 2006 Mr. Charles E. Maddox. Jr., P.E. Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC 117 E. Piccadilly St., Ste. 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: REZONING #17 -05, RUSSELL- GLENDOBBIN Dear Chuck: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of July 26, 2006. The above referenced application was approved to rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proposed proffers on the property sought to be rezoned, including a proffer to limit the number of dwellings to 30 on the property, and proposed proffers on adjoining property owned by Applicants. The property sought to be rezoned is identified by Property Identification Number 43- A -15B. The additional properties to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, are PIN 43- 19 -57, a 6.89 acre parcel zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District, and PIN 43 -A -16, a 36.54 acre Preservation Tract zoned RA. Parcels 43 -A -15B and 43 -A -16 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), in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Parcel 43 -19 -57 is located at the northern terminus of Kentmere Court, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The proffers that were approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to this property and are binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. The Board of Supervisors, in approving rezoning #17 -05, stated that a note be placed on all plats and deeds resulting from this rezoning advising that the lots are adjacent to the planned alignment for Route 37. Accordingly, the County will expect to see this note on all subsequent Master Development Plans, Subdivision Plans, plats and deeds. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bhd Attachment cc: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor John H. Light and Gary Oates, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Glen Pamela Russell, 270 Panarama Dr., Winchester, VA 22603 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 -5000 CO c.i 'e !ACK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665 -6395 Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: REZONING APPLICATION #17 -05 RUSSELL- GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: July 17, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner 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 February 15, 2006 April 5, 2006 May 17, 2006 June 28, 2006 July 26, 2006 43 -A -15B (to be rezoned with proffers); 43 -A -16 (to include proffers); 43 -19 -57 (to include proffers) PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: Action Postponement requested by applicant Recommended denial of waiver No recommendation forwarded Postponement requested by applicant Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 30 single family homes, and to add proffers to two adjoining parcels owned by the applicant. LOCATION: The property to be rezoned is 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). North: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard South: RA (Rural Area) Use: Agriculture Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 2 East: Ml (Light Industrial) RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Industrial Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: 30 Single Family Detached Residential Units on 31.1851 acres 0.96 dwelling units per acre (April 11, 2006 proposal 45 units on 31.185 acre 1.44 dwelling units per acre) (March 9, 2006 proposal 60 units on 67.73 acre 0.89 dwelling units per acre) (November 9, 2005 proposal 130 units on 67.73 acre —1.92 dwelling units per acre) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Staff Note: The agency review continents are based on 130 single family units on two parcels. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 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 Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9. 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 1.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. Staff Note: The Fire Marshall's comment calling for two separate and distinct means of access was satisfied with the original application. Two separate and distinct means of access are not provided with the current version of the application, however, the Fire Marshall generally seeks two access points when the number of dwelling units exceeds 30. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located 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 the 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: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 3 Sanitation Authority: No comment. drains to Red Bud Run The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the 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) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience /dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Frederick Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. 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 Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 4 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: (Based on proffer statement dated June 27, 2006) They have made all of the changes in the Proposed Proffer Statement which I suggested and /or requested. Therefore, I have approved the form of the Proffer Statement. In approving the form of the Proffer Statement, I am not, of course, suggesting whether or not the requested rezoning should be approved. 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 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. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated June 23, 2005 from Susan K Eddy, Senior Planner. Planning Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcel as being zoned R -3 (Residential General). Parcel 43 -A -15B was re- napped 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. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan i The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, presentation, 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 -1] Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 5 Land Use The subject site is within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Most of the site is 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 site has no land use designation on the Eastem Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. it is important to note that the property does not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of the general policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding uses is necessary. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6 -7) states that "the intrusion of either non residential uses or residential uses of different types or densities can have a significant negative impact on existing residential areas. Appropriate separation between uses is needed The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel, thus maintaining the one dwelling per five acre RA density. Immediately south and west of the adjacent preservation parcel is the Spring Valley development. While five -acre lots in this arca 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. Staff Note: The Comprehensive Policy Plan states (6 -2) `Because it is developed in a large lot suburban pattern, the Apple Pie Ridge area has been included in the Urban Development Area. However, there is no plan to serve that area with public sewerage." It is thus clear that the area to the west of this site, while in the UDA, is only planned to accommodate RP single-family detached rural traditional lots (lots over 100,000 square feet without public sewer and water). The parcels to the north are zoned 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. Staff Note: On 02/14/06 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback and because it does not fit in with the neighborhood. The latest proffer statement now includes a buffer against the orchard and agricultural land. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6 -11) 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 Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 6 land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between the industrial park and the existing low- density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, thought should be given to requiring a considerable buffer between any house and any MI zoned property. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern 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). 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. Route 37, as shown on current county plans, is very close to this property. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state if any of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. Staff note: The alignment of Route 37 could change as a result of final engineering. The applicant is now proffering right —of -way for Route 37 in the location shown on the GDP or suck other location as determined by the County, for the parcel being rezoned and for hvo adjoining parcels also owned by the applicant. (In the interest of full disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might result from this rezoning, should it be approved.) 3) Site Suitabilitv/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. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. The site is heavily wooded and this provides a visual buffer Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 7 between the residences to the west and the industrial park. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Staff Note: The TIA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 30 single family units. 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 1.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 accomtnodate the trips generated by the project at Level of Service C conditions or better. Local Roads The applicant is proposing one public entrance for all 30 lots in this development. The new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. StaffNotes: The applicant, at the master plan stage, will need to seek a waiver for the cul -de- sac length, which exceeds 1,000 feet. The applicant, at the subdivision design stage, will need to demonstrate that lots with acceptable driveways can be platted along the new road given the steep topography. The challenging topography may necessitate considerable tree removal on the site. 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 entrance on Glendobbin Road 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 eight 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 #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 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, Sheriffs 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. Staff Note: The Russell Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's old Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23,290 for each single family detached unit. 5) Proffer Statement Dated August 4, 2005, Revised June 27, 2006 Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43 -A -15B A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated June 23, 2006, and revised June 27, 2006. B) Land Use The development will be limited to a maximum of 30 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 30,000 square feet. No dwelling units will be permitted within 200 feet of any adjacent active orchard or within 100 feet of any adjacent agricultural uses in the two locations shown on the GDP. C) Transportation The applicant will dedicate land for the right -of -way for future Route 37 on the parcel proposed for rezoning. The applicant will contribute $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 9 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 Note: The Director of Public works is seeking a responsible party for the permanent operation and maintenance of the BMPfacilities. He also recommended private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. These are both generally responsibilities of a Home Owners Association (HOA). Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 (Preservation Parcel) A) Subdivision Future subdivision of Tax Map Parcel 43 -A -16 shall be prohibited except for any subdivision necessary to dedicate right -of -way for future Route 37. B) Transportation The applicant will dedicate land for the right -of -way for future Route 37. Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43 -19 -57 (Parcel zoned Ml) A) Transportation The applicant will dedicate land for the right -of -way for future Route 37. Staff Note: At the Planning Commission Meeting on 04/05/06 (summary below) an application for 60 houses on two parcels, including the Glendobbin Ridge Preservation Parcel, was considered. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: The staff reported receiving well over 200 letters regarding this rezoning, as well as a considerable number of telephone calls. The staff noted that approximately 90% of the letters were form letters and estimated that approximately two thirds of the letters were in favor of the rezoning, while one -third was opposed to the rezoning. Thirty citizens spoke during the Planning Commission's public hearing; 10 of those citizens spoke in favor of the proposal and 20 spoke in opposition. Most of those who had favorable comments were either in the building supply business, were building subcontractors, or had worked with the Russell family for many years. They spoke favorably about the integrity of the Russells and the exceptional quality of their construction. They stated that the Russells buy all of their materials locally and use Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 10 local subcontractors, thereby supporting the local economy and providing jobs. By contrast, they said the majority of residential construction now taking place in Frederick County is done by outside construction companies who purchase all their building supplies out of the area and do not use local subcontractors. They believed the Russells had the right to ask for this because the property was in the UDA and SWSA; they also pointed out the Russell's willingness to compromise on the project, by reducing the number of dwellings from 130 to 60. Those who spoke in opposition to the rezoning were primarily local residents. in neighborhoods along Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road. They believed a precedent of development was already set in this area over the years for larger lots, averaging three to five acres and providing plenty of open space; they said the density proposed was inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. They were concerned that increased traffic would create additional safety hazards on roads that were incapable of handling the existing speeds and volume of traffic. Also mentioned was the increased impact to schools and other infrastructure. The residents believed the quality of life they had grown accustomed to was threatened; they wondered how much longer school athletic teams, bicyclists, and pedestrians would be able to safely use Apple Pie Ridge Road because of the increasing volume of traffic; homeowners did not want to lose the open space they had specifically sought when moving to this location; and issues regarding the environment were raised, specifically involving the reduction of bio- diversity and loss of wildlife. One citizen said that he was representing about 50 people out in the hallway who could not come into the board room because of capacity restrictions and all were opposed to the rezoning. Commissioners asked the applicant ifhe would place language on individual property deeds indicating the proximity to a planned divided highway, if the project were approved, and the applicant agreed. Commissioners also asked the applicant ifhe would consider postponing development on the six lots adjacent to the planned Rt. 37 corridor until last, to allow the County more time to determine the final alignment for the road; the applicant agreed that was appropriate and offered to include the provision within the proffer. The applicant added that by moving the road slightly east, it could be easily accommodated using the applicant's adjacent industrially -zoned property. A Commissioner questioned why this property was placed into a Rural Preservation Parcel in the first place, assuming the applicant knew where the UDA line was in 2002. Commission members suggested that the code may need to be reviewed to determine if the placement of any rural preservation lots within the UDA is appropriate. Some of the Commission members agreed with the citizens that the established development pattern within this area was two -to -five acre lots and the applicant had already agreed to the 10 -year preservation parcel restriction with his signature on the plat. Other Commissioners recognized the applicant's right to ask for a waiver, because the parcel was located within the UDA. They had numerous questions concerning the staff's conclusion that RP -zoned lots were not compatible in this location. A commissioner pointed out other RP -zoned property within this general area of the UDA; also noted, the proposed one -acre lots were larger than the typical RP- zoned lot and, therefore, could be considered a low density pattern of development, in- keeping with established residential lots in the area. Another view recognized that the proposed RP -zoned lots may be smaller than existing residentially -zoned lots, but acted as a transitional area next to the industrially zoned property to the east. Some did not think the one -acre density was incompatible, particularly when the view shed area included an industrial park. The TIA studies were also mentioned; those studies Rezoning 417 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 11 concluded that infrastructure could support the density adequately and safely. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision be denied. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL OF WAIVER): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett NO: Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn (Note: Because of the recommendation of denial on the waiver request, a motion on the associated rezoning was not considered. Members acknowledged that denial of the waiver was in effect a recommendation of denial of the rezoning as currently submitted.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 05/17/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is for 45 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. 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 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 may be required for the future Route 37. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 05/17/06 MEETING: Twenty -seven citizens came forward to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. Twelve of those citizens spoke in support of the rezoning application and 15 spoke in opposition. Those who supported the rezoning application cited the applicant's history of using local builders who supported local businesses; they said the project would supply needed jobs; the project would provide affordable housing and starter homes for young couples; the proffer money offered would benefit schools, roads, and other infrastructure; the revised application was a compromise offered by the applicant which eliminated the preservation parcel from development; the rezoning application was within the County's guidelines for development; and, existing area homeowners should not expect adjoining property owners to forfeit their property rights to develop. A citizen pointed out that there were homes on half -acre lots less than a mile away on Payne Road and, in addition, an industrial park, mobile homes, and homes on half -acre lots could be seen from Union View Lane. Those citizens who were opposed to the rezoning application said that based on the application's proposed density, the development was inconsistent with the surrounding area and the established five acre neighborhood; the project was incompatible next to working orchards, agricultural areas, an industrial park, and the uncertain future right -of -way for Route 37; safety issues involving traffic were Rezoning 417 -05 Russell Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 12 raised and the ability of existing roads to handle additional traffic based on the poor visibility and posted speed limits; and, the issue of overcrowded schools was also raised. Homeowners along Glendobbin Ridge said they would be looking down into the backyards of approximately 27 proposed dwellings; they did not want to lose the existing woodlands strip because it served as a buffer against the industrial park and was a haven for wildlife. Others questioned how lots outside of the SWSA would be served and the unresolved legal issues regarding the use of the 50 -foot private road as a second access. A comment was also made that the majority of those who spoke in support of the rezoning did not live in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Commission members discussed at length the issues of consistency and compatibility with the surrounding area, especially in light of the fact that the RP Zoning classification allowed for a broad range of development. Some expressed concern that the Commission was being asked to ignore compatibility issues to accommodate a return on investment, while others did not think it was appropriate to mandate a certain sized lot within the UDA and SWSA. Many Commissioners were opposed to the density requested by the applicant. One suggestion made was for the applicant to use both tracks of land, including the preservation parcel, and develop with two -acre lots under the RP Zoning which would provide the protection of buffers and screening and the ability to utilize water and sewer. It was noted that existing residents might be more comfortable with a well- maintained two -acre development, rather than scrubland with an uncertain future. A comment was also made about the beneficial screen provided by the existing woodlands between the industrial park and residential area; it was noted that there was nothing within the applicant's proposal indicating that any portion of that woodlands screen would be saved. A motion was made to deny the rezoning application because it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's guidelines for compatibility, particularly with placing higher- density housing adjacent to an established two -acre lot development and with placing residential lots adjacent to MI Zoning. This motion was defeated, however, by a tie five -to -five vote. A second motion was made to approve the rezoning application based on the fact that the property was located within the UDA and the SWSA and the applicant was following established guidelines for development. This motion was also defeated by a tie five -to -five vote. A third motion was made and unanimously passed to send the rezoning application forward to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. (Comissioners Thomas, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 07/26/06 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: This application is for 30 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The applicant is seeking 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. Map Features Lakes/ponds Road Centerlines O O swsr. Streams At O 6uipupa uon 0 Tan" •r REZ #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin Atti (43- A -15B) o 375750 1,500 Feet O Mpaoi ®n t t a' 37 avpaae O aarcea SUS LakevPWea Road Centerlines O AO O SWSP +s�-Seeama -V emu.se N ;uon Tanks tit Map Features REZ #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin (43- A -15B) 0 375 750 1,500 Feet Map Features tatevronas Road Centerlines O OswsA sueama auildmgs as i DDA 0 1"" Tanks Zoning Catagorl.s O ei re,..... R.y..a..a O e:(BmInels General Da.. 0 13 i. on o, o o o “r,..gh.nE a ci O in Pam) O MRI 1,.0 w.. Comm..,' D.• O R. i.unwl As..4 ie a.N O Ra cs..L.... p."'" O a O o-. REZ 17 05 Russell Glendobbin �r (43- A -15B) 0 37950 1,500 eizonin Feet f AppIic ion N Rt 37 Bypass Lakes anas Road Centerlines ..n. Streams At D Bulldogs Tanks Landuse Catagories Rural Community Center Residents' `<aY/ puniness Industrial 4 Institutional Recreation Historic R8Dmay, Mixed Use YuV clannea Usa Development June 27, 2006 John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Russell- Clendobbin Rezoning Application #17 -05 Dear Mr. Riley: Based upon niy conversation with Robert Mitchell, County Attorney, it appears that in order for my client to convey a portion of the tax map parcel 43 -19 -57 to the County of Frederick for right -of -way for the Route 37 Eastern Bypass as a part of his proposed proffers, the Board of Supervisors will need to re- advertise the public hearing scheduled for June 28, 2006 to include tax neap parcel 43 -19 -57 in the advertisement. Therefore, I am requesting on behalf of my client that the public hearing and the aforementioned matter be re- advertised and, further, that the advertisement which appears in the newspaper include tax map parcel 43 -19 -57 only for purposes of conveying a portion of that parcel to the County as a condition of rezoning. Sincer Clif and L. A i y, Jr. Esquire cc: Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning LINI3 Jun-02 -06 02:41pm From -540 635 7004 121 1 RONALD LEWIS NAPIER J. DANII(I. POND 11 I<I M I1h RI.Y M. A I H EY CLIFFORD L. ATH EX J R. ,1. DANIEL POND III JOHN S. 11E1.1. Facsimile: (540) 667 -0370 John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear John: NAPIER, POND, ATHEY ATI Y.C. AI.TORNEYS AT LAW 35 N. ROYAL AVENUE P.U. 3OX 795 FRONT ROYAL, V I RC IN LA 22690 Cc: Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning Facsimile: (540) 665 -6395 June 1, 2006 540 635 7044 T 830 P.001 /001 F 762 Re: Request to Move Date of Public Hearing on Rezoning Application #17 -05 (Russell Glendobbin) My firm represents Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell with respect to Rezoning Application #17 -05 relating to Tax Map Parcels 43- A- 1503) and 43 -A -16 containing approximately 67.73 acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County (Russell Glendobbin). As a result of scheduling conflicts related to another matter, I request that the Public Hearing before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors be removed from the June 14, 2006 Agenda and placed on the June 28, 2006 Agenda for Public Hearing and Final Action. I apologize for any inconvenience related to my request, however, I believe it is important that I be able to attend this meeting on behalf of my client. Lastly, if you are amenable to my request, at your earliest convenience, please confirm in writing that the date of the Public 1-learing has been moved. Sine cl Clifford L. they, Jr. 'HONE (5111) Ii15.2123 CAX (510) 035 -7UU -I lawyer, @npa.daw.com PLEASE REPLY TO: L'0. RON.Y95 y' ee Amount r FA P e dment Number �'(o,Date Re` erved` t f. nEfi.4-t Wa1430SlHeantig, U /5 /6b REC.'DlM MC OF IURI V£P 5 /c7lob ,NO Rte-OMMEN7)711 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) Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Winchester, Virginia 22601 Name: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Telephone: 540 -662 -7083 Address: 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Telephone: 540 -667 -2139 Name: Charles E. Maddox. Jr., P.E. (PHR +A) Telephone: 540- 667 -2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 5. The Code of Virginia allows as 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 USE ZONING S. 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). 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. pp Applicant(s) le /A Date M. dox, r., `.E., Senior Owner(s) Patton Harris Rust Associat i �I ^iri Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell p Date f 0 Date g 05 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 it 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 ADJOINERS RUSSELL GLENDOBBLN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning 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 r 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: G M Homes Number Three LLC Property 43 -20 -3 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 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 6 Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: 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 February 15, 2006 April 5, 2006 May 17, 2006 June 28, 2006 PROPOSAL: To rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 45 single family homes. 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 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: MI (Light Industrial) RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Use: Use: Use: Use: REZONING APPLICATION #17 -05 RUSSELL GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: June 19, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner CUP _iNT Action Postponement requested by applicant Recommended denial of waiver No recommendation forwarded Pending Orchard Agriculture Industrial Vacant Orchard Residential Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: 02' cUREENT PROPOSED USES: 45 Single Family Detached Residential Units on 31.1851 acres —1.44 dwelling units per acre (March 9, 2006 proposal 60 units on 67.73 acre 0.89 dwelling units per acre) (November 9, 2005 proposal 130 units on 67.73 acre —1.92 dwelling units per acre) Staff Note: The agency review comments are based on 130 single family units on two parcels. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised to request 60 single family units on two parcels, then revised further to request 45 single family units on only one parcel. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 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 Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 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. StaffNote: The Fire Marshall's comment calling for two separate and distinct means of access was satisfied with the original application. Two separate and distinct means of access are not provided with the current version of the application. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located 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 the 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: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the 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) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 3 Frederick- Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. NOT CURRENT These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience /dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick- Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. 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. Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 4 Frederick County Attornev: (Based on proffer statement doled May 1. 2005) 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 it's to be limited to one of the specific single- family detached building types set forth in Section 165 -59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? If it 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. 1 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 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. Planning Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcel as being zoned R -3 (Residential General). 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. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan NOT CURRENT 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. l -1] Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 5 NOT CURRENT Land Use The subject site is within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Most of the site is 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 site has no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the property does not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of the general policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding uses is necessary. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6 -7) states that the intrusion of non residential uses or residential uses of different types or densities can have a significant negative density on existing residential areas. Appropriate separation between uses is needed. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel, thus maintaining the one dwelling per five acre RA density. Immediately south and west of the adjacent preservation parcel 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 zoned 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. Staff Note: On 02/14/06 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road. Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback and because it does not fit in with the neighborhood The latest proffer statement now includes a buffer against the orchard and agricultural land. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6 -11) 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 the industrial park and the existing low- density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring a considerable buffer between any house and any All zoned property. The zoning Rezoning 417 -05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 6 NOT CURRENT district buffer shown on the GDP, but not referenced in the text of the proffer statement, appears to be the Zoning Ordinance required minimum, a Category A Buffer. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern 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). 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. Route 37, as shown on current county plans, is very close to this property. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state if any of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. Staff note: The alignment of Route 37 could change as a result offinal engineering. Should this rezoning be approved as submitted, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would reduce flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Variation in the route as a result of this rezoning, could require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial land, further impacting this established industrial park. The recently approved site plan for the McClung -Logan site in the Stonewall Industrial Park might necessitate moving the path of Route 37furt/zer west, and possibly onto this site. (In the interest offull disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might result from this rezoning, should it be approved.) 3) Site Suitabilitv/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. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. The site is heavily wooded and this provides a visual buffer between the residences to the west and the industrial park. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation B. Sewer and Water NOT CURRENT Staff Note: The TIA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 45 single family units. 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. Local Roads The applicant is proposing one public entrance for all 45 lots in this development. The new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. Two cul -de -sacs are shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). One leads to the Glendobbin Ridge preservation tract and one leads to the Stonewall Industrial Park, thus enabling future connections to those adjacent sites. Staff Notes: The applicant, at the master plan stage, will need to seek a waiver for the cul -de- sac length, which exceeds 1,000 feet. The applicant, at the subdivision design stage, will need to demonstrate that lots with acceptable driveways can be platted along the new road given the steep topography. The challenging topography may necessitate considerable tree removal on the site. 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 entrance on Glendobbin Road which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. 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 eight 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 #17-05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 8 C. Community Facilities 5) Proffer Statement Dated August 4, 2005, Revised April 11, 2006 NOT CURRENT 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. (It is advisable to put this into the proffer statement) The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfrelds. 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. 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. Staff Note: The Russell Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's old Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23,290 for each single family detached unit. A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated April 11, 2006. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of45 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The applicant has proffered a phasing plan that would allow 25 units within any 12 month period. No dwelling units will be permitted within 200 feet of any adjacent active orchard or within 100 feet of any adjacent agricultural uses in the two locations shown on the GDP. Staff note: The zoning district buffer shown on the GDP, but not referenced in the proffer statement, is required by the Zoning Ordinance. It is not an enhancement of minimal requirements. Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 9 NOT CURRENT C) Transportation The applicant has proffered $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and W elltown 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 Note: The Director of Public works is seeking a responsible party for the permanent operation and maintenance of the BMPfacilities. He also recommended private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. These are both generally responsibilities of a Home Owners Association (HOA). Staff Note: At the Planning Commission Meeting on 04/05/06 (summary below) an application for 60 houses on two parcels, including the Glendobbin Ridge Preservation Parcel, was considered. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: The staff reported receiving well over 200 letters regarding this rezoning, as well as a considerable number of telephone calls. The staff noted that approximately 90% of the letters were form letters and estimated that approximately two thirds of the letters were in favor of the rezoning, while one -third was opposed to the rezoning. Thirty citizens spoke during the Planning Commission's public hearing; 10 of those citizens spoke in favor of the proposal and 20 spoke in opposition. Most of those who had favorable comments were either in the building supply business, were building subcontractors. or had worked with the Russell family for many years. They spoke favorably about the integrity of the Russells and the exceptional quality of their construction. They stated that the Russells buy all of their materials locally and use local subcontractors, thereby supporting the local economy and providing jobs. By contrast, they said the majority of residential construction now taking place in Frederick County is done by outside construction companies who purchase all their building supplies out of the area and do not use local subcontractors. They believed the Russells had the right to ask for this because the property was in the UDA and SWSA; they also pointed out the Russell's willingness to compromise on the project, by reducing the number of dwellings from 130 to 60. Those who spoke in opposition to the rezoning were primarily local residents, in neighborhoods along Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road. They believed a precedent of development was already set in this area over the years for larger lots, averaging three to five acres and providing plenty of open space; they said the density proposed was inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. They were Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 10 NOT CURRENT concerned that increased traffic would create additional safety hazards on roads that were incapable of handling the existing speeds and volume of traffic. Also mentioned was the increased impact to schools and other infrastructure. The residents believed the quality of life they had grown accustomed to was threatened; they wondered how much longer school athletic teams, bicyclists, and pedestrians would be able to safely use Apple Pie Ridge Road because of the increasing volume of traffic; homeowners did not want to lose the open space they had specifically sought when moving to this location; and issues regarding the environment were raised, specifically involving the reduction of bio- diversity and loss of wildlife. One citizen said that he was representing about 50 people out in the hallway who could not come into the board room because of capacity restrictions and all were opposed to the rezoning. Commissioners asked the applicant if he would place language on individual property deeds indicating the proximity to a planned divided highway, if the project were approved, and the applicant agreed. Commissioners also asked the applicant if he would consider postponing development on the six lots adjacent to the planned Rt. 37 corridor until last, to allow the County more time to determine the final alignment for the road; the applicant agreed that was appropriate and offered to include the provision within the proffer. The applicant added that by moving the road slightly east, it could be easily accommodated using the applicant's adjacent industrially -zoned property. A Commissioner questioned why this property was placed into a Rural Preservation Parcel in the first place, assuming the applicant knew where the UDA line was in 2002. Commission members suggested that the code may need to be reviewed to determine if the placement of any rural preservation lots within the UDA is appropriate. Some of the Commission members agreed with the citizens that the established development pattem within this area was two -to -five acre lots and the applicant had already agreed to the 10 -year preservation parcel restriction with his signature on the plat. Other Commissioners recognized the applicant's right to ask for a waiver, because the parcel was located within the UDA. They had numerous questions concerning the staffs conclusion that RP -zoned lots were not compatible in this location. A commissioner pointed out other RP -zoned property within this general area of the UDA; also noted, the proposed one -acre lots were larger than the typical RP- zoned lot and, therefore, could be considered a low- density pattern of development, in- keeping with established residential lots in the area. Another view recognized that the proposed RP -zoned lots may be smaller than existing residentially -zoned lots, but acted as a transitional area next to the industrially zoned property to the east. Some did not think the one -acre density was incompatible, particularly when the view shed area included an industrial park. The TIA studies were also mentioned; those studies concluded that infrastructure could support the density adequately and safely. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision be denied. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL OF WAIVER): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett NO: Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 11 This application is for 45 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. PIOT CURRE (Note: Because of the recommendation of denial on the waiver request, a motion on the associated rezoning was not considered. Members acknowledged that denial of the waiver was in effect a recommendation of denial of the rezoning as currently submitted.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 05/17/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 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 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 may be required for the future Route 37. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 05/17/06 MEETING: Twenty -seven citizens came forward to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. Twelve of those citizens spoke in support of the rezoning application and 15 spoke in opposition. Those who supported the rezoning application cited the applicant's history of using local builders who supported local businesses; they said the project would supply needed jobs; the project would provide affordable housing and starter homes for young couples; the proffer money offered would benefit schools, roads, and other infrastructure; the revised application was a compromise offered by the applicant which eliminated the preservation parcel from development; the rezoning application was within the County's guidelines for development; and, existing area homeowners should not expect adjoining property owners to forfeit their property rights to develop. A citizen pointed out that there were homes on half -acre lots less than a mile away on Payne Road and, in addition, an industrial park, mobile homes, and homes on half -acre lots could be seen from Union View Lane. Those citizens who were opposed to the rezoning application said that based on the application's proposed density, the development was inconsistent with the surrounding area and the established five acre neighborhood; the project was incompatible next to working orchards, agricultural areas, an industrial park, and the uncertain future right -of -way for Route 37; safety issues involving traffic were raised and the ability of existing roads to handle additional traffic based on the poor visibility and posted speed limits; and, the issue of overcrowded schools was also raised. Homeowners along Glendobbin Ridge said they would be looking down into the backyards of approximately 27 proposed dwellings; they did not want to lose the existing woodlands strip because it served as a buffer against the industrial park and was a haven for wildlife. Others questioned how lots outside of the SWSA would be served and the unresolved legal issues regarding the use of the 50 -foot private road as a second access. A comment was also made that the majority of those who spoke in support of the rezoning did not live in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Commission members discussed at length the issues of consistency and compatibility with the surrounding area, especially in light of the fact that the RP Zoning classification allowed for a broad 1 Rezoning #17 -05 Russell- Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 12 NOT CURRENT range of development. Some expressed concern that the Commission was being asked to ignore compatibility issues to accommodate a return on investment, while others did not think it was appropriate to mandate a certain sized lot within the UDA and SWSA. Many Commissioners were opposed to the density requested by the applicant. One suggestion made was for the applicant to use both tracks of land, including the preservation parcel, and develop with two -acre lots under the RP Zoning which would provide the protection of buffers and screening and the ability to utilize water and sewer. It was noted that existing residents might be more comfortable with a well- maintained two -acre development, rather than scrubland with an uncertain future. A comment was also made about the beneficial screen provided by the existing woodlands between the industrial park and residential area; it was noted that there was nothing within the applicant's proposal indicating that any portion of that woodlands screen would be saved. A motion was made to deny the rezoning application because it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's guidelines for compatibility, particularly with placing higher- density housing adjacent to an established two -acre lot development and with placing residential lots adjacent to MI Zoning. This motion was defeated, however, by a tie five -to -five vote. A second motion was made to approve the rezoning application based on the fact that the property was located within the UDA and the SWSA and the applicant was following established guidelines for development. This motion was also defeated by a tie five -to -five vote. A third motion was made and unanimously passed to send the rezoning application forward to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. (Comissioners Thomas, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 06/19/06 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: This application is for 45 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. 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 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 may be required for the future Route 37. 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. Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: PROPOSAL: To rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 45 single family homes. 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 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING PRESENT USE: North: South: East: West: RA (Rural Area) RA (Rural Area) MI (Light Industrial) RA (Rural Areas) RA (Rural Area) Reviewed February 15, 2006 April 5, 2006 May 17, 2006 June 14, 2006 Use: Use: Use: Use: Use: REZONING APPLICATION #17 -05 RUSSELL GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: May 1, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner L'1el' CURRENT -J Action Postponement requested by applicant Recommended denial of waiver Pending Pending Orchard Agriculture Industrial Vacant Orchard Residential Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin May I, 2006 Page 2 NOT CURRENT PROPOSED USES: 45 Single Family Detached Residential Units on 31.1851 acres 1.44 dwelling units per acre (March 9, 2006 proposal 60 units on 67. 73 acre 0.89 dwelling units per acre) (November 9, 2005 proposal —130 units on 67.73 acre 1.92 dwelling units per acre) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Staff Note: The agency review comments are based on 130 single family units on two parcels. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised to request 60 single family units on two parcels, then revised further to request 45 single family units on only one parcel. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 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 Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 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 sianalization, 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. Staff Note: The Fire Marshall's comment calling for two separate and distinct means of access was satisfied with the original application. Two separate and distinct means of access are not provided with the current version of the application. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located 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 the 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: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the 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) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 3 Frederick- Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. NOT CURRENT These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience /dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. 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. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 4 Frederick County Attorney: (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) 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 it's to be limited to one of the specific single family detached building types set forth in Section 165 -59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? If it 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 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. Planning Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcel as being zoned R -3 (Residential General). 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. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan NOT CURRENT 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 -1] Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 5 NOT CURRENT Land Use The subject site is within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Most of the site is 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 site has no land use designation on the Eastem Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the property does not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of the general policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding uses is necessary. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel, thus maintaining the one dwelling per five acre RA density. Immediately south and west of the adjacent preservation parcel 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 zoned 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. Staff Note: On 02/14/06 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road. Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback and because it does not fit in with the neighborhood. The latest proffer statement now includes a buffer against the orchard and agricultural land. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6 -11) 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 the industrial park and the existing low- density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring a considerable buffer between any house and any MI zoned property. The zoning district buffer shown on the GDP, but not referenced in the text of the proffer statement, appears to be the Zoning Ordinance required minimum, a Category A Buffer. Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 6 NOT CURRENT Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern 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). 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. Route 37, as shown on current county plans, is very close to this property. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state if any of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. Staff note: The alignment of Route 37 could change as a result offinal engineering. Should this rezoning be approved as submitted, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would reduce flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Variation in the route as a result of this rezoning, could require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial land, further impacting this established industrial park. The recently approved site plan for the McClung -Logan site in the Stonewall Industrial Park might necessitate moving the path of Route 37 further west, and possibly onto this site. (In the interest offull disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might result from this rezoning, should it be approved.) 3) Site SuitabilitvlEnvironment 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 Survev of Frederick Countv. 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 Rezoning 417-05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 7 A. Transportation NOT CURRENT Staff Note: The TIA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 45 single family units. 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. Local Roads The applicant is proposing one public entrance for all 45 lots in this development. The new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. Two cul -de -sacs are shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). One leads to the Glendobbin Ridge preservation tract and one leads to the Stonewall Industrial Park, thus enabling future connections to those adjacent sites. Staff Notes: The applicant, at the master plan stage, will need to seek a waiver for 11:e cul -de- sac length, which exceeds 1,000 feet. The applicant, at the subdivision design stage, will need to demonstrate that lots with acceptable driveways can be platted along the new road given the steep topography. 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 entrance on Glendobbin Road 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 eight 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 #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 8 C. Community Facilities NOT CURRENT 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. 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. Staff Note: The Russell- Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's old Fiscal Impact Mode! was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23,290 for each single family detached unit. 5) Proffer Statement Dated August 4, 2005, Revised April 11, 2006 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated April 11, 2006. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 45 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The applicant has proffered a phasing plan that would allow 25 units within any 12 month period. No dwelling units will be permitted within 200 feet of any adjacent active orchard or within 100 feet of any adjacent agricultural uses in the two locations shown on the GDP. Staff note: The zoning district buffer shown on the GDP, but not referenced in the proffer statement, is required by the Zoning Ordinance. It is not an enhancement of minimal requirements. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 9 NOT CURRENT C) Transportation 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 Note: The Director of Public works is seeking a responsible party for the permanent operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. He also recommended private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. These are both generally responsibilities of a Home Owners Association (HOA). StaffNote: At the Planning Commission Meeting on 04/05/06 an application for 60 houses on two parcels, including the Glendobbin Ridge Preservation Parcel, was considered. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: The staff reported receiving well over 200 letters regarding this rezoning, as well as a considerable number of telephone calls. The staff noted that approximately 90% of the letters were form letters and estimated that approximately two thirds of the letters were in favor of the rezoning, while one -third was opposed to the rezoning. Thirty citizens spoke during the Planning Commission's public hearing; 10 of those citizens spoke in favor of the proposal and 20 spoke in opposition. Most of those who had favorable comments were either in the building supply business, were building subcontractors, or had worked with the Russell family for many years. They spoke favorably about the integrity of the Russells and the exceptional quality of their construction. They stated that the Russells buy all of their materials locally and use local subcontractors, thereby supporting the local economy and providing jobs. By contrast, they said the majority of residential construction now taking place in Frederick County is done by outside construction companies who purchase all their building supplies out of the area and do not use local subcontractors. They believed the Russells had the right to ask for this because the property was in the UDA and SWSA; they also pointed out the Russell's willingness to compromise on the project, by reducing the number of dwellings from 130 to 60. Those who spoke in opposition to the rezoning were primarily local residents, in neighborhoods along Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road. They believed a precedent of development was already set in this area over the years for larger lots, averaging three to five acres and providing plenty of open space; they said the density proposed was inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. They were Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 10 NOT CURRENT concerned that increased traffic would create additional safety hazards on roads that were incapable of handling the existing speeds and volume of traffic. Also mentioned was the increased impact to schools and other infrastructure. The residents believed the quality of life they had grown accustomed to was threatened; they wondered how much longer school athletic teams, bicyclists, and pedestrians would be able to safely use Apple Pie Ridge Road because of the increasing volume of traffic; homeowners did not want to lose the open space they had specifically sought when moving to this location; and issues regarding the environment were raised, specifically involving the reduction of bio- diversity and loss of wildlife. One citizen said that he was representing about 50 people out in the hallway who could not come into the board room because of capacity restrictions and all were opposed to the rezoning. Commissioners asked the applicant if he would place language on individual property deeds indicating the proximity to a planned divided highway, if the project were approved, and the applicant agreed. Commissioners also asked the applicant if he would consider postponing development on the six lots adjacent to the planned Rt. 37 corridor until last, to allow the County more time to determine the final alignment for the road; the applicant agreed that was appropriate and offered to include the provision within the proffer. The applicant added that by moving the road slightly east, it could be easily accommodated using the applicant's adjacent industrially -zoned property. A Commissioner questioned why this property was placed into a Rural Preservation Parcel in the first place, assuming the applicant knew where the UDA line was in 2002. Commission members suggested that the code may need to be reviewed to determine if the placement of any rural preservation lots within the UDA is appropriate. Some of the Commission members agreed with the citizens that the established development pattern within this area was two -to -five acre lots and the applicant had already agreed to the 10 -year preservation parcel restriction with his signature on the plat. Other Commissioners recognized the applicant's right to ask for a waiver, because the parcel was located within the UDA. They had numerous questions concerning the staff's conclusion that RP -zoned lots were not compatible in this location. A commissioner pointed out other RP -zoned property within this general area of the UDA; also noted, the proposed one -acre lots were larger than the typical RP- zoned lot and, therefore, could be considered a low- density pattern of development, in- keeping with established residential lots in the area. Another view recognized that the proposed RP -zoned lots may be smaller than existing residentially -zoned lots, but acted as a transitional area next to the industrially zoned property to the east. Some did not think the one -acre density was incompatible, particularly when the view shed area included an industrial park. The TIA studies were also mentioned, those studies concluded that infrastructure could support the density adequately and safely. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision be denied. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL OF WAIVER): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates. Light, Wilmot. Kriz, Triplett NO: Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 11 (Note: Because of the recommendation of denial on the waiver request, a motion on the associated rezoning was not considered. Members acknowledged that denial of the waiver was in effect a recommendation of denial of the rezoning as currently submitted.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 05/17/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is for 45 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. NOT CURRENT 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 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 may 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 would be appropriate. REZONING APPLICATION #17 -05 RUSSELL GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner ATOT CUD 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. Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Reviewed February 15, 2006 April 5, 2006 April 26, 2006 Action Postponement requested by applicant Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 60 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: South: East: West: RA (Rural Area) RA (Rural Area) M1 (Light Industrial) RA (Rural Areas) RA (Rural Area) Use: Use: Use: Use: Use: Orchard Agriculture Industrial Vacant Orchard Residential Agriculture Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 60 Single Family Detached Residential Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: 4'TOT Staff Note: The agency review comments are based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised to request 60 single family units. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on. Routes 673, 663 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 Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 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 discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located 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 the 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: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the 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) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience /dumpster facilities or via private Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 3 24QT CLTR,RENT carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. 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 Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. 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: (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) 1 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 Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 4 Planning Zoning: 1) Site History NOT CURRP development to be limited to any particular type of single family detached building types, or it's to be limited to one of the specific single family detached building types set forth in Section 165 -59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? If it 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 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). Parcels 43 -A -16 and 43 -A -17 were rezoned to A -2 (Agricultural General) in 1978 (Zoning Amendment Petition #003 -78). Parcels 43 -A -15A and 43 -A -15B were 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, and 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." The preservation parcel is in the UDA and the ten year period is not Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 5 NOT CURRENT required. A request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions is included with this rezoning application. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan 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. 1-1 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 zoned 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. Staff Note: On 02/14/06 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road. Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback. Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring an orchard setback (200 feet) between any house and any active orchard Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 6 NOT CURRENT 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 the industrial park and the existing low- density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring a buffer between any house and any MI zoned property. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern 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). 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 dedicate this right -of -way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant intends to identify the location of Route 37 and the required road efficiency buffer at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. 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. Staff note: The alignment of Route 37, shown on the GDP, could change as a result offinal engineering. Should this rezoning be approved as submitted, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would reduce flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Variation in the route as a result of this rezoning, could require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial land, further impacting this established industrial park. On the other hand, a site plan has been submitted for McClung -Logan site in the Stonewall Industrial Park. Approval of that site plan might necessitate moving the path of Route 37 further west. (In the interest offull disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might result from this rezoning, should it be approved.) 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 Rezoning #17 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 7 wetlands /hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. 01' CURB NT 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. Staff Note: 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 Staff Note: The TIA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 60 single family units. 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. Local Roads The applicant is proposing one public entrance for all 60 lots in this development. The new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. A private gated connection, for emergency access, is proposed through an existing private access easement that would connect the new development to the cul -de -sac on Union View Lane. A new small cul -de -sac is also proposed on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Staff Notes: While staff generally encourages inter parcel connectors, one would not be required in the Subdivision Ordinance with this application. The applicant at the subdivision design stage will need to demonstrate that lots with acceptable driveways can be platted along the new road given the steep topography. 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 entrance on Glendobbin Road which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 8 B. Sewer and Water NOT CURRENT 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 eight 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. 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 ServiceAuthority 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. Staff Note: The Russell Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's old Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23,290 for each single family detached unit. Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 9 5) Proffer Statement Dated August 4, 2005, Revised March 9, 2006 NOT CURRENT A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 9, 2006. This GDP shows (1) right -of- way dedication for Route 37 and (2) an emergency access between Union View Lane (via a private access easement) and the new development. The GDP also shows a cul -de -sac that could access the adjacent MI (Light Industrial) property. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 60 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 20,000 square feet. The applicant has proffered a phasing plan that would allow 30 units within any 12 month period. C) Transportation 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 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 will provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network and Union View Lane for emergency access. 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 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Two Planning Commission recommendations are required with this application: a recommendation on the rezoning request and a recommendation on the request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions. 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 Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 10 NOT CURRENT 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 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. RKSM+bn N Rt37 Bypass O Ganes Road Centerlines Osw=. Landuse Catagories Rural Community Center Resldenual Business f{.. Industrial mswuuonal Reereaton Hlatonc Mned -Use Planned Una Development REZ 17 05 Russell Glendobbin (43- A -15B, 16) 3,000 'i�'.:: +•�4f.} {:;tip .4 year w. n.,.. Zoning Caugeriee N oe„e �n O M. a.ak r. o. O p Oo.a. p ea (655.555 o ib. .o.m,*O x. ,e..sn.n. w'.,. .c.m..n D..", ..:,5 e 5. 0 c.rew.n,,.u.ri i�.e .,i p es (a..,..n..'..oe.ennecn,nn..n.r Dina) p,... pee ir...,e..a.en D...n O en,w,n<,e.. 555.5-0 ow „s....., pee, oe.,... NOT CURREI$ M„'ro.n..,aen.,.'a.nk„ REZ 17 05 Russell Glendobbin (43- A -15B, 16) 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet r III Rd i .I a e. 0 ne,,3W� "ri P c(9 Sub'ect Property R'PbdfideTl G1E It fie Ulna A it RT C3 t y 4 f.^ g� aff C' �y sr ry as �.t ik s� I'. i J i ri Urban Development Area r 4 81 ti CE Y Is 4 I La t 1 Map Features y4prication Ae Rr 37 Bypass O Parcels vi mkewonee Road Centerlines O swsn +sr- Streams vv 0 Bmun,Bt N roe. e: uon NOT CURRENT REZ 17 05 Russell Glendobbin (43- A -15B, 16) 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet rgetwv v., 2 44 •L'4 iiigenti Airs l4!Yv te r r e Inionoatures NOT CURRENT Zoning Catagories REZ 17 05 Russell Glendobbin (43- A -15B, 16) 0 750 1,500 Feet 3,000 1 REZONING APPLICATION #17 -05 RUSSELL GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: January 30, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: 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 February 15, 2006 March 8, 2006 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) Action Pending Pending 1'v C "T 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). Use: Use: Use: Use: Use: Orchard Agriculture Industrial Vacant Orchard Residential Agriculture Rezoning #17-05 Russell Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 130 Single Family Detached Residential Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: NQT CURRENT NT Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 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 Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 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 1.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 discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located 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 the 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: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the 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) to control, not only the magnitude ofthe flows, but also the quality ofthe runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience /dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 3 NOT CURRENT requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. 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 Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. 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 hones 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 Attornev: (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) 1 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 it's to be limited to one ofthe specific single- family detached building types set forth in Section 165-59(13) ofthe Zoning Ordinance? If it is to be limited to a specific type, that should be set forth in the proffer. 2 Paragraph 2.1: 1 don't understand the reference to "Butcher" in this paragraph. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 4 Planning Zoning: 1) Site History NOT CURRENT 3. Paragraph 4.1: The time at which age restricted units would be "designated" should he 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 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). Parcels 43 -A -16 and 43 -A -17 were rezoned to A -2 (Agricultural General) in 1978 (Zoning Amendment Petition #003 -78). Parcels 43 -A -15A and 43 -A -15B were 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 oft acres were created, and 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." The preservation parcel is in the UDA and the ten year period is not required. A request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions is included with this rezoning application. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin January 30, 2 006 Page 5 2) Comprehensive Policv Plan NOT CURRENT 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 -1 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 zoned 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. Rezoning ##17 -05 Russell Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 6 NOT CURRENT Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastcrn 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). 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 (Ovule 37. Any variation in the route at the final engineering stage would require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial site, flu 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. Staff The Public 6Vork.s Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to he addressed at the AMP stage. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation NOT CURRENT 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. Local Roads The applicant is proposing two entrances for this development. One new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. The second proposed entrance would be on Union View I.,ane at Lot #9 of the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. Union View Lane at this time is not a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Road, although it is intended to be a VDOT Road. A private gated connection, for emergency access, is proposed through an existing private access easement which would connect the new development to the cul -de -sac on Union View Lane. Staff Note: It is unclear if the applicant has the authority to connect a new road to Union View Lane via a private access easement. However. while staff generally encourages inter parcel connectors, one would not he required in the Subdivision Ordinance with this application. An inter parcel connector is only required hehi'een adjacent RP zoned properties, not between RP and RA properties (Section 165 48.9). 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 eight inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 8 NOT CURRENT 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. 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 drainftelds. 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, Sheriffs 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. Staff Note: The Russell Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact ofdevelopment calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is 523,290 for each single, family detached unit. 5) Proffer Statement Dated November 9, 2005 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated November 9, 2005. This GDP shows (1) an interconnection with Union View Lane, (2) right -of- way dedication for Route 37 and (3) an emergency access between Union View Lane and the new development. 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 Rezoning #17 -05 Russell- Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 9 NOT CURRENT 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 will privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. As stated above, the applicant has proffered a connection 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 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). Sluff Note: The proffers (11.2 and 11..!) which establish the connections to Union View Lane do not have a liming elenrenl. The applicant will need ro revise the proffers to state clearly when these connections will occur. 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 02/15/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Two Planning Commission recommendations are required with this application: a recommendation on the rezoning request and a recommendation on the request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions. 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 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 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. Rezoning #17 -05 Russell Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 10 NOT CURRENT 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.