Loading...
PC 05-17-06 Meeting AgendaAGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia May 17, 2006 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) April 5, 2006 Minutes...................................................................................................... (A) 2) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab) 3) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 4) Rezoning 917-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance District) with proffers, for 45 single family homes. The property 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), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 43-A-1513. Mrs. Eddy......................................................................................................................... (B) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 5) Subdivision #04-06 Tyson Drive Extension Mr. Cheran....................................................................................................................... (C) 6) Other FILE COPY MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 5, 2006. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Gary R- Oates, Stonewall District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip A. Lemieux, Board of Supervisors Liaison; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R Ambrogi Legal Counsel. ABSENT: David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner; Bernard Suchicital, Planner; Kevin Henry, Planner; John Bishop, Transportation Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk, CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Cominissioner Triplett, the minutes of the February 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Com nissioner Ours, the minutes of the March 1, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1707 Minutes of April 5, 2006 Do ® nA -2 - COMMITTEE REPORTS Urban Development Area (UDA) Study Update Commissioner Kriz reported that the UDA Study Group has been meeting on a regular basis and is in the process of organizing public meetings. He said the public meeting process will be discussed at the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) on Monday, April 10. Commissioner Kriz said the two public meetings are scheduled for May 9 and May 11. He added that Open Forunn articles will appear in the Winchester Star to further inform the public. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 03/23/06 Mtg. Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS continued their comprehensive review ofthe sign ordinance and each zoning district will be approached individually. He said they are currently discussing the B2 area, which will likely take about a month or two. Commnissioner Thomas requested that the Comnnission appoint Mr. Whit Wagner as a citizen member of the DRRS. Chairman Wilmot made the appointment of Mr. Whit Wagner to the DRRS. Transportation Committee — 03/28/06 Mtg. and 04/05/06 Mtg. Commnissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee has met twice since the last Planning Commission meeting; he said he attended as a member of the public and a representative of the Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal District. Commissioner Oates said a transportation budget request was considered from the City of Winchester for extended bus routes into Frederick County; the Transportation Committee requested time to study the routes and make changes. He said the committee also considered an alternative for a portion of the northeastern loop of Route 37; the committee unanimously agreed to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they authorize funds to establish a true engineered and surveyed centerline for Route 37 and to start the process to comprehensively down zone the corridor to preserve the route. Connnissioner Oates reported on the second meeting. He said the Transportation Committee studied the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) and the Board of Supervisors' input for the Tier I Study of the 1-81 widening and the committee voted unanimously to support both packages in order to improve lanes, exits, and overpasses for local traffic. He said the second item was at the request of the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to revisit the alternatives for Route 37 from the first meeting, in light of opinions from the County Attorney concerning down zoning and the effect of conservation easements and core battlefields within the path of the previously selected route. Commissioner Oates said the committee chose a route, labeled CXL, which sends a portion of Route 37 to the southern boundary of Stephensons Village and continues through at least eight properties that were not affected by the earlier Corridor C; the group believed the ability to gain an interchange and the avoidance of the conservation easement and battlefield justified this; they also agreed the route should not impact the proposed Agricultural and Forestal District. In addition, the committee voted that the Board should allocate funds to establish the centerline, to perform an environmental study, and begin the preliminary engineering of Route 37. Frederick County Planning Commission D �. Page 1708 Minutes of April 5, 2006 �tf -3 - Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) — 03/21/06 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed two items: the first was an amendment to the bylaws to change the meeting time to 6:30 p.m.; the second item was a discussion of potential properties to be awarded historic plaques. Commissioner Oates said the HRAB agreed to offer six additional properties the ability to receive the plaques and so far, nearly 50% of the properties contacted have responded positively to the offers. He said the HRAB believes this is a very successful campaign. Conservation Easement Authority (CEA) — 04/03/06 Public Info. Mtg. Conunissioner Light reported that the CEA sought to gain interest in the use of conservation easements in Frederick County through a public meeting on Monday evening. He said it was an educational meeting and several representatives of conservation easements provided an explanation and use of conservation easements within the County. Commissioner Light said approximately 70 people attended; he added that the meeting was a well thought-out and planned educational program. CITIZEN COMMENTS Chainnan Wilmot called for citizen continents on any item that was not already on the Commission's agenda for this evening; however, no one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #02-06 of Joseph Snapp and Robert Rhodes for a wayside market at 1107 Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622). The property is identified with P.I.N. 63 -A -2-F in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action — Reconnnended Approval with Conditions Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the proposed use will take place on a five -acre parcel with a single-family dwelling located at the rear of the property; he said the wayside market will operate in an existing one-story 1,800 square -foot building located along the front of Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622). Mr. Cheran stated that an ice cream stand will also be associated with this use and will be located adjacent to the 1,800 square -foot building. Mr. Cheran added that the wayside stand will sell a wide variety of agricultural and horticultural items and merchandise; outdoor display areas will be associated with the use, as well as a small field for "pick -your -own" crops. Frederick County Planning Commission 71 Page 1709 Minutes of April 5, 2006 Do Li t! NAA11 -4 - Mr. Cheran continued, stating that the site is located east of Route 37, adjacent to an area that has recently been included in the UDA. As such, he said it may be appropriate to apply standards to the CUP that reflect the vision for the Cedar Creek Grade corridor as it exits the City of Winchester. He said that uses and signs have traditionally been regulated on properties along highways in the rural areas. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the CUP to be appropriate. Conunissioners asked the staff if a farm market would be permitted to sell hotdogs, hamburgers, and other sandwiches and Mr. Cheran replied yes. Commission members discussed the size and height of the proposed sign with the staff. The Staff noted that the size recommendations provided were in keeping with existing business signs in this corridor at the entrance to the City of Winchester. Members of the Commission questioned the staff about what specific agencies would be responsible for inspecting the ice cream stand and restroom facilities; staff replied that the ice cream stand is regulated by the Virginia Department of Agriculture; staff added that the applicant had met all of the applicable reviewing agencies comments. A Commission member said that he had observed during a site visit that the area designated for the proposed sign is in a low area; he observed that a six-foot sign would probably just come to road level and would not provide much visibility. Mr. Joseph D. Snapp, the owner and applicant, said he would prefer to have the sign ten feet tall because of the low area where the sign would be placed; he said the 25 -square -foot area for the sign was satisfactory. Mr. Snapp also indicated his desire at some point in the future to sell sandwiches at the site. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak in favor of the CUP. Mr. Marlin Beitzel, adjoining property owner at 1115 Cedar Creek Grade, commented that both the Rhodes and Snapps have been good neighbors and he encouraged the Commission to approve the CUP. Mr. Beitzel encouraged the Commission to also keep in mind the south side of Cedar Creek Grade for inclusion in the SWSA and UDA, as they consider development on the north side and to apply appropriate business zoning. Ms. Julie Schamonick, adjoining property owner on Cedar Creek Grade, agreed with Mr. Beitzel that the Rhodes and Snapps have been good neighbors and she also was in favor of granting the CUP. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the meeting. A motion was made by Coni nissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz to approve the CUP with an amenchnent to the conditions recommended by the staff, to allow the sign height to be extended to ten feet. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use permit #02-06 of Joseph Snapp and Robert Rhodes for a wayside market at 1107 Cedar Creek Grade (Rt. 622) with the following conditions: 1. All review agency continents shall be complied with at all times Frederick County Planning CommissionDWI Page 1710 Minutes of April 5, 2006 -5- 2. The site shall be allowed to have one freestanding sign. Maximum height of freestanding sign shall be ten feet. Maximum size of a freestanding sign shall be 25 square -feet. 3. No internally illuminated signs shall be allowed outside of the building. 4. Maximum size of a building -mounted sign shall be ten square -feet. 5. Dumpsters shall be completely enclosed by an opaque fence with a minimum setback of 60 feet from Cedar Creek Grade. 6. A minimum of nine lined parking spaces with wheel stops and a minimum of double prime and seal shall be installed prior to the operation of the off -premise wayside market. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use pen -nit. Rezoning 417-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR&A) to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers for 60 single-family homes and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Rt. 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Rt. 663). The properties are further identified with P.I.N. 43 -A -15B and 43-A-16 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action — Recommended Denial of Request to Waive the Rural Preservation Lot Restrictions Plainer Susan K. Eddy stated that this application includes a request to waive the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge rural preservation subdivision. Ms. Eddy explained that when the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision was established in 2002, 16 parcels on Union View Lane, consisting of a minimum lot size of two acres each, were created along with a 36.5 -acre preservation parcel, which is sometimes referred to as the 40% set aside. She said the language on the recorded plats states the "40% reserved lot can not be further subdivided per section 165-54D of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance." Ms. Eddy further explained that because this parcel is within the Urban Development Area (UDA), Section 165-54 of the Zoning Ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to release the preservation parcel from the restrictions through a rezoning process, provided it is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. She said that two actions were therefore, needed by the Commission: one was the removal of the restrictions and the second was the rezoning. Planner Eddy next proceeded to describe the specifics of the rezoning proposal to the Commission. Some of the main points of her presentation included that the site was located in the Urban Development Area (UDA); the majority of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); the site is not located within the boundaries of any of the County's small -area land use plans; and, the sites have no particular land use designation on the Eastem Frederick County Long -Range Land Use Plan. Ms. Eddy stated that since there were no particular land use designations for this site, it was important to consider the general policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding uses when evaluating the rezoning. Those surrounding uses were agricultural and residential, consisting of 2+ acre parcels and 5+ acre parcels, within the RA Zoning District and orchard and industrial uses in the M1 Zoning District. Frederick County Plaiming Commission Minutes of April 5, 2006 D PA Page 1711 Q -V Plainer Eddy pointed out that specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District are 200 feet between residences and orchards and 100 feet between residences and agriculture. She said that since there are no specific setbacks in the RP Zone for orchards or agricultural use, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Regarding the transportation issues, Planner Eddy stated that the County's Eastern Road Plan shows the future Route 37 going through a small portion of the southern section of the property; she said the applicant has proffered to survey and dedicate land for future Route 37 on their property. She cautioned, however, that placing houses near a planned road prejudices the County's ability to adjust the alignment of that road. The applicant had prepared a Traffic hnpact Analysis (TIA) based on their initial development proposal consisting of 130 single-family units; the applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 60 single-family units. The TIA indicated that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" conditions or better. She next reviewed all of the items within the applicant's proffer statement with the Commission. Ms. Eddy noted that the Plamiing Department received well over 200 letters regarding this rezoning, both supporting and opposing the rezoning; she said she also has received a large number of telephone calls. Ms. Eddy concluded her presentation by stating that the rezoning application was not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; the applicant is seeking a housing type not found within this area and not called for in the County's long-range land use plan. She said a dense residential development adjacent to industrially -zoned land and an active orchard is incompatible with those two uses and could impact their future operations. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor for which the final alignment has not been engineered; placement of the proposed houses could limit the flexibility needed. She added that a denial of the waiver would leave the application incomplete and would effectively be a denial for the rezoning. Commissioner Ours asked Ms. Eddy if she knew what percentages of the letters received by the Planning Department were in favor of the project, versus those against. Planner Eddy replied that approximately 90% of the correspondence is form letters; however, she guessed that approximately two thirds of the letters were in favor of the rezoning, while one-third was opposed to the rezoning. Commissioner Ours suggested that the Commission consider including a tally of those letters in the report to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Connnission members had numerous questions concerning the staff's conclusion that RP -zoned lots were not compatible at this particular location. A commissioner pointed out other RP -zoned property within this general area; he pointed out that the proposed lots were larger in size than the typical RP -zoned lot and, therefore, could be considered in -keeping with established residential lots in the area. Another view recognized that the proposed RP -zoned lots may be smaller than the existing residentially -zoned lots, but acted as a transitional area next to the industrially -zoned property to the east. Another Connnissioner asked if the staff would consider a potential M 1 use on the property to be more appropriate and staff replied that an industrial use adjacent to existing residential uses would present similar compatibility concerns. The issue of evaluating this rezoning using the general policies in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, rather than a designated land use plan, was also questioned. A Coimnissioner believed this area came under the Eastern Frederick County Land Use Plan, which was formally adopted by the Board and consisted of a compilation of small areas plans. A Commission member said he did not see a compatibility problem with half -acre lots adjacent to existing two -acre lots and questioned what the appropriate sized lot might be. Ms. Eddy replied that the staff was more concerned about compatibility with adjoining the industrial and orchard/agriculturally-zoned areas and the lack of sufficient setbacks with RP -zoned land. Frederick County Plarunng Conunission(� E Page 1712 Minutes of April 5, 2006 �I i�IJ1 u„u{ (QI dlj� -7 - Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior Vice President of Patton Hams Rust & Associates, PC (PHR&A), was representing Mr. Glen W. Russell and his wife, Pamela L. Russell, the building company for this project. Mr. Maddox first introduced Ms. Kimberly M. Athey, a partner in the law firm, Napier, Pond, Athey & Athey, P.C., who was also representing the Russells. Ms. Athey requested an opportunity to make a few observations to the Plaiming Commission. Ms. Athey briefly summarized her clients' position in regards to the appropriateness of the application and the authority granted to the Board of Supervisors to deal with the request involving the lifting of restrictions on development of the reserve area. Ms. Athey said the code provides the authority to release a preservation parcel from development restrictions through a rezoning, provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan; she said the ten-year restriction can not be applied to this parcel because of the fact that it lies solely within the UDA. She said that although there is no specific land designation for evaluating this parcel, the Comprehensive Plan states that for properties that lie entirely within the UDA, suburban residential uses are expressly called for. Ms. Athey also addressed a private access easement issue, which was raised in a letter to the Commission from the Harrison & Johnston Law Firm. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium and stated that the proposal represents a diversification of the UDA and provides a buffer between the Route 37 and industrial zoning, and the larger lots. He commented that these are acre -average lots, consisting of 60 lots on 67 acres. Mr. Maddox said that he did not agree with the staff's opinion that this project did not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Policy. He said that if his clients did not believe this met the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, they would not have been looking at this as a source of inventory to maintain their business. Mr. Maddox noted that residential lots are not commonly available, especially to local builders, and this was a major goal. Mr. Maddox also did not agree with the statement that no specific land use was established here; he0 also believed the building space on the lots was comparable. Mr. Maddox believed this proposal provided some diversity within the housing stock. Mr. Maddox proceeded to show the dedicated area for Route 37, where the extension of water and sewer would be, and the location for buffers and screens. Mr. Maddox pointed out that this is the last site in this area that could be brought forward under these conditions. Chainnan Wilmot next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Jim Chapman, a resident of the Stonewall District, had a suggestion regarding the tallying of letters sent to the Commission. Mr. Chapman suggested the letters be divided into categories from those persons who live in the area, those who live adjacent to the area, and those who live outside of the area. Mr. Chapman believed that if the applicant is permitted to undo their ten-year pledge, integrity is lost and open space has disappeared. Mr. Wayne Holsinger, a resident at 112 Quaker Lane, asked if there could be a show of hands permitted for those present in the audience who are in favor and in opposition to the request. It appeared that the number of hands raised were 50% in favor and 50% opposed. Mr. Holsinger said that he was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Holsinger said the precedent of development that has been set in this area over the years has been for larger lots, averaging three to five acres, providing plenty of space. Ms. Rebecca Watts, a resident of the Stonewall District, was opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Watts asked about the possibility for the applicant to exceed the number of dwelling units stated in the application. She also had the following connnents: the density proposed was inconsistent with the existing neighborhood; the applicant should be required to uphold the 200 -foot setback from the existing orchard; the Frederick Countyng Commission �� Page 1713 Minutes of April 5,, 200 2006 '�" �J ` � u ME proposal would create an increased impact to already -overcrowded schools; the increased traffic would create additional safety hazards on roads that were already congested. Mr. Andrew Haddock, a resident of Stonewall Estates, was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Haddock said he moved to this area in 1997 from Alexandria, Virginia to get away from all the urban growth; he said he enjoyed the open space provided by his five -acre lot. Mr. Haddock said that he would like the community to remain the way it is. Mr. Gerald Hendricks, a resident of the Stonewall District, said he was concerned about the traffic and the short site distances. Mr. Hendricks said the entrance to the proposed subdivision is at the crest of a large hill and site distance is short; he remembered a terrible accident that occurred at this location a few years ago. He was concerned about accidents and serious injuries that could occur. Mr. Ronald Strosnyder, a resident of Payne Road in the Stonewall District, said that he is employed by Mr. Glen Russell and, prior to that was employed by both Glen's father and grandfather. Mr. Strosnyder said that there has been a Russell building company in Frederick County, providing homes and providing jobs for lots of people, for many years. Mr. Strosnyder said that the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was not initially wanted in that area either; he said that if Mr. Russell had not been so determined, the residents on Union View would not now have a home. Mr. Strosnyder said this area is within the UDA and Mr. Russell has the right to ask for this. He said that Mr. Russell initially proposed 130 lots and then compromised down to 60 because of the neighbors' oppositions. Mr. Gary Creed, the Sales Manager at Shenandoah Building Supply located in the Stonewall District, said that he has been selling drywall to Mr. Russell for 19 years. Mr. Creed said that most of the materials and labor used in all of the construction taking place in Frederick County is being provided by companies outside of the area. He said that Mr. Russell buys his materials locally and he uses local subcontractors; he said these people bank, shop, and go to schools in Frederick County and consequently, this money stays in Frederick County. Mr. Creed said that he was one of 35 employees at Shenandoah Building Supply and all of them rely on Mr. Russell's business to provide for their families. He believed this rezoning should be approved. Mr. Ralph Henderson, a resident on Union View Lane in the Stonewall District, said he recently moved to this area from the State of Illinois and it was difficult to find the type of housing here that he wanted. He said the lot sizes of Glendobbin Ridge appealed to him, along with the proximity to work and shopping. Mr. Henderson provided photographs to the Commission showing road construction already taking place at the end of Union View Lane. It disturbed him that this work was taking place without the Planning Commission's prior approval of the rezoning. Mr. Henderson said that he paid extra for his lot at the end of a cul-de-sac and was told there would not be any construction on the opposite side of the cul-de-sac because the land was in a preservation parcel. He was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Richard Mason, a resident of the Opequon District, said he wanted to speak in support ofthe Russells, a local builder. Mr. Mason said he has been in the building supply business for 25 years and he has never seen a builder that cared more about the products he uses, his customers, and his customers' satisfaction. Mr. Mason said that if the proposed houses are built, it will benefit him, as well as his employees and everyone in the community. Mr. Mason said that the big builders that are coming from outside the Frederick County area do not purchase their supplies locally; he said they are also bringing subcontractors from out of town. He questioned how this benefited Frederick County. He also spoke positively about the integrity of the Russells. Frederick County Plamiing Commissionon jPage 1714 Minutes of April 5, 2006 F !U mom Mr. Gary Ulmer, a resident of the Stonewall District and owner of the Loudoun Door and Window Company, said he was present to support the Russells. Mr. Ulmer said that he grew up in Loudoun County and saw this same type of growth occur there. Mr. Ulmer said that residents who built and moved into homes here cannot shut the door behind them and say no more building. He was in support of the small, local builder. Mr. Brad Katts, a resident of Union View Lane in the Stonewall District, said that he moved to his 2.9 -acre lot last year with the expectation that the preservation parcel could not be further subdivided. Mr. Katts said he did not object to others moving to the area, but he wanted the density to be consistent with the area, which was two to five -acre lots. Mr. Katts was opposed to the rezoning because it would affect the quality of life he had expected in Frederick County. Mr. Gene Parker, a resident of Back Creek District and an employee at 84 Lumber, came forward to speak in favor of the proposed rezoning and to speak in support of Mr. Russell. Mr. Parker said that he has been in the builduig industry for 18 years and, over the last six years, the price of housing and land in the area has "gone through the roof " Mr. Parker raised the issue of how children of existing residents could possibly afford to live in Frederick County because of the increased costs. He said that the Russell family has always built starter homes and offered affordable housing, especially for the young couple. Mr. Kevin Sites, a local resident and a local builder, came forward to speak in favor of the rezoning. Mr. Sites believed five -acre parcels were a waste of land. He said the Russells put in a nice subdivision and he lives not too far from its entrance; he said he never had any problems with construction noise or traffic, they've cleaned up construction debris, and the crews work normal hours. Mr. Sites spoke positively about Mr. Russell's integrity and the quality of his construction. Mr. Timothy Shot, a local resident, spoke in favor of protecting the preservation parcel. He was not in favor of granting the waiver this soon for the construction of housing. Ms. Kathy Danzey, a resident at 591 Apple Pie Ridge, came forward to speak for herself and her husband and family. Ms. Danzey said that they were opposed to the rezoning and gave reasons why she thought the quality of life they've grown accustomed to would be impacted by this rezoning. She believed this rezoning would overdevelop the area and set a precedent that would affect future generations; it would create increased unpacts to schools, water and sewer, and roads; she believed that future developers needed to accommodate infrastructure and that green areas, bicycle paths, and sidewalks should be provided in proportion to new housing growth. Mr. John Miles, a resident of the Stonewall District, was opposed to the rezoning request. Mr. Miles said he was suspicious of the rezoning proposal and believed the amended application was the builder's strategy to get the density he originally requested of 130 dwellings. Mr. Miles was concerned that the increased traffic from the proposed development would make already unsafe roads even worse. He described Glendobbin and Payne roads as narrow, unlined country roads, with traffic speeds in excess of 55 mph. He said he witnessed a serious accident at the corner of Glendobbin and Union View and he predicted that more serious accidents would occur with increased traffic. He also talked about unsafe traffic conditions on Welltown Pike and Route 11; he said the added traffic from this proposed development will make an unsafe situation much worse. Mr. Miles said the entire conununity was lead to believe the preservation parcel could not be developed for ten years; he added that the density of the proposal does not fit the character of the existing established neighborhood. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of April 5, 2006 r,*)J �a uY I G L Page 1715 -10 - Ms. Darla Barrett, a resident off Apple Pie Ridge in the Stonewall District, was primarily concerned about the impact to schools, particularly because the student population was increasing so rapidly and the schools are using trailers to house students. Ms. Barrett believed the preservation lot should remain in tact for ten years to give the infrastructure a chance to catch up with existing development. Ms. Suzanne Schnider, a resident of Glendobbin Road in the Stonewall District, said she and her family have lived on Glendobbin Road for ten years and they are strongly opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Schnider believed the density proposed was inconsistent with existing development and was inappropriate for a county road that is already experiencing significant traffic volumes. She said Glendobbin Road is also used by the high school cross country team as part of their circuit and many residents and nonresidents use the road for biking and walking; she said it was becoming increasingly more dangerous to participate in these activities. She preferred that the Russell property be developed in five -acre tracts and that the preservation parcel remains intact. Ms. Schnider said that many of her neighbors could not be present this evening, but have signed petitions and letters and are also opposed to this rezoning request. Ms. Cynthia Lee, a resident on Quaker Lane in the Stonewall District, said the Quaker Lane lots are smaller lots than Glendobbin, and are about one to two -acre lots. Ms. Lee said she recently moved from Hampton Chase subdivision which contained about 65 homes. Ms. Lee said that one of the main reasons she moved was because every time a house went up for sale, one person purchased it, but four families moved in. She did not think the traffic count would be accurate if single-family dwellings are turning into mini -apartment buildings. Ms. Kimberly Slot, a resident on Wilton Drive in the Stonewall District, was opposed to the rezoning. Ms. Slot said that she was with the group that was waiting out in the hallway because the capacity limits of the Board Room had been exceeded. She said she did not have the opportunity to hear both sides of the rezoning presentations. Ms. Slot said that when she moved to this area six years ago, they were told each house would be on a five -acre minimwn lot; she said she chose Wilton Drive because of the rural feel to it. She did not want the quality of life to which she had become accustomed to be disturbed. Mr. Ron Samon, a 19 -year resident of Glendobbin Road in the Stonewall District requested that the Commission consider "bio -diversity" and the enviromnent while deliberating this project. Mr. Samon said that one of the reasons this is such a lovely area to live in is because of its bio -diversity, which includes the orchards, the fragmented woodland, and the meadows, which supports considerable wildlife. He said that one of the results that come from the loss of bio -diversity is forest fragmentation, which is ongoing throughout the County; he said these areas provide wildlife corridors. Mr. Samon asked the Commission to consider this and the environmental impact this project may have. Mr. Samon said that he operates a USGS Certified Bird Station; he said that over the last several years, since development activity started near his station, the capture rate has been declining. A resident on Union View Lane came forward to speak, but did not provide her name. She thought the emotional level on both sides of the issue was getting out of hand. She said the application proposed is simply a zoning question being put to the Conunission asking whether or not the proposed plan is of enough benefit to the community, as well as a benefit the developer, to justify its approval. Mr. Greg Smith, a resident of the Gainesboro District, said he has known Mr. and Mrs. Glen Russell for two years and respects them both; he spoke favorably about the integrity of both Mr. and Mrs. Russell and the Russell family. Mr. Smith believed the quality of the schools in Frederick County is getting better because of the development that is taking place here. He said the Russells are involved in the County's schools Frederick County Planning Commission ® Page 1716 I I J I 0 YL Minutes of April 5, 2006 N j -11 - and they donate their tune and money. Mr. Smith said he moved to this area from Northern Virginia to escape growth; he said he lived on five acres, but understands that some people can not afford that and need something smaller in size. Mr. Smith said he fails to see the logic of people who come here from out of the area and who do not want anyone else to move here after them. Mr. Larry Knox, a resident of the Stonewall District, voiced his opposition to the rezoning of this property for several reasons. Mr. Knox said the long-term infrastructure needed to support the project would have to be financed by the tax payers and would result in a burden for everyone in the community. Mr. Knox questioned how the Comrnission could let the project move forward when the southeast corner ofthe property was compromised by the right-of-way of future Route 37. He said that with the final alignment uncertain, it was impossible to know how much of the site will be needed for construction. Mr. Knox hoped the Commission would consider the welfare of the entire Frederick County community and not set a precedent for this to open up more boundaries throughout the County. Mr. Randy Hillyard, a resident of Apple Pie Ridge, said that he did not have a problem with Mr. Russell's project; he said the Russells build quality affordable housing and he should be allowed to continue with his project. Mr. Jim Salada, a resident of Wilton Drive, said he was present to represent approximately 50 people sitting out in the lobby who were opposed to this project. Mr. Salada said that due to the limited capacity of the Board Room, they were not allowed to enter to hear all of the arguments. He said these are voting taxpayers who are opposed to this rezoning. Ms. Amy Racey, a resident of the Opequon District, voiced her support of the Russell's project. Ms. Racey said the Russells were raised here, live here, and this land will be used by them to construct their project; she said the Russells buy all of their materials here and support local subcontractors. Mr. Rob Duck, a resident on Wilton Drive in the Stonewall District, was concerned about the traffic and the safety of his children. Mr. Duck said that his property borders on Apple Pie Ridge and he has had four accidents on his property alone. He said Glendobbin Road is unsafe for the current volume of traffic; he said the volume and speed of traffic is too great for the roads to handle. Mr. Duck was also concerned about the quality of education at Apple Pie Ridge School. Mr. Jeff Smalovitz, a resident of the Stonewall District, was in opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Domia Strosnyder, a resident on Payne Road, said that Mr. Russell is planning on building 300,000 square -foot homes that will be completely consistent with what is already on Glendobbin Road. Ms. Strosnyder thought that calling this area rural was an exaggeration because the neighborhood contains a Taco Bell restaurant, a factory, and an industrial park within site of the homes on Union View. She said there is a finite amount of land available in Frederick County and if the five -acre parcels continue, there will be urban sprawl and waste. Since everyone who wished to speak had been given the opportunity to do so, Chairman Wilmot closed the public continent portion of the meeting. Mr. Maddox returned to the podium to address some of the citizen comments that were made. Mr. Maddox said this project initially called for 130 dwellings, but was reduced to 60 dwellings because of the applicant's sensitivity to many of the issues discussed; he said that any less would not be viable. Mr. Maddox Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1717 Minutes of April 5, 2006 0 0 N pointed out that it is not unprecedented to have even smaller lots than what they are proposing developed on Welltown Pike, Payne Road, and within that area. Mr. Maddox said that a precedent will not be set; this project is in the SWSA and the UDA and he knew of no other situation where something like this could occur to create a precedent. In conclusion, Mr. Maddox said that the Commission will need to decide if the one -acre gross density is acceptable; he said the 60 units have been proffered. Conunissioner Ours asked Mr. Maddox if he would indicate on the deeds to the individual properties the proximity to a planned divided highway, if the project was approved. Mr. Maddox agreed that would be appropriate. Commissioner Kriz was disturbed that this land was subdivided into a Rural Preservation Parcel by the applicant in the first place, knowing where the UDA line was in 2002. Mr. Maddox said that in his view, it was still good plamiing to look at this as a transitional use and to provide diversity. Conunissioner Thomas asked Mr. Maddox if he would consider postponing development on the six lots, adjacent to the planned Route 37 corridor, to allow the County more tune to determine the final alignment for the road. Mr. Maddox agreed and said he could include a provision into their proffer, specifically stating those last six lots would not be developed until the third year of the project. Mr. Maddox added that moving the road slightly could be accommodated easily using the applicant's adjacent industrially -zoned property. Conunissioner Unger said that he sympathized with the people who purchased their lots around the 37 -acre rural preservation parcel. Commissioner Unger asked Mr. Maddox if he could condense the density of the development within the 31 acres that were not a part of the preservation lot. Mr. Maddox replied that they could make that proposition work, but it would result in a much higher density than what has been proposed. He said they had studied a proposal for 45 units on 15,000 square -foot lots. Conuiussion members next had additional questions of the staff. Conunissioner Thomas asked the staff how they reached their conclusion that placing single- family homes on moderately-sized lots adjacent to other single-family dwellings was a non -compatible use; he said the applicant has proffered out other uses allowed within the RP District. Ms. Eddy replied that anytime the staff and the Planning Commission considers any RP rezoning inside the UDA, they always look at what is around the subject parcel. Ms. Eddy said there is no doubt this is mainly a residential area; however, the issue is more the intensity of the development and the fact that the land use plan did not call specifically for residential, as in most of the UDA. She added that most of the UDA is colored yellow, clearly indicating RP Zoning and suburban residential development; however, this is one of the few areas where it isn't that way. Ms. Eddy further added that people do live in the UDA, but it is not only for residential; it contains the whole range of uses including industrial and commercial. She said that to immediately say it should be suburban residential is a bit of a leap. Conunissioner Ours also sympathized with the homeowners who purchased their properties believing this parcel would remain an agricultural area. However, he recalled past instances where established homeowners began to have complaints about living next to active agricultural uses with livestock. He noted that there were other, less desirable uses that could go on this property. Commissioner Ours also agreed with one of the citizen's continents that the door can't be closed on development just after others have passed through. In conclusion, Cormnission cr Ours suggested that the rode may need to be. reviewed to determine if the placement of any rural preservation lot within the UDA is appropriate or not. Frederick County Planning CommissionD (� � V Page 1718 Minutes of April 5, 2006 E�j„l�j 'AIV -13— Commissioner Light suggested that the Board of Supervisors should possibly have been polled on their view of whether they would support removing the rural preservation lot restriction on this property before the applicant spent so much money on getting plans engineered. Commissioner Light had the opinion that the compatibility of the development within this area was a two -to -five -acre lot size; he said that the applicant had agreed to the preservation parcel with his signature on the plat. Commissioner Thomas believed a transitional area was necessary, especially within the UDA, and lot sizes become smaller further into the UDA. He also believed a possible flaw existed within the ordinance to allow rural preservation lots in the UDA because expectations could be altered after lots are purchased. Commissioner Thomas believed the best use of land inside the UDA was for higher density than outside the UDA. Conunissioner Mohn believed a one -acre lot, for the most part, was a very low density pattern of development. He thought the initial proposal of 130 units was totally off the mark and sought to maximize the site, which was not appropriate. Commissioner Mohn did not believe a one -acre density would be out of place here, particularly when the viewshed area includes an industrial park. He commented that this is somewhat of a transitional area; he said TIA studies concluded that infrastructure can support the density and can do so adequately and safely. In conclusion, Conunissioner Mohn viewed this proposal as a compromise within the UDA and the SWSA. Conunissioner Oates said the owners of tlus property made the decision to develop their land with a rural preservation subdivision and, for whatever reason, decided not to go through the rezoning process at that time. He said that perhaps the owner, or his consultant, was unaware the property was within the UDA. Conunissioner Oates made a motion to reconunend that the request for a waiver of the rural preservation restriction for Parcel 43-A-16, consisting of 36.54 acres, be denied. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of the request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, described as Parcel 43-A-16 and consisting of 36.54 acres. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL OF WAIVER): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett NO: Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn POSTPONEMENT OF LAST AGENDA ITEM, REZONING 04-06 OF ORRICK CEMETERY, INC. Chairman Wilmot commented that due to the Planning Commission's Bylaws that state no new items are to be taken up after 10:30 p.m., it is likely that the last item on the Conunission's agenda, Rezoning 404-06 of Orrick Cemetery, Inc., will not be heard. Chairman Wilmot suggested that the Commission consider tabling this rezoning until the first meeting in May. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Mohn, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to hear Rezoning #04-06 of Orrick Cemetery, Inc. at the Conunission's May 3, 2006 meeting. Frederick County Planning Conunission MPage 1719 Minutes of April 5, 2006 IAL -14 - Rezoning #03-06 of O -N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHRA) to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers. The rezoning consists of two major parcels: the Middle Marsh property, located east of Belle View Lane (Rt. 758), west of Hites Road (Rt. 625), and on both sides of Chapel Road (Rt. 627); and the Northern Reserve, which is bounded to the south by Cedar Creek and Shenandoah County, and is west and adjacent to Meadow Mills Road (Rt. 624). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 83-A-109 and 90-A-23 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action — Tabled for 60 Days until. June 7, 2006 Deputy Planning Director Michael T. Ruddy described the location and size of the parcels; he noted that the property to the immediate south in Shenandoah County is a continuation of the applicant's mining operations in Shenandoah County. He reported that several of the reviewing agency comments were of importance, including those from the Sanitation Authority, the Town of Middletown, the County Public Works Department, the County Attorney, the Historic Resources Advisory Board, and the National Parks Service. Mr. Ruddy commented that the Comprehensive Policy Plan recognizes the value of its limestone resources to the County's economy and encourages the extraction of these resources. He said the Comprehensive Policy Plan also recognizes the groundwater that is provided by the quarries as a valuable long-term water source for the County. Mr. Ruddy stressed the importance, however, of the Commission to recognize that the applicant had not proffered a commitment to the use of the property beyond those which would be enabled by the EM District; all land uses meeting the applicable development standards, would be permitted within the district based upon the application as submitted. Mr. Ruddy pointed out that the property under consideration is located adjacent to Belle Grove and the Cedar Creek Battlefield, both of which are historic sites listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. He said inforniation and reconnnendations for the preservation and protection of the historical appearance and character of these areas has been provided by the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB). At their meeting on December 20, 2005, the HRAB invited various historical and cultural stakeholders to participate in their discussion to consider the O -N Minerals (Chemstone) application. Those represented included Belle Grove, the Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation, the National Park Service, and the Town of Middletown. Mr. Ruddy said the HRAB expressed they could support approval of this project, ifthe suggestions offered as a result of the HRAB meeting are considered by the applicant in order to mitigate impacts on the historic resources. (Those comments are detailed in a letter dated January 3, 2006 to Mr. Chuck Maddox, Jr. P.E., from Candice E. Perkins, staff support for the HRAB.) Mr. Ruddy pointed out that the applicant has modified the rezoning application in an effort to address two of the nine continents suggested by the HRAB; however, those two comments, involving viewshed coordination and mitigation, and cultural resource surveys, have not been addressed ui a marmer that totally satisfies the concerns of the HRAB. In addition, he said that many of the other reconnnendations offered by the HRAB have not been addressed. Mr. Ruddy proceeded to review those HRAB reconunendations with the Commission. Moving on to the transportation impacts, Mr. Ruddy stated that much of the analysis in the impact statement is based upon the continuation of existing practices of the Middletown quarry operation. He said the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and the impact statement suggests that the vehicle trips would increase by more than double from the existing count of 506 vehicles per day to 1,305 vehicle trips per day. He noted that the primary access to the site is depicted as being from the existing site entrance along Route 625 (5h Street) to Route 11 (Maui Street) in the Town of Middletown. He said the Town has expressed their opposition to the increase in Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1720 Minutes of April 5, 2006 10 L 1 F V -15 - truck traffic through Middletown. Mr. Ruddy stated that it should be recognized that a different combination of uses or additional uses may further increase the traffic impacts associated with this request. Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that the County Engineer expressed concerns regarding the geological impacts and the potential hydrological impacts, in particular the impact of the project on the local groundwater, which includes the adjacent subdivisions that rely on groundwater wells for their water supply. He reported that the impact of blasting on adjacent residential buildings and the impact of dust from the mining operations on adjacent residential dwellings was also mentioned by the County's Engineer. He added that consideration should also be given to the visual impacts on the rural landscape from the perspective of the adjacent residential landowners and from the perspective of residents and visitors traveling along Chapel Lane. Commissioner Oates inquired if the applicant would be permitted, if his application is approved in its current form, to subdivide tracts off of Chapel Hill Road and sell to other operations, such as a pre -cast concrete products plant or an asphalt batch plant. Mr. Ruddy believed this was a valid concern and the issue could be addressed by the applicant through his proffer statement. Commissioner Thomas asked if aquifer protection was provided through the Department of Mines and Minerals (DMM) permit or if it is monitored through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Mr. Ruddy replied that through his discussions with the DMM, it was his understanding the issue of aquifer protection is covered through the DMM's pennitting process. Commissioner Thomas said his understanding was that the DMM covers the drawdown of the aquifer, but does not go into any quality or quantity protection measures. Commission members asked who would determine if the applicant's operation was the cause of a citizen's well going dry and who would be responsible for determining if a remediation needed to take place; they asked if someone from the County would have that responsibility or if the citizen would have to hire an attorney and go to court. Mr. Ruddy said that while an attempt was made to address that issue through the proffer statement, the Commission could request additional specificity to clarify that issue; he believed that both the County and the DMM would be involved in the process. Chainnan Wilmot called for the applicant to come forward with his presentation. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, representing this application, recognized the desire to have other uses in the EM Zoning District proffered out; however, he said the concrete plant has already been constructed in Strausburg on an industrial access road that has the capacity to handle the operation, and an asphalt plant has already been constructed at this company's Strausburg facility, which also has sufficient capacity. He said the range of options for this company is only one and that is extractive mining for high-quality limestone. Mr. Maddox said the owners of this operation are incredibly good business people and very astute when it comes to being a good neighbor to the surrounding residents; he said it was very important to them to live acceptably with the neighbors. Mr. Maddox proceeded to describe the limestone product being extracted and all the industries that depend on the limestone product for their operation, ranging from steel -making to environmental protection activities. He said they also produce aggregates for road building and VDOT has stations nearby. Mr. Maddox next talked about the primary issues that were raised, beginning with groundwater. Mr. Maddox reported that the applicant has contracted the services of the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), one of the larger consulting businesses in the country and who are experts in their field, and Frederick County Planning Commission ), Page 1721 Minutes of April 5, 2006 f �,� & V -16 - they have presented a plan of what they expect to see as a result of this groundwater hydrology study. Mr. Maddox reported that they expect to see a drawdown of approximately 20 feet on site and 10 feet off site; a 15 - foot drop in the water table will occur, especially in the area of the Western View subdivision and in certain residences to the east, as well as to the west. He noted that most of the wells in this area have been constructed to modern standards and the report finds these levels to be acceptable. Mr. Maddox stressed the fact that if their operation is determined to have caused a well problem, O -N Minerals will fix that well. He added that this issue is monitored by the mining permit. Mr. Maddox said the blasting and dust control has been addressed through the proffer statement. Using an illustration, Mr. Maddox next described the proposed berm and landscaping. Mr. Maddox said that a Historical Phase Study by the HRAB's consultant, who will do the work, will proceed immediately, before any disturbance of the area occurs. Mr. Maddox concluded his presentation and took questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Joe Ferrill, Division General Manager for O -N Minerals, addressed Commissioner Moms' question asking for clarification on the roles and responsibilities of the State versus the Federal regulating agencies and what the requirements and timing were for reclamation. Mr. Ferrill explained that Federal oversight has an office of surface mining which oversees state programs, but DMM has full responsibility for managing the surface mining operations within the State of Virginia. In addition, he said there was a also a federal agency responsible for health and safety and DMM has similar responsibilities. Regarding reclamation, Mr. Ferrill said the reserves are so extensive, they believe that mining operations will continue here for another 50 years. He said that berms, seeding, and planting will occur with initial construction and set as they go. Conunissioner Thomas asked about the monitoring of the quality and quantity of the aquifers. Mr. Maddox replied that occasionally, blasting can create air bubbles and some discoloration; he said it is not customary to see that. He said the applicant will be monitoring those types of things and this company will treat that issue the same as a lack of quantity. In other words, if it creates diminished quality, it will be mitigated. Mr. Maddox agreed to add this statement to the proffer and specifically reference the quality and quantity. Conunissioner Oates raised the issue about the height of the proposed berms. Mr. Maddox said that the Planning Staff did not want to see really high berms here and he agreed because the higher the berm, the more it stands apart from the natural landscape; he said a smaller berm with a flatter slope will be more viewshed friendly. Mr. Maddox said it was obvious they will have to build berms higher in certain limited cases; therefore, they have offered a change (and would ask that the PC include in their motion) that the 30 -foot maximum would actually state an "average" of 30 feet with higher berms as required for proper viewshed conditions. Commissioner Oates said that he would also like to see a minimum height, possibly 15 to 16 feet high, to conceal the height of a truck. Conunissioner Oates stated that if the responsibility for well damage had to be contested, the property owner should not have to bear the expense of hiring a lawyer to prove the mining company was at fault. He suggested sonic type of fund or a bond be set up in escrow and have the County make the determination about the cause. Referring to Proffer #4 Rights to Water Supply, Mr. Oates asked to view the existing groundwater resources agreements that had been previously negotiated between the applicant and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority; he said he may want to make them an attaclmnent to the proffers. Mr. Stewart Brasher, project manager for Dyno Consult, which is the consulting arm of Dyno- Novell, a commercial blasting company, said that as a condition of permitting, the State of Virginia requires all blasting to be monitored by a minimum of one seismograph set up at the closest non -company-owned property. Frederick County Planning CommissionD Page 1722 Minutes of April 5, 2006 0 R M � He said the data has to be analyzed, stored, and the equipment used must be calibrated on an annual basis to ensure its accuracy. Mr. Basher explained that for the analysis of this quarry site, they went back through approximately two years' worth of data, reconstructed each blast, and examined the results. Mr. Brasher assured the Commission this was closely monitored by the State. Commissioner Oates asked the County's engineer, Mr. Ed Strawsnyder, to summarize the Public Works' comments for the Commission. Mr. Strawsnyder first addressed the grow-idwater, stating that he believed the remediation was a very good start; he also believed water quality should be evaluated and included in the proffer statement. Mr. Strawsnyder also agreed that a designated mediator for remediation situations should be determined and resolved. He offered to meet with representatives of the DMM to see how these issues have been resolved in the past; he said these situations have previously occurred and the mining companies have stepped up, even though there may have been a question of whether it was their problem or not. Commissioner Light conunented that the applicant's proffer statement seemed very broad and general and he would have preferred to see more specificity in the proffer statement. He said he would like to see some specific recommendations from the staff, after they meet with the DMM, on the water quality and quantity, the height and location of berms, and the traffic. Conunissioner Thomas wanted to see specificity in the proffer dealing with the placement of seismometers and a plan on how this will be specifically measured and monitored. He said the closest point to the blast is not necessarily the location of the greatest impact of shockwave through the rock structure, because of the geometries of the site and various geological features. Other items the Commission said they would like to see clarified were: the eight -acre reserve area for Belle Grove; a detailed plan showing the benns; a phasing plan for each section, and consideration of an increase in some of the buffers. Commissioner Oates then made a motion to table the rezoning application for 60 days. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Connnission does hereby unanimously agree to table Rezoning Application 403-06 of O -N Minerals (Chemstone), submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHRA) to rezone 639.13 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to EM (Extractive Manufacturing) District with proffers for 60 days. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Conunissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the Commission adjourned at 11:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, June M. Wilmot, Chainnan Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Conmlissionn 0 Page 1723 Minutes of April 5, 2006 j !, � F Y REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 RLUSSEL .-GL E.NDORBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: May 1, 2606 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning ,Staff to provide information to t 1e Planning, Commission and the Board of .Super --visors to assist them in making a decision ora this applicatian. ;t may also be useful to others interested in this zaning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action hianzning Commission: February 15, 2006 Postponement requested by applicant April 5, 2006 Recommended denial of waiver May 17, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: June 14, 2006 Pending 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 DiiSTRIC T : Stonewall P OPERTY ID NUlF BERS: 43-A-1513 ?RGPlERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M1 (Light Industrial) RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard Use: Agriculture Use. Industrial & Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential Rezoning #17-05 —Russell-Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 45 Single Family Detached Residential Units on 31.1851 acres —1.44 dwelling units per acre (Idarch 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: StaffNote: 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 farther 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. Staff Nate: The Tire 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 notprovided 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 n:noff 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 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 properly 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. Freder;ck County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will continent on subdivision review. Frederiek-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 &i 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. Fredea ick 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 PAicv 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] Rezoning 417-05 -- Russell-Glendobbin May 1, 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 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 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 02114106 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road FruitHill 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. .staffAlote: Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring a considerable buffer between any house and any 1141 zoned property. Thezoning district buffer shown on the ODP, but not referenced in the text of the proffer statement, appears to be the Zoning Ordinance required minimum, a Category Ruf`er. Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 6 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 -mote: The alignment of Route 37 could change as a result offnal engineering. Should this rezoning be approved as submitted, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would red✓ce 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 tie Stonewall Industrial Park might necessitate moving the path of Route 37further west, and possibly onto this site. (Ln 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 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 subj ect 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. StaffiVote: The Public Forks Department noted the karst areasof the site which will need io 3e addressed at the MDP stage. 4) Potential Impacts Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 7 A. Transportation Staff Note: The TLA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did notprepare a new TLA 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 7t' 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. 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 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 Day Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Doth the Frederick Winchester ServiceAuthority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate tiie 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. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 4, 2005, Devised 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 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 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 an application for 60 houses on two parcels, including the Clendobbin Ridge Preservation Parcel, was considered. PLANNING CO1V MEISSION 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 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. DEN2ALT Ole '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.) S , AFF CONCLUSIONS F01165/17/06 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. YFallowin,a the requirement fog a public heaYLng, a recar��znteudation by the Planninng Commission to the Board of Su2ervisors concerning this ,fezoni�� application would be appropriate. OUTPUT MG. c APPLICANT: Russell-Glendobbin Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE RP Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For REAL EST VAL $17,043,000 FIRE & RESCUE = 1 Required Capital Facilities (entered in col sum only) Cur. Budget Ooer Cao Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other (Unadiusted) Cost Balance Facilities Imoact Dwelling Unit Fire and Rescue Department $63,567 $0 $0 $63,567 $489 Elementary Schools $557,399 Middle Schools High Schools $327,887 $480,680 $91,202 $442,730 $533,932 $381,727 $984,238 $7,571 Parks and Recreation Public Library $199,550 $34,692 $44,972 $44,972 $32,152 $167,398 $1,288 Sheriff's Offices $20,532 $16,823 $0 $9,702 $4,193 $9,702 $21,016 $6,937 $15,025 $27,755 $5,506 $213 $42 Administration Building $26,349 $0 $0 $0 $26,349 $203 Other Miscellaneous Facilities $33,616 $32,417 $35,790 $68,207 $48,764 $0 $0 SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT $1,744,271 $0 $140,442 $478,520 $58,868 $677,830 $484,605 $1,259,666 $9,690 NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,259,666 $9,690 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Co Avg ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- ----- METHODOLOGY: 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations. is input in row total of second column (zero If negative); included are the one-time taxes/fees for one year only at full value. 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated In fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- --------------------- ------------------------------------------ ----- NOTES: Model Run Date 04/27/05 CMM Project Description: Assumes 130 single family detached dwellings on 67 acres zoned RP District. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0.533 0.715 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 June 23, 2005 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Senior VP Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property Dear Chuck: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Russell- Glendobbin Property. The rezoning application seeks to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the RP (Residential Performance) District. Staff s review comments are listed below for your consideration. Procedure. The subject property is in the Urban Development Area (UDA), therefore the applicant is eligible to seek a Board waiver of the division restriction on the set-aside (40% parcel) of the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. As per Section165-541)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this is accomplished through a rezoning, following a public hearing. Procedurally, the Board waiver and the rezoning would take place at the same public hearing. 2. Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the draft application, the subject properties are in the UDA and partially in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). I would point out that no portion of the subject sites are designated for residential use on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. Since this site is not in an area designated for residential development, it is not clear how the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As you are aware, Section 165-541)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that a rezoning covering a preservation parcel will only be granted if the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Surrounding Area. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision contains two -acre lots and the large set-aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision bought their lots with the clear expectation that the set-aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west are five -acre lots, which have }Tet to be developed. In fact, most subdivisions along 107 North Rent Street. Suite 202 ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. Also critical is the fact that the parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use. While the Comprehensive Plan seeks to separate industrial uses from residential uses, this proposal would considerably increase the number of residences, and thus residents, directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. Furthermore, it appears that the proposal is advocating using a large number of new residents as a buffer between industrial and low-density residential uses. The set-aside parcel currently serves as a very satisfactory buffer. 4. Sewer and Water. Only part of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) and thus eligible for water and sewer service. 5. Buffer. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance only requires a Category A Buffer between new RP and an existing MI Districts. The applicant should consider enhancements to the required buffer, such as that required when new Ml locates next to existing RP. 6. Route 37. The GDP shows the future Route 37 and a proffer indicates the right-of- way for Route 37 would be dedicated to the County at no cost. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance requires buffers and screening between the residential parcels and Route 37, which would be a major arterial road. The applicant may want to consider enhancements to the required buffer and screening. Also note that the alignment of Route 37 is at present not precise, and may impact more of the site than that shown on your plans. 7. Surveyed Plat. Please supply a surveyed plat of the subject properties, which shows all property lines and proposed zoning boundary lines. Metes and bounds should be provided to verify exact locations of lots and zoning boundaries. 8. Deed. Please provide a deed to the property verifying current ownership. 9. Verification that taxes have been paid. Please provide a receipt from the Treasurer's office which verifies that real estate taxes for the properties have been paid. 10. Adjacent parcels. The list of adjoining properties should include 43-A-19 and 43- A-21. Also, ownership of parcel 43-20-3 has changed. Verifi, ownerships before the actual application is submitted. Page 3 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 11. Proposed Proffer Statement (Including Generalized Development Plan). A. Page 3 of the applications states the application is for 125 units. The proffer statement (1.1) states a maximum of 130 units. Please insure consistent numbers. B. Proffer 2.1 refers to the Butcher rezoning. Please correct. C. Proffer 3.1 states a contribution to the Board for fire and rescue in the amount of $889.00 per dwelling unit. This is not consistent with the amount listed on page 6 of 6 in the impact assessment. D. Proffer 4.1 mentions units designated as "age restricted". This is not explained in the application. Please address. E. Proffer 11.1 states the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Specify the improvements and the timing of those improvements. F. Proffer 11.2 calls for a connection between the internal road network for the project and Glendobbin Ridge Road. Please be more specific on the details of this connection and the timing of the connection. 12. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Historic Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Public Schools, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick - Winchester Health Department, Clearbrook Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. Note: the proffer statement has been sent to the Frederick County Attorney by the Planning Department. 13. Virginia Department of Transportation. I have received an email from Lloyd Ingram at VDOT stating that VDOT was not satisfied with the transportation proffers. VDOT's concerns will need to be addressed before this application is submitted. 14. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. Thus, a total of $9,823 is due upon submission of the official rezoning application. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. 15. Special Limited Power of Attorney. Please have the property owners complete the special limited power of attorney form which authorizes you to represent them during the application process. Page 4 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 All of the above comments and any agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, jjtt"O-�O T. C�A� Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment _ 6 P _ Flo . k a L X f 4 _- • {{�� ; . -'� '� '' Subject Property f Map Features a _ n Application / v Rt 37 Bypass Parcels Lakes/Ponds Road Centorlinas Streams �� 0SWSA "^•• Buildings UDA Trails - f Tanks ' wr•*`•r�l �� o � f � t=�wrC'+��� ice` 4 �� ` • / =. Urban Development Area � <� JAQ It Ak �. �`�, g 1 REZ # 17 - 05 N Russell - Glendobbin WE \5 (43 -A -15B) 0 375750 1,500 Feet Urban Development .• ment A7rea th •907 4;vrv'Pvc`° — ° e ;° rrr� •� •ie ♦ 'v �dCSo O°r Ste. Subject We I !000 ..•f,;Fp3°�.� .ot . •.�v dSr tYihva v . r 1Big ff ''4Ps:'S'r• riS+'d� ,� j. mfr •.�•• Sr . v v ry • > mac. r ,vq� •, �.,�..•.,.. X04. +i� .;.r ; � :•as~gs°g�. r ..;:•'o,'I;b`'•'• ❖.. • •� o �� ' v;:° �• •;aro.• w � � Z f�' •� ,F r ' �` rr 1 w � .•�' •,• ': 1 i� � � � •,,, 4 .tire• e o •,. SY.•1011R':d;• v'• �'�,� �iaiF'ta 1i'i irk iia,\•`tea K � <4 "C� `�'� Map Features Landuse Catagories REZ # 17 - 05 Application IY Rt37Bypass iIparcels Rural Comunity Center Lakes/Ponds Road Centerlines 0SWSA Residential '"- Business N Russell - Glendobbin • +"' Streams -^''V►► Industrial W E Buildings — OOV '"t-., Trails � � UDA Institutional g (43 - A -15 B -_J Tanks Recreation , Historic Mixed -Use 0 375750 1,500 Planned Unit Development Feet BMb; r.) % t f Urban Development Area % 3" SWSAV1, �O C M"D 7, ft V A, Subject Property IV J,rdl P1 -- - T w. REZ # 17 - 05 N Russell - Glenclobbin WA*T S (43 - A - 15B 0 375750 1,500 ®� Feet Map Features Zoning Categories 0 a1 i' I s1b. 1— -ew, 82 : inGeneral Application #4V Rt 37 Bypass ,l parcels A& 33 ,d -O."") -n D"'i") Lake./Ponds Road Centerlines OV SWSA 0 HE (Hrghe, Ed.-- Streams M1 (r.d.-.1, "s, """E* Buildings UDA (r,du,,W1, Z-1 D,,irid) Tanks Trails AW MH1 (M-1. Home Community District) Ma (Metlical Support District) R4(Re,id-h.l 'Planned Community Djrs,,ji,) )RE --fio-1 ...—fty ni­n O RA (—M Ar— i-1) O RP (R-id,irtj.j P.ff—.— Di—t) REZ # 17 - 05 N Russell - Glenclobbin WA*T S (43 - A - 15B 0 375750 1,500 ®� Feet Patton Harri_ must & Associates,pc Engineers- Surveyors- Planners. Landscape Architects. April 11, 2006 Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 APR i1 13016 RE: Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning Application Amendments Bear Mr. Riley: In recognition of concerns of both the Frederick County Planning Commission and citizens of Frederick County, our client has decided to amend the Russell-Glendobbin GPT ��+ rezoning application to both remove the existing Glendobbin Ridge preservation tract JA from the proposed rezoning and to decrease the total number of homes from a proffered maximum of 60 dwelling units to 45 dwelling units. These changes are CORPORATE: significant and have been addressed through a revised proffer statement and generalized ch: nti ly development plan, both dated April 11, 2006. At the April 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission voted to deny the waiver needed for VIRGINIA OFFICES: the existing preservation tract which eliminated the need for a vote on the rezoning Ch2ntilly itself. As the waiver is no longer needed for the application and due to the fact that the Bridge,,ater scale of the project has decreased, we would like to request that the proposed rezoning Fredericksburg be sent back to the Planning Commission in order to obtain a recommendation based Leesburg upon the merits of the amended application. Richmcnd Virginia Beach Winchester Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Woodbridge LABORATORIES.: Sincerely, Chantilly Fredericksburg. Patton Harris Rust & Associates MARYLAND OrFICES: Baltimore Columbia gid^ Frederick Patrick R. Sowers German10wn Hollywood PRS Hunt Valley WEST VIRGINIA Enclosure Revised Proffer Statement OFFICE: M,OIInSbUrg cc: Susan Eddy, Frederick County Planning 7 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 I'-\Planning\Ke o�ungApphcafions\Frederick County\Paramount-Orrick\PC Proffer^AmendLetter 032806.dae 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) PROPERTY: 31.1851 Acres Tax Map Parcels: 43 -A -15B (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell APPLICANT: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell !APR 1 PROJECT NAME: Russell - Glendobbin ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: May 1, 2005 REVISION DATE(S): August 4, 2005 November 9, 2005 March 9, 2006 April 11, 2006 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced RP conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers axe contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest.' When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Russell-Glendobbin Property" dated April 11, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following. LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 45 single family detached dwelling units. 1.2 The project shall develop solely with single family detached residential uses. The minimum lot size for said uses shall be 15,000 square feet. 1.3 No dwelling units shall be permitted within 200 feet of any active orchards located on adjacent properties. (See GDP) 1.4 No dwelling units shall be permitted within 100 feet of any adjacent properties in agricultural use. (See GDP) 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: 2.1 The Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in accordance with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, and this Russell-Glendobbin Proffer Statement as approved by the Board. 2.2 The project shall be developed pursuant to an annualized phasing plan. Building permits for no more than 25 dwelling units shall be issued within any twelve (12) month period, beginning from the date of rezoning approval. 3. FIRE & RESCUE: 3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $889.00 per dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit 4. SCHOOLS: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $7,571.00 per dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. 5. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,288.00 per dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each single family detached unit. LIBRARIES: 6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $213.00 per dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance of a building permit for each such single family detached unit. 7. SHERIFF'S OFFICE 7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $42.00 per dwelling unit for the Sheriff's Office upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 8. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $203.00 per dwelling unit for construction of a general governmental administration building upon issuance of building permit for each such unit. 9. WATER & SEWER: 9.1 The Applicant shall be responsible for connecting the Property to public water and sewer, and for constructing all facilities required for such connection. All water and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. 10. ENVIRONMENT: 10.1 Stormwater management and Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Property shall be provided in accordance with the Virginia. Stormwater Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time of construction of any such facility. 11. TRANSPORTATION: 11.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent with the study entitled, "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Russell-Glendobbin Property," prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc, dated May 4, 2005 (the "TIA"). The Applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. 11.3 The Applicant shall place the amount of $300.00 per dwelling unit in an escrow account for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). Such funds shall be escrowed at the time of building permit issuance for each residential unit, and shall be released to the County within 90 days of a written request by the County. 12. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 12.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI -U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI -U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI -U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non - compounded. SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, Glen W. Russell By: Title: OJW j'% Pamela L. Russell By: n 1! Title: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledg efo me s day o -o , 2006, by j& (A i Cutis ct �. S�e1/ . My Notary tiJrQ-06 3 f,n V, SVqt;'A,, E3 WIND ARY" "PC, f iz: N/1 XJ / ­ R AS C:�% , t A� /I GLENDOBBI;N —PRESE P—VATION -TACT,, 4ONEWALL ! INDUSTRIAL PARK`. IV z II RUSSELL — r GLEND08511V Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc GENERAL/ZED DEVEOPIVENT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA 01 i f kilt Frederick Cowity, Virginia IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMEN11.7 AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE RUSSELL- GLEN, BOBBINIRO SRT Sto��ewall Magisterial Dvisttict March 2006 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. PiccadillyStreet Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2139 Fax: 540--665-0493 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement RUSSELL — GLENDOBBIN PROPERTY REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT (March 2006 A. INTRODUCTION The 67.7242 acre Russell—Glendobbin property lies wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA) of Frederick County, with the majority of the acreage also within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is located adjacent to the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision created by the applicant that is currently developing with single family detached units on 2 -acre lots. The proposed development of the Russell—Glendobbin property will provide a transition from the more intensive land uses within Stonewall Industrial Park to the low density residential development pattern that extends north and west from this area. Approximately 37 acres of the site are platted as the preservation parcel of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. This acreage is normally reserved exclusively for open space or agricultural uses; however, Section 165-54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows the Board of Supervisors to release a preservation parcel that is within the UDA from such development restrictions through the rezoning process "provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time." The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate within the UDA. The portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located represents a transitional area that includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. The proposed rezoning will enable development of single family detached lots that will complement and be compatible with the transitional character of the area. Moreover, the integration of varying lot sizes and types will create an alternative residential development pattern that will ultimately enhance consumer choice and foster a dynamic housing market, both of which are key objectives of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The applicant is confident that the proposed rezoning includes a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development while simultaneously contributing to the regional transportation network. The single family residential land use envisioned for the site is compatible with the surrounding community and consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. As such, this rezoning request merits favorable consideration and approval. Page 1 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement B. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The subject acreage is located wholly within the Urban Development Area (UDA). The site is not located within the boundaries of any small area plan included in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and is therefore not subject to a specific planned land use designation. In the absence of such a designation, the general policies that govern the UDA and suburban residential land uses, respectively, combine to provide guidance concerning the appropriate use of the acreage. These policies stipulate that suburban residential land uses are intended to predominate inside the UDA, within which the public facilities necessary to support such uses either exist or are planned for expansion. As described in the introductory section of this report, the portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located represents a transitional area that includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. The proposed rezoning will enable development of single family detached traditional lots that will complement and be compatible with the transitional character of the area. By introducing alternative lot sizes served by public facilities to an area of relatively low residential densities, this proposal will result in an appropriately diverse residential development pattern that will enhance consumer choice and support a vibrant land market, which the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies as desired outcomes of the UDA concept. It is noted that the UDA boundary extends well beyond the subject acreage to include the Apple Pie Ridge Road area. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that this area is included in the UDA due to its prevailing lot pattern, but that public facilities are not intended for extension to this established residential enclave. Implied by this statement is that suburban residential densities are not envisioned for the Apple Pie Ridge Road area regardless of its location within the UDA. Despite its proximity to the Apple Pie Ridge Road area, the use of the Russell — Glendobbin property is not similarly impacted by this unique adaptation of UDA policy. The principal factor distinguishing the site is the location of the majority of its acreage not only within the UDA, but also the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). As such, public water and sewer facilities may clearly be extended to the site thereby assuring its capacity to develop with the residential densities envisioned within the UDA. The proposed rezoning of the subject acreage from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) is consistent with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Page 2 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Site Background and History Impact Analysis Statement The Russell-Glendobbin property consists of two parcels, one of which is 36.5389 acres (Parcel A) in size and the other 31.1853 acres (Parcel B). The entire area of the site is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Parcel A is the preservation parcel ('40% parcel") of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, a rural preservation subdivision totaling sixteen lots that was approved by Frederick County in 2002. Parcel A is situated at the south end of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision adjacent to Stonewall Industrial Park. Parcel B extends north from Parcel A to Glendobbin Road, and is immediately east and adjacent to lots 3 through 16 of Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. It is important to note that the acreage comprising the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was located within the UDA at the time of subdivision approval. Moreover, the majority of the acreage is situated within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), which confirms its eligibility for service with public water and sewer facilities. B. Location and Access The Russell—Glendobbin property consists of 67.7242 acres of land located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663), within the Stonewall Magisterial District. The site is adjacent to the currently developing Glendobbin Ridge subdivision, and is accessible directly from Glendobbin Road. Primary project access will occur through an entrance on Glendobbin Road. A secondary point of access will be established for emergency vehicles through the existing Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. C. Site Suitabilitv The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The following table provides an area summary of environmental features: Page 3 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement Environmental Features Total Project Area 67.7242 Acres Area in Flood Plain 0.00 Acres 0% Area in Steep Slopes 0.00 Acres 0% Area in Wetlands 0.00 Acres 0% Lakes & Ponds 0.00 Acres 0% The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Fred erick-Poplimento- Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick- Poplimento loams, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C), as shown on map sheet number 24 of the survey. 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. 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 1 Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by this project at acceptable and manageable level of service conditions. (see Figure 9, A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin, dated May 4, 2005) From a regional perspective, the planned path of VA Route 37 shown on the Eastern Road Plan crosses the southeast corner of the property. The Applicant has proffered to dedicate this area to Frederick County to ensure protection of the right of way necessary for future construction of this roadway. E. Sewage Conveyance and Water Supply The site will be served by adequately sized 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 Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. There are no identified issues with the gravity connection of sewer to the existing Stonewall Industrial Park sewer system. Approximately 316,000 square feet (7.2 acres) of the site resides outside of the SWSA. This portion of the property could be developed with the Single-family detached rural traditional housing type which allows 100,000 square foot lots, without public sewer and water. Necessary road construction across this area to Page 4 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement serve the remainder of the site would limit the number of dwellings on private health systems and water supply to a maximum of two. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an 8 inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. A maximum of 60 single family detached homes will be served by public water and sewer within the proposed development. The demand for water and discharge for sewer is therefore projected at approximately 12,000 gpd. All facilities constructed and installed on the site will meet FCSA requirements for its ultimate ownership and maintenance. F. Site Drainage Site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south, as it drains to Red Bud Run. It is anticipated that low impact development techniques together with good erosion control practice will mitigate adverse stormwater discharge impacts. The preservation of riparian buffers containing mature woodlands will provide significant mitigation of nutrient losses. Actual specification of temporary and permanent facilities will be provided with final engineering and will comply with all County, State and Federal regulations. G. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Assuming maximum build -out at 60 single family detached homes, it is projected that each dwelling will produce approximately 12 lbs. of solid waste per day for a total of 720 lbs. per day (.36 T/day) for the project. Solid waste from the project will be deposited in the Frederick County landfill following collection at citizen convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. H. Historic Sites and Structures The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any potentially significant structures on the subject 67.7242 acres or within close proximity of the properties. The subject properties are not located within the study boundary or core area of any identified Civil War battlefield. Page 5 of 6 3/2006 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement I. Impact on Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model was run by planning staff to project the fiscal impact on community facilities attributable to the proposed rezoning. The applicant has offered per unit monetary contributions with the proffer statement equivalent to the calculated impacts to mitigate the effects on Frederick County. Specifically, the applicant has proffered to contribute $10,506 per unit at the time of building permit issuance. The total contribution is proffered to be allocated as follows: ■ Fire and Rescue: ■ Public Schools: ■ Recreation & Parks: ■ Library: ■ Sheriff's Office: ■ Administration: ® Offsite Road Improvements TOTAL: $889.00 per unit $7,571.00 per unit $1,288.00 per unit $213.00 per unit $42.00 per unit $203.00 per unit $300.00 per unit $10,506 per unit An escalator clause is included with the proffer statement to mitigate the effects of inflation on the value of the proffered monetary contributions. This provision stipulates that any monetary contributions proffered by the applicant that are paid after 30 months from the date of rezoning approval will be adjusted pursuant to the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI -U). Page 6 of 6 3/2006 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 �-� Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 _1( T 304.264.2711 F 304.264.3671 To: Organization/Company: From: Date: Project Name/Subject: PHR+A Project file Number: cc: Susai Eddy Frederick County Planning Department Michael Glickman, P.E. Memorandum February 13, 2006 Addendum to: A Trac Impact Ana&sis of Ryssell-Glendobbin, dated Mav 2005 13543-1-0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this addendum as an update to the report titled: A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell- Glendobbin, by PHR+A, dated May 2005. The purpose of this addendum is to provide revised levels of service for the intersections of Route 11/Welltown Road during 2008 background and build -out conditions. The May 2005 report included typographical errors and therefore inaccurately represented levels of service at this intersection. Figures I and 2 show the revised lane geometry and levels of service at the intersection of Route 11/Welltown Road for 2008 background and build -out conditions, respectively. Levels of service worksheets remain consistent with the May 2005 report and therefore not included with this memorandum. ,-rn _ Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum Addendum to: A Ts^a zc Imbact Analyrir of Rusrell-Glendobbin Page 2 dated May 2005 No Scale Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM peak Hour) Figure 1 2908 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service Patton Hards Rust & Associates, pc e- m Q rra n d U m Addendum to: A Tra c Wact Ana4sis of Russell-Glendobbin, Page 3 dated May 2005 No Scale Unsignalized Intersection o tOt� ec�00P�PI a 673 yam+ �9 a n 0 yJ rl�l v Unsignalized Intersection SITE Signalized Intersection LOS=C(B) 1 Denotes stop sign control INDenotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 2 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Bernice OVERVIEW Report Summa Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development located to the south of Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), between Apple Pie Ridge Road (VA Route 739) and Welltown Road (VA Route 661), in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is comprised of a maximum of 130 single-family detached residential units with access to be provided via a site -driveway located along the south side of Glendobbin Road. Build -out will occur over a single transportation phase by the year 2008. - Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed . Russell-Glendobbin development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodalagy The traffic impacts accompanying the Russell-Glendobbin development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: 0 Assessment of background traffic including growth rates and other planned projects in - the area of impact, * Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Russell-Glendobbin development, Distribution. and assignment of the Russell-Glendobbin development generated trips onto the completed study area road network, Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS -2000, for existing and future conditions. YJ' STING CONDITIONS Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 11/Welltown Road, Welltown Road/Payne Road (VA Route 663), Glendobbin Road/Payne Road, Apple Pie Ridge Road/Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road/Hill Road (VA Route 673). Additionally, 24-hour automatic "tube" counts were conducted along Glendobbin Road at the approximate location of the proposed Russell-Glendobbin site -driveway. PHR+A established the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along each of the study area roadway links using an average "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 8.010 as determined from the 2003 Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All traffic count data .and HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix'section of this report. A Traffic ImDactA_nalysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 E i A Page 1 No Scale ,4 ��-4y- \fit \ �y \1pt SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Ho") q A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543 -1 -0 - May 04, 2005 Page 3 ' . 26(8) (1}2 (2)4 1)69--% c G � N W A I•r =- AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Ho") q A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543 -1 -0 - May 04, 2005 Page 3 Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement +1% ! AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figoxe 3 Exisffing Lane Geoxretry and Y.Pve?s of Service .4 �`� R 1 s A Tra c Impact An sis o Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 ! Page 4 2008 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A applied a conservative annual growth rate of four percent (4%) to the existing traffic volumes (shown in Figure 2) to obtain 2008 base conditions. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were included: Based upon the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the "other developments" surrounding the site. Figure a shows the 2008 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 5 shows the respective 2008 background lane geometry and AMIPM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1 2008 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour A)T In Out Total In Out Total Star Fort* 210 Single --Family Detached 70 units 15 44 58 50 28 78 700 Total 1 15 44 .58 50 ' 28 78 700 Regents 'CrescenV- 210 Single -Family Detached 28 units 7 22 29 22 12 34 280 230 Townhouse/Condo 42 units 4 21 26 20 10 30 365 Total 12 43 55 42 22 64 645 Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park 130 Industrial Park 420,000 SF 307 67 374 81 305 386 2,923 Total 307 67 374 81 305 386 2,923 Stephenson `.village 210 Single -Family Detached 400 units 72 217 289 235 138 373 4,000 230 Townhouse/Condo 300 units 21 103 124 99 49 148 2,610 251 Elderly Housing - Detach 531 units 45 73 117 100 64 164 2,238 252 Elderly Housing - Attach 144 units 51 6 12 10 6 16 501 520 Elementary School 550 stud. 94 65 160 2 4 6 710 Total 1 237 465 702 445 261 706 10,059 Adjacent Residential Development (west of Russell-Glendobbih) 210 Single -Family Detached 16 units 1 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 Total 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 more: futnougii Star tort and Regents Crescent are located along Route 522, the traffic generated will impact Route I Moute 37 and therefore were included in analyses. AA Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Pp � a Project Number: 13543-1-0 g May 04, 2005 A T L� Page 5 f No Scale b R 0 4 Iv "Colt, cry W '1 Cp Hill �j F � Road t+ ta cU, s J SITE � n wa \ a a y2(2) 7(g) 29(9 ) (1)2t r (2)4 D)90 �t t ^ W tJ00 411. a AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I A Traffic Impact Analvsis of Russell-Glendobbin �A v Project Number: 13543-1-0 E-5€ May 04, 2005 B Page 6 i 'k No Scale Figure 5 Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 2005 Background Lane Geometry and Levees of Service z A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 P, 11[ F-IMIA0. May 04, 2005 Page 7 T PJP PU'_M NEI AT1ON PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 was prepared to summarize the total trip generation associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development. - . Table 2 Russell-Glendobbin Development TrW Generation Summary TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGT'4 �w NTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the Russell-Glendobbin development. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to -assign the proposed Russell-Glendobbin trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. 1�igure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CC, ITIONS The Russell-Glendobbin. assigned trips (Figure 7) were then added to the . 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AN"M peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of the report. CONCLUSION '- The traffic impacts associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections, will operate with levels of service "C" or. better during 2008 build -out conditions. - N i A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 z Page 8 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 130 units 25 75 100 87 49 136 1,300 1 Total 25 75 100 87 49 136 1 1,300 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGT'4 �w NTS The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the Russell-Glendobbin development. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to -assign the proposed Russell-Glendobbin trips (Table 2) throughout the study area. 1�igure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CC, ITIONS The Russell-Glendobbin. assigned trips (Figure 7) were then added to the . 2008 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2008 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2008 build -out ADT and AN"M peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the respective 2008 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS -2000 levels of service worksheets are provided in the Appendix section of the report. CONCLUSION '- The traffic impacts associated with the Russell-Glendobbin development are acceptable and manageable. Based upon HCS -2000 results, each of the study area intersections, will operate with levels of service "C" or. better during 2008 build -out conditions. - N i A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 z Page 8 o� No Scale Figure f Trip Distribution Percentabes A Traffic Impact Analysis o Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 9 r� No Scale a LPHR,+j, Figure 7 SITE k Hour(PM Peak Hour) De,,�iemment-Generated Trip Assignments _ A_Traffic ImnactAnalysis ofRussell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 10 o� Hill Road� J LPHR,+j, Figure 7 SITE k Hour(PM Peak Hour) De,,�iemment-Generated Trip Assignments _ A_Traffic ImnactAnalysis ofRussell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 10 No Scale n, L ti O a�j 73 r�,ssjJp S X10 SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) f _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin ` Project Number: 13543-1-0 ` May 04, 2005 • Page 11 X2(2) .,29(9) _(SU G � A AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) f _ A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin ` Project Number: 13543-1-0 ` May 04, 2005 • Page 11 No Scale 739 t- i 673 661 Unsignalized Intersection L b Unsignalized T o i, Intersection S44oc ��c 0 tees C7 673 Q, Y � f 4 1 Q Hill —Roa(JC) P 673 ab�,nR/ va 66 SITE 739 0 Signalized intersection ► g,�el ) I 739 LOS=B(B) I Unsignalized �j�,, � Intersection c ' - ' *(AlA �r 'U ' ��.d► O k Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement LST ����+�� � AM Peak Hour ('M Peak Hour) Figure 9 2008 B-aaid-el;it Lane Geemetry and Levels of Service A A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin {'r Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 z a Page 12 REZONING APPLICATI®N FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following infomaizohshall be provided by the applicant: c All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commiss over oftRevenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Patton Hams Rust & Associatestipc (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Glen W. and Pamela T,_ Rnccell Address: 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-662-7083 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 11 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell 6. A) Current Use of the Property: D) Proposed Use of the Property 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL iD NUMBER USE Undeveloped RP-SingJe Family Detached ZONING 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (VA Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (VA Route 663). 2 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-1513 & 43-A-1 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: Stonewall Clearbrook Clearbrook Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School: James Wood James Wood Stonewall 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoining Zoning Requested 67.73 RA RP 67.73 Tota; acreage to be rezened 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 Office Retail Restaurant Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 91 12. SlgInature: 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. � Applicant(s Owner(s) Patton Harris Rust & ,9 ,/� W Glen W. Russell 4-,/, & Pamela L. Russell Date Date Date u -11-6s 4 A DI.fOTERS RUSSLLI, - rGLENDOSB_�T Adjoining Praper-Ly Owers Rezonlmg 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 auy property abutting the regaested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a pubiic fight -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 2nd floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Address Praper+ty Identification Number (PIN) Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-13 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-14 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS,LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-A-1 I Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Betty G. McKown 223 Payne Road Property #: 43-A-15 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Lenoir City Company (MI) P.O. Box 1657 Property #: 43-19-2 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-73 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-72 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc.1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-71 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-70 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-68 Winchester, VA 22602 5 Name and Address Property Identification Number (PIN) � Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-67 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-66 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Property #: 43-9-4-64 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Harley E. & Roxanne L. Ostlund 1950 Kathy Court Property #: 43-20-15 Winchester, VA 22601 Name: Glen W. & Pamela L. Russell 270 Panarama Drive Property #: 43-20-16 Winchester, VA 22603 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-13 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-10 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-9 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-7 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-6 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-5 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: Ralph A. & Theresa K. Kaiser 6029 Sumner Road Property #: 43-20-4 Alexandria, VA 22310 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Property #: 43-20-3 Chantilly, VA 20151 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-12-3-18 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property-#: 43-12-3-1 Winchester, VA 22604 Spec! Imited Power of A tcracy County of F ederi -A, Virginia Frederick Planning Wei? Site: www.coArederick.va.us Dep2rQment of Plauning & Development, County of )Frederick, Virginia, .07 North Tient Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 F racsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell (Phone) 662-7083 (Address) 270 Panarama Drive Winchester 22603 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument Number(s) 040026114 and 030000473 and is described as Parcels: 15B, 16 Lot: Block: A Section/Tax Map: 43 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) PHRA — Charles, E. Maddox Jr. (Phone) 667-2139 address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 .Co act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ ConditionaI Use Permits Master Development Plan (Prelimirary and Final) _ Subdivision Site Plan My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. Yg, In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this _�� day of 200 Signatures State of Y irginia, City/County of To -wit: a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally eared before me and has owledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this day o, 20067 My Commission Expires: a -,YU -04 tary Public FINAL PLAT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION! GLENDOBBIN RIDGE o STONEWALL DISTRICT N FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA TAX MAF' P 43 -A -15A,16,17 ZONE: RA USE: AGRICULTURAI SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1, David M. Furatenau, a duly authorized Land Surveyor, do hereby certify that the land in this subdivision Is In the names of Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell and Is all of the land conveyed to them by deed dated March 29, 2002 and recorded among the records of the Cler'K of the Circult Court of Frederick County a Instrument number 020005243. David M. au L.S. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell as appears In the accompanying plat Is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners, proprietors or trustrees, If any. Glen W. Russell— amela L. Russell State of Virginia Chid unty a �� 1 rf notary public in and for the State of Virginia and the City/County of do hereby certify that this day personally appeared before me, Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell whose names are signed to the above Owner's Certificate dated September 11, 2002 and ackn ed to a eme ` re me In my state and dry/county as aforesaid. Notary Public Given under my hand this day of 2002 My commission expires DL / A -P t O 6' ALS X _CQUNTY SUBDIVISION ADIYMSTRATOR Date Date /0 --.30 -- HEALTH DEPARTMENT Date FURS'TENAU SURVEYING (540) 652-9323 EjSEPT. I6, 2002111 SOUTH LOUDGUN STRE, ET �TCHESTER., VIRGRNIA 22601 'HIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON DEC. ?, 2004 THAT I MADE AN ACCURATE; SURVEY .OF THE PREMISES SHOGdN 40 Y. PERCENT RESERVE PARCEL iEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO GL EN0088IN RIDSE "ASEMENTS OR EN CROACHMENTS IISISLE ON THE GROUND OTHER N 68009'59"W 313.40' CHAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. iRF ` -POST N I5'W16"E 47F -Zi' L4 N 190'2011'w 39.55• L5 N 15'5B'29"E. W CHIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOO \ {j ZONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING %S SHOWN ON FIRM MAP 510063 0105B 3FFECTIVE JULY 17', 197B �\ \ t- a J u� _ Q m uj , \ J p- ti W v v 3�w f O p U o = cl Cm F— X LX O Z W J All cWo h z 2 IRS 0 CORNER g5 $S� 570NE WALL i OW�` w�� 81.1851 AC. [V ti LL1 Z F- (9 O n J tb O Z cD L) J F- U 0 J P0S7 _ O POST J POST J Ltd r - j o LINE TABLE LI N 18'38'54 -VY 168.57' LZ 5 74'40'02"E. 39.02' )-3 N I5'W16"E 47F -Zi' L4 N 190'2011'w 39.55• L5 N 15'5B'29"E. 373.55' O rn � O fl' TAX MAP ID; 43-A-45IP0RTI( DEED REF. ,'NB BO P. 700 DAM Vii. RMSM-Al tom. W55 %�D SllR`1 a� }� oOf POSI L74POS7 I} �y� Od6 a o ' v ti Jo d �� 2ti ® BOUNORRY SURVEY IRS 'y� ' ERNQ OF st�. /bo�� BETTY G. MCKDI �°,>� STONEWALL DISTRICT 'btp;a�� FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRC: J • C� COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator , 'e DATE: May 3, 2006 RE: Discussion — Tyson Drive Extension (Stonewall Industrial Park) At the May 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, staff will present the Tyson Drive Extension within the Stonewall Industrial Park for Planning Commission review. This is being presented to the Planning Commission due to its implications on the planned route for Route 37. The plans for Stonewall Industrial Park do not accommodate the Route 37 right-of-way. This proposed road extension will occur from McGee Drive to Welltown Road. The property is located near the proposed path of Route 37. In an effort to keep the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors apprised of the Route 37 right-of-way, site plans and subdivisions that impact the right-of-way will be presented to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for their review. A copy of sheet 2 of the site plan of this proposed road extension has been included in your agenda, along with maps that show the planned route for Route 37 in regards to the location of this property. Action on this road extension is not required; this is being brought to you for informational purposes only. Comments and suggestions are appropriate and will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Please contact me if you if you need any additional information. A representative from PHR&A, PC will be present at the meeting. MRC/bad Attachments 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5600 43 -A -63A _ LENOIR CITY COMPANY ZONED: M 1 USE: COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL DA = 114.10 AC. DA = 12.37 AC. SE v RESIDENTIAL 43 19-1 - >.LEN01R CI COM NEp: tUE. RCIAL & RITZ--VA2 ADMINIST !TOR INC. 'S` ZONED: M1-' USE: COWERCAL�c IND / 1 43 -A -60A SUSAN S. & STROTHER ADAMS ZONED: RA USE: RESIDENTIAL TYSON/'! DRIVE it /J 33.62 ACRES i\ GLORIA J. & ONE D. CROSEN ZONED: RA E- RESIDENTIAL - A ./ 43-A-62 SANDRA D. & HAROLD W. SHANHOLTZ ZONED: RA USE: RESIDENTIAL 43-7-7 SARAH B. & BRIAN PINGLE ' L ZONED: RA 5O v L�SF�py4''q�Yp g '�q < A � pFsFip• P.o p ?pti /yi`S B F�Tj4! 9 4"- F cf- �? . I'S '�F �FS�p ?,o'PO Y <�p�� pyl,!`S�S tilq! Fy / • e `� cB F� e'pgy � OSc�' QFFO.'yQ° FyT'9l pglF 15, °qh A3 ,,,s �plTZ q1' ;q�r GSFlp��ss`q F 'sG !, x�O PF3/O �AT�✓ GsFlO� � ,PFSo� poTyYc ! ti�q! �G9 Non -Residential Subdivision #O4 06 C.—hit, Dmdmt) --- TvxonDrivoExtenoion MI Ohd�.dml, Light Dmti�p -- (43'A'83) , ^r C, 300 6co 1,200~��^