Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout017-05 Russell-Glendobbin - 67.73 Acres from RA to RP - Stonewall - Backfileo O m + O i n • o cc 0 oj oQ u>�, �IIkk � 'C3 G O z 3 ,r, w DATE �L{ a� �J No. 4736 RECEIVED FROM F WIN l2 4 X L,-C, III ADDRESS \ 3 3 W , &5(L vC) Wl") w `P, AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT PAID � a CHECK ( �� BALANCE � MONEV DUE ORDER �/ca aa(c�-)1 OLLARS$C�B�2•�a t PIN LA 5 e) 43-A-I� BY Pv�Pk m 0 m co cl cl 0 DATE NO. RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS tip' --"-'DOLLARS $ FOR ' AMT OF 7ASCI�, BY — --- ACCOUNT I AMT PAID - BALANCE MONEY I DUE ORDER REZONING TRACKING SHEET Check List: Application Form Proffer Statement Impact Analysis c Adjoiner List" I Sr Application received/fileA Fee & Sign Deposit Deed Plat/Survey— Taxes Paid Statement Impact Model Run Reference manual updated/number assigned D-base updated Copy of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification 0' Eeia—sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing 36 roz-oiz location map ordered from Mapping / !� kq& File given to office manager to update Appli tion Action Summary (11 S PC public hearing date ACTION: C' 0 P�% A &rl o Pi 4 (� BOS public hearing date ACTION: S7 o P� 4��iou: Signecfcopy-of resolution-foramendmentofordinance, with conditions proffered - [if applicable], received from County Administrator's office and given to office manager for placement in the Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers Notebook.) % a 1S (i Action letter mailed to applicant Reference manual and D-base updated 17 J;Z6 16 & File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) D� File given to Mapping/GIS to update zoning map 13 t 0 Y Zoning map amended U %Carol\Commonurecking. ru Revised 05/09/02 AN July 28, 2006 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC 117 E. Piccadilly St., Ste. 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: REZONING #17-05, RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Dear Chuck: M. "If fft, COLM of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of July 26, 2006. The above -referenced application was approved to rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proposed proffers on the property sought to be rezoned, including a proffer to limit the number of dwellings to 30 on the property, and proposed proffers on adjoining property owned by Applicants. The property sought to be rezoned is identified by Property Identification Number 43-A-15B. The additional properties to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, are PIN 43-19-57, a 6.89 acre parcel zoned M 1 (Light Industrial) District, and PIN 43-A-16, a 36.54 acre Preservation Tract zoned RA. Parcels 43-A-15B and 43-A-16 are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Parcel 43-19-57 is located at the northern terminus of Kentmere Court, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The proffers that were approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to this property and are binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. The Board of Supervisors, in approving rezoning #17-05, stated that a note be placed on all plats and deeds resulting from this rezoning advising that the lots are adjacent to the planned alignment for Route 37. Accordingly, the County will expect to see this note on all subsequent Master Development Plans, Subdivision Plans, plats and deeds. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. Sincerely, Susan K.Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad Attachment cc: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor John H. Light and Gary Oates, Stonewall District Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Glen & Pamela Russell 270 Panarama Dr., Winchester, VA 22¢03 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 r REZONING APPLICATION 917-05 RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: July 17, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: February 15, 2006 Postponement requested by applicant April 5, 2006 Recommended denial of waiver May 17, 2006 No recommendation forwarded Board of Supervisors: June 28, 2006 Postponement requested by applicant July 26, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 30 single family homes, and to add proffers to two adjoining parcels owned by the applicant. LOCATION: The property to be rezoned is located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-15B (to be rezoned with proffers); 43-A-16 (to include proffers); 43-19-57 (to include proffers) ROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard South: RA (Rural Area) Use: Agriculture 0 Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 2 East: M1 (Light Industrial) & RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Industrial & Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: 30 Single Family Detached Residential Units on 31.1851 acres — 0.96 dwelling units per acre (April 11, 2006 proposal — 45 units on 31.185 acre —1.44 dwelling units per acre) (March 9, 2006 proposal — 60 units on 67.73 acre — 0.89 dwelling units per acre) (November 9, 2005 proposal —130 units on 67.73 acre —1.92 dwelling units per acre) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Staff Note: The agency review comments are based on 130 single family units on two parcels. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised Virginia Dent. 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 Note: The Fire Marshall's comment calling for two separate and distinct means of access was satisfied with the original application. Two separate and distinct means of access are not provided with the current version of the application, however, the Fire Marshall generally seeks two access points when the number of dwelling units exceeds 30. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. — Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities". As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate the onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Enviromnental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 3 drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students, 18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student 0 0 Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 4 enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: (Based on proffer statement dated June 27, 2006) They have made all of the changes in the Proposed Proffer Statement which I suggested and/or requested. Therefore, I have approved the forin of the Proffer Statement. In approving the form of the Proffer Statement, I am not, of course, suggesting whether or not the requested rezoning should be approved. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmark Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It is also noted that the National Parks Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that his proposed rezoning would directly impact. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated June 23, 2005 from Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcel as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcel 43-A-1513 was re -mapped from R-3 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive dowrizoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan 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. I-]] Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 5 Land Use The subject site is within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Most of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Any lots formed from the subject site that are outside of the SWSA are not eligible to receive public water and sewer service. The site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site has no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the property does not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of the general policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding uses is necessary. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6-7) states that "the intrusion of either non-residential uses or residential uses of different types or densities can have a significant negative impact on existing residential areas. Appropriate separation between uses is needed". The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel, thus maintaining the one dwelling per five acre RA density. hmnediately 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. Staff Note: The Comprehensive Policy Plan states (6-2) "Because it is developed in a large lot suburban pattern, the Apple Pie Ridge area has been included in the Urban Development Area. However, there is no plan to serve that area with public sewerage." It is thus clear that the area to the west of this site, while in the UDA, is only planned to accommodate RP single-family detached rural traditional lots (lots over 100,000 square feet without public sewer and water). The parcels to the north are zoned RA and are in orchard use. A major rural subdivision (Welltown Acres Section 4) was platted there with 5-acre lots, but it has not been developed. Three parcels immediately to the east are Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are in orchard and agricultural use. While there are specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District (200 feet between residences and orchards, 100 feet between residences and agriculture), there are no specific setbacks in the RP zone for orchards or agricultural use. Therefore, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Staff Note: On 02114106 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road. Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback and because it does not fit in with the neighborhood The latest proffer statement now includes a buffer against the orchard and agricultural land Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6-11) specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial C Rezoning #17-05 — Russell -Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 6 land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between the industrial park and the existing low -density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, thought should be given to requiring a considerable buffer between any house and any MI zoned property. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road con sections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements, and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). The future Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the County's Eastern Road Plan. This section of Route 37 is the highest priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. Route 37, as shown on current county plans, is very close to this property. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state if any of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. Staff note: The alignment of Route 37 could change as a result of final engineering. The applicant is now proffering right—of-way for Route 37 in the location shown on the GDP or such other location as determined by the County, for the parcel being rezoned and for two adjoining parcels also owned by the applicant. (In the interest of full disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might result from this rezoning, should it be approved) 3) Site 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, Vir inia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. The site is heavily wooded and this provides a visual buffer Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 7 between the residences to the west and the industrial park. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Staff Note: The TIA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 30 single family units. Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7°i 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 30 lots in this development. The new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. Staff Notes: The applicant, at the master plan stage, will need to seek a waiver for the cul-de- sac length, which exceeds 1,000 feet. The applicant, at the subdivision design stage, will need to demonstrate that lots with acceptable driveways can be platted along the new road given the steep topography. The challenging topography may necessitate considerable tree removal on the site. As stated in the VDOT comment, VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. This includes the entrance on Glendobbin Road which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. B. Sewer and Water The site will be served by a gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the applicant within the Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an eight inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 8 As noted above, the portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service A uthority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the conununity, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. Staff Note: The Russell-Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's old Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23,290 for each single family detached unit. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 4, 2005, Revised June 27, 2006 Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43-A-1513 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated June 23, 2006, and revised June 27, 2006. B) Land Use The development will be limited to a maximum of 30 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 30,000 square feet. No dwelling units will be permitted within 200 feet of any adjacent active orchard or within 100 feet of any adjacent agricultural uses in the two locations shown on the GDP. C) Transportation The applicant will dedicate land for the right-of-way for future Route 37 on the parcel proposed for rezoning. The applicant will contribute $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). 0 0 Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 9 D) Monetary Contribution A monetary contribution in the amount of $10,206.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. A transportation contribution (see above) has also been proffered. E) Environment The applicant has proffered Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater management. Staff Note: The Director of Public works is seeking a responsible party for the permanent operation and maintenance of the BMPfacilities. He also recommended private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. These are both generally responsibilities of a Home Owners Association (HOA). Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 (Preservation Parcel) A) Subdivision Future subdivision of Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 shall be prohibited except for any subdivision necessary to dedicate right-of-way for future Route 37. B) Transportation The applicant will dedicate land for the right-of-way for future Route 37. Proffers Applicable to Tax Map Parcel 43-19-57 (Parcel zoned M1) A) Transportation The applicant will dedicate land for the right-of-way for future Route 37. Staff Note: At the Planning Commission Meeting on 04105106 (summary below) an application for 60 houses on two parcels, including the Glendobbin Ridge Preservation Parcel, was considered. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: The staff reported receiving well over 200 letters regarding this rezoning, as well as a considerable number of telephone calls. The staff noted that approximately 90% of the letters were form letters and estimated that approximately two thirds of the letters were in favor of the rezoning, while one-third was opposed to the rezoning. Thirty citizens spoke during the Planning Commission's public hearing; 10 of those citizens spoke in favor of the proposal and 20 spoke in opposition. Most of those who had favorable comments were either in the building supply business, were building subcontractors, or had worked with the Russell family for many years. They spoke favorably about the integrity of the Russells and the exceptional quality of their construction. They stated that the Russells buy all of their materials locally and use 0 0 Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 10 local subcontractors, thereby supporting the local economy and providing jobs. By contrast, they said the majority of residential construction now taking place in Frederick County is done by outside construction companies who purchase all their building supplies out of the area and do not use local subcontractors. They believed the Russells had the right to ask for this because the property was in the UDA and SWSA; they also pointed out the Russell's willingness to compromise on the project, by reducing the number of dwellings from 130 to 60. Those who spoke in opposition to the rezoning were primarily local residents, in neighborhoods along Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road. They believed a precedent of development was already set in this area over the years for larger lots, averaging three to five acres and providing plenty of open space; they said the density proposed was inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. They were concerned that increased traffic would create additional safety hazards on roads that were incapable of handling the existing speeds and volume of traffic. Also mentioned was the increased impact to schools and other infrastructure. The residents believed the quality of life they had grown accustomed to was threatened; they wondered how much longer school athletic teams, bicyclists, and pedestrians would be able to safely use Apple Pie Ridge Road because of the increasing volume of traffic; homeowners did not want to lose the open space they had specifically sought when moving to this location; and issues regarding the enviromnent 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 Re- 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 • 0 Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 11 concluded that infrastructure could support the density adequately and safely. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision be denied. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL OF WAIVER): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett NO: Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn (Note: Because of the recommendation of denial on the waiver request, a motion on the associated rezoning was not considered. Members acknowledged that denial of the waiver was in effect a recommendation of denial of the rezoning as currently submitted.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 05/17/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is for 45 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site may be required for the future Route 37. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 05/17/06 MEETING: Twenty-seven citizens came forward to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. Twelve of those citizens spoke in support of the rezoning application and 15 spoke in opposition. Those who supported the rezoning application cited the applicant's history of using local builders who supported local businesses; they said the project would supply needed jobs; the project would provide affordable housing and starter homes for young couples; the proffer money offered would benefit schools, roads, and other infrastructure; the revised application was a compromise offered by the applicant which eliminated the preservation parcel from development; the rezoning application was within the County's guidelines for development; and, existing area homeowners should not expect adjoining property owners to forfeit their property rights to develop. A citizen pointed out that there were homes on half -acre lots less than a mile away on Payne Road and, in addition, an industrial park, mobile homes, and homes on half -acre lots could be seen from Union View Lane. Those citizens who were opposed to the rezoning application said that based on the application's proposed density, the development was inconsistent with the surrounding area and the established five - acre neighborhood; the project was incompatible next to working orchards, agricultural areas, an industrial park, and the uncertain future right-of-way for Route 37; safety issues involving traffic were • 0 Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin July 17, 2006 Page 12 raised and the ability of existing roads to handle additional traffic based on the poor visibility and posted speed limits; and, the issue of overcrowded schools was also raised. Homeowners along Glendobbin Ridge said they would be looking down into the backyards of approximately 27 proposed dwellings; they did not want to lose the existing woodlands strip because it served as a buffer against the industrial park and was a haven for wildlife. Others questioned how lots outside of the SWSA would be served and the unresolved legal issues regarding the use of the 50-foot private road as a second access. A comment was also made that the majority of those who spoke in support of the rezoning did not live in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Commission members discussed at length the issues of consistency and compatibility with the surrounding area, especially in light of the fact that the RP Zoning classification allowed for a broad range of development. Some expressed concern that the Commission was being asked to ignore compatibility issues to accommodate a return on investment, while others did not think it was appropriate to mandate a certain sized lot within the UDA and SWSA. Many Commissioners were opposed to the density requested by the applicant. One suggestion made was for the applicant to use both tracks of land, including the preservation parcel, and develop with two -acre lots under the RP Zoning which would provide the protection of buffers and screening and the ability to utilize water and sewer. It was noted that existing residents might be more comfortable with a well -maintained two -acre development, rather than scrubland with an uncertain future. A comment was also made about the beneficial screen provided by the existing woodlands between the industrial park and residential area; it was noted that there was nothing within the applicant's proposal indicating that any portion of that woodlands screen would be saved. A motion was made to deny the rezoning application because it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's guidelines for compatibility, particularly with placing higher -density housing adjacent to an established two -acre lot development and with placing residential lots adjacent to M1 Zoning. This motion was defeated, however, by a tie five -to -five vote. A second motion was made to approve the rezoning application based on the fact that the property was located within the UDA and the SWSA and the applicant was following established guidelines for development. This motion was also defeated by a tie five -to -five vote. A third motion was made and unanimously passed to send the rezoning application forward to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. (Comissioners Thomas, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 07/26/06 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: This application is for 30 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The applicant is seeking development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. { 'A4. - ♦�- • Y,. „� ,� c at Urban Development Area S U ♦ I. ,tl IF is, _,�. ;j.,_•!�• �`- „d,(„d<pr!t`� II I� a '- _I f �,f '� SWSALS • �,�,��"', r f' Y ♦ • �" � �Ra Tar it Subject Property t' am jw t, y� ate,' e„, y c � ,��_,.R_!,�••�i_ y �� e,• � � , r �•�` r ��'�� �, t .$. it •`` fir- •y'l, .(l t>` (, �� •'.�. ,.' \•� s z l r "A4.4 ,1�Qr � - r •� GlenciwMyR � I RTs7.N RTa;S;; � � � :,'-,1t }�i4... i �.�.. / �'j'.., y_ •,� j ♦ - � PT�� Ate•: ���y!�i5�„`c�.�... 1 / .�� 1► ��'�J/ K, yi 7 \F d 37'4/ _I las, • ��'�ii1w� 1%,Y� a ` </ 4ri a M. /'�4'p�e ' r.�k��°'l���t a',nR:�2�", w�" l -.`♦ a. 'T • �'li 14 � ;,/ .c44�b'c � � e,�• t � �ae�ll/o �- o�� , e� � _ • u ._ i 7. d :.. �+Trails strearns Feet Urban Development Area SWSA 43 A 15B Subject Property 43 -19- 57 9 43 A 16 Map Features Application IV RI 37 Bypass O Parcels Lakes/Ponds B Road Centerlines N Q SwsA _...� Streams Buddmgs i ..: JDA - Tanks �N— T-Is REZ # 17 - 05 Russell - Glendobbin (43-A-15B) 0 375 750 1,500 Feet i Y \ Is; n j \ \ Urban Development Area 6reb, R, I J y rdr Ur c3�c k SWSA i yy J C �•• Subject Property 1 / �• Meson " • Woodside l'I 6� 0 ` ; Y? RivrndellC p /inS+oiirUrO ;� �� ��wao fg{i ScntrYZoniC0`•r� v� / i7//� llnu., . Map Features •Btre�,» .R.aa,tMn 40 BI °aL°Br V romr.a R E Z# 17 - 0 5 Appi-t— F?LakesJPonds N Rt 37 Bypass CDparcels • �. V (B—, G.rwr� DrhHl • Bs ��m.r. 1. ort— G -q • EM (E— .. wm,r.ewms aa,kn ` Russell - G l e n d o b b i n Road Csnt�Aims �► O swsA ,� • mar, ea�.ron la.h�o x{!- I • M, v. �.-- Streams Buildings N j�. 'UDA QM. onaw,wt crn.,MG.mrn (4 3 - A - 15 B ) - Tanks I\_ Trails wrr aaohw wm. comm.Mry ITMrso • Ms (MWrri 6upporl Gu4kU •R.prrMr •rtPMnm• omm nN Mvkt, 0 375750 1,500 • RS (RrrkrnYrl Rrcnrti.�wl Commun•y p.hin) � ' - _ OM(RwriMus DwtrM) O RP (RruMnW Prar,mrnw pshel) Feet • "<., is I a — n �•. Urban Development Area i A SWSA Gold.`Hill'Rd � • • u 1 � � Subject Property^ I - r _ I ° T1r Yeder Ct t i crown Ln 1 _ %�� ttsy c ` RTs7,3 w�z 1 ^ 11 v. t' �• D c 7 ^ t`u/iyr Landuse Categories Map Features REZ # 17 - 05 Rural Community Center C - w Rt 37 Bypass N - BLake.IAppi.ti°° O Parxk `:.. Residential Russell - G l e n d o b b i n Lakes/PonOe Road CsntMlnes SWSA .1b0t,Bufineaa j�t�,1. N O '109r" Industrial W WV Streams WWW (4 3 - A - 15 B ) Buildings V � as i UDA � Institutional 5 - _ �N, Trails - ee �' ' Recreation Tanks 'm0a Historic gyp® Mwed-Use 0 375750 1,500 �Ci}is+ Planned Unit Development Feet / 6 0 June 27, 2006 John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Russell -Glen dobbin Rezoning Application #17-05 Dear Mr. Riley: Based upon my conversation with Robert Mitchell, County Attorney, it appears that in order for my client to convey a portion of the tax map parcel 43-19-57 to the County of Frederick for right-of-way for the Route 37 Eastern Bypass as a part of his proposed proffers, the Board of Supervisors will need to re -advertise the public hearing scheduled for June 28, 2006 to include tax map parcel 43-19-57 in the advertisement. Therefore, I am requesting on behalf of my client that the public hearing and the aforementioned matter be re -advertised and, further, that the advertisement which appears in the newspaper include tax map parcel 43-19-57 only for purposes of conveying a portion of that parcel to the County as a condition of rezoning. Sincer , Cli ord L. A i , Jr. Esquire cc: Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning J U N 2 7 2006 Jun-02-06 02:41Pm RONALD LEWIS NAPTLR .1. DANIF. - MN 1) 11 KIMK RI.%' M. AI HEY CUFFORD L. ATHEY, JR. .1. DANILL POND III _101IN.S. 1AF..H. From-540 635 7004 10 540 635 TO 4 NAPIER, POND, ATH CY R ATHEY, .PC. AtToRNEYS AT LAW '15 N. ROYAL AVLNCIE 11..0. BOX :195 FRONT ROYAL, v112CINIA 22630 Facsimile: (540) 667-0370 John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 June 1, 2()06 T-830 P.001/001 F-762 PHONE (540) KS5•212.3 FAX (5.10) u95-70u4 lawyer,(r)np"IaW.ajm PLEASE REPLY TO N). NOx 9U:i Re: Request to Move Date of Public Hearing on Rezoning Application #17-05 (Russell- Glendobbin) Dear John: My firm represents Glen W. Russell and :Pamela L. Russell with respect to Rezoning Application #17-05 relating to Tax Map Parcels 43-A-15(B) and 43-A-16 containing approximately 67.73 acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County (Russell-Glendobbin). As a result of scheduling conflicts related to another matter, I request that the Public Hearing before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors be removed from the June 14, 2006 Agenda and placed on the June 28, 2006 Agenda for Public Nearing and Final Action. I apologize for any inconvenience related to my request, however, I believe it is important that I be able to attend this meeting on behalf of my client. Lascly, if you are amenable to my request, at your earliest convenience, please confirm in writing that the date of the Public Hearing has been moved. Si nc el , Clifford L. they, Jr. Cc: Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning facsimile: (540) 665-6395 V 28 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 7o be coinplctcd bi> Planning Staff. �� fce �l Zoning Amendmentm Nuber Dat eReoce ved, o ��� PC Hearing Date 04 -r BOS Hearing Date (� p G of witivF-k sft7/0� NO XVd-0 tma?J'P�16AJ The following informatio s all be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester. Vireinia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Telephone: 540-662-7083 Address: 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. (PHR+A) Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 1 • 5. The Code of Virginia allows 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: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: See Attached PARCEL ID NUMBER USE Undeveloped RP -Single 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 I( Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 43-A-15B & 43-A-16 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 Zoning Zoning Requested 67.73 RA RP 67.73 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Single Family Horne 130 Non -Residential Lots Office Retail Restaurant Number of Units Proposed Townhome Multi -Family Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Warehouse Other 3 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia: I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. A� Applicants Owner(s) Patton Harris Rust & Ass -,/� Gi e, C Glen W. Russell Pamela L. Russell Date Date Date V `// - G 'S 4 • E ADJOINERS RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2nd foot_ of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Address Property 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-11 Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Betty G. McKown 223 Payne Road Property #: 43-A-15 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Lenoir City Company (Ml) 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 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 Panaxama 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 Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 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) PHR A — Charles E. Maddox Jr., (Phone) 667-2139 address) 117E Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601 To 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) _ Conditional Use Permits Master Development Plan (Preliminary 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: N/A This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this _�� day of &67L 200 J Signature(s State of irginia, City/County ofjQGc�'tlL+`c�C To -wit: I, llJ�r Z�u a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally Reared before me and has owledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this % / day o"49 , 200 Y. My Commission Expires: (9yU r (� tary Public 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: June 19, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: February 15, 2006 Postponement requested by applicant April 5, 2006 Recommended denial of waiver May 17, 2006 No recommendation forwarded Board of Supervisors: June 28, 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 DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-1513 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M 1 (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 June 19, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 45 Single Family Detached Residential Units on 31.1851 acres —1.44 dwelling units per acre (March 9, 2006 proposal — 60 units on 67.73 acre — 0.89 dwelling units per acre) (November 9, 2005 proposal —130 units on 67.73 acre — 1.92 dwelling units per acre) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Staff Note: The agency review comments are based on 130 single family units on two parcels. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised to request 60 single family units on two parcels, then revised further to request 45 single family units on only one parcel. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 and 661. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell-Glendobbin Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access as well as extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting into the proposed site and meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Staff Note: The Fire Marshall's comment calling for two separate and distinct means of access was satisfied with the original application. Two separate and distinct means of access are not provided with the current version of the application. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. — Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities". As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate the onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin NOT C URRENm June 19, 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 property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students, 18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. • Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 4 NOT CURRENT Frederick County Attorney: (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient as a proffer statement subject to the following: 1. Paragraph 1.2: Is this development to be limited to any particular type of single—family detached building types, or it's to be limited to one of the specific single-family detached building types set forth in Section 165-59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? If it is to be limited to a specific type, that should be set forth in the proffer. 2 Paragraph 2. 1: I don't understand the reference to "Butcher" in this paragraph. 3. Paragraph 4. 1: The time at which age restricted units would be "designated" should be specified. For example, would those units be designated at the time of subdivision? 4. Paragraph 12.1: It should be noted that the inflation adjustment calculation provides for the cap of 6% per year to be non -compounded. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmark Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It is also noted that the National Parks Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that his proposed rezoning would directly impact. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcel as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcel 43-A-15B was re -mapped from R-3 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] • Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 5 T.n"d [Teo NOT CURRENT The subject site is within the Urban Development Area (UDA). Most of the site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Any lots formed from the subject site that are outside of the SWSA are not eligible to receive public water and sewer service. The site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site has no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the property does not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of the general policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding uses is necessary. The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6-7) states that the intrusion of non-residential uses or residential uses of different types or densities can have a significant negative density on existing residential areas. Appropriate separation between uses is needed. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel, thus maintaining the one dwelling per five acre RA density. Immediately south and west of the adjacent preservation parcel is the Spring Valley development. While five -acre lots in this area have been platted, most are undeveloped and the area is in agricultural use. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. The parcels to the north are zoned RA and are in orchard use. A major rural subdivision (Welltown Acres Section 4) was platted there with 5-acre lots, but it has not been developed. Three parcels immediately to the east are Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are in orchard and agricultural use. While there are specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District (200 feet between residences and orchards, 100 feet between residences and agriculture), there are no specific setbacks in the RP zone for orchards or agricultural use. Therefore, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Staff Note: On 02114106 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback and because it does not fit in with the neighborhood. The latest proffer statement now includes a buffer against the orchard and agricultural land. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6-11) specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between the industrial park and the existing low -density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M 1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring a considerable buffer between any house and any M1 zoned property. The zoning Rezoning #17-OS —Russell-Glendobbin NOT CURRENT June 19, 2006 Page 6 district buffer shown on the GDP, but not referenced in the text of the proffer statement, appears to be the Zoning Ordinance required minimums, a Category A Buffer. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements, and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). The future Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the County's Eastern Road Plan. This section of Route 37 is the highest priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. Route 37, as shown on current county plans, is very close to this property. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state if any of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. Staff note: The alignment of Route 37 could change as a result offinal engineering. Should this rezoning be approved as submitted, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would reduce flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Variation in the route as a result of this rezoning, could require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial land, further impacting this established industrial park. The recently approved site plan for the McClung -Logan site in the Stonewall Industrial Park might necessitate moving the path of Route 37further west, and possibly onto this site. (In the interest of full disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might result from this rezoning, should it be approved.) 3) Site 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, Vir inia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. The site is heavily wooded and this provides a visual buffer between the residences to the west and the industrial park. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin NOT CURRENT June 19, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Staff Note: The TIA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 45 single family units. Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7 h Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project at Level of Service C conditions or better. Local Roads The applicant is proposing one public entrance for all 45 lots in this development. The new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. Two cul-de-sacs are shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). One leads to the Glendobbin Ridge preservation tract and one leads to the Stonewall Industrial Park, thus enabling future connections to those adjacent sites. Staff Notes: The applicant, at the master plan stage, will need to seek a waiver for the cul-de- sac length, which exceeds 1,000 feet. The applicant, at the subdivision design stage, will need to demonstrate that lots with acceptable driveways can be platted along the new road given the steep topography. The challenging topography may necessitate considerable tree removal on the site. As stated in the VDOT comment, VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. This includes the entrance on Glendobbin Road which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. 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. NOT CURRENT Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin June 19, 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. (It is advisable to put this into the proffer statement.) The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. Staff Note: The Russell-Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and th us 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 S23,290 for each single family detached unit. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 4, 2005, Revised April 11, 2006 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated April 11, 2006. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 45 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The applicant has proffered a phasing plan that would allow 25 units within any 12 month period. No dwelling units will be permitted within 200 feet of any adjacent active orchard or within 100 feet of any adjacent agricultural uses in the two locations shown on the GDP. Staff note: The zoning district buffer shown on the GDP, but not referenced in the proffer statement, is required by the Zoning Ordinance. It is not an enhancement of minimal requirements. Rezoning # 17-05 —Russell-Glendobbin IVOT CURRENT June 19, 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 04105106 (summary below) an application for 60 houses on two parcels, including the Glendobbin Ridge Preservation Parcel, was considered. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: The staff reported receiving well over 200 letters regarding this rezoning, as well as a considerable number of telephone calls. The staff noted that approximately 90% of the letters were form letters and estimated that approximately two thirds of the letters were in favor of the rezoning, while one-third was opposed to the rezoning. Thirty citizens spoke during the Planning Commission's public hearing; 10 of those citizens spoke in favor of the proposal and 20 spoke in opposition. Most of those who had favorable comments were either in the building supply business, were building subcontractors, or had worked with the Russell family for many years. They spoke favorably about the integrity of the Russells and the exceptional quality of their construction. They stated that the Russells buy all of their materials locally and use local subcontractors, thereby supporting the local economy and providing jobs. By contrast, they said the majority of residential construction now taking place in Frederick County is done by outside construction companies who purchase all their building supplies out of the area and do not use local subcontractors. They believed the Russells had the right to ask for this because the property was in the UDA and SWSA; they also pointed out the Russell's willingness to compromise on the project, by reducing the number of dwellings from 130 to 60. Those who spoke in opposition to the rezoning were primarily local residents, in neighborhoods along Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road. They believed a precedent of development was already set in this area over the years for larger lots, averaging three to five acres and providing plenty of open space; they said the density proposed was inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. They were 0 0 NOT CURRENT Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin June 19, 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 Re- zoned lot and, therefore, could be considered a low -density pattern of development, in -keeping with established residential lots in the area. Another view recognized that the proposed RP -zoned lots may be smaller than existing residentially -zoned lots, but acted as a transitional area next to the industrially - zoned property to the east. Some did not think the one -acre density was incompatible, particularly when the view shed area included an industrial park. The TIA studies were also mentioned; those studies concluded that infrastructure could support the density adequately and safely. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision be denied. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL OF WAIVER): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett NO: Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin NOT CURRENT June 19, 2006 Page 11 (Note: Because of the recommendation of denial on the waiver request, a motion on the associated rezoning was not considered. Members acknowledged that denial of the waiver was in effect a recommendation of denial of the rezoning as currently submitted.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 05/17/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is for 45 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site may be required for the future Route 37. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 05/17/06 MEETING: Twenty-seven citizens came forward to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting. Twelve of those citizens spoke in support of the rezoning application and 15 spoke in opposition. Those who supported the rezoning application cited the applicant's history of using local builders who supported local businesses; they said the project would supply needed jobs; the project would provide affordable housing and starter homes for young couples; the proffer money offered would benefit schools, roads, and other infrastructure; the revised application was a compromise offered by the applicant which eliminated the preservation parcel from development; the rezoning application was within the County's guidelines for development; and, existing area homeowners should not expect adjoining property owners to forfeit their property rights to develop. A citizen pointed out that there were homes on half -acre lots less than a mile away on Payne Road and, in addition, an industrial park, mobile homes, and homes on half -acre lots could be seen from Union View Lane. Those citizens who were opposed to the rezoning application said that based on the application's proposed density, the development was inconsistent with the surrounding area and the established five - acre neighborhood; the project was incompatible next to working orchards, agricultural areas, an industrial park, and the uncertain future right-of-way for Route 37; safety issues involving traffic were raised and the ability of existing roads to handle additional traffic based on the poor visibility and posted speed limits; and, the issue of overcrowded schools was also raised. Homeowners along Glendobbin Ridge said they would be looking down into the backyards of approximately 27 proposed dwellings; they did not want to lose the existing woodlands strip because it served as a buffer against the industrial park and was a haven for wildlife. Others questioned how lots outside of the SWSA would be served and the unresolved legal issues regarding the use of the 50-foot private road as a second access. A comment was also made that the majority of those who spoke in support of the rezoning did not live in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Commission members discussed at length the issues of consistency and compatibility with the surrounding area, especially in light of the fact that the RP Zoning classification allowed for a broad NOT CURRENT Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin June 19, 2006 Page 12 range of development. Some expressed concern that the Commission was being asked to ignore compatibility issues to accommodate a return on investment, while others did not think it was appropriate to mandate a certain sized lot within the UDA and SWSA. Many Commissioners were opposed to the density requested by the applicant. One suggestion made was for the applicant to use both tracks of land, including the preservation parcel, and develop with two -acre lots under the RP Zoning which would provide the protection of buffers and screening and the ability to utilize water and sewer. It was noted that existing residents might be more comfortable with a well -maintained two -acre development, rather than scrubland with an uncertain future. A comment was also made about the beneficial screen provided by the existing woodlands between the industrial park and residential area; it was noted that there was nothing within the applicant's proposal indicating that any portion of that woodlands screen would be saved. A motion was made to deny the rezoning application because it was not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan's guidelines for compatibility, particularly with placing higher -density housing adjacent to an established two -acre lot development and with placing residential lots adjacent to M1 Zoning. This motion was defeated, however, by a tie five -to -five vote. A second motion was made to approve the rezoning application based on the fact that the property was located within the UDA and the SWSA and the applicant was following established guidelines for development. This motion was also defeated by a tie five -to -five vote. A third motion was made and unanimously passed to send the rezoning application forward to the Board of Supervisors without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. (Comissioners Thomas, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 06/19/06 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: This application is for 45 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site may be required for the future Route 37. • REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: May 1, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning 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 DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-1513 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M 1 (Light Industrial) & RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard Use: Agriculture Use: Industrial & Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential INUT CIJRYti;JNT 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 (March 9, 2006 proposal — 60 units on 67.73 acre — 0.89 dwelling units per acre) (November 9, 2005 proposal —130 units on 67.73 acre —1.92 dwelling units per acre) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Staff Note: The agency review comments are based on 130 single family units on two parcels. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised to request 60 single family units on two parcels, then revised further to request 45 single family units on only one parcel. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 and 661. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell-Glendobbin Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access as well as extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting into the proposed site and meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Staff Note: The Fire Marshall's comment calling for two separate and distinct means of access was satisfied with the original application. Two separate and distinct means of access are not provided with the current version of the application. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. — Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities". As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate the onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. • • NOT CURRENT 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 property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students,18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. 1NOT CURRENT Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 4 Frederick County Attorney: (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) I have reviewed the above -referenced Proposed Proffer Statement. It is my opinion that the Proposed Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and is legally sufficient as a proffer statement subject to the following: 1. Paragraph 1.2: Is this development to be limited to any particular type of single—family detached building types, or it's to be limited to one of the specific single-family detached building types set forth in Section 165-59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? If it is to be limited to a specific type, that should be set forth in the proffer. 2 Paragraph 2. 1: I don't understand the reference to "Butcher" in this paragraph. 3. Paragraph 4. 1: The time at which age restricted units would be "designated" should be specified. For example, would those units be designated at the time of subdivision? 4. Paragraph 12.1: It should be noted that the inflation adjustment calculation provides for the cap of 6% per year to be non -compounded. I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule a formal review of the rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmark Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It is also noted that the National Parks Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that his proposed rezoning would directly impact. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcel as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcel 43-A-15B was re -mapped from R-3 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan 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] 0 • NOT CURRENT Rezoning # 17-05 — 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 Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback and because it does not fit in with the neighborhood The latest proffer statement now includes a buffer against the orchard and agricultural land. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan (6-11) specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between the industrial park and the existing low -density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring a considerable buffer between any house and any M1 zoned property. The zoning district buffer shown on the GDP, but not referenced in the text of the proffer statement, appears to be the Zoning Ordinance required minimum, a Category A Buffer. NUT CURrr, dT 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 note: The alignment of Route 37 could change as a result of final engineering. Should this rezoning be approved as submitted, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would reduce flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Variation in the route as a result of this rezoning, could require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial land, further impacting this established industrial park. The recently approved site plan for the McClung -Logan site in the Stonewall Industrial Park might necessitate moving the path of Route 37further west, and possibly onto this site. (In the interest offull disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might result from this rezoning, should it be approved) 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain or wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. 4) Potential Impacts 1V0T CURRE�Nr'I' Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 7 A. Transportation Staff Note: The TIA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 45 single family units. Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7 h 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. • NOT CURRENT 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 Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester ServiceAuthority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff s Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. Staff Note: The Russell-Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and th us the County's old Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23,290 for each single family detached unit. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 4, 2005, Revised 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. • NOT CURMNT 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 04105106 an application for 60 houses on two parcels, including the Glendobbin Ridge Preservation Parcel, was considered PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 04/05/06 MEETING: The staff reported receiving well over 200 letters regarding this rezoning, as well as a considerable number of telephone calls. The staff noted that approximately 90% of the letters were form letters and estimated that approximately two thirds of the letters were in favor of the rezoning, while one-third was opposed to the rezoning. Thirty citizens spoke during the Planning Commission's public hearing; 10 of those citizens spoke in favor of the proposal and 20 spoke in opposition. Most of those who had favorable comments were either in the building supply business, were building subcontractors, or had worked with the Russell family for many years. They spoke favorably about the integrity of the Russells and the exceptional quality of their construction. They stated that the Russells buy all of their materials locally and use local subcontractors, thereby supporting the local economy and providing jobs. By contrast, they said the majority of residential construction now taking place in Frederick County is done by outside construction companies who purchase all their building supplies out of the area and do not use local subcontractors. They believed the Russells had the right to ask for this because the property was in the UDA and SWSA; they also pointed out the Russell's willingness to compromise on the project, by reducing the number of dwellings from 130 to 60. Those who spoke in opposition to the rezoning were primarily local residents, in neighborhoods along Glendobbin Road and Apple Pie Ridge Road. They believed a precedent of development was already set in this area over the years for larger lots, averaging three to five acres and providing plenty of open space; they said the density proposed was inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. They were 0 NOT CURREN I, 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 Re- zoned lot and, therefore, could be considered a low -density pattern of development, in -keeping with established residential lots in the area. Another view recognized that the proposed RP -zoned lots may be smaller than existing residentially -zoned lots, but acted as a transitional area next to the industrially - zoned property to the east. Some did not think the one -acre density was incompatible, particularly when the view shed area included an industrial park. The TIA studies were also mentioned, those studies concluded that infrastructure could support the density adequately and safely. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended that the request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision be denied. The vote was as follows: YES (TO REC. DENIAL OF WAIVER): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot, Kriz, Triplett NO: Thomas, Ours, Kerr, Mohn NOT CURRENT Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin May 1, 2006 Page 11 (Note: Because of the recommendation of denial on the waiver request, a motion on the associated rezoning was not considered. Members acknowledged that denial of the waiver was in effect a recommendation of denial of the rezoning as currently submitted.) STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 05/17/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This application is for 45 single family homes on a 31.185 acre parcel. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site may be required for the future Route 37. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. • REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: March 20, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: February 15, 2006 Postponement requested by applicant April 5, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: April 26, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 60 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. LOCATION: The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-1513 and 43-A-16 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M 1 (Light Industrial) & RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard Use: Agriculture Use: Industrial & Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential & Agriculture Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 60 Single Family Detached Residential Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: V Staff Note: The agency review comments are based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not obtain new agency comments when the application was revised to request 60 single family units. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 and 661. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell-Glendobbin Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access as well as extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting into the proposed site and meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. — Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities". As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate the onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience/dumpster facilities or via private Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 3 carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authoriy : No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students,18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) 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 Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-GlendobbinAoT March 20, 2006 Page 4 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 parcels as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcels 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were rezoned to A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1978 (Zoning Amendment Petition #003-78). Parcels 43-A-15A and 43-A-15B were re -mapped from R-3 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. In 2002, parcels 43-A-15A, 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were subdivided to form a rural preservation subdivision (Glendobbin Ridge). 16 parcels with a minimum size of 2 acres were created, and a 40% set -aside parcel with 36.54 acres (Parcel 43-A-16) was created. As per section 165-54D (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this parcel cannot be further subdivided. However, Section 165-54D (3) states: "Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty percent parcel and following a public hearing the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or included within the UDA as a result of future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten year restriction on rezoning." The preservation parcel is in the UDA and the ten year period is not NOT Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 5 required. A request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions is included with this rezoning application. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The subject sites are within the Urban Development Area (UDA). All of parcel 43-A-16 and a portion of parcel 43-A-15B are within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Any lots formed from the subject site that are outside of the SWSA are not eligible to receive public water and sewer service. The site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The sites have no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the properties do not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of surrounding uses is necessary. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision recently bought their lots with the expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west is the Spring Valley development. While five -acre lots in this area have been platted, most are undeveloped and the area is in agricultural use. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. The parcels to the north are zoned RA and are in orchard use. A major rural subdivision (Welltown Acres Section 4) was platted there with 5-acre lots, but it has not been developed. Three parcels immediately to the east are Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are in orchard and agricultural use. While there are specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District (200 feet between residences and orchards, 100 feet between residences and agriculture), there are no specific setbacks in the RP zone for orchards or agricultural use. Therefore, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Staff Note: On 02114106 staff received an email from Fruit Hill Orchard, owner of the adjacent orchard and the orchard across Glendobbin Road Fruit Hill Orchard is opposed to this rezoning because RP next to an orchard has no orchard setback. Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring an orchard setback (200feet) between any house and any active orchard. Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin NOT CURp, E, NT March 20, 2006 Page 6 Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between the industrial park and the existing low -density residential properties. New development on the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. Staff Note: Should this application be approved, considerable thought should be given to requiring a buffer between any house and any MI zoned property. Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements, and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). The future Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the County's Eastern Road Plan. This section of Route 37 is the highest priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. The applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right-of-way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will dedicate this right-of-way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant intends to identify the location of Route 37 and the required road efficiency buffer at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state how much of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. Staff note: The alignment of Route 37, shown on the GDP, could change as a result offinal engineering. Should this rezoning be approved as submitted, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would reduce flexibility in the alignment of Route 37. Variation in the route as a result of this rezoning, could require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial land, further impacting this established industrial park. On the other hand, a site plan has been submitted for McClung -Logan site in the Stonewall Industrial Park. Approval of that site plan might necessitate moving the path of Route 37further west. (In the interest of full disclosure, it would also be worthwhile to include a note concerning the future Route 37 on any plats that might resultfrom 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 PUT CUB? ANT Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 7 wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Vir inia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Staff Note: The TIA was based on 130 single family units. The applicant did not prepare a new TIA when the application was revised to seek only 60 single family units. Traffic Impact Anal 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. The TIA does not model whether traffic will exit the development from a new road on site or from Union View Lane. Local Roads The applicant is proposing one public entrance for all 60 lots in this development. The new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. A private gated connection, for emergency access, is proposed through an existing private access easement that would connect the new development to the cul-de-sac on Union View Lane. A new small cul-de-sac is also proposed on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) Staff Notes: While staff generally encourages inter parcel connectors, one would not be required in the Subdivision Ordinance with this application. The applicant at the subdivision design stage will need to demonstrate that lots with acceptable driveways can be platted along the new road given the steep topography. As stated in the VDOT comment, VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. This includes the entrance on Glendobbin Road which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin ,NOT CjJgR�1:TT March 20, 2006 Page 8 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. As noted above, the portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water ServiceArea (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester ServiceAuthority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. Staff Note: The Russell-Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's old Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact of development calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23,290 for each single family detached unit. • IN- OT CURRENT Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 9 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 4, 2005, Revised March 9, 2006 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated March 9, 2006. This GDP shows (1) right -of- way dedication for Route 37 and (2) an emergency access between Union View Lane (via a private access easement) and the new development. The GDP also shows a cul-de-sac that could access the adjacent M1 (Light Industrial) property. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 60 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 20,000 square feet. The applicant has proffered a phasing plan that would allow 30 units within any 12 month period. C) Transportation As noted previously, the applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right -of- way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right- of -way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant will provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network and Union View Lane for emergency access. The applicant has proffered $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). D) Monetary Contribution A monetary contribution in the amount of $10,206.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. A transportation contribution (see above) has also been proffered. E) Environment The applicant has proffered Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater management. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Two Planning Commission recommendations are required with this application: a recommendation on the rezoning request and a recommendation on the request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions. Denial of the waiver request would leave the application incomplete and would effectively be a recommendation of denial for the rezoning. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of a housing type not found in the surrounding area and not called for on NOT CURRENT Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin March 20, 2006 Page 10 the County's Long Range Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to industrially zoned land and an active orchard. A dense residential development in this location is incompatible with those two uses and could prejudice the operations of the adjacent industrial sites and the orchard. The site is along the future Route 37 corridor and the final alignment of that road has not been engineered. It is thus unclear at this time how much of the site will be required for the future Route 37. Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application and waiver request would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. ■ e"* 100 62 37 Wts" f SWSA Subject Property RT5-, N- Or 141 Landuse Catagories Map Features Rural Community Center Applicator, M 37 Bygress CD Residential Bosime.. "kesi Road Centerlines O SWSA Industrial sees— 4V institutional Bu" UDA Recreation Tenn. \i Tress T"O Historic Munid-Use Planned Unit Development • 4 • • Urban Development Area Development Area sy 0,0 lh REZ # 17 - 05 Russell - Glendobbin (43 - A - 15B, 16 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet M •• -- a� Urban Development Area I ` l OIL 'tide SWSA �a � A % sOeG Subject Property j WE IMMMOMMEMO .h: L J-- 1 J 77�RT17 N -- 0 GT O� i A r B\��71.CP •�/�� R E Z# 17 - 05 Mbp FbHuns Zoning C.U0 ories O . BI IBwmeee, NagneariwoE Dabicl) O Bi IBumeu, Ge ` o* r* - MRI (Metltl Nome GaimxnM Owhtq - MS (PeElcel Support -I-) Russell - G l e n d o b b i n IIR� Me 10— _ BJ f&wnru. I NUWOI Tnnepon G.Hc - RI (R.—.bal. W —d Cenvrft D eN ) Menalb—M DwlrMa) RE (Rpnar ECuoton Owed _ R5 (R..1&.l Rme 0 ComrrunM DWc4 O MlRunl Nebe DMrIuO 43 - A - 15B, 16 ) - MI (IrNuetr4l. LIM DWricl) Q RP (Reb IMI pbdormbnw 0%6k0 NOT CURrZ, M1 (IMuehlel Genanl D�tr l) N wL 0 750 1,500 3,000 R Feet I' / i �I s eya �i 4a a SWSA �GoI&HdrFJ U 0 1 I/ ■� 1 Subject Property i1 - - Gmeriarl ' - 1 _ �1 1 i - Woodside PI 1 62 1 I r 1 F P f� Var41 � 1 e^e Riv"deU G, a-%. yr • • � ♦ 9a. Urban Development Area `� f1 r ♦ z NOT CURRL, NT Map Features B Apphcat— " Rt 37 Bypass Q Parcels N LakestPonds Road Centerlines N O SWSA W �• Streams - Buildings i .a i UDA ' �\� TraAs - Tanks i MWA� REZ # 17 - 05 Russell - Glendobbin (43-A-1513, 16) 0 750 1,500 3,000 Feet y`be v 'Ya i 04 Ian �� g A I • a ,s v�MEW'-, Urban Development Area �' � to r` 1 i- I 1 ',� �• � Aw SWSA • fi,.�x. r �r• '- Subject Property IL 'r ('air �, { • �. - '." ,' yU 1 V. 37 4't°' Aga" , �► ��"'�■ � .%� Ee ! ' g�Rn�da C c'a�.�k, �,,�j�e�'4j�� ¢ ■ a1 1 • 4:?` � ��_ a. a, ..d mod/ �.iR�. .:P..,� N•.. ap,n oo — 1VJT CURRLNT ,,,,,. ROM L•nWlnw, Oawsn Zoning Catagorlaa 1 REZ # 17 - 05 Russell - Glendobbin (43-A-15B,16) 0 750 1,500 3,000 u �\ Feet REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN Staff Report for the Planning Commission - -_ Prepared: January 30, 2006 Staff Contact: Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: February 15, 2006 Pending Board of Supervisors: March 8, 2006 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 130 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. LOCATION: The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43-A-15B and 43-A-16 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District. PRESENT USE: Undeveloped ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Area) South: RA (Rural Area) East: M 1 (Light Industrial) & RA (Rural Areas) West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Orchard Use: Agriculture Use: Industrial & Vacant Use: Orchard Use: Residential & Agriculture Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 2 PROPOSED USES: 130 Single Family Detached Residential Units REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673, 663 and 661. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell-Glendobbin Property rezoning application dated May 4, 2005, revised November 9, 2005, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire Marshal: Subdivision plans shall include two separate and distinct means of access as well as extension of municipal water supplies for firefighting into the proposed site and meet the requirements of Frederick County Code section 90-4. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to page 3 of 6, C. — Site Suitability: The discussion indicates that "the site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities". As you may or may not know, the proposed rezoning site is located within a karst area of Frederick County. The karst areas surrounding this site are characterized by linear rock outcrops and isolated sinkholes. Efforts should be made to evaluate the onsite conditions to determine if sinkholes or solutioning could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicant's offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1) to control, not only the magnitude of the flows, but also the quality of the runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 3. Refer to page 5 of 6 — Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: The discussion indicates that solid waste will be collected at citizens' convenience/dumpster facilities or via private carrier(s) contracted by neighborhood residents. The closest existing citizen convenience site located in Clearbrook is experiencing traffic congestion and an increase in waste generated by new development. Consequently, we are recommending that all new residential developments employ private haulers to provide curbside trash pickup. This requirement shall be included in the homeowners' covenants. This Rezoning #17-OS — Russell -Glendobbin NOT GUIRME'NT January 30, 2006 Page 3 requirement will serve to offset the need to provide a suitable convenience site on the proposed subdivision property. This latter alternative will require the applicant to dedicate approximately one (1) acre to serve as a convenience site operated by Frederick County. Frederick County Inspections: No comment required at this time. Will comment on subdivision review. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comment. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Frederick -Winchester Health Department: The Frederick County Health Department has no objection to the proposal provided that the 7.2 acres outside of the SWSA remain part of larger tracts within the SWSA until such time as suitable private water supplies and sewage disposal systems are located and approved, at which point the FCHD would not object to those 7.2 acres being subdivided into the two potential residential lots as mentioned in the proposal. Department of Parks & Recreation: The proposed proffer for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate for the impact this development would have on the leisure services provided by the county. Department of GIS: Three road names will be required for this subdivision/development. Road names will be reviewed and approved during the MDP and subdivision process. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 130 single family homes will yield 22 high school students, 18 middle school students and 51 elementary school students for a total of 91 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new school facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Winchester Regional Airport: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Attorney: (Based on proffer statement dated May 1, 2005) 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. NOT CURRENT Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 4 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 & Zoninpl: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Winchester Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned R-3 (Residential General). Parcels 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were rezoned to A-2 (Agricultural General) in 1978 (Zoning Amendment Petition #003-78). Parcels 43-A-15A and 43-A-15B were re -mapped from R-3 to A-2 (Agricultural General) pursuant to the County's comprehensive downzoning initiative (Zoning Amendment Petition #011-80), which was adopted on October 8, 1980. The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. In 2002, parcels 43-A-15A, 43-A-16 and 43-A-17 were subdivided to form a rural preservation subdivision (Glendobbin Ridge). 16 parcels with a minimum size of 2 acres were created, and a 40% set -aside parcel with 36.54 acres (Parcel 43-A-16) was created. As per section 165-54D (1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this parcel cannot be further subdivided. However, Section 165-54D (3) states: "Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty percent parcel and following a public hearing the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or included within the UDA as a result of future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten year restriction on rezoning." The preservation parcel is in the UDA and the ten year period is not required. A request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions is included with this rezoning application. 0 • Rezoning # 17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin :TOT CLTRp,.E1VT January 30, 2006 Page 5 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The subject sites are within the Urban Development Area (UDA). All of parcel 43-A-16 and a portion of parcel 43-A-15B are within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Any lots formed from the subject site that are outside of the SWSA are not eligible to receive public water and sewer service. The site is not within any small area land use plans in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The sites have no land use designation on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. It is important to note that the properties do not have a residential designation on that plan. In the absence of any specific plans for this area, a careful evaluation of surrounding uses is necessary. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision recently bought their lots with the expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west is the Spring Valley development. While five -acre lots in this area have been platted, most are undeveloped and the area is in agricultural use. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or greater. The parcels to the north are zoned RA and are in orchard use. A major rural subdivision (Welltown Acres Section 4) was platted there with 5-acre lots, but it has not been developed. Three parcels immediately to the east are Zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are in orchard and agricultural use. While there are specific setbacks for agriculture in the RA District (200 feet between residences and orchards, 100 feet between residences and agriculture), there are no specific setbacks in the RP zone for orchards or agricultural use. Therefore, new RP houses could be located 25 feet from the rear property line, adjacent to the existing orchard. Other parcels immediately to the east are planned and zoned for industrial use (Stonewall Industrial Park). The Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically calls for separating industrial uses from residential uses. This proposal would accomplish the opposite and considerably increase the number of residences directly adjacent to planned and zoned industrial land. The applicant is advocating using a large number of new residences as a buffer between industrial and low - density residential uses. In addition, RP zoning on the subject properties would have implications for the adjacent industrial properties. New development on the adjacent M 1 (Light Industrial District) properties would require a Category C Buffer against an RP District. 0 • Rezoning #17-05 — Russel l-Glendobbin .11 TOT CT RENT January 30, 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. The applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right of way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right-of-way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. However, as the final alignment of Route 37 has not been engineered, it is not possible to definitively state how much of the site will be needed for construction of the road and for associated road efficiency buffers. The location of Route 37 and the required road efficiency buffer will be identified at the Master Development Plan (MDP) stage. Staff note: Should this rezoning be approved, the placement of houses on such a limited size tract would alleviate anyflexibiliry in the alignment of Route 37. Any variation in the route at the final engineering stage would require placing the road further east on the adjacent industrial site, further impacting this established industrial park. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. In particular, there are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplain or wetlands/hydrologic soils on the parcels identified in this application. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcel fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. The predominant soil type on the site is Frederick-Poplimento loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes (map symbol 14C). This soil type is not considered prime farmland. The characteristics of this soil type and any implications for site development are manageable through the site engineering process. Staff Note: The Public Works Department noted the karst areas of the site which will need to be addressed at the MDP stage. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin NUT CURB , JT January 30, 2006 Page 7 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 71h Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 1,300 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA further indicates that the study area roads and intersections have the capacity to accommodate the trips generated by the project at Level of Service C conditions or better. The TIA does not model whether traffic will exit the development from a new road on site or from Union View Lane. Local Roads The applicant is proposing two entrances for this development. One new entrance would be located on Glendobbin Road. The second proposed entrance would be on Union View Lane at Lot #9 of the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. Union View Lane at this time is not a Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Road, although it is intended to be a VDOT Road. A private gated connection, for emergency access, is proposed through an existing private access easement which would connect the new development to the cul-de-sac on Union View Lane. Staff Note: It is unclear if the applicant has the authority to connect a new road to Union View Lane via a private access easement. However, while staff generally encourages inter parcel connectors, one would not be required in the Subdivision Ordinance with this application. An inter parcel connector is only required between adjacent RP zoned properties, not between RP and RA properties (.Section 165-48.9). As stated in the VDOT comment, VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. This includes the new entrance to the subject parcels which is on a hill with existing visibility problems. B. Sewer and Water The site will be served by a gravity sewer that will be extended from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park system located south of the site. The planned extensions will occur across acreage owned by the applicant within the Stonewall Industrial Park that is adjacent to the subject site. Water service to the proposed development may be provided by one of two methods. The first is the extension of an eight inch water main from the existing Stonewall Industrial Park water system, which is served by the Stonewall Industrial Park Tank. To provide adequate pressure 0 • Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin NOT CURRENT January 30, 2006 Page 8 for both domestic and fire protection purposes, this arrangement would require installation of a booster pump station. The other option for water service would involve the extension of a high pressure main from the Northwest Water Tank transmission line into the site. These alternatives will be evaluated with FCSA staff to determine the appropriate method of water service to the project. As noted above, the portion of this site not included within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) will not be served by public water and sewer. The applicant will need to obtain permission from the Health Department for any lots outside of the SWSA that will require private wells and drainfields. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the regulations and, in conjunction with the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriffs Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community, the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,206 per residential unit. Staff Note: The Russell-Glendobbin application was received on November 28, 2005 and thus the County's Fiscal Impact Model was used for analysis. Applications received after November 30, 2005 are expected to mitigate the impact ofdevelopment calculated by the new Development Impact Model which is $23, 290 for each single family detached unit. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated November 9, 2005 A) Generalized Development Plan The applicant has proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) dated November 9, 2005. This GDP shows (1) an interconnection with Union View Lane, (2) right-of- way dedication for Route 37 and (3) an emergency access between Union View Lane and the new development. B) Land Use The applicant has proffered to limit the development to a maximum of 130 single family detached dwelling units on lots a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The applicant • 0 iOT CURRENT Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin January 30, 2006 Page 9 has proffered a phasing plan which would allow building permits for no more than 60 dwelling units within any 12 month period. C) Transportation The applicant will privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. As stated above, the applicant has proffered a connection with Union View Lane. As noted previously, the applicant has proffered to survey and plat the right-of- way for Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the Generalized Development Plan (GDP). The applicant will further dedicate this right- of-way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. The applicant has proffered $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661). Staff Note: The proffers (11.2 and 11.4) which establish the connections to Union View Lane do not have a timing element. The applicant will need to revise the proffers to state clearly when these connections will occur. D) Monetary Contribution A monetary contribution in the amount of $10,206.00 to Frederick County, to be provided at the time of building permit issuance, is proffered in an effort to mitigate the impacts associated with this development on community facilities. A transportation contribution (see above) has also been proffered. E) Environment The applicant has proffered Best Management Practices (BMP) for stormwater management. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 02/15/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Two Planning Commission recommendations are required with this application: a recommendation on the rezoning request and a recommendation on the request for a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions. Denial of the waiver request would leave the application incomplete and would effectively be a recommendation of denial for the rezoning. This application is not consistent with the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The application seeks development of 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 will be required for the future Route 37. Rezoning #17-05 — Russell-Glendobbin NOT CUR] NT January 30, 2006 Page 10 Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application and waiver request would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. 0 0 I APPLICATION AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: May 17, 2006 - No Recommendation BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 26, 2006 APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #17-05 OF RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN WHEREAS, Rezoning #17-05 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 on the property sought to be rezoned, including a proffer to limit the number of dwellings to 30 on the property, and proffers on adjoining property owned by applicants, was considered. The property sought to be rezoned is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 43-A-15B. The additional properties to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, are (i) PIN 43-19-57, a 6.89 acre parcel zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District, and (ii) PIN 43-A-16, a 36.54 acre Preservation Tract zone RA. Parcels 43-A-1513 and 43-A-16 are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Parcel 43-19-57 is located at the northern terminus of Kentmere Court, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. WHEREAS, the Planning Conmlission held a public hearing on this rezoning on May17, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on July 26, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 3 1. 18 51 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers on the property sought to be rezoned, including a proffer to limit the number of dwellings to 30 on the property, and proffers on adjoining property owned by applicants, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. PDRes # 19-06 r 0 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 26th day of July, 2006 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gary Dove Gene E. Fisher Philip A. Lemieux Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr Aye A COPY ATTEST G ! Na Aye Aye John R..Riley, Jr. Frederick County Adninistrator PDRes. 1119-06 0 0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 17-05 RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) on Tax Map Parcel ("TMP") 43-A-15B PROPERTY: Tax Map Parcels: 43-A-15B, 43-A-16, 43-19-57 (the "Property") - RECORD OWNER: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell APPLICANT: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell PROJECT NAME: Russell - Glendobbin j ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: May 1, 2005 JUL 7 20 REVISION DATE(S): August 4, 2005 November 9, 2005 March 9, 2006 April 11, 2006 June 23, 2006 June 27, 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 are contingent upon final rezoning of Tax Map Parcel 43-A-15B with "final rezoning" deemed as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of 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 the date on 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 June 23, 2006 revised June 27, 2006 (the "GDP"), a copy of which is attached. A. PROFFERS APPLICABLE TO TAX MAP PARCEL 43-A-15B 1 • u 1. LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Tax Map Parcel 43-A-1513 shall not exceed a maximum of 30 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 30,000 square feet. The minimum lot width, as taken from the front setback line, shall be 100 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. 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 pen -nit for each single family detached unit. 5. PARKS & OPEN SPACE: 5.1 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. 6. 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. 2 9 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 portion of the Property located within the Sewer and Water Service Area 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. 11.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $300.00 per dwelling unit for future improvements of the intersection of Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Welltown Road (Route 661), payable at the time of building permit issuance for each residential unit. 11.3 The Applicant shall dedicate sufficient land, not to exceed 350 feet in width, across Tax Map Parcel 43-A-15B for the right of way for VA Route 37 limited access highway in the location generally depicted on the GDP, or such other location as determined by the County, at no cost to Frederick County; said right of way to be dedicated within ninety (90) days of 3 9 request by the County. The County shall set the specific alignment of the Route 37 right of way on Tax Map Parcel 43-A-15B by January 30, 2007; provided should the County fail to do so by January 30, 2007, it shall do so within thirty (30) days after written notice from Applicant after January 30, 2007. 12. ESCALATOR CLAUSE: 12.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board of Supervisors ("Board") within thirty (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 thirty (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 twenty-four (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. B. PROFFERS APPLICABLE TO TAX MAP PARCEL 43-A-16 13. SUBDIVISION: 13.1 Future subdivision of Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 shall be prohibited except for any subdivision necessary to dedicate right of way to the County of Frederick for the future VA Route 37 limited access highway as generally shown on the GDP. 14. TRANSPORTATION: 14.1 The Applicant shall dedicate sufficient land not to exceed 350 feet in width across Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 for the right of way for Virginia Route 37 limited access highway in the location generally depicted on the GDP, or such other location as determined by the County, at no cost to Frederick County; said right of way to be dedicated within ninety (90) days of request by the County. The County shall set the specific alignment of the Route 37 right of way on Tax Map Parcel 43-A-16 by January 30, 2007; provided should the County fail to do so by January 30, 2007, it shall do so within thirty (30) days after written notice from Applicant after January 30, 2007. C. PROFFERS APPLICABLE TAX MAP PARCEL 43-19-57 15. TRANSPORTATION: III • 15.1 The Applicant shall dedicate sufficient land, not to exceed 350 feet in width, across Tax Map Parcel 43-19-57, in the location generally depicted on the GDP, or such other location as determined by the County, together with the balance of Tax Map Parcel 43-19-57 located south and east of said right of way; all of said dedication to be applied to the right of way for the VA Route 37 limited access highway, at no cost to Frederick County; said right of way to be dedicated within ninety (90) days of request by the County. The County shall set the specific alignment of the Route 37 right of way on Tax Map Parcel 43-19-57 by January 30, 2007; provided should the County fail to do so by January 30, 2007, it shall do so within thirty (30) days after written notice from Applicant after January 30, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Glen W. Russell By: Title: Pamela L. Russell By: 64n, o_� Title: 6R "4e"k_ STATE OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of 3 , 2006, by Qj My commission expires: Z 12 I ZOO NotaryPublic 5 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) NOT CURRENT RZ. # RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) 31.1851 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels: 43-A-15B (the "Property") Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Russell - Glendobbin May 1, 2005 August 4, 2005 November 9, 2005 March 9, 2006 Apid 11, 2006 APR 1 1 M 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 are 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. 1. 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) . 0 NOT CURPIENT 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. 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 sutra 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. 6. 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. 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. ENVIRONME • NOT CU RRENr 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: OW u Pamela L. Russell By: ;f Tide: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: • .NOT CURRtNT The foregoing instrument was acknowledg efo me s day o , 2006, by �� (it) QwMr-ctL . My co ssion O 6 Notary Publi OROPOSED PROFFER STATEMEP REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) RZ. # RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) 67.7242 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels: 43-A-15B & 43-A-16 (the "Property") Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell Russell - Glendobbin May 1, 2005 August 4, 2005 November 9, 2005 March 9, 2006 MAR 1 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 are 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 March 9, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: 1. LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 60 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 20,000 square feet. POT CURS: 2. CONDITIONARECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE go 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 30 dwelling units shall be issued within any twelve (12) month period, beginning from the date of rezoning approval. 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 sutra 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. 6. 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. 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. ENVIRONMER • .1vo2' �, v 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. 11.2 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. (See 2 on GDP) 11.3 The Applicant shall provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane for emergency access. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50-foot access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View Lane. (See 3 on GDP) 11.4 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: "-I� r`• ` Title: Pamela L. Russell By. P,." Title: & Wrf-- STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me th of Vyk-4 ,. , 2006, by Gam. + ..i/a In �..� My commissio s 4 30= oL Notary Public V �� p0 GCE, l A 6l SWSA BOQNDARYS,__-__ fill _ , O R AS STONEWALL r INDUSTRIAL PARK O O rr� NA7iO NAL ILD E I" FEL`FRATI — / f RUSSELL — GLENDOBBIN Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc II' 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 00 GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, IORGINIA NOT i / y i i EIWAALL U37)UAL PARK i NATIONAL WILDLIFE ' FEDERATIO)4 ' Russell - Glendobbin MARCH 2O06 SCALE: 1 " = 200' l I _Y _~ '• .� - Mom. ,._.. .. 0 0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # JAN 1 9 2006 RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) PROPERTY: 67.7242 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels: 43-A 15B & 43-A 16 (the "Property") RECORD OWNER: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell APPLICANT: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell CURRENT NOT PROJECT NAME: Russell - Glendobbin ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: May 1, 2005 REVISION DATE(S): August 4, 2005 November 9, 2005 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 are 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 November 9, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 130 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. 0 • 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND PLAN APPROVALS: NOT CURRENT 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 60 dwelling units shall be issued within any twelve (12) month period, beginning from the date of rezoning approval. 1081,11MOM•10614MA 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. 0 NOT CURRENT 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. 11.2 The Applicant shall provide a connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across Lot 9 of the existing Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to connect with Union View Lane. (See 1 on GDP) 11.3 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. (See 2 on GDP) 11.4 The Applicant shall provide a private, gated connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane for emergency access. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50-foot access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View Lane. (See 3 on GDP) 11.5 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. 4�zz Title: �Grn,�•t, Z Pamela L. Russell By. Title: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledge efore me this of a•� , 2005, by / h (.� •1. (a My commis e es ' 30 - 06 Notary Public • 0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 0 -eS RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) PROPERTY: 67.7242 Acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels: 43-A 15B & 43-A 16 (the "Property') RECORD OWNER Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell APPLICANT: Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell PROJECT NAME: Russell - Glendobbin ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: May 1, 2005 REVISION DATE (S): August 4, 2005 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 are contingent upon final rezoning of the Propertywith "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 May 1, 2005 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: LAND USE: 1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed a maximum of 130 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. 2. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO TT-JE 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 60 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. 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 except those that may be designated as "age restricted". Any "age restricted" designation shall occur at the time of Master Plan. 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. 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. 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. NOT C kJRRENT 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. 11.2 The Applicant shall provide a connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50-foot access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View Lane. (See 1 on GDP) 11.3 The right of way for VA Route 37 as identified by County studies and generally shown on the GDP will be surveyed and platted. The Applicant will cause the dedication of this right of way at no cost to the County within 90 days of request by the County. (See 2 on GDP) 11.4 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 TEE FOLLOWING PAGES Respectfully submitted, Glen W. Russell By: "y'g ., j g,_"e Title: Pamela L. Russell Title: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: r=C The foregoing instrument as acknow- dged Xorze this / daof f g 005, byCO f�t�SS�.�/G� y My commis sio Notary Public IV PROFFTR STATMEA' .T 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. 1. 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 Sect] on165-54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, this is accomplished through a rezoning, following a public hearing. Procedurally, the Board waiver and the rezoning would take place at the same public hearing. 2. Comprehensive Plan. As noted in the draft application, the subject properties are in the UDA and partially in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). I would point out that no portion of the subject sites are designated for residential use on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. Since this site is not in an area designated for residential development, it is not clear how the proposal is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As you are aware, Section 165-54D(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance states that a rezoning covering a preservation parcel will only be granted if the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Surrounding Area. The adjacent Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision contains two -acre lots and the large set -aside parcel. (Note: The property owners in that subdivision bought their lots with the clear expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain as such.) Also adjacent to the south and west are five -acre lots, which have yet to be developed. In fact, most subdivisions along 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 7, 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 inunediately 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 M1 Districts. The applicant should consider enhancements to the required buffer, such as that required when new M1 locates next to existing RP. 6. Route 37. The GDP shows the future Route 37 and a proffer indicates the right-of- way for Route 37 would be dedicated to the County at no cost. Should this application be successful, the Zoning Ordinance requires buffers and screening between the residential parcels and Route 37, which would be a major arterial road. The applicant may want to consider enhancements to the required buffer and screening. Also note that the aligninent 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. Verify ownerships before the actual application is submitted. Page 3 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property June 23, 2005 11. Proposed Proffer Statement (Including Generalized Development Plan). A. Page 3 of the applications states the application is for 125 units. The proffer statement (1.1) states a maximum of 130 units. Please insure consistent numbers. B. Proffer 2.1 refers to the Butcher rezoning. Please correct. C. Proffer 3.1 states a contribution to the Board for fire and rescue in the amount of $889.00 per dwelling unit. This is not consistent with the amount listed on page 6 of 6 in the impact assessment. D. Proffer 4.1 mentions units designated as "age restricted". This is not explained in the application. Please address. E. Proffer 11.1 states the applicant shall privately fund all transportation improvements required of this project. Specify the improvements and the timing of those improvements. F. Proffer 11.2 calls for a connection between the internal road network for the project and Glendobbin Ridge Road. Please be more specific on the details of this connection and the timing of the connection. 12. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency 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. Y L t• Page 4 Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr. RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell -GI endobbin 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, -d�� T. C�Al� Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad Attaclunent OUTPUT MG, c APPLICANT: Russel l-Glendobbi LAND USE TYPE RP REAL EST VAL $17,043,000 FIRE & RESCUE = 1 Fire and Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation Public Library Sheriffs Offices Administration Building Other Miscellaneous Facilities SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT n Net Fiscal Impact Costs of Impact Credit: Required (entered in Capital Facilities col sum only) $63,567 $557,399 $327,887 $480,680 $199,550 $34,692 $20,532 $26,349 $33,616 $1,744,271 $0 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital Net Cost Per Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes, Other (Unadiusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit $0 $0 $63,567 $489 $91,202 $442,730 $533,932 $381,727 $984,238 $7,571 $44,972 $44,972 $32,152 $167,398 $1,288 $9,702 $9,702 $6,937 $27,755 $213 $16,823 $0 $4,193 $21,016 $15,025 $5,506 $42 $0 $0 $0 $26,349 $203 $32,417 $35,790 $68,207 $48,764 $0 $0 $140,442 $478,520 $58,868 $677,830 $484,605 $1,259,666 $9,690 $0 $0 $0 LQ $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 Cc Avg: 0.0 Rev -Cost Bal = PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 Ratio to Cc 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 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �i I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I I I I I --I I I I I I I I I I I -I I I I I I I I I Patrick R. Sowers IF From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:43 AM To: 'Patrick.Sowers@phra.com' Cc: Ingram, Lloyd Subject: Russell Glendobbin Rezoning 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 has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Russell Glendobbin Rezoning Application dated May 1, 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. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT - Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) J A N 1 9 2006 1 0 0 Rezoning Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Virginia Department of Transportation j. `'NOT CCJR11�j, Mail to: Hand deliver to: - Virginia Dept. of Transportation Virginia Dept. of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Attach three copies of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Pho.ne.:-(540).667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Christopher Mohn 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 _ Winchester. VA 22601 Location of Property: — 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have a measurable impact on Routes 673 and 661. the transportation proffers offered in the Russell-Glendobbin Property Rezoning Application dated May 4, 2005, Revised August 4, traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual. Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all light -of -ways Pl pdc, in_ Ir it ing right-nf-way dedications; traffic sipnalizatinnand ff-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 bend yyverage----., VDOT Signature & Date: n Yf 9/15� Notice to Advisory Board — Please Return This Form to the Applicant RCaV E Rezoninp- Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Mail to: Frederick Co. Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6350 Frederick County Fire Marshal Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Fire & Rescue Dept. Attn: Fire Marshal Co. Administration Bldg., I" Floor 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Fire Marshal with his review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc. Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Christopher Mohn 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Fire Marshal's Comments: Fire Marshal's Signature & Date Notice to Marshal —Please Return his Form to the Applicant 11 0 0 �ic is o a a a w � � 3 � a VIRGINIA Control number RZ05-0003 Project Name Russell-Glendobbin Address 117 E.Piccadilly Street Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department Office of the Fire Marshal Plan Review and Comments Date received 5/12/2005 City Winchester Tax ID Number 43-A-15B & 16 Date reviewed 5/20/2005 Applicant PHRBA State Zip VA 22601 Fire District 13 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No Requirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Date Revised Applicant Phone 540-667-2139 Rescue District 13 Election District Stonewall Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Additional Comments 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 Reviewed By Signature Yes Timothy L. Welsh Title f tllrUlS KARALii�i FrhEGl'EC�llr✓L+tllnK June 22, 2005 Mr. Christopher M. Mohn Patton Harris Rust & Associates, p.c. 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Russell - Glendobbin Property Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Chris: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 We have completed our review of the proposed rezoning and offer the following comments: 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 solutiorung could impact the onsite development of a small lot subdivision. The results should be included in the Environmental Features table shown on page 4 of 6. 2. Refer to page 5 of 6 - Site Drainage: The discussion indicates that "site drainage collects and leaves the site to the south as it drains to Red Bud Run". The site drainage does eventually flow to Red Bud Run. However, based on the available topographic survey information, it appears that the runoff leaves the proposed rezoning site in three (3) distinct directions: east, west and north. This multi -directional flow will make stormwater management a real challenge. We applaud the applicants' offer to implement BMP facilities (Proffer 10.1) to control, not only, the magnitude of the flows, but also, the quality of the runoff. These facilities should be highlighted on the Master Development Plan. In addition, off -site drainage easements may be required in situations where point source discharges are created on or near the property limits. The covenants created for the proposed subdivision shall include requirements for the operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities. Copies of these requirements shall be submitted with the subdivision design. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning Page 2 June 22, 2005 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. I can be reached at 722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/rls cc: Planning and Development file A:\russell-glendobbinrezcom.wpd Rezoning Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Mail to: Frederick County Inspections Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Frederick County Inspections Rand deliver to: Frederick County Inspections Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicants Please fill.,onf the information: as accurately as possible in .order to: assist the Frederick .County. Inspection's Department With their review.'_ -Attach a copy of your. application form,' location map; proffer`statement,,irnpact analysis, acid any'other"pertinent information , Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Christopher Mohn 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Inspection's Comments: D ef o A4 NI Ei✓ /' &E Q 0 0E /J s, U JR n Eyz 5-y a-C— v / [: !n/ Signature & Date: 0 5� Notice spections— Please Retur Cis to the Applicant 16 Rug 09 05 10:52a FW WINC SFRV AUTHORITY 540'722 1103 p.2 Rezonin Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Frederick -Winchester Service Authority - Mail to: Fred -Wine Service Authority Attn: -Jesse WN Moffett, Executive Director R.G.-Box 43 Wilrehester, VA -22604 - (540) 722 3579 Hand deliver to: Fred Winc Service Authority' Attn: Jesse W. Moffett - 107 North -Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 -r - — . ... ......................... Applicant _ Please fill out --the information as -accurately -as possible in rder to assist the Department. of Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your applie lion form, location map,_proffer statement, impact analysis, and any-o*er per ineut informatiZ. Applicant's Name: Patton Hams Rust & Associates c P) one: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: ChristoRher Mohn 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The properties are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (VA Route bps), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and rayne Koad (VA Route 663). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Fred-Winc Service Authority's Comments: f Fred-Winc Service Au o ty's Signature &Dale: Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 23 Rezoning Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, VA Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Christopher Mohn 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Sanitation Authority Comments: A/D C"OM111�`/1//-7 Sanitation Authority Signature & Date- U Jf-- Notice to Sanitation An ity — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 14 0 0 • n U JAN 4 2006 Rezoning Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Frederick — Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick - Winchester Health Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: Location of Property: ATTN: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Frederick — Winchester Health Department's Comments: -*,e r17 hzilth ke jae-men) haj- /J6 a6/.cry/m �v Y�ie ���a� �GIt `�.�? RencJ o7t+�S/C� �� ��� .S�►/s,� /.�P`jl4/� ,�Y� �� �Q/y.C/! �c � 6✓�J�1ih �cc Sk�S,� uN{�j S'l�rli �i�t a.s ,Puy/ad�c ;r�Yi✓ct�.,c c.l'af� Sr�,o/�r � s,[ti/a � ��s as'.e/ S s ft rn.1t Gd r�C /eta �.td G1-rc d pram c.-� t•.'ii. C � � e �:• / 5��.. f'C1 [7 !J e?L��s/ n i ab/ G �'� �%fti S e • z cu s t_ f 6t ii. j ^1� l�dr:�i c%c✓ i.� i�i �� �,c �c/ Signature & Dat<�e�a Notice to Health Depailtment — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 15 43- n 45-,6 43-A-16 Rezoning Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Frederick — Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 NOT CUR.RE,NT Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Q ' E 7� 2 ; ( Attn: Sanitation Engineer MAY 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 1 2 z�05 Winchester, VA 22601 B Y: __------ (540) 722-3480 - ----- Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick - Winchester Health Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Christopher Mohn 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Frederick — Winchester Health Department's Commenit�sf: Jr, lC �'�,� y( y� l� �,�r ny•F` a7s �i �'�t '^R(` •ESi'°�S 50 (r lrni L:i nU•�:.• l✓�-fP .^ o.u.**:4tI _.r�.^f- -1cW G+:1'�� l�l u^ Jrfre s.DfL S✓Sh M aNt b - v9trf /.. �L r(��)1. //VHF A (t]�n t/ O/ d.^� ./l t �[lt aen 6C.ix hP.c.,�-�/'��.::.�n:.ln�•hU n�.�%:t F�..,- SCfc:_ �f: i�:1i�C#�'{Y�-�%iE f-ie•.��tM �il1, W.l� rt;rtt1 4i AVVCIhe.l{' Ir ol, K(j✓P•�t', Signature & Date: Notice to Health Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant NOT CURRENT 15 i' Rezoning Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Frederick County Dept. of Parks & Recreation Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Co. Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor Winchester, VA 22601 107 North Kent Street (540) 665-5678 Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant Please fill out the uiformatlon as accutately `as possible -m order to' assist the Depar ment of'Parks &``Recreation with their review Attheh' a copy of::your a"ppheation form, location map, proffer,statement,mpact analysis, andany other p`ertment information Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Christopher Mohr 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Dept. of Parks & Recreation Comments: 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. i Signature & Date: ��_ 5 / 19 / 05 Notice to D�p�. of Parks & Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant La 1( 12 �J 1( Rezonine Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Frederick County Department of Geographic Information Services (GIS) Attn: Marcus Lemasters, GIS Director 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant Please fill out the, Information as accurately' as possible; m order to: assist the Department of GIS with their review Attach a copy of your application form, location map; proffer statement; impact analysis,`and any other pertinent information. 2 Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Christopher Mohn 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Department of GIS Comments: T4REE ROAD NAMES WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THIS SUBDIVISION/DEVELOPMENT. ROAD N:MES WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED DURING THE MDP AND SUBDIVISION PROCESS. GIS Signature & Date: a�R, 93 -z14 a� Notice to Dept of GI — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 21 • CJ Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent 'FCPS1 Frcdaick Count Public Schools_ Visit us at www.frederickk1Zva-ue August 19, 2.005 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & AssLes, -pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Susite200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Sowers: RE: Russell Glendobbin Property -Revised e-maf7: kapocsi&nTe denck k12 ve, u s This letter is in resport to your request for comments concerning the rezoning application mr the proposed Russell Glendob7project...8ased on ihe_informationpruvided, itis anticipated that the proposed 130 single-f Wmlyhomes .will.yield22 high school students, 18 middle -school students, and 51 elementary school studws fara.iotal of 91 new.studen*s upon .build -out. Significant resideutizl wth in Frederick County has resuhed in the schools serving this area having student enrollments or exceeding the _practical capacity, for a school.. Tire. cumulative impact of this project others. of similar nature, cQmpled. with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the a , vvdll uecessitate tholmir_e constructian ofnew school facilities to aeconuzodate increasedstudent enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considerod during the approval process. Respectfully yours, Stap Kapocsi Administrative Assista"the Superintendent SMK/dkr cc: William C. Dean, Ph-D., Superintendent of Schools 540-662-3889 Pact 112 - 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 35M, Wind ester, VA 22604-25M FAA 540-662-18% 0 1( Rezoning Comments RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 Winchester, VA (540) 662-2422 Apphcant Please fill out the Information as accu ately as possible In order to assist the WincheAbi regional Airport with them revrew : Attach` a copy of your application form, location map proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent inforriiation- 3 ,;�„ ; y Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Phone: (540) 667-2139 Mailing Address: ATTN: Christopher Mohn 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: 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). Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 67.73 ac. Winchester Regional Airport's Comments Winchester Regional Airport Signature &Date: Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 19 Of1 SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA '10THo %1-4 May 20, 2005 WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Christopher Mohn Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC 117 EastW Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re. rezoning Comment - Rla. to RP Russell — Glendebbin Property Stonewall Magisterial District Dear Mr. Mohn: The proposed rezoning request has been reviewed and it appears that it will not impact operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Thank you for the opportunity to review this request. Sincerely, S. R. Manuel Executive Director Message Page 1 of 1 16 Susan Eddy From: HALLMONAHAN [lawyers@hallmonahan.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:14 AM To: Eric Lawrence; Chuck DeHaven Cc: Susan Eddy Subject: Re: Glendobbin final proffers Eric: They have make all of the changes in the Proposed Proffer Statement which I suggested and/or requested. Therefore, I have approved the form of the Proffer Statement. In approving the form of a Proffer Statement, I am not, of course, suggesting whether or not the requested rezoning should be approved. :.. ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Lawrence To: Bob Mitchell ; Chuck DeHaven Cc: Susan Eddy Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:27 PM Subject: Glendobbin final proffers Gentlemen - Attached are the latest proffers for the Glendobbin rezoning, with notarized owners signatures, delivered to the Planning Department today @ 1:15 by Mr. Athey and Maddox. I have been advised by these gentlemen that the revised proffers have gained your approval. Please advise otherwise. We have forwarded the legal advertisements to the Winchester Star - this rezoning application will be considered by the Board of Supervisors at their July 26th meeting. Thank you for your assistance on this project. -Eric 7/11/2006 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACK50N DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 11 & MITCHELL- - - J U N 2 9 2005 I a 7 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 FAX 540-662-4304 E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com June 28, 2005 clilonqT Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Russell (Russell-Glendobbin) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Susan: 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 is it to be limited to one of the specific single-family detached building types set forth in Section 165-59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? 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. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy June 28, 2005 Page 2 NOT CURRENT 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 this specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. RTM/ks-lfw • HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) SAMUEL D. ENGLE 0. LELAND MAHAN ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. JAMES A. KLENKAR STEVEN F. JACKSON DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. ATTORNEYS AT LAW & MITCHELL I a 7 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA TELEPHONE 703-777-I050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 FAX 540-662-4304 E-MAIL lawyers@hellmonehen.com June 28, 2005 Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 JUN 2 9 2"P, PLEASE REPLY TO. P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Russell (Russel l-Glendobbin) Proposed Proffer Statement Dear Susan: 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 is it to be limited to one of the specific single-family detached building types set forth in Section 165-59(B) of the Zoning Ordinance? 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. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy June 28, 2005 Page 2 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. Pararaph 12.1: it shou" be noted that the inflation adjustl7-lent 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 this specific site, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Commission. You also inquired as to the procedures for waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions, as related to the rezoning application. It is my understanding that this property is in the UDA, and comes under the UDA provisions contained in the second sentence of § 165-54 (D)(3) of the Ordinance. While that sentence seems to indicate that rural preservation lots in the UDA are not subject to the ten-year restriction, an express waiver by the Board is probably advisable. The waiver request may be included as a part of the rezoning application. The advertisement of the rezoning application should specify that the rezoning application includes a request for a waiver of the rural preservation lot restrictions. The action by the Board on the rezoning application should contain two elements: (1) action on the waiver request, and (2) action on the requested rezoning. Very trul ours, Robert T. Milt Zell, J RTM/ks-lfw COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 May 13, 2005 Mr. Christopher Mohn Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Request for Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) Comments Russell — Glendobbin Rezoning; PIN: 43-A-15B, 43-A-16 Dear Chris: 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 Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the properties nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify any core battlefields that this proposed rezoning would directly impact. Thank you for the chance to comment on this application. Please call if you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, fr . �.. L . r' Candice E. Perkins Plam-ier II CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 2 AGL'NCYCOMMEI1V.7S 6 N 0 Frederick County, Virginia IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN PROPERTY Stonewall Magisterial District March 2006 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone:540-667-2139 Fax:540-665-0493 • i Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement k"AA 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 9 • 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 Suitability 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 0 • 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 Frederick-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. D. Traffic 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, 7tn 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 0 C� 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 0 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement 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: $889.00 per unit ■ Public Schools: $7,571.00 per unit ■ Recreation & Parks: $1,288.00 per unit ■ Library: $213.00 per unit ■ Sheriff's Office: $42.00 per unit ■ Administration: $203.00 per unit ■ Offsite Road Improvements: $300.00 per unit TOTAL: $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 9 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. RAT300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 304.264.2711 F PH To: Organization/Company: From: Date: Project Name/Subject: PHR+A Project file Number: cc: Susan Edd Memorandum Frederick County Planning Department Michael Glickman, P.E. February 13, 2006 Addendum to: A Trac Impact Analysis of Russell-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 1 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. F E 8 1 4 200E Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Memorandum Addendum to: A Tra k Imhact Analysis o Russell-Glendobbin. Page 2 dated May 2005 �7 Unsignalized Intersection 4 P� Unsignalized SITE Signalized Intersection LOS=C(B) Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 1 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Addendum to: A Trac Impact Analvsis of Russell-Glendobbin, dated May 2005 No Scale Memorandum Page 3 Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 2 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 4) OVERVIEW Report Summary 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. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Russell-Glendobbin development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • 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. EXISTING 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% 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 Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin P_P4_ ;E Project Number: 13543-1-0 P - Rr May 04, 2005 ,� Page 1 0 0 No Scale 739 *WOO lei �e�o 1ST 1��,1 673 J > "' �1ena0b q"? r1� 26(8) wo"N t ,� a �1l 6� A_ J W D W Hill Road (5)2 (10)15 MEN% a" %ad SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) DailyAverage 1 -75 Awl J 1Z--- fll A Traffic bnoactAnalysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0, May 04, 2005 Page 3 No Scale L �• Unsignalized Intersection \ �9J Unsignalized Intersection Signalized Intersection LOS=B(B) Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement /A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 11 . Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Trafflc Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin T I — J -9 Project Number: 13543-1-0 s ti May 04, 2005 1 Page 4 C 11 it 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 4 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 AM/PM 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 ADT In Out Total In Out Total Star Fort* 210 Single -Family Detached 70 units 15 44 58 50 28 78 700 Total 15 44 .58 50 28 78 700 Regents"Crescent*. 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 5. 6 12 10 6 16 501 520 Elementary School 550 stud. 94 65 160 2 4 6 710 Total 237 465 702 445 261 706 10,059 Adjacent Residential Development (west of Russell-Glendobbin) 210 Single -Family Detached 16 units I 5 16 21 13 7 21 160 Total 5 16 21 1 13 7 21 160 1Vvlc. ruuiougu oiar ron and Regents Crescent are located along Route 522, the traffic generated will impact Route 11/Route 37 and therefore were included in analyses. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number:• 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 5 No Scale 739 ��3Z3>Z11 j Roa y J a b R 0 G b� G v a" Hill Road �Ln w 1 (8) �..29(9) (1)2 t r (2)4 —+ D)90 \ v A �P SITE i ` AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) DailyAverage Figure 4 2008 Background Traffic Conditions A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Y Page 6 I� E No Scale -f- �ii� Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 . 2008 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service P �ff ��ALI C RA. - A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 7 0 TRIP GENERATION PHR+A determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using equations and rates provided in the 7`b 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 Trip Generation Summary 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 Total 1 25 75 100 1 87 49 136 1 1,300 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENTS 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. Figure 7 shows the respective development - generated ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. 2008 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS 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 AMIPM 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 14CS-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. A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell- Glendobbin �� g Project Number: 13543-1-0 ,ma y May 04, 2065 ,L - Page 8 No Scale L-YHl�L 1. Figure 6 Z� Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 9 • • Aa No Scale �o 4,4000, 67. dQ, 39 66 (39)60 �� c ya c t 673 N �o dy�e�0 Hill 0 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1 � l �L �L L Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 10 No Scale Hill a ay�e�oa�01�111 673 rjs r1J rJ1JSAo� L�1lti�� J �c�61,0 6"`0l cl. �5ti5I�► d�� �,,n .�.2d11 SITE AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) I A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005 Page 11 No Scale Hill 4- G�egoa Unsignalized Intersection . ,lea N a o �te�s ZC- b 1� 673 � 9Y 4 J. v `� �1 6 r Unsignalized SITE ; Signalized Intersection 4,l$� LOS=B() 0 •v`` J Denotes stop sign control Denotes traffic signal control Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) I I Figure 9 2008 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service t A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Project Number: 13543-1-0 May 04, 2005. Page 12 A Traffic Impact Analysis of Russell-Glendobbin Located in: Frederick County, Virginia ZD Prepared for: Glen W. Russell 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Endneers. Surveyors. Planners. LrndsccpeArchitects. 300 Foxcroft Avenue, Suite 200 Martinsburg, West Virginia 25401 T; + T 304.264.2711 P, r. F 304.264.3671 May 04, 2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement RUSSELL — GLENDOBBIN PROPERTY REZONING IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT August 2005 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 8/2005 • 0 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 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin C. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Site Background and History Impact Analysis Statement 0901 SOT G� 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 by an extension and inter- connection with Union View Lane within the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. C. Site Suitability 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 8/2005 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 Frederick-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. D. Traffic 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, 7cn 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 8/2005 • NOT CURRENT 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 130 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 26,000 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 130 single family detached homes, it is projected that each dwelling will produce approximately 12 lbs. of solid waste per day for a total of 1,560 lbs. per day (.78 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 8/2005 Russell - Glendobbin Impact Analysis Statement NOT CURRENT 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: ■ Sheriffs Office: ■ Administration: ■ Offsite Road Improvements $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 $10,506 per unit An escalator clause is included with the proffer statement to mitigate the effects of inflation on the value of the proffered monetary contributions. This provision stipulates that any monetary contributions proffered by the applicant that are paid after 30 months from the date of rezoning approval will be adjusted pursuant to the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). Page 6 of 6 8/2005 Z a$Ed Soot ,tio ABW o-T-£b5£i :-giunH 1oaCoid ulg4opual`J-llassnyo.ns lvuy1aa ufj njl y Elu[.0.IIA `Sluno3 xa«apaj3 ul uiggopua[q'jjassng :dLW �pnatA i amnl3 J � apmAuunso-- ':ram 13 i s ` .7l :m �- ... PWO . + os9Qes UlEk-1 4 _ m a 2roos ON r II IffT4CT",4ZYSIS INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/veh A S10 B >10 and <_15 C > 15 and <_25 D >25 and <_35 E >35 and _<50 F >50 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - AWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver is required to stop, the judgment as to whether to proceed into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) approaches. Therefore, a driver proceeds only after determining that there are no vehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. The analysis takes into account the problem of determining, under capacity conditions for a given approach, the factors that influence the rate at which vehicles can depart successfully from the STOP line. Traffic at other approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). In the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for AWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Average Total Delay sec/veh B >10 and _<15 C > 15 and <_25 D >25 and <_35 E >35 and <_50 F >50 • • SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an `optional' signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Stopped Delay bevel of Service per Vehicle (sec) A < 10.0 B >10.0 and <_20.0 C >20.0 and 535.0 D >35.0 and <_55.0 E >55.0 and <_80.0 F >80.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. - B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ride Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 3 104 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 3 109 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4. Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration stream Signal LT 0 Minor Street Northbounc Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 3 Capacity, cm (vph) 1496 v/c ratio 0.00 gue length (95%) control Delay (s/veh) 0.01 7.4 LOS . A I - Intersection Glendobbin Road &Apple Pie Rid Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions South Street: Glendobbin Road Period (hrs): 0.25 3 4 5 6 R L T R 0 0 77 6 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 0 81 6 -- 3 -- -- Undivided 0 0 0 0 1 0 TR 0 Southbound 9 10 11 12 R L T R 0 3 0 18 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0 3 0 18 0 4 0 4 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LR Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 10 11 12 LR 21 938 0.02 0.07 8.9 A Patton HaTis Rust & Associates • rproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.9 jApproach LOS -- -- A FICswodFm Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Hanis Rust & Associates IC TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 3 99 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 3 104 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration. stream Si nal LT 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 3 Capacity, cm (vph) 1418 /c ratio 0.00 eue length (95%) control Delay (s/veh) 0,01 7.5 LOS A Intersection Glendobbin Road &Apple Pie Rid Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions orth/South Street: Glendobbin Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 0 Southbound 0 � 0 � I Northbound •uthbound Patton Harris Rust & Associates 'proach delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.8 rpproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Hams Rust & Associates • l J HCS2000w DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Welltown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Russell -Stonewall Development Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume, V (vph) 135 1134 52 0 1175 164 56 12 45 139 22 149 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A- A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0. 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Q. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 6.0 G= 44.0 G= I G= G= 30.0 G= G= G'= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 142 1194 55 0 1237 173 119 169 157 Lane group capacity, c 199 1700 759 209 1700 759 453 421 707 v/c ratio, X 0.71 0.70 0.07 0.00 0.73 0.23 0.26 0.40 0.22 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.49 0.49 0.56 0.49 0.49 0.33 0.33 0.46 Uniform delay, di 15.4 17.9 12.2 0.0 18.2 13.2 21.9 23.1 14.8 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.28 0.27 0.11 0.11 0.29 0.11 0611 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 11.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 . Control delay 26.8 19.2 12.2 0.0 19.9 13.4 1 22.2 23.7 15.0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, • 0 r Lane group LOS C B B A B B C C B Approach delay 19.7 19.1 22.2 19.5 Approach LOS B B C B Intersection delay 19.5 X = 0.67 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.le • L_J HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 4/25/2005 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Welltown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Russell -Stonewall Development .Volume andTiming Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume, V (vph) 69 1307 61 0 1163 145 42 14 35 165 20 156 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 .3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike % RTOR volumes 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 -0 0 0 b:: EO 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 73 1376 64 0 1224 153 96 195 164 Lane group capacity, c 153 1932 863 113 1932 863 469 423 518 v/c ratio, X 0.48 0.71 0.07 0.00 0.63 0.18 0.20 0.46 0.32 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 12.1 14.7 9.3 8.9 13.7 9.9 21.5 23.6 22.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 2.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 14.4 16.0 9.3 8.9 14.4 10.0 21.7 24.4 22.7 Lane group LOS B I B A A I B A . C C C Approach delay 15.6 13.9 21.7 23.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 15.9 X = 0.62 Intersection LOS B HCS200drM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.le Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc • F� TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Isite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date .Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall E East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustmen Major Street Movement 1 L Volume veh/h 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Eastbound 2 T 119 0.95 125 Lanes 0 1 Configuration lostream Signal 0 for Street Movement Northbou 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 2 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Len th Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 4 Capacity, cm (vph) 1446 v/c ratio - 0.00 Queue length (95%) ntrol Delay (s/veh) LOS 0.01 7.5 A Intersection Hill Road &Apple Pie Rid urisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions rth/South Street: Hill Road - idy Period (hrs): 0.25 _ Westbound 3 4 5 R L T 3 4 81 0.95 0.95 0.95 3 4 85 0 0 0 1 0 outhbound 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 0 N 0 0 6 R 0 0.95 0 0 0 K V no Southbound 10 1 11 12 Patton Hairis Rust & Associates • roach delay s/veh -- -- 9.1 impproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY I Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A . Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell-Stonewall.Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 0 114 Peak -hour factor, PHF I 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (yeh/h) 0 120 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration Ipstream Signal 0 nor Street - Movement Northbound 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 5 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 5 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 . 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, G (vph) 14 Capacity, cm (vph) 1453 We ratio 0.01 i Oueue length (95%) ntrol Delay (s/veh) 0.03 7.5 ILOS A Intersection Hill Road &Apple Pie Rid urisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions orth/South Street: Hill Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 7 Westbound Undivided Southbound Northbound EL]8 15 828 0.02 0.06 9.4 A Southbound 9 1 10 1 11 12 Patton Harris Rust & Associates ach delay s/veh -- -- 9.4 ach LOS -- -- A HCS2000T M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • 0 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY ral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 0 48 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 50 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration stream Signal LTR 0 iviinor Street Northbounc Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 7 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow,Rate (veh/h) 7 2 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 4 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 i Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 0 33 Capacity, cm (vph) 1587 1522 /c ratio 0.00 0.02 sue length (95%) ,,ontrol Delay (s/veh) 0.00 0.07 7.3 7.4 LOS A A Intersection Glendobbin Road & Payne Road Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions orth/South Street: Glendobbin Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 4 1 4 0 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates 1proach delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.0 9.8 jApproach LOS -- -- A A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 1 13 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 1 13 Proportion of heavy ehicles, PHv 4 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration stream Signal LTR 0 iviinor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 4 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 4 1 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 4 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 1 21 Capacity, cm (vph) 1591 1582 v/c ratio 0.00 0.01 I eue length (95%) —ontrol Delay (s/veh) 0.00 0.04 7.3 7.3 LOS A A Intersection Glendobbin Road & Payne Road Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions South Street: Glendobbin Road Period (hrs): 0.25 Undivided � � 0 Southbound � 0 North •. • Southbound Patton Harris Rust & Associates rproach dela, impproach LOS HCS2000T M 8.7 1 9.0 Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Patton Harris Rust & Associates L� TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Welltown Road & Payne Road Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road North/South Street: Welltown Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments ' Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 29 60 2 1 219 14 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 1 63 2 1 230 14 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 -- -- 4 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ,Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 26 6 2 2 4 69 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 27 6 2 -2 4 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 4 4 4 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 30 1 35 78 C (m) (vph) 1311 1524 517 771 v/c 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.10 95% queue length 0.07 0.00 0.22 0.34 Control Delay 7.8 7.4 12.5 10.2 LOS A A 8 8 Approach Delay -- -- 12.5 10.2 Approach LOS -- -- 8 e Rights Reserved ricsw00TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d LI TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 - Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Welltown Road & Payne Road Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road North/South Street: Welltown Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 24 217 19 2 41 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 25 1 228 20 2 43 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 -- -- 4 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 8 7 2 1 2 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95- 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 1 7 2 1 1 2 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Configuration LTR I LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 25 2 17 25 C (m)(vph) 1549 1306 593 932 /C 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.03 95% queue length 0.05 0.00 0.09 0.08 Control Delay 7.4 7.8 11.2 9.0 LO S A A 8 A Approach Delay -- -- 11.2 9.0 pproach LOS -- -- 8 A < Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright O 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Version 4.1d Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 0 54 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 56 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 8 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 8 2 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 4 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration I LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service. Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 0 42 Capacity, cm (vph) 1585 1510 v/c ratio 0.00 0.03 Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.09 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 7.5 LO S A A Approach delay (s/veh) - -- Approach LOS -- -- Intersection Glendobbin Road & Payne Road Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Background Conditions orth/South Street: Glendobbin Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Westbound Undivided Southbound Northbound Southbound HCS200d M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved ' Patton Harris Rust & Associates" oc Version 4.Id 0 • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Anal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 1 15 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 1 15 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv ' 4 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 configuration LTR stream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 4 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 4 1 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 4 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 1 34 Capacity, cm (vph) 1590 1578 v/c ratio eue length (95%) Control Delay (s/veh) 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 7.3 7.3 LOS A A Intersection Glendobbin Road & Payne Road Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Background Conditions South Street: Glendobbin Road Period (hrs): 0.25 © 0 Undivided 0 � 0 Southbound 0 • •• • •••• Patton Harris Rust & Associates 0 0 broach delay (s/veh) -- - 8.7 9.2 broach LOS - -- A A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d 0 HCS2000r" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Welltown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Background Conditions Project ID Russell -Stonewall Development Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume, V (vph) 154 1357 58 0 1372 187 63 1 13 51 163 25 173 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95. 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 - 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0. N N 0 N. N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 8.0 G= 48.0 G= G= G= 24.0 G= • G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 162 1428 61 0 1444 197 134 198 1 182 Lane group capacity, c 235 1855 828 235 1855 828 277 326 638 v/c ratio, X 0.69 0.77 0.07 0.00 0.78 0.24 0.48 0.61 0.29 Total green ratio, g/C 0.62 0.53 0.53 0.62 0.53 0.53 0.27 0.27 0.41 Uniform delay, d1 16.8 16.6 10.2 0.0 16.8 11..2 27.8 28.9 17.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.26 0.32 0.11 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 8.3 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.1 1.3 3.2 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 s • Control delay 25.0 18.7 10.2 0.0 18.9 11.4 29.1 1 32.1 17.9 Lane group LOS C B B A B B C C B Approach delay .19.0 18.0 29.1 25.3 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 19.6 C = 0.80 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.le Patton Hants Rust R Associates, a HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Welltown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Winchester, VA 2008 Background Analysis Year Conditions Project ID Russell -Stonewall Development Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH FT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume, V (vph) 82 1532 69 0 1394 169 47 16 39 189 22 178 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I . 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.006 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j 0.0 0.0 0.0 j 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 60 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm Q6 07 08 G= 52.0 G= G= G= G= 21.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 5 ly= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 83.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 86 1613 73 0 1467 178 91 222 124 Lane group capacity, c 134 2179 973 100 2179 973 267 326 393 v/c ratio, X 0.64 0.74 0.08 0.00 0.67 0.18 0.34 0.68 0.32 Total green ratio, g/C 0.63 0.63 10.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.25 0.25 0.25 Uniform delay, d1 9.7 10.8 6.1 5.8 10.0 6.5 25.3 28.0 25.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000' 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.22 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 10.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.8 5.7 0.5 Initial queue delay, d3 Harris Rust & Associates • a Control delay 19.7 12.2 1 6.1 5.8 10.8 1 6.6 26.1 33.7 25.6 Lane group LOS 8 8. A A 8 A C C C Approach delay 12.3 10.4 26.1 30.8 Approach LOS 8 8 C C Intersection delay 13.5 XC = 0.72 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.le & Associates l� TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Welltown Road &Payne Road Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Background Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road North/South Street: Welltown Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 37 67 2 1 246 16 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 38 1 70 1 2 1 258 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 -- -- 4 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 7 2 2 4 90 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 1 7 2 2 4 94 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 4 4 4 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 38 1 39 1 100 C (m) (vph) 1278 1515 455 746 lc 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.13 95% queue length 0.09 0.00 0.28 0.46 Control Delay 7.9 7.4 13.7 10.6 LOS A A B B Approach Delay -- -- 13.7 1 10.6 pproach LOS -- -- B I B Rights Reserved HCS2000TIA Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d Version 4.1d • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 412512005 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Welltown Road &Payne Road Winchester, VA 2008 Background Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road North/South Street: Welltown Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 38 244 21 2 46 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 40 256 22 2 48 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 -- -- 4 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 9 8 2 1 2 30 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 8 2 1 21 1 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 4 4 4 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT 'Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 40 2 19 34 C (m) (vph) 1542 1273 533 934 /c 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.04 95% queue length 0.08 0.00 0.11 -0.11 Control Delay 7.4 7.8 12.0 9.0 LOS A A B A Approach Delay -- -- 12.0 9.0 Approach LOS -- -- B A Rights Reserved HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 3 117 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 3 1 123 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 -- Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 configuration Stream Signal LT 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 3 Capacity, cm (vph) 1481 ( v/c ratio Bue length (95%) control Delay (s/veh) 0.00 0.01 7.4 LOS A Intersection Glendobbin Road &Apple Pie Rid Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Background Conditions orth/South Street: Glendobbin Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Westbound ��0 0 Undivided Southbound Northbound Southbound Patton Harris Rust & Associates (' proach delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.8 pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates • 0 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 3 ill Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 3 116 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration )stream Signal LT 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 3 Capacity, cm (vph) 1393 I v/c ratio 0.00 aerie length (95%) 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 I.OS A Intersection - Glendobbin Road &Apple Pie Rid Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Background Conditions orth/South Street: Glendobbin Road hidv Period (hrs): 0.25 Westbound Undivided � 0 • •• • •••• Patton Harris Rust & Associates )proach delay (s/.veh) -- -- 10.0 pproach LOS -- -- 8 HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates • 0 I Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h) 0 137 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 144 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration lostream Signal 0 nor Street Movement Northbound 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 2 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 4 Capacity, cm (vph) 1423 v/c ratio 0.00 (, nueue length (95%) ntrol Delay (s/veh) 0.01 7.5 li n.q A Intersection Hill Road &Apple Pie Rid Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Background Conditions 9 R 17 0.95 17 M Q uth Street: Hill Road riod (hrs): 0.25 z Westbound 5 T 92 0.95 96 F 0 Southbound 10 1 11 1 12 Patton Harris Rust & Associates 0 broach delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.2 broach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d ral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information A Intersection AJurisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHR+ Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 0 130 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 136 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration "nstream Signal 0 nor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 6 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 6 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 16 Capacity, c�, (vph) 1433 v/c ratio 0.01 (. nueue length (95%) ntrol Delay (s/veh) 0.03 7.5 ILOS A North/South Street: Hill Road Studv Period (hrs): 0.25 lu U rIi r N Hill Road &Apple Pie Rid Winchester, VA 2008 Backaround Conditions Westbou 5 T 159 0.95 167 1 0 Southbound 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 0 N 0 0 Southbound 9 1 10 - 1 11 1 12 Pnitnn Nnrric Rnct RT. A�cnci�tnc • • proach delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.6 INDoroach LOS -- -- A IICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates HCS2000m DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Welltown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Buildout Conditions Project ID Russell -Stonewall Development Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume, V (vph) 162 1357 58 0 1372 198 63 13 51 197 25 199 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 ' 4 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0,95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I1 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 - 2.0 2.0- 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.0,00 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 60 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 IV N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing Excl. Left EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 G= 7.0 G= 49.0 G= G= G= 24.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 17.1 1428 61 0 1444 208 118 233 146 Lane group capacity, c 216 1894 846 216 1.894 846 245 334 414 v/c ratio, X 0.79 0.75 0.07 0.00 0.76 0.25 0.48 0.70 0.35 Total green ratio, g/C 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.62 0.54 0.54 0.27 0.27 0.27 Uniform delay, d1 18.6 15.8 9.7 0.0 16.0 10.8 27.8 29.7 26.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.34 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 17.9 1.8 '0.0 0.0 1.9 0.2 1.5 6.3 0.5 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 36.5 17.6 9.8 0.0 17.9 10.9 29.3 36.0 27.2 & Associates a Lane group LOS D I B A A I B 8 C D C Approach delay 19.3 17.0 29.3 32.6 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 19.9 X = 0.82 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e Patton Hanis Rust & Associates 0 • HCS2000m DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 412512005 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Route 11 & Welltown Road Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Background Conditions Project ID Russell -Stonewall Development Volume and Timing input EB WB NB SB . LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lane group L T R L T R LTR LT R Volume, V (vph) 113 1532 69 0 1394 208 47 1 16 39 211 22 195 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. 4 4 4 4 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 60 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 55.0 G= G= G= G= 25.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= _ Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 119 1613 73 0 1467 219 91 245 142 Lane group capacity, c 123 2125 949 91 2125 949 300 356 431 v/c ratio, X 0.97 0.76 0.08 0.00 0.69 0.23 0.30 0.69 0.33 Total green ratio, g/C 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.28 0.28 0.28 Uniform delay, di 16.6 12.7 7.1 . 6.8 11.8 7.9 25.6 29.0 25.8 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.47 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 0.11 0.26 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 70.8 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.6 5.5 0.5 Initial queue delay, d3 0 i Control delay 87.4 14.3 1 7.2 ' 6.8 12.7 1 8.0 26.2 1 34.5 26.3 Lane group LOS F B A A 8 A C C C Approach delay 18.9 12.1 26.2 31.5 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 17.4 0 = 0.88 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 8 i • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Welltown Road & Payne Road Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 4/25/2005 Jurisdiction Winchester, VA nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2008 Buildout Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road North/South Street: Welltown Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 107 244 21 2 46 3 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 112 256 22 2 48 3 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 -- -- 4 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 9 8 2 1 2 69 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 9 1 8 1 2 1 2 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 4 4 4 4 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Servide Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8. 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) 112 2 19 75 C (m) (vph) 1542 1273 403 955 v/c 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.08 95% queue length 0.23 0.00 0.15 0.26 Control Delay 7.5 7.8 14.4 9.1 LOS A A B A Approach Delay -- -- 14.4 9.1 Approach LOS -- -- B A Rights Reserved HCS2000M Version 4.1d Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton HaiTis Rust & Associates, pc 0 C� TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed nalysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 4/25/2005 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year �Velltown Road &Payne Road Winchester, VA 2008 Buildout Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road North/South Street: Welltown Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 57 67 2 1 246 16 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 60 70 1 2 1 1 258 16 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ,Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 29 7 2 2 4 150 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 30 7 2 2 4 157 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (vph) • 60 1 39 163 C (m) (vph) 1278 1515 372 751 v/c 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.22 95% queue length 0.15 0.00 0.35 • 0.82 Control Delay 8.0 7.4 15.8 11.1 LOS A A C 8 Approach Delay -- -- 15.8 11.1 Approach LOS -- -- C B Rights Reserved HCS2006"' Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Version 4.1d • 9 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 313012005 AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Glendobbin Road &Site Drive Winchester, VA 2008 Buildout Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Site Driveway North/South Street:. Glendobbin Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 -6 L T R L T R Volume 0 52 5 20 60 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 54 5 21 63 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3 -- -- 4 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized - 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound 14ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 15 0 60 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 0 63 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 3 4 3 3 1 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Sto rag e 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (vph) 21 78 C (m) (vph) 1532 962 v/c 0.01 0.08 95% queue length 0.04 0.26 Control Delay 7.4 9.1. LOS A A Aoproach Delay -- -- 9.1 proach LOS -- -- A Rights Reserved Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates • 0 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nalyst gency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period PHR+A PHR+A 313012005 PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Glendobbin Road &Site Drive Winchester, VA 2008 Buildout Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Site Driveway North/South Street: Glendobbin Road Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6- L T R L T R Volume 0 23 17 70 43 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 24 17 73 45 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 3. -- -- 4 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound " Awement 7 8 9 - 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 10 0 39 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 10 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 4 3 4 3 3 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage, 0 0 RT Channelized 0 - 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (vph) 73 51 C (m) (vph) 1556 956 /c 0.05 0.05 95% queue length 0.15 0.17 Control Delay 7.4 9.0 LOS A A ^pproach Delay -- -= 9.0 Broach LOS -- -- A Rights Reserved Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 3 117 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 3 123 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 _F Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration 1 stream Signal LT 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 3 Capacity, cm (vph) 1475 v/c ratio l eue length (95%) 0.00 0.01 control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 LOS A Intersection Glendobbin Road &Apple Pie Rid Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Buildout Conditions orth/South Street: Glendobbin Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 0 � 0 Southbound Northbound . .• • Patton Harris Rust & Associates ( )proach delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.0 LApproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Patton Harris Rust & Associates 0 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h) 3 111 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 3 116 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration stream Signal LT 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 3 Capacity, cm (vph) 1371 v/c ratio 0.00 eue length (95%) control Delay (s/veh) 0.01 7.6 LOS A Intersection Glendobbin Road &Apple Pie Rid Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Buildout Conditions orth/South Street: Glendobbin Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 0 _ 0 0 Northbound 7 1 8 1 9 Westbound 5 6 T R 137 45 0.95 0.95 144 47 0 Southbound � 0 Southbound Patton HaiTis Rust & Associates proach delay (s/veh) Approach LOS 10.2 HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • neral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information A Intersection A urisdiction nalvsis Year Analyst PHR+ Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 0 152 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 160 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration ' bstream Signal 0 nor Street Movement Northbound 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 2 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 2 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 4 Capacity, cm (vph) 1404 /c ratio 0.00 ( Oueue length (95%) ntrol Delay (s/veh) 0.01 7.6 11_0s A orth/South Street: Hill Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 9 R 17 0.95 17 E' Q a Road &Apple Pie Rid chester, VA 8 Buildout Conditions Westbound 5 T 92 0.95 96 0 0 0 0 0 0 v f7 Southbound 9— 1 10 1 11 1 12 Patton Harris Rust & Associates 0 • proach delay (s/veh) 9.3 approach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright O 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates • al Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information A Intersection AJurisdiction 005 nalvsis Year Analyst PHR+ Agency/Co. PHR+ Date Performed 3/30/2 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Apple Pie Ridge Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 0 140 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 147 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 3 -- Median type RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal 0 for Street Movement Northbound 7 8 L T Volume (veh/h) 6 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 6 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 0 Percent grade (%) 0 Flared approach N Storage 0 RT Channelized? Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT Volume, v (vph) 16 Capacity, cm (vph) 1420 /c ratio 0.01 Queue length (95%) ( itrol Delay (s/veh) ILOS 0.03 7.6 A orth/South Street: Hill Road tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 9 R i1 0.95 11 Ell k N Hill Road &Apple Pie Rid Winchester, VA 2008 Buildout Conditions Westbound 5 T 176 0.95 185 1 0 Southbound 11 T 0 0.95 0 0 0 N 0 0 ej 0 Southbound 9 1 10 1 11 12 Patton Harris Rust & Associates ( roach delay s/veh -- -- 9.7 plpproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Hairis Rust & Associates TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 313012005 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Glendobbin Road & Payne Road urisdiction Winchester, VA nalysis Year 2008 Buildout Conditions Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road N orth/South Street: Glendobbin Road Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 0 54 19 60 18 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 56 20 63 18 1 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 -- -- 4 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR - stream Signal 0 0 ,winor Street Northbound_ Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 8 2 102 1 1 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 8 2 1 107 1 1 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 4 4 4 4 4 4 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement .1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 0 63 117 2 Capacity, cm (vph) 1585 1510 958 617 v/c ratio 0.00 0.04 0.42 0.00 iue length (95%) 0.00 0.13 0.42 0.01 —introl Delay (s/veh) 7.3 7.5 9.3 10.9 LOS A A A B Patton Harris Rust & Associates • oroach delay (s/veh) roach._LOS HCS2000TM 9.3 Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Resen • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 3/30/2005 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Russell -Stonewall Development East/West Street: Payne Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 1 15 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 1 15 Proportion of heavy 4 -- vehicles, PHv Median type RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration l )stream Signal Minor Street _ Movement Volume veh/h) Peak -hour factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv Percent grade (%) Flared approach Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Control Delay, Queue 1 Approach Movement Lane Configuration Volume, v (vph) Capacity, cm (vph) /c ratio ieue length (95%) control Delay (s/veh) LOS 0 1 LTR 0 Northbou 7 8 L T 4 1 0.95 0.95 4 1 4 4 0 N 0 0 1 L TR Level of Service EB WB 1 4 L TR L TR 1 108 1590 1578 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.22 7.3 7.4 A A Intersection Glendobbin Road & Payne Road Jurisdiction Winchester, VA Analysis Year 2008 Buildout Conditions South Street: Glendobbin Road Period (hrs): 0.25 E., w M 10 L 1 0.95 1 E' rot Westbound 0 0 0 0 Southbound 0 ■ 0 Southbound Patton Han -is Rust & Associates 0 roach Bela, roach LOS RCS2000TM 8.8 1 10.2 Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Patton Harris Rust & Associates 0 • Traffic Counts • Intersection: E-W: APPLEP1IItIDGE RD Weather RAIN File Narne� N-S: IROUTE 650 Count B IIP Lrput By ]JP Location lWinchester,VA Count Date 3232005 15 Minute EB: APPLEPIERIDGE RD WB: APPLEPIERIDGE RD NB: ROUTE 650 SB: GLENDOBBIN RD 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 1 17 0 18 1 9 0 10 0 0 3 3 2 0 0 2 33 7:00 7:15 0 21 0 21 0 11 0 11 0 0 2 2 4 0 1 5 39 7:15 7:30 0 23 1 24 2 16 1 19 1 0 2 3 4 1 1 6 52 7:30 7:45 1 25 0 26 0 21 2 23 0 0 4 4 5 0 0 5 58 7:45 8:00 0 28 1 29 1 17 0 18 1 0 3 4 3 1 2 6 57 .8:00 8:15 2 24 0 26 1 17 1 19 0 1 5 6 6 0 1 7 58 8:15 8:30 0 25 1 26 2 21 2 25 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 3 57 8:30 8:45 1 21 0 22 0 17 2 19 2 0 4 6 5 0 2 7 54 8:45 A.M. Total 5 184 3 192 7 129 8 144 4 1 26 31 32 2 7 41 408 A.M. Total 16:00 0 19 0 19 3 23 6 32 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 4 57 16:00 16:15 1 21 1 23 2 22 4 28 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 54 16:15 16:30 0 23 0 23 3 26 5 34 1 0 1 2 4 0 2 6 65 16:30 16:45 1 24 1 26 4 33 4 41 0 1 4 5 3 0 2 5 77 16:45 17:00 2 23 1 26 5 34 7 46 0 1 2 3 5 0 3 8 83 17:00 17:15 0 27 0 27 2 26 4 32 2 0 3 5 5 0 1 6 70 17:15 17:30 1 21 0 22 1 21 2 24 1 0 1 2 2 0 3 5 53 17:30 17:45 0 19 1 20 2 16 3 21 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 45 1 17:45 P.M. Total 5 177 4 186 22 201 35 258 5 2 14 21 26 0 13 39 504 P.M. Total 1 Hour f EB: APPLEPIERIDGE RD WB: APPLEPIERIDGE RD NB: ROUTE 650 SB: GLENDOBBIN RD 1 Hots Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 2 86 1 89 3 57 3 63 1 0 11 12 15 1 2 18 182 7:00 7:15 1 97 2 100 3 65 3 71 2 0 11 13 16 2 4 22 206 7:15 7:30 3 100 2 105 4 71 4 79 2 1 14 17 18 2 4 24 225 7:30 7:45 3 102 2 107 4 76 5 85 1 1 15 17 17 1 3 21 230 7:45 8:00 3 98 2 103 4 72 5 81 3 1 15 19 17 1 5 23 226 8:00 16:00 2 87 2 91 12 104 19 135 2 1 8 11 11 0 5 16 253 16:00 16:15 4 91 3 98 14 115 20 149 1 2 9 12 13 0 7 20 279 16:15 16:30 3 97 2 102 14 119 20 153 3 2 10 15 17 0 8 25 295 16:30 16:45 4 95 2 101 12 114 17 143 3 2 10 15 15 0 9 24 283 16:45 17:00 3 90 2 95 10 97 16 123 3 1 6 10 15 0 8 23 251 17:00 1 Hour EB: APPLEPIERIDGE RD WB: APPLEPIERIDGE RD NB: ROUTE 650 SB: GLENDOBBIN RD 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right - Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:45 3 102 2 107 4 76 5 85 1 1 15 17 17 1 3 21 230 7:45 A.M. Peak PIT = 0.92 PHF = 0.85 PHF = 0.71 PHF = 0.75 0.99 A.M. Peak 16:30 3 97 2 102 14 119 20 153 3 2 10 15 0 8 25 295 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.94 PHF = OR3 PHF =�17 0.75 PHF = 0.78 0.89 P.M. Peak Intersection: E-W: 1PAYNE _ Weather DRY File Name N-S: IWELLTOWN RD Count Byllip Input By JJP Location lWinchesterVA Count Date I 3/162005 15 Minute EB: PAYNE RD WB: FAIR LN NB: WELLTOWN RD SB: WELLTOWN RD 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Leh Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 0 12 12 2 0 0 2 7 9 0 16 0 36 2 38 68 7:00 7:15 0 2 14 16 1 2 0 3 11 11 0 22 1 41 5 47 88 7:15 7:30 1 1 20 22 5 2 1 8 13 12 I 26 0 50 7 57 113 7:30 7:45 0 2 21 23 7 3 0 10 8 16 0 24 0 55 6 61 118 7:45 8:00 1 1 16 18 6 1 1 8 5 IS 1 21 1 56 1 58 105 8:00 8:15 0 0 12 12 8 0 0 8 3 17 0 20 0 58 0 58 98 8:15 8:30 1 0 14 15 5 0 1 6 4 12 2 18 0 46 1 47 86 8:30 8:45 0 0 11 11 3 1 0 4 5 14 1 20 0 39 0 39 74 8:45 A.M. Total 3 6 120 129 37 9 3 49 56 106 5 167 2 381 22 405 750 A.M. Total 16:00 0 0 3 3 1 1 0 2 6 47 1 54 0 7 0 7 66 16:00 16:15 1 2 5 8 2 0 2 4 4 51 3 58 1 11 1 13 83 16:15 16:30 0 0 5 5 2 0 1 3 3 49 2 54 0 8 0 8 70 16:30 16:45 1 0 6 7 3 1 0 4 6 54 4 64 1 9 1 11 86 16:45 17:00 0 1 4 5 2 0 1 3 7 63 5 75 1 _ 12 2 15 98 17:00 17:15 0 0 6 6 1 1 0 2 8 51 8 67 0 12 0 12 87 17:15 17:30 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 5 42 4 51 0 8 1 9 67 17:30 17:45 0 0 4 4 1 0 0 1 3 34 4 41 0 10 0 10 56 17:45 P.M. Total 2 3 40 45 12 3 4 19 j 42 391 31 464 3 77 5 85 613 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: PAYNE RD WB: FAIR LN NB: WELLTOWN RD SB: WELLTOWN RD 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Leh Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 1 5 67 73 15 7 1 23 39 48 1 88 1 182 20 203 387 7:00 7:15 2 6 71 79 19 8 2 29 37 54 2 93 2 202 19 223 424 7:15 7:30 2 4 69 75 26 6 2 34 29 60 2 91 1 219 14 234 434 7:30 7:45 2 3 63 68 26 4 2 32 20 60 3 83 1 215 8 224 407 7:45 8:00 2 1 53 56 22 2 2 26 17 58 4 79 1 199 2 202 363 8:00 16:00 2 2 19 23 8 2 3 13 19 201 10 230 2 35 2 39 305 16:00 16:15 2 3 20 25 9 1 4 14 20 217 14 251 3 40 4 47 337 16:15 16:30 1 1 21 23 8 2 2 12 24 217 19 260 2 41 3 46 341 16:30 16:45 1 1 23 25 6 2 1 9 26 210 21 257 2 41 4 47 338 16:45 17:00 0 1 21 22 4 1 1 6 23 190 21 234 1 42 3 46 308 17:00 1 Hour EB: PAYNE RD WB: FAIR IN NB: WELLTOWN RD SB: WELLTOWN RD I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Leh Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 2 4 69 75 26 6' 2 34 29 60 2 91 1 219 14 234 434 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.82 PHF = 0.85 PHF = 0.88 PHF = 0.96 0.92 A.M. Peak 16:30 1 1 21 23 8 2 2 12 24 217 19 260 2 41 3 46 341 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.82 PHF = 0.75 PHF = 0.87 PHF = 0.77 0.87 P.M. Peak Intersection: E-W: ROUTE 11 Weather DRY File Name N-S: ROUTE 839 Count Byllip Input By JJP Location lWinchesterVA Count Date 3/22/2005 15 Minute EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: WELLTOWN RD 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 21 266 7 294 2 249 23 274 5 1 7 13 20 3 23 46 627 7:00 7:15 22 278 8 308 0 265 25 290 7 3 11 21 23 1 26 50 669 7:15 7:30 25 289 12 326 0 277 34 311 11 1 9 21 26 4 29 59 717 7:30 7:45 33 290 12 335 0 289 36 325 14 2 12 28 34 3 33 70 758 7:45 8:00 37 297 9 343 0 298 44 342 16 2 13 31 37 5 35 77 793 8:00 8:15 33 279 14 326 0 301 41 342 14 3 9 26 33 8 40 81 775 8:15 8:30 32 268 17 317 0 287 43 330 12 5 11 28 35 6 41 82 757 8:30 8:45 26 254 15 295 0 265 39 304 9 2 8 19 40 7 39 86 704 8:45 A.M. Total 229 2221 94 2544 2 2231 285 2518 88 19 80 187 248 37 266 551 5800 AM. Total 16:00 21 299 12 332 0 288 37 325 11 6 9 26 35 5 22 62 745 16:00 16:15 23 312 15 350 0 297 41 338 13 6 11 30 36 5 25 66 784 16:15 16:30 24 217 19 260 0 312 40 352 12 3 7 22 36 9 29 74 708 16:30 16:45 21 322 16 359 0 316 44 360 11 4 12 27 39 6 38 83 829 16:45 17:00 15 335 21 371 0 233 37 270 9 3 11 23 44 3 45 92 756 17:00 17:15 16 331 15 362 0 314 34 348 12 5 7 24 47 5 40 92 826 17:15 17:30 17 319 9 345 0 300 30 330 10 2 5 17 35 6 33 74 766 17:30 17:45 12 296 11 319 0 276 27 303 11 3 7 21 29 2 25 56 699 17:45 P.M. Total 149 2431 118 2698 0 2336 290 2626 89 32 69 190 301 41 257 599 6113 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUE 11 NB: ROUTE 839 SB: WELLTOWN RD 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 101 1123 39 1263 2 1080 118 1200 37 7 39 83 103 11 Ill 225 2771 7:00 7:15 117 1154 41 1312 0. 1129 139 1268 48 8 45 101 120 13 123 256 2937 7:15 7:30 128 1155 47 1330 0 1165 155 1320 55 8 43 106 130 20 137 287 3043 7:30 7:45 135 1134 52 1321 0 1175 164 1339 56 12 45 113 139 22 149 310 3083 7:45 8:00 128 1098 55 1281 0 1151 167 1318 51 12 41 104 145 26 155 326 3029 8:00 16:00 89 1150 62 1301 0 1213 162 1375 47 19 39 105 146 25 114 285 3066 16:00 16:15 83 1186 71 1340 0 1158 162 1320 45 16 41 102 155 23 137 315 3077 16:15 16:30 76 1205 71 1352 0 1175 155 1330 44 15 37 96 166 23 152 341 3119 16:30 16:45 69 1307 61 1437 0 1163 145 1308 42 14 35 91 165 20 156 341 3177 16:45 17:00 60 1281 56 1397 0 1123 128 1251 42 13 30 85 155 16 143 314 3047 17:00 1 Hour EB: ROUTE 11 WB: ROUTE I NB: ROUTE 839 SB: WELLTOWN RD 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:45 135 .1134 52 1321 0 1175 164 1339 56 12 45 113 139 22 149 310 3083 7:45 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.98 PHF = 0.91 PHF = 0.95 0.97 A.M. Peak 16:45 69 1307 61 1437 0 1163 145 1308 42 14 35 91 165 20 156 341 3177 16:45 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.97 PHF = 0.91 PHF = 0.84 PHF = 0.93 0.96 P.M. Peak Intersection: E-W: PAYNE RD Weather DRY File N_a=l N-S: GLENDOBBINRD Count ByjJjP Input By JJP Location Winchester,VA Count Date 3/17/2005 15 Minute EB: PAYNE RD WB: PAYNE RD NB: GLENDOBBIN RD SB: JENNIFER CT 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 6 1 7 5 0 0 5 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 15 7:00 7:15 0 8 3 11 10 0 0 10 1 1 5 7 0 1 0 1 29 7:15 7:30 0 9 5 14 16 1 1 18 3 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 41 7:30 7:45 0 8 6 14 4 0 0 4 3 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 28 7:45 8:00 0 7 3 10 2 0 0 2 0 1 8 9 1 0 0 1 22 8:00 8:15 0 4 2 6 4 1 1 6 1 0 7 8 0 0 0 0 20 8:15 8:30 0 5 2 7 3 2- 0 5 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 19 8:30 8:45 0 5 1 6 4 1 0 5 1 0 6 7 1 0 0 1 19 8:45 A.M. Total 0 52 23 75 48 5 2 55 9 2 49 60 2 1 0 3 193 A.M. Total 16:00 0 2 1 3 4 2 0 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 11 16:00 16:15 1 1 4 6 3 3 1 7 1 0 3 4 1 0 0 1 18 16:15 16:30 0 4 3 7 5 1 0 6 2 0 2 4 0 1 0 1 18 16:30 16:45 0 3 0 3 7 3 0 10 0 1 4 5 0 0 0— 0 18 16:45 17:00 0 5 1 6 5 4 2 11 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 20 17:00 17:15 0 3 2 5 4 2 0 6 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 13 17:15 17:30 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 3 1 0 3 4 0 0 0 0 8 17:30 17:45 0 2 1 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 17:45 P.M. Total 1 21 12 34 32 16 4 52 5 1 18 24 1 1 1 3 113 P.M. Total I Hour EB: PAYNE RD WB: PAYNE RD NB: GLENDOBBIN RD SB: JENNIFER CT 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 31 15 46 35 1 1 37 7 1 21 29 0 1 0 1 113 7:00 7:15 0 32 17 49 32 1 1 34 7 2 26 35 1 1 0 2 120 7:15 7:30 0 28 16 44 26 2 2 30 7 1 28 36 1 0 0 1 ill 7:30 7:45 0 24 13 37 13 3 1 17 4 1 29 34 1 0 0 I 89 7:45 8:00 0 21 8 29 13 4 1. 18 2 1 28 31 2 0 0 2 80 8:00 16:00 1 10 8 19 19 9 1 29 3 1 11 15 1 1 0 2 65 16:00 16:15 1 13 8 22 20 11 3 34 4 1 10 15 1 1 1 3 74 16:15 16.30 0 15 6 21 21 10 2 33 3 1 9 13 0 1 1 2 69 16:30 16:45 0 12 3 15 18 9 3 30 2 1 10 13 0 0 1 1 59 16:45 17:00 0 11 4 15 13 7 3 23 2 0 7 9 0 0 1 1 48 17:00 1 Hour EB: PAYNE RD WB: PAYNE RD NB: GLENDOBBIN RD SB: JENNIFER CT 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:15 0 32 17 49 32 1 1 34 7 2 26 35 1 1 0 2 120 7:15 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.88 PHF = 0.47 PHF = 0.88 PHF = 0.50 0.73 A.M. Peak 16:15 1 13 8 22 20 11 3 34 4 1 10 15 1 1 1 3 74 16:15 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.79 PHF = 0.77 PHF = 0.75 PHF = 0.75 0.93 P.M. Peak 'HIS IAD CERTIFY THAT ON DEC., M 2, 2004 THAT I MADE AN ACCURATE, 3URVEY .OF THE PREMISES SHOWN ` 40 Y. PERCENT RESERVE PARCEL IEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO 1 GLENOOBBIN RIDGE ASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS /ISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER N 68°09'59"W 313.4,' CHAN THOSE SHOWN HEREON. IRF- w PHIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOO \ C ;ONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING -' %S SHOWN ON FIRM MAP 510063 0105R \ :FFECTIVE JULY 17, 1978 \ r- 0 J d \ ,n m N Ln a C 31w ILL N i .� a L^ = o U a` ; O CV 1- Ln J `A T7� �q0 qO, y�ay�d- c v� Jd 0• , d IRS! CORNER 3TONE YMLL 31.1851 AC. P03T 0 O J r- _ o P03T J P037 J Lt---- LINE TABLE Ll N IB'38'54"Yf L Z 5 74'4 0'02"E 1-3 N 16-13.16-E L 4 N B O'2011-yy L5 N 15'58'297 1 CD C�7 Cn 16B.5T' 3 9.02' 477- 21' 39.95' 373.55' TAX MAP ID; 43-4-154PORT11 DEED REF. NB BO P. TOO DAVO M. R&STO W NO. 1455 Z- 2- a y <D S U?41 °r' . � L 4 POST P07T � i f C) J �. ° tia• �� BOUNDARY SURVEY LAND OF BETTY G. MCK01 STONEWRLL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRG' FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 DATE: DEC. 2, F-004 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET SCALE: I- = 3 0 0' WINCUESTER, VIRGD A 22601 W. O. 0921 FINAL PLAT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN RIDGE CZ, STONEWALL DISTRICT N FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA � v SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I, David M. Furstenau, 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 Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County a) Instrument number 020005243. David M.` 4aj*au L.S. OWNER'S CERTIFICATE Above and foregoing subdivision of the land of Gen 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. (J O Glen W. Russell 7 Pamela L. Russell State of Cltyl unmy ty olof, I notary public In and for the State of Virginia and the Clty/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 ackr ed to a some re me in my state and city/county as aforesaid. Notary Public Given under my hand this day of 14z&-o* t2 , 2002 My commission expires k APPROVALS PC., MCK C DEPARTNUalMOF TRANSPORTATION HEALTH DEPARTMENT FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINU 22601 Date Date Date DATE SEPT: 16, 2002 SCALE: Z 0 43-4 -21 MORRIs N W 2.9 UL rUR T O 0, ��o o `b �- o U DA ID M. RJRSTjhAU � Iw NO. 1455 m m Np SItFIV�01 o o M m ry ry SPRING Z lot 73 43-9-73 RA VACANT 3 67.41'17" E POT 4 V M-za i The proposed private driveway/road Is not built according to street specifications of and M not be mointalned by. the VNgfHa Department of Transportationride or FrodeCounty. The improve- ment and mainlaner" of sold drMwey/road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of tots which era provided with access via the driveway/road. Sold driveway/roods will not be considered for inckraion Into the state secondary system until they most the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway/road to accept" agndwds shell not be borne by the Virginia Department of %neportalion nor by Fraderlck County. 0 .L' FINRL PLRT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN RIDGE STCNEWRLL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIR VALLEY SUED. SECTION 4 ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MA SHALL MILL lot 72 RA 1 l01 71 RA lot 70 RA 43-9-72 VACANTI 43-9-71 VACAN� VACANT 68001'07"u 1519.94' _- 1 43-9-70 50' BRL _ 40 % RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED r PER SECTION 165-54D OF THE .; FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE) 3 O O �bRAAN ` a �FIELD -Y v� 20 Ife ry� 50 BRL S 68009'59"E 1220 204' MCKOWN ' 43- A-15 r RA VACANT 1 LOT 16 f �� �1 I� 1� 441.2' LOT 15 S INC Z H- Z d U d rev 10/10. 02 DATE: SEPT. 16, 2002 SCALE: I" - 2 5 0 ' FURSTE'NAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER- VIR{TMA 22601 Cm) , 1RSAr S701NE FOCE r I, !t 10' DR1tNCE & UTLrTY it 1i� lot.: LOT 22 I' K t 1 43-19-57 ' .i�}j 6.8891 ACRES' g� N 70'4255 W 1 150.00 4 �cx hR-, 10' DRA144W & VTXN 1 1 1 EASEUBT HMMY !RESERVED N 19' 17'05' E SEF NOTE DOT-90DO AREA DEWTES HaeE aELYbI10��T 41 RS COMMONMON OF maw IRS cl Poe i 100 0 100 WAPHC SrXE (W R17) g 1 g- SEF 577�EEEFT J fRaR CY/RVE DATA, L£GM, NOIES, AND WY TO AAIO#" PROPERTY OWNERS. SEE SHEET 4 FOR ALE7ES & BOi/NM DIESMPWA � —1 I FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OF A PORTION OF THE LAND OF pI,TH pA, I.! ;Ei0R CTY CONPAIY OF V:RG:RIA�{�� `f�� -OT 22 — S ; 0XEWA' '6hDJS RIAL PARK F.z-- !, SPONEWALL MAGISTERLAL DISTRICT, Fi ODUCK COUNTY, VIRGINU $ D A. EDENS 54'1 SCALE: 1' — 100' DATE: FMRUA" 25 2005 7S N0.002550 fJREsyWLV ING'NETFUNG 1� ���' �► Enginoers 1u hesw, "q*da 22602 1 SUR�'�O i t Ij Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 1 FAX (540) 722-9528 !it Founded in 1971 wwwgrem%ayeng.com F3910 SHEET 2 OF 4 " i • . W N- 05000'7805 ci-, LNE THIS DEED, made and entered into this 25"' day of March, 2005 by and between LENOIR CITY COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, a Virginia Corporation, Grantor, party of the first part; and GLEN W. RUSSELL and PAMELA L. RUSSELL, husband and wife, Grantees, party of the second part; WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) cash in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey with GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE and ENGLISH COVENANTS unto the Grantees, in fee simple, as tenants by the entireties with the right of survivorship as at common law, together with all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to the following realty: All of that -certain lot or parcel of land lying and being situate in Stonewall Industrial Park, Stonewall Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, fronting on Kentmere Court, desigpated Lot 22, containing 6.8891 acres, more or less, all as shown on Plat of Survey with .legal description dated 2/25/05 by Richard A. Edens, L.S., attached hereto and by this retlerence made a part hereof. AND BEING a portion of same real estate conveyed to the Lenoir City Company of Virginia by Deed from the Lenoir City Company dated January 1, 1968 and recorded in the Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 344 @ Page 235. 4 This property conveyed is subject to the easements, conditions, and restrictions set forth on l i the above -referenced plat some or all of which may be in favor of the Grantor or its successors or assigns. This property is further subject to the covenants real to run with the land and be binding on all successive owners as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. This conveyance is subject to all legally enforceable easements, rights of way, restrictions and covenants in the deeds forming the chain to title to this property (to include all such found on the plat above -referenced). WITNESS the following signatures and seals: J U L 1 3 2006 JU L 1 3 2006 • O W Lea ity Co?GilvinPresident y of Virginia Tho as Tyson COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA (%M/COUNTY OF FREDERICK , to -wit: 1, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Virginia at Large, whose commission expires on December 31st, 2008 , do hereby certify that Thomas Tyson Gilpin, President of Lenoir City Company of Virginia, on behalf of said Corporation, whose name appears on the for Deed bearing the 251h day of March, 2005 has personally appeared before me in the State and County mentioned above and acknowledged the same. j Given under my hand this 14th day of April 2 , 2005. I Notary ublic C '�• L V � • • FINAL SUBDIVSON ?`AT Or A ?ORT'ON OF THE LAND OF -NO'R CITY COMPANY 07 V;RG'N:A LOT 22 — STONEWALL INDL'STRAL ?ARK STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL D'S7R'CT, (�tRICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA ;77, , —3R� .kW 25, 2005 �A RJR �6`9 Ra STON 1NPUWLL }}�¢CK O 44 ton a EXIT Qo 317 P ploy°1,n�o R v VICINITY MAP \za�nvw 2000' {; C►W1ER'S C-,',,'3":F-CA"74, THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF THE LAND OF LENOIR CITY CONIPANY OF V!RGINIA, AS APPEARS ON THE ACCOMPANYING PLATS, IS WITH THE !I FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS, PROPRIETORS, AND TRUSTEES, IF ANY. I i l COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY /-Gw00*-SF- W I+Ki � — TO WIT: St it THE FOREGOING OWNER'S CERTIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED UEFORE ME IS DAY 0Fj C {\ 20dS BY !:::E:C" Al I n , PUB MY COMMISSION EXPIRES �O , SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS SUBDIVISION IS A PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED TO LENOIR CITY COMPANY OF VIRGINIA BY DEED DATED JANUARY 1, 1968 OF RECORD IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S I ' ; OFFICE IN DEED BOOK 344 AT PAGE 235. 1 I R'ICHARO A. EDENS, L.S. 10PARENT TAX PARCEL IDENTIFICATION ,I LENOIR CITY CO. OF VA. T.M. 43-19-2 64.55t ACRES ZONE: M1 USE: VACANT I' APPROVALS: 14 o f �ALTH 0 D 1CK COUNTY T10N AUTHORITY DATE ,pjl�.II f R NIA TMLNT OF NSPORTA71ON DATE O RI�CN ARC A. EDENS 9 �+ ! I 4� No.0o2 5 5 0 FREDERICK COU TY SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE I (21WE VWAlf !NGNEEMLIIING i �Q)suR1gs 151 Windy HiU Lane Engineers Winchester, Virginia 22602 Surveyors Telephone: (540) 662-4185 FAX- (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com F3310 SHEET 1 OF 4 • O C.J A,15B UX eT IRS ►- T-W. ;65S_ 261 4 ill i GLO 00. %6f; 0' 50 1 A�s? IN A19'21 �i IRS AT �-'/ 25 STt E QORN©I ! I 10' DPAW4G£ & UAUrr F4S OVT HEREBY RESOW LOT 22 ;ICI �'►I 43-19-57 i I'133� l 6.8891 ACRES I' _'; ! N X74255 W f ! ,150.00 1 D DRAM& & unrm ,eior 1 E�vr x . A N 19'1705 E f 19.38 DOT-StuDED AREA DEMOTES q I A 2o' DVt mw i 4MgNT N �\ , i1 S O Qr ` IRS v C) `` .. POB l I � 1Q0 Q 100 Ij', ■■� �i i ` �N�� � �Ii GRAPHIC SME (MI R" S£E SWT ,i f W UAVE DATA WGIE wD, NOW, AND ' ' KEY TO Aa)00 IG PROPERTY OWHERS . SEE SST 4 FOR METES & BOUNDS DES090M •a1 ! FINAL SUBDMSION PLAT ' q OF A PORTION OF THE LAND OF UTH O,pY i ! GZO'R C TY COWPaZY OF V:RG:RIA ;LOT 22 — S 10X EWAL'hDJS RIAL PARK STONEWALL MWASTEKAL DISTRICT, MMEIWX COUNTY VIRGM $ R0ARD A. EDENS SCALE: i" 100' _ , DATE: FEBRUARY 252005 ; N0.002550 �I , fIRE'0yWV VyG'NES'4ING z -zs-os iI � 151 Windy Hill Lane II i ,P+ sus Wmchesw, Vb*nia 22602 sUR wveyo Telephone: (540) 662-418.5 � ! FAX (540) 722-9528 f ' Fowded in 1971 www-gmenwayeng.com n3lo SHEET 2 OF 4 , , IV �II� li 1 I WR IF DATA I I u CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH OQTA ANGLE TANCE7VT CHORD BEAWNG T CHORD LENGTH i I LC„ ; ..._.._' 73_ ___T_00 71 20 54'T.i T3 385 81 '3d 34 W 68.51: KEY rO A JM NO TAX PARCEL. I.D. ASSIGNED FREDER/CK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY 0 WAN? TANK LOT SEE PRENOUS PUT BY P. DUANE BROWNY D'A70 11811991 (NOT A ANTTFR OF RECORD AS OF THIS DA'rE) ZONE.• MI USE: U71UTY j: r,", BRL = BUILDING RESTRICTION LMIE PS? ZONNNG ORDINANCE IRF = 112" IRON REBAR FOUND IRS = V2 a IRON REBAR & W SET P06 = POINT OF BEGINNING OF METFS & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION A= 1. THE BOUNDARY INFORM4WN SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVFY BY THIS FIRM. 2. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN. J. A DUMOE AND UTIUTY EASEMENT, TEN FEET IN 11*10 K IS HEREBY RESERVED BY LENOIR CITY COMPANY OF WRGINIA OVER LOT 22 LYING ALONG AND COINCIDENT TO ALL OF THE BOUNDARIES OF LOT 22 AS SHOWN HEREON. I, FINAL SUB MSION PLAT I• i OF A PORTION OF 7HE LAND OF i 4s�`L�H O,�y i, LENOIR CITY COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, i LOT 22 -- STONEWA;rL 'KDUS j R'A-. PARR i '' STONEWALL MAG ERX DISTRICT, FREDEWK COUNTY, VIRGINIA # t8 RICHARD A. MS SCALE: N/A DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2006 '�i No.002550 �lei GAE'AWAY z�lG:NEzAING �� ,e z.-Z5-os 1011� , �: �� ►� 151 "Wy Hill Lam �'% �� 1 Engineers Wr,rcheJrer, 22602 * I SurveyorsTekphone: (S ) 662-4185 101 I FAX (540) 722-9528 Founded in 1971 www.greenwayeng.com F3310 SHEET 3 OF 4 ' i O C,J L i METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION The accompanying p.at represents a division survey of a portion of the land conveyed to Lenoir City Company of Virginia by deed dated January 1, 1968 of record in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 344 at Page 235. The portion of said land herein descrfx , -aerea3er to be known as Lot 22 — Stonewall Industrial Park, fronts the cul-de-sac boundary at the northwestern terminus of Kentmere Court (Va. Route 869) 1,059.67' northwest of the intersection with the northern boundary of '-WcG2eeAok. (Va.:Zoute 86`.) in Stonewall (formerly Gainesboro) Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia and is more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: LOT 22 ;Beginning at a %" iron rebar & cap set on curve in the cul-de-sac boundary of Kentmere Court (Va. Route 869), corner to Lot 23 (Lenoir City Company of Virginia); thence with said road boundary 71.20' along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 75.00' and a chord bearing S 81M'34" W for a distance of 68.55', to a''/i" iron rebar found, corner to the remaining land of Lenoir City Company of Virginia; thence along a new division line through the land of Lenoir City Company of Virginia and with the northeastern boundary of a 30' utility and ingress/egress easement N 59007154" W — 392.06' to a %" iron rebar & cap set in a line of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (F.C.S.A. water tank lot); Bence wits F.C.S.A. for the folowing two courses: 'N 1.90L7105" E—119.38' to a'/2" iron rebar found; hence N 70042155" W—150.00' to a'W' iron rebar & cap set in a line of Glen W. Russell, et ux; fxmcc witi !fussed, ct ux for the following two courses: N 19017'05" E -- 335.62' to a'/z" iron rebar & cap set at the comer of a stone fence; thence N 83049121" E — 502.43' to a''/:" iron rebar & carp set, corner to Lot 23 (Lenoir City Company of Virginia); thence with Lot 23 S 08°09'35" W — 731.67' to the beginning. Containing.......................................................................... 6.8891 Acres Surveyed...................................................................... February 25, 2005. f j ,TH p r, IL y p, NO.002550 FiX 3310 Sheet 4 of 4 • O W U1 N EX>Ei_iBIT A CoyENANTS AN12 RES JUCTIONS FOR STONEWAL -Jh USTRIAL PARK Property Line Set Back Requirements 1. With the required setback area from streets there shall be maintained on each Site only walks, paved driveway, lawns and landscaping, and the surface of so much of the remainder of each Site as is not covered �y )uiicings, by 'awns or by lancscaping shall be treated so as to be dust free. At least two-thirds (2/3) of the surface of the required setback area from streets shall be maintained in lawns or other landscaping. 2. No accessory buildings or other structures siaa! 1 be permitter: within t he required front, side or rear yards, with the exception of transformer .)ads or fire hose cabinets. Parking and Unloading Facilities 3. No vehicular parking whatsoever will be permitted on any street within the park. There shall be maintained on each site facilities for parking, materials loading and unloading sufficient to serve the business conducted thereon without using adjacent streets. All driveways and offstreet parking areas shall be paved or treated in such a manner as to be dust -free. 4. Employee Parking - At lease one (1) parking space (8'6" x 18'0") with sufficient maneuvering space shall be provided for each employee per shift. No parking shall be allowed directly within the front setback area in front of the main structure. Front setback areas to the side of the main structure may be utilized for passenger car parking but no nearer than 25'0" from the right of way line of any street or road. 5. Each site shall be used only for fabricating, wholesaling, manufacturing, processing, retailing, warehouse, distribution center, office, laboratory, professional research and development activities and other activities similar in nature and there shall not be permitted any junk or salvage yard. 6. No use will be allowed that is offensive to the park by reason of odor, industrial waste, fumes, dust, dirt, smoke, glare and heat vibration, electronic, television interference, or po:lution or wiA 1.)e llazarc,ous )y reason of ranger of fire or explosion. Landscaping, Screening and Site Preparation 7. The exterior of all strictures and all walks, driveways, parking areas, lawns and landscaping on each Site shall be maintained in good repair and condition. 8. No excavation shall be made on, and no sand, gravel, soil or other material shall be removed from any site, except in connection with Site preparation or with construction or building or improvements. Upon completion of construction, exposed openings shall be backfiiled to grade. CI t V • • W CJ^i C.0 9. Tie front yard area from the road to the building not covered by sidewalks, parking areas, planted areas, trees, etc., shall be seeded with grass and maintained as a green area. All other areas not covered by construction shall be properly landscaped an6lor stabi izec, to maintain a trust free surface. All grass shall be cut to a four (4) inch maximum. 10. All outside storage, temporary or permanent, except for employee vehicle parking, must be screenec by opaque l.'ence at least 6' in height. 11. All exterior lighting shall be installed with concealed wiring. 12. All exterior lighting shall be installed so that it will be concealed from view l.i-om tie street. 13. All on -site electrical, telephone and other utility lines shall be underground from street to building and shall be installed in buried conduit. 14. All entrances slial.1 be constructec, accorcing to Virginia Department of Transportation standards and rec uirements. Destruction of 'Building or other Structures 15. Any building within the park which has been destroyed or partially damaged by lyre or ot'1er causes must either l)e repairec or completely demolished, and removed from the site by its owner. Repair must be started within a period of six (6) months after damage. Demolition and removal must be finished within six (6) months after destruction or damage. Uniformity of Signs 16. No flashing, blinking, set uential, intermittent or moving signs or lights shall be permitted within the park. Each site shall be permitted two (2) identification signs, one of which may l)e placed on tie 'Dukcling erected on the said site and one of which may be erected at the entrance to said site. In the event that an identification sign is placed on the building then the same shall be in letters only and constructed parallel to tie sidle of the'bui..diing to which it is attached, be'.ow t ze roof '.line ant project not more than six (6) inches from said side of the building with the area of said sign not to cover over twenty per cent (20%) of the side of the building to which it is attached. In the event that an identification sign is placed at the entrance to the site, then said sign shall not be more than thirty (30) square feet in area. 17. No signs erected, either on the building or at the entrance, shall be illuminated by interior lights and all lighting, in regard to said signs, shall be shielded from direct view. Enforceability of Covenants and Restrictions 1'�L ! a W 1 S. These covenants and restrictions shall be considered covenants real, running with the land and shall be binding on all successive owners thereof and enforceable by the Grantor herein. Reservation of Right to Amend Covenants and Restrictions 19. The Grantor reserves the right to amend the above referenced covenants and restrictions, with the consent of the Grantee herein, but in no event shall the covenants anc. restrictions be amended to be less restrictive. VIRGINIA- FEEL' ERICK COUNTY, SCT This 1113SWunient of writing was prrxl,ecOj to me on i'JI(I N'll n CCfTI"C?1C 1)f 4 .:i1�17 ' /- •r r=L����� w is ac'r�r;r��i to rep nrd. '!' �i,; p,-,sed by `ec f 513 1-8t?2 Off • 9� anJ 58,1-801 have ban paid, if assessable Clerk V tewDetail Page 1 of 1 0 Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail Department# : RE2006 Ticket #: 309960001 Name: RUSSELL, GLEN W & PAMELA C Name 2: Address: 270 PANARAMA DR FRQ:1 Sup#: 0 Account#: 43049 Map#: 43 A 15B Description: 31.19 ACRES WINCHESTER, VA 22603 Bill Date: 06/05/2006 Due Date: 06/05/2006 Land: $233,900 Improve: Use: Original Bill: $613.99 Payments: $613.99- Acres: 31.19 Penalty Paid: Int Paid: Discount: Amount Owed: Other: Last Date: 06/07/2006 Total Owed: Penalty: Interest: Note that if payment has been received within the last 10 business days. any returned items may not be posted at this time. Please check the website again. Date Type Transaction # Amount Balance 6/5/2006 Charge 0 $613.99 $613.99 6/7/2006 Payment 18548 ($613.99) $0.00 1 Use the print key for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this year. New Search Previous D L 1 3 2006 https://www.co.frederick.va.us/applications/REPtibliclnquiry/ViewDetall.aspx 7/13/2006 ViewDetail Page I of 1 • Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail Department# : RE2006 Ticket #: 309880001 Name: RUSSELL, GLEN W Name 2: Address: RUSSELL, PAMELA L 270 PANARAMA DR FRQ:1 Sup#: 0 Account#: 43424 Map#: 43 19 57 Description: LOT 22 6.89 ACRES WINCHESTER, VA 22603 Bill Date: 06/05/2006 Due Date: 06/05/2006 Land: $516,800 Improve: Use: Original Bill: $1,356.60 Payments: $1,356.60- Acres: 6.89 Penalty Paid: Int Paid: Discount: Amount Owed: Other: Last Date: 06/07/2006 Total Owed: Penalty: Interest: Note that if payment has been received within the last 10 business days. any returned items may not be posted at this time. Please check the website akaur. Date Type Transaction # Amount Balance 6/5/2006 Charge 0 $1,356.60 $1,356.60 6/7/2006 Payment 18548 ($1,356.60) $0.00 1 Use the print key for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this year. New Search Previous JUL 1 3 2006 https://www.co.frederick.va.us/applications/REPubIiclnquiryNiewDetail.aspx 7/13/2006 ViewDetail • • Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail Department# : RE2006 Ticket #: 310070001 Name: RUSSELL, GLEN W & PAMELA L Name 2: Address: 270 PANARAMA DR FRQ:1 Sup#: 0 Account#: 8514 Map#: 43 A 16 Description: 36.54 ACRES WINCHESTER, VA 22603 Bill Date: 06/05/2006 Due Date: 06/05/2006 Page 1 of 1 Land: $274,100 Improve: Use: Original Bill: $719.52 Payments: $719.52- Acres: 36.54 Penalty Paid: Int Paid: Discount: Amount Owed: Other: Last Date: 06/07/2006 Total Owed: Penalty: Interest: Mote that if payment has been received within the last 10 business days, any returned items may not be posted at this time. Please check the website again. Date Type Transaction # Amount Balance 6/5/2006 Charge 0 $719.52 $719.52 6/7/2006 Payment 18548 ($719.52) $0.00 1 Use the print key for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this year. New Search Previous J U L 1 3 2006 https://www.co.frederick.va.us/applications/REPublicInquiryNiewDetail.aspx 7/13/2006 ViewDetail Page 1 of 1 Real Estate Public inquiry Ticket Detail Department# : RE2005 Ticket #: 301260002 FIRQ: 2 Sup#: C Name: RUSSELL, GLEN W & PAMELA C ---- --- ------ - - ._ .. -- - Ma #: [43 A 15B Name 2: ' p Address:Description: L31.19 ACRES 270 PANARAMA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22603 Bill Date: �2106/2005 Due Date: 12/05/2005 Land: $233,900 Improve: Use: Original Bill: $613.99 Payments: _ _ _ $613.99- Discount: Penalty Paid:;' Int Paid: Last Date: 05/23/2005; Amount Owed:. Other: Total Owed:' Penalty: i Interest: Note that if payment has been received Nvithin the last 10 business days, any returned items may not be posted at this time. Please check the ,vebsite again. Date Type Transaction # Amount Balance 12/6/2005 Charge 0 $613.99 $613.99 5/23/2005 Payment 81153 ($613.99) $0.00 1 Use the print key for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this year. New,S`earcf; =Previous-. https://www. co.frederick.va.uslapplicationsIREPublicInquiryNiewDetail. aspx 8/12/2005 ViewDetail Page 1 of 1 Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail Department# : RE2005 Ticket #: 3013700021 FRQ: 2 Sup#: 0 i Name: RUSSELL, GLEN W & PAMELA L Map#: 143 A 16 Name 2: Address:; • 36.54 ACRES Description: __ 1270 PANARAMA DR WINCHESTER, VA I22603 Bill Date: 12/06/2005 Due Date: 12/05/2005 Landd $274,100 Improve: Use: Original Billd $719.51 Payments: $719.51-; Discount: Penalty Paid: Int Paid: 11 Last Date: 05/23/20051 Amount Owed Other: Total Owed: Penalty: Interest: NTote that if payment has been received within the last 10 business days, any returned items may not be posted at this time. Please check the website again. Date Type Transaction # amount Balance 12/6/2005 Charge 0 $719.51 $719.51 5/23/2005 Payment 81153 ($719.51) $0.00 1 Use the print key for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this year. N'ew Search'; ;::Previo'us https://www.co.fi-ederick.va.us/applications/REPublich-lquiryNiewDetail. aspx 8/12/2005 r VII • 7563-6743 EBY/bhb M 0 r N H N x Q � a M a, • OG W o N r Ln 2 cA m ' a v cn n H In <r cv 3 • o c.� rn THIS DEED IS BEING RERECORDED, TO RECORD THE ATTACHED SURVEY. _ -040026314 THIS DEED, made and dated this 15'" day of December, 2004 by and between BETTY G. McKOWN, by her Attorney -in -Fact Charles A. Taylor, hereinafter tailed the Grantor, and GLEN W. RUSSELL and PAMELA C. RUSSELL husband and wife, hereinafter called the Grantees. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does grant and convey, with General Warranty and with English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantees, as tenants by the entirety in fee simple, with survivorship as at common law, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging, all of the following realty: All of that certain lot or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia, designated as containing 31.1851 acres, more or less, and more particularly described by Boundary Survey Land of Betty G. McKown, drawn by David M. Fursteanu, L.S., dated December 2, 2004 attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set out in full. AND BEING a portion of the property conveyed to Floyd T. McKown and Betty G. McKown, his wife, as tenants by the entireties, with right of survivorship as at common law, by Deed from James R. Lowry and Ruth Lowry, his wife, dated March 31, 1956 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 240, at Page 546. The said Floyd T. McKown died January 19, 1981 and the aforesaid subject property passed to his wife, Betty G. McKown by the aforementioned survivorship provision. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the references contained therein for a further and more particular description of the property conveyed herein. This conveyance is made subject to all legally enforceable restrictive covenants and easements of record affecting the aforesaid realty. The Grantor does hereby covenant that she has the right to convey to the Grantees; that n c.) crn N the Grantees shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the said property, free from all liens and encumbrances; and she will grant such further assurances of title as may be requisite. **.2,A WITNESS the following signature and seal: 7L% (SEAL) BETTY G. McKOWN, by her Attorney -in -Fact Charles A. Tayyor STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -wit: I, Bonita H. Brill, a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Betty G. McKown, by her Attorney -in -Fact Charles A. Taylor, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed, dated this 15' day of December, 2004 has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this 15t° of December, 2004. My commission expires 11/3012005. �. — . P.P—d ET - Ed -in a Yost 112 some c cn S'_ W-.6—. V syxr zWJ VQd dZ 3W E:\VPDDCS\DRZDS%e...o 1131.1851—r— fe—pd 2 Notary Public 0 W Ex\,N, 4-A, w AFFIDAVIT (Pursuant to Section 11-92 of the Code of Virginia) STATE OF VIRGINLA COUNTY OF FREDERiCK, to -wit: This day personally appeared before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, Charles A. Taylor (the "Affiant"), who, after being first duty sworn, deposed and said as follows: 1. That the Affiant is Attorney -in -Fact for Betty G. McKown under Power of Attorney dated June 2, 2004. 2. That at the time of executing and delivering the deed dated December 15, 2004 to Glen W. Russell, the Affiant has not received actual knowledge or actual notice of the revocation of termination of said Power of Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or notice of any facts indicating same. 3. That the property is one and the same as that parcel known as containing 31.1851 acres as shown on the Boundary Survey Land of Betty G. McKown, Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia. Executed upon oath this 15' day of December, 2n004. /� t ' �tLt..tX4,d 9 1��-- (SEAL..) CHARLES A. TAYLOR, orney-in-fact for Betty G. McKown Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15" day of December, 2004. My commission expires 11/30/05. F—I t DFRICK C0uN-j-y, SCT. of writ;119 w•.0 produced to me on at Ii wd ill) CC'i/1l Ca C n(.tC� nn cnlcnt then to anrn•xcd a rwttcd to rru Intwsr Sec. 55.1_8 2 of D00510EE05%cu 1131. 1B51 ae a, I*a.vpd and 5S&I-8()1 have been paid, i sable A� , Qerk Notary Public ' 3 ' is ? ►. �� :1:•, r, z� is•m � , 0 c� c.n VIR(jIN A FREDERICK COL'Iv"IY, SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me oa at P,50 ern. .end with certificate of acfmowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. T imposed by Sec_ 58.1-802 of 5 . and 58.1.801 have been paid, if amessable 4 • 7563-6743 EBYJbhb o a z z A 0 0 H • ,y. H ❑ H f12 w a w p Ew-F cn z oa� U EH U CD c� rn THIS DEED IS BEING RERECORDED, TO RECORD THE ATTACHED SURVEY. _ -040026144 THIS DEED, made and dated this 15TH day of December, 2004 by and between BETTY G. McKOWN, by her Attorney -in -Fact Charles A. Taylor, hereinafter called the Grantor, and GLEN W. RUSSELL and PAMELA C. RUSSELL husband and wife, hereinafter called the Grantees. WTTNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00), cash in hand paid and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does grant and convey, with General Warranty and with English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantees, as tenants by the entirety in fee simple, with survivorship as at common law, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging, all of the following realty: All of that certain lot or parcel of land, lying and being situate in Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia, designated as containing 31.1851 acres, more or less, and more particularly described by Boundary Survey Land of Betty G. McKown, drawn by David M. Fursteanu, L.S., dated December 2, 2004 attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set out in full. AND BEING a portion of the property conveyed to Floyd T. McKown and Betty G. McKown, his wife, as tenants by the entireties, with right of survivorship as at common law, by Deed from James R. Lowry and Ruth Lowry, his wife, dated March 31, 1956 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 240, at Page 546. The said Floyd T. McKown died January 19, 1981 and the aforesaid subject property passed to his wife, Betty G. McKown by the aforementioned survivorship provision. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments and the references contained therein for a further and more particular description of the property conveyed herein. This conveyance is made subject to all legally enforceable restrictive covenants and easements of record affecting the aforesaid realty. The Grantor does hereby covenant that she has the right to convey to the Grantees; that 0 C� w N the Grantees shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the said property, free from all liens and encumbrances; and she will grant such further assurances of title as may be requisite. G .* *-kA _j! WITNESS the following signature and seal: r✓ ` oo� (SEAS") BETTY G. McKOWN, by her Attorney -in -Fact Charles A. Tayyor STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -wit: I, Bonita H. Brill, a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Betty G. McKown, by her Attorney -in -Fact Charles A. Taylor, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed, dated this 15' day of December, 2004 has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this 15' of December, 2004. My commission expires 11/30/2005. 7 he nN. . ra p.p.rtd 67. U-m H. Y.f xryb.a,q 3"-, Wy— t s.ua, e.Lc. 112 S—b C . Suet wnc6. . v.Sy:. 2.2601 (540) 6627..6 L:\Yp DOCS\DEEDS\r.... 1131_1851—r...f...rpd 2 lei && Notary Public 0 ud .l' S w AFFIDAVIT (Pursuant to Section 11-9.2 of the Code of Virginia) STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: This day personally appeared before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, Charles A. Taylor (the "Affiant"), who, after being first duty sworn, deposed and said as follows: 1. That the Affiant is Attorney -in -Fact for Betty G. McKown under Power of Attorney dated June 2, 2004. 2. That at the time of executing and delivering the deed dated December 15, 2004 to Glen W. Russell, the Affiant has not received actual knowledge or actual notice of the revocation of termination of said Power of Attorney by death, disability or otherwise, or notice of any facts indicating same. 3. That the property is one and the same as that parcel known as containing 31.1851 acres as shown on the Boundary Survey land of Betty G. McKown, Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia. Executed upon oath this 15' day of December, 2004. %j L .mod 9, 2 u- f� (SEAL) CHARLES A. TAYLOR, orney-in-fact for Betty G. McKown Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15t° day of December, 2004. My commission expires 11/30/05. 11-c DFRICKCOL:ir-JY, c; r. tl :t of writius w is pmduccd to me on at O th cc Ulu_r.,c of .lcknn in,cnt ther�w anncscll (nllttcd to rru ,ulpose v - cQ. 58.1-14t12 of DOCSID6EDS lruuae 1137. 1551 •e •. i�.. vpd .� and 58.1-sol have been paid, i able %ri2c sC.IC� Notary Public 3 'HIS IS* CERTIFY THAT ON DEC. ?, 2004 THAT I MADE AN ACCURATE, SURVEY .OF THE PREMISES SHOWN 40 Y. PERCENT RESERVE. PARCEL IEREON AND THAT THERE ARE NO GLEN00$81N RIDGE BASEMENTS OR ENCROACHMENTS TISIBLE ON THE GROUND OTHER N 68°09'59"N 313.40' CHAN THOSE SHQWN HEREON. iRF POST �a PHIS LOT IS LOCATED IN HUD FLOO \ ONE C, AREA OF MINIMAL FLOODING J %S SHOWN ON FIRM MAP 510063 0105B \ AFFECTIVE JULY 1-7 1978 \H O J m rh f\l i O a ^� M LLL ? Ln O U T ; C7 CV I_ t J W Q O a► ^- Z rN W z Q w 04 Ld z Z (� F- IRS! CORNER STONE WALL 31.1851 AC. 11037 Lo O � J P03T P03T L Lt > v P03T " 111T l � F- J IRJ �•�p a�Q\�t� /Iboti� LINE TABLE 1-1 N IB'38'54"W LZ 5 74'40'02"E 1-3 N 16'1316-E L4 N 80'20111Y 1-5 N 15'58'29"E O Cr 168.57' 39.0Z' 4 7 Z.Zl' 3 9.96' 373.55' TAX MAP ID; 43-4-151PORT11 DEED REF. YYB 80 P. 700 I DAYID Al RMSTOWf NO. 1455 1 z- 2- o y `ti0 S U RN�C O / �" �pOP BOUNDARY SURVEY LPND OF BETTY G. MCK01 STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRG' FURSTENAU SURVEYING (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGR41A 22601 DATE; DEC. 2, F004 ■ SCALE: I - = 3 0 0' ■ WA. 092! VLR(91N1A: FREDERICK COUNTY, SC-T. This in)srr/uJment of writing was produced to me on / a - -2f -D y at _I SO r4. r-r) .md with artiftcate of acknowledgcment thereto annexed was admitted to record. T imposed by Sec. 58.14M of S riIZ2 ., . and 58.1-801 have be= paid, if assessable . Clerk 0 C IA SUR VEYPLAT if-. DEED • • 7677-72 EBY/cmj 030000473 0 N tV THIS DEED OF DEDICATION AND DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, made and dated this e day of January, 2003 by and between Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell, of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors and County of Frederick, Virginia, of the second part, hereinafter called County. WHEREAS, the Grantors, are the owners of the real estate shown on that certain Final Subdivision Plat drawn by David M. Furstenau, L.S., dated September 16, 2002 known as Glendobbin Ridge, which Final Plat is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set out in full. This is the same real estate previously conveyed to the Grantors by that certain Deed and Deed of Release dated March 29, 2002 which deed is of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, as Instrument Number 020005243; and, WHEREAS, said real estate, as shown on the aforesaid attached Final Subdivision Plat, has been subdivided into lots for the construction of single family homes thereon (Lots 1 through 17, inclusive), and the hereinabove Final Plat shows accurately the metes and bounds of the subdivided land, together with the dimensions of each lot thereof and also shows certain surrounding lands in said Subdivision to be used as maintenance, utility, ingress -egress, and drainage easements, all of which shall constitute a portion of that development known as Glendobbin Ridge. WHEREAS, the Subdivision of Glendobbin Ridge as shown on the aforesaid attached Final Subdivision Plat, is with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned Grantors, and the Grantors further desires to subdivide the aforesaid real estate in accordance with the provisions of "The Virginia Land Subdivision Act" as are applicable and in force and effect as of the date of execution of this Deed of Dedication. NOW THEREFORE, THUS DEED OF DEDICATION WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the premises and the benefits which will accrue by reason of this Dedication, the Grantors do hereby subdivide, all of that certain portion of land designated as Glendobbin Ridge, located in Stonewall District, Frederick County, Virginia, and being more particularly ry to described by that certain Final Subdivision Plat of Glendobbin Ridge, by David M. Furstenau, L.S., dated September lb, 2002 containing Lots 1 through 17, inclusive, which Final Subdivision Plat is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set out in full. This is the same real estate previously conveyed to the Grantors by Deed dated March 29, 2002 said deed is of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office as Instrument Number 020005243. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION AS AFORESAID, the Grantors do further dedicate Union View Lane to the County of Frederick, Virginia, for public use, which street dedicated hereby is more particularly described by the hereinabove referenced Final Subdivision Plat of Glendobbin Ridge. All of the lots shown on the plat attached hereto shall be subject to the following covenants, conditions, reservations, and restrictions, each and every one of which is, and all are, for the benefit of each owner of land in Glendobbin Ridge, and shall pass with each and every conveyance of land hereby dedicated and shall bind the respective successors in interest of the Grantors herein and may be enforced by any owner of land in Glendobbin Ridge. Each and every one of these covenants, conditions, reservations or restrictions is, and all are, for the benefit of each owner of land in said subdivision, or any interest therein, and shall inure to and pass with each and every conveyance of lots in said subdivision, and shall bind the respective successors in interest of the present owner thereof. These covenants, conditions, reservations and restrictions are intended to be and are hereby constituted covenants real running with the land and each conveyance shall contain these restrictions, or incorporate them by reference, to - wit: LAND USE: No lot shall be used except for single family residential purposes. No Home Occupation of any type shall be allowed on said lots. 2. BUILDING TYPES: No Building or structure of any kind whatsoever shall be erected, altered, placed, or permitted to remain on,any lot, other than a permanent single family dwelling. No such dwelling shall exceed two stories L] N N kD above foundation line in height. No other building or improvements shall be erected, altered, or placed or permitted to remain on any lot other than a carport or garage, patio walls, swimming pool, wooden fences, as hereinafter described, and other outbuilding for use and enjoyment of the lot for residential purposes. Any gazebo, garden shed, other outbuilding, mailbox, newspaper box or receptable of any type, shall not be placed on a lot unless approved by the Architectural Committee hereinafter referred to. Any garage or carport as herein before provided shall be homogeneous in design to the dwelling. No mobile homes are permitted on any of said lots. No recreational type camper or trailer shall be parked on any of said lots until such time as a home is built on such lots and thereinafter, such recreational camper trailer or recreational vehicle must be stored within a garage area so that the same may not be visible from any roadway. BUILDING LOCATION: All buildings of any type, including porches, verandas and garages, or any portion thereof, shall be located in compliance with the requirements of the Frederick County, Virginia Ordinances. If two or more adjoining lots are acquired by the same owner, a home may be built on more than one lot and in such case, the restriction pertaining to minimum side lot lines shall not apply to the common boundary line of the two lots which have been joined. The Grantor is to approve the location of the house on any of said lots. TOTAL FINISHED SPACE: No two story dwelling is to be erected or maintained on any of said lots to contain less than 3,000 square feet of finished living space (outside foundation dimensions), and one story dwelling shall contain at Ieast 2,400 square feet, exclusive of open porches, carports, garages, and basements. BUILDING EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION. No dwelling, garage or other building shall be erected or placed on any lot which has an exterior conshvction 3 I� U • o N O other than brick, wood, stone, vinyl, dryvit, or combination thereof, unless otherwise approved by the Architectural Committee. Any exterior solar design or antennae, towers, transmitters for radio, television, microwave, or the like, must be screened and approved by the Architectural Committee. In this respect, the Architectural Committee may engage such professional services for review of plans and each lot owner submitting said plans shall pay the reasonable charges made for review by the professional services. Satellite dishes are allowed. 6. I[EMPORARY STRUCTURES: No structures of a temporary nature, including but not limited to, trailers, mobile homes, campers, basement, tents, shacks, garages, barns, or other outbuildings, shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence, either temporary or permanent. 7. FENCES: Fences located in the front or on the side of the house must be constructed of wooden board or rail, or other material approved by the Architectural Committee, and any such fence shall not exceed forty-eight inches in heights. Fencing in the rear of the house may not exceed seventy-two inches in height and the material and design be subject to the approval of the Architectural Committee, but in no event shall chain link fences be used. All fences contracted shall be kept and maintenance in good repair, including painting and staining, if the same is required. 8. CLOTHES No outdoor clothes lines shall be allowed. 9. SIGNS: No sign of any kind shalt be displayed to the public on said lots, except for signs not larger than 5 square feet advertising the property for sale, provided, however, that the Grantor may erect two signs of any size in order to display the property for sale. Signs indicating the name of the residence not larger than 5 square feet may be permitted with the approval of the Architectural Committee. 4 • • o N W M GARBAGE AND REFUSE ISPOSAL: No lot shall be used or maintained as a dumping ground for rubbish. Trash, garbage, or other waste, shall not be kept except in sanitary containers with tops, said containers to have a capacity of not more than fifty gallons. 11. ANIMALS: No animal, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be maintained on any lot for commercial purposes. Household pets, domestic dogs and cats shall be allowed. Notwithstanding this provision, the maintenance of animals for 4-H projects and personal use shall be allowed so long as they do not exceed 2 in number and no goats, hogs, and fowl. All dogs and cats shall be restricted to the lot(s) of their owner and shall not be allowed to roam the subdivision of Glendobbin Ridge. 12. WATER SUPPLY: No individual water supply system shall be permitted on any lot unless located, constructed, and equipped in accordance with the requirements, standards, and regulations of the Frederick County Health Department and State and Local ordinances, and unless approval for said system is obtained from the Frederick County Health Department 13. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: No individual sewage -disposal system shall be permitted on any lot unless such system is designed, located, and constructed in accordance with the requirements, standards, and regulations of the Frederick County Health Department and State and Local ordinances, and unless approval for said system is obtained from the Frederick County Health Department. 14. OFF-STREET PARKING: After a residence is built on any of said lots, the lot owner shall provide in connection therewith off-street parking space of at least 12' x 50'. 15. TRUCKS: No lot shall be used for the parking of trucks of a load capacity of more than one ton, or tractor/traiiers, and no such trucks or tractor/trailer shall be parked on any street in this subdivision. No lot shall be used for manufacturing 6i • o N W N purposes or for the sale, parking, or storage of new or second-hand automobiles or other motion vehicles. No abandoned motor vehicles will be permitted on any lots or parking area. (For this purpose, an abandoned motor vehicle is defined as one which bears no or expired license plates and has not been within six months on a public street or highway). 16. RESUBDIVISION AND EASEMENTS: None of the lots shall at any time be subdivided, conveyed or sold except as a whole unless the sale or conveyance results in a lot larger than the lot size as shown on the aforesaid attached survey. No easement or right of way shall be granted, over any of sail lots except for the purposes of public utility, (water, sewer, electric, gas, telephone, cable television, etc). If two or more adjoining lots are acquired by the same owner, none of said lots shall be conveyed by said owner unless the lot being sold and each lot being retained by that owner are in compliance with all of these covenants and restrictions. This does not apply to the Reserve Lot.. 17. NUISANCES: No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood. Each lot shall be kept mown and free from weeds and debris at all times, and shall be kept cleared in accordance with State Laws and local ordinances. No unlicensed motorcycles, trail bikes, snow mobiles, or the like, shall be operated on the roadways or common passageways, as indicated on the survey of Glenndobbin Ridge. 18. HOUSE PLANS: The Grantor reserves the right for itself, its successors and assigns, or an Architectural Committee being itself or appointed by it, its successors or assigns, to reject any and all plans for houses or other structures proposed to be constructed on any lot. The Grantor retains the majority vote on the Architectural Committee. 19. WAIVER: The Grantor shall reserve the right to waive any and all of the 6 • LJ 0 N W W restrictive covenants contained herein except restriction No, 1 as pertains to LAND USE, and restriction No. 4 as pertains to TOTAL FINISHED SPACE of dwellings. This right of waiver shall not affect the binding effect of the covenants and conditions upon any lot. 20. RESERVATIONS: The grantor reserves unto itself, its successors and assigns, the right to erect, maintain, operate and replace underground and above ground telephone and electric fight conduits, related equipment, and other facility, sewer, gas, water, and television lines and related equipment, and other utility equipment where such utility lines and equipment are now located and along the strip 10 feet along the front and rear of each lot and a 10 foot strip centered on the side line of each adjoining lot, and a 10 foot strip along the boundary of all nonadjoining lots. The Grantor further reserves the right along to impose additional restrictive covenants and restrictions as to the sale and transfer of any lot or lots owned by it and such imposition shall not effect the binding effect of these provisions upon any other lot. Invalidation of any one of the covenants or restrictions contained herein by judgement or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. The failure of the lot owners or the Grantor/Developer to enforce any covenant or restriction shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to do so thereafter as to a default occurring prior or subsequent thereto. Any or all of the rights, powers, duties and obligations which, in this instrument, are assumed by, reserved, or given to the Grantor, its successors or assigns, for the said Architectural Committee, may be assigned or transferred to any one or more corporations or associations which will agree to assume said rights, powers, duties, and obligations and carry out and perform the same. Any such assignment or transfer shall be made by appropriate instrument in writing in r r� 0 N tom.) which the assignee or transferee shall join for the purpose of evidencing its acceptance of such rights, powers, duties, and obligations, which instrument shall be recorded; and such assignee or transferee shall thereupon have the same rights and powers and be subject to the same obligations and duties as are herein given to and assumed by the Grantor, its successors or assigns, or the said Architectural Committee. In the event of such assignment or transfer, the Grantor, its successors or assigns, or said Architectural Committee, shall thereupon be released from all of the rights, powers, duties and obligations in this instrument reserved or given to and assumed by the Grantor, its successors or assigns, or the said Architectural Committee. The right of assignment hereby reserved to the Grantor, its successors or assigns, and the said Architectural Committee, is so reserved to the end that the rights, powers, duties, and obligations reserved and given to them may be assigned to an association or corporation formed by the owns of lots in said subdivision for the purpose of accepting said assignment; and such assignment may be made at such time as the Grantor, its successors or assigns, and the said Architectural Committee shall jointly determine. 21. ARCHITECTURAL COMMTI TEE. The Grantor shall constitute the Architectural Committee and shall have the power to appoint its successor in interest, and such Architectural Committee shall have no liability whatsoever, either direct or indirect, on the approval or disapproval of matters as set for the hereinabove, but such power in the Architectural Committee shall be solely discretionary. The size of the Architectural Committee shall be determined by the Grantor, or its duly nominated successors in interest. If the said Architectural Committee, or its duly authorized representative, shall fail to approve or disapprove any proposed plans, specifications, or locations within thirty days after the same shall have been submitted to the Grantor for •CD N W C!i approval, such plans specifications, and locations shall be deemed to have received the approval of said Committee, or its duly authorized representative. In the event that the Grantor fails to appoint an Architectural Committee, or if such Architectural Committee has formed but is later disbanded, then approval for plans may be obtained by the lot owner submitting plans drawn and signed by a licensed architect in the State of Virginia, and in addition, if the plans are for an allowed outbuilding, then such architect shall further certify that the design is homogeneous with the existing structure on said lot. 22. TERMS: These restrictions are covenants real which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all future lot owners, and those claiming under them, for a period of seven (7) years from date of recordation of the Deed of Dedication. Thereafter, these restrictions shall be automatically extended for successive periods, of seven (7) years, unless an instrument signed by a majority of the then owners of the lots agreeing to amend the restrictions in whole or in part is recorded in the land records of Frederick County, Virginia, prior to the commencements of one of the said seven (7) year terms. 23. ENFORCEMENT: The Grantor and any and every person hereafter having any right, title, or interest in any lot shall have the right to prevent or stop violation of any of these restrictions, by injunction or other lawful procedure, and to recover any damages resulting from such violation, subject to the reservations of the Grantor set forth in paragraphs 20 and 21 above. 24. SEVERABULM; Invalidation of any one of these covenants by judgement or court order of in any other manner, shall in no way affect any of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. The above and foregoing subdivision of Glendobbin Ridge, more particularly described by the aforesaid attached survey of David M. Furstenau, L. S., dated September lb, 2002, is with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the undersigned Owners. CD N (J WITNESS the following signature and seat: GLEN W.-RUSSELL, Gran'toro� IQ" 0-� , Z-'j v --(,Sl STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE CITY/COUNTY o ".0 z , To -wit: The foregoing inswm=t was acknowledged be me day of January. 2003 by Glen W. Russdl and Pamela L. Russell, ors. IC My commission expires l�ik.ce, 3 er- d oQ G IN. i....,..--r.r-w b'y: Pd%in B row Cwk..Wl. lots Akga&&4w. l.LG t 13 S.A C� Sb. W.aat a4f. Viq*i, 2uot lS+bl W) W C:\NFDOCS\Deeds\glendabbinridge.dod.wpd 10 NAPIER, POND, ATHEY & ATHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 35 N. ROYAL AVENUE P.O. BOX 395 FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630 RONALD LEWIS NAPIPR PHONE (540) 635-2123 J. DANIEL POND II FAX (540) 635-7004 KIMBERLY M. ATHEY CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, April 4, 2006 lawyers@npaalaw.com PLEASE REPLY TO: JR. J. DANIEL POND III P.O. BOX 395 JOHN S. BELL Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission Re: Memorandum of Law Related to Application for Rezoning of Tax Map Parcels 43-A- 15(B) and 43-A-16 Containing 67.73 Acres Located in the Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County (Russell - Glendobbin) Dear Planning Commissioners: The 67.7242 acre Russell-Glendobbin property which is the subject matter of this rezoning application consists of two parcels, one of which is 36.6389 acres (Parcel A) and the other is 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. QUESTIONS PRESENTED The foregoing Memorandum of Law addresses the following questions presented: (1) Whether the applicant has the right under Virginia law and the Code of Frederick County to apply for this rezoning when a portion of the land was the Rural Preservation Parcel (40 % parcel) of Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision; and (2) Whether the Frederick County Planning Commission would be acting in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan and the county zoning ordinance by approving the application for rezoning to Residential Performance (RP) when the land is within the Urban Development Area? 1 0 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. 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). 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Approximately 37 acres of the site is platted as the preservation parcel (40% parcel) of the existing Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. 5. A Rural Preservation Parcel is normally reserved exclusively for open space or agricultural uses; however, Section 165-54(D)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance encourages the Board of Supervisors to release a preservation parcel that is within the UDA from such development restrictions. 6. The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate on this property because it is wholly within the UDA. 7. The integration of average one acre lots contained within this proposal 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 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. 8. The Applicant has offered a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development. 9. The portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located is a transitional area that currently includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. 10. 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. 11. 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 ►a Plan within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides for the preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan by each locality in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223 states in pertinent part that "the local planning commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt a comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction. In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission is required by the Commonwealth to make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The Comprehensive Plan must be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities. (See Section 15.2-2223, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended) The Commonwealth also requires that the Comprehensive Plan designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan and indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be." The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, must also show the locality's long-range recommendations for the general development of the territory covered by the plan. That plan must include, but need not be limited to: The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as different kinds of residential, including age -restricted, housing; business; industrial; agricultural; mineral resources; conservation; recreation; public service; flood plain and drainage; and other areas; The state also requires the preparation of an official map and capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, mineral resource district maps and agricultural and forestall district maps, where applicable. (See Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223, et seq.) Generally, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223, the County of Frederick has prepared a Comprehensive Plan along with an Official Zoning Map. Moreover, the Frederick 3 County' government has designated certain areas of the county for residential development which it refers to as its Urban Development Area. Because the 67 acre Russell-Glendobbin parcels are clearly within the Urban Development Area as designated by the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors pursuant to its authority under Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223, an outright denial of a rezoning petition seeking a residential zoning classification for this particular site would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and potentially subject Frederick County to litigation to enforce its Comprehensive Plan by Glen and Pamela Russell. In addition, Section 165-54(D) of the Frederick County Code which pertains to Rural Areas Districts and Rural Preservation Lots states as follows: 1. Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following: a. Forty percent of the parent tract must remain intact as a contiguous parcel. b. This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. C. No future division of this portion of the parent tract will be permitted. 2. Exception to ,single forty -percent parcel. In cases where excessive topography or other natural features of a site create a situation where a higher quality subdivision design resulting in less physical and/or visual disruption could be achieved by allowing two residual parcels to be created, the Planning Commission may permit the 40% to be made up of two parcels. 3. Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty -percent parcel and following a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of Subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty -percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included within the UDA as a result of a future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten-year restriction on rezoning. (See Section 165-54(D), Code of Frederick County) Specifically, Frederick County Code Section 165-54(D)(3) states that any 40% parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included within the UDA as a result of the future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten-year restriction on a change of zoning and further resubdivision. As a result thereof, even though the 36.5389 acre Parcel A which is contained within the Russell-Glendobbin site is currently a preservation parcel as defined in Frederick County Code Section 165-54(D) as a result of the Russell's 2002 subdivision which created Glendobbin 4 0 0 Ridge Subdivision, that Rural Preservation Parcel "shall still be eligible for rezoning" since at the time of its creation as a Rural Preservation Parcel within the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Areas Subdivision, the Rural Preservation Parcel was located within the Urban Development Area. In conclusion, this Application for rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County since the land is wholly within the Urban Development Area. This Planning Commission recommended and the County Board of Supervisors adopted a future Land Use Map which reflects that the subject property should be rezoned to residential performance as permitted in the Urban Development Area and the Code of Frederick County. This remains true even though a portion of the property was subdivided in 2002 to a Rural Preservation Lot. Therefore, I request, on behalf of my clients, Glen and Pamela Russell, that you approve this Application. Sine rely, I jj-�,",OA Kimberly M. Athey W i March 30, 2006 Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner The Department of Planning & Development 107 N. Kent St., 2nd Floor, Winchester, VA 22601 Ms. Eddy, My name is J.P. Darlington and I am writing to you to formally express my concerns over the proffered rezoning application, # 17-05 of Russell- Glendobbin. I own land adjoining two sides of the Russell property in question. I have three hundred acres which consists of 51 5- acre lots and a 45- acre parcel on which I live. All of this land is part of Spring Valley Estates. My land extends from Rt. 37 to large lots along Glendobbin Rd. I have a number of concerns and objections to this request for rezoning. First, the requested land use is inconsistent with the surrounding area. The proposal for less than'/2-acre lots would be adjacent to land owned by me and the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, which contains two- to five -acre lots and a large set -aside parcel which together meet the RA zoning of the area specifying an average density of one home per five acres. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or even greater. Most other parcels in the immediate vicinity are zoned RA and contain either five -acre home sites or large orchards. Second, the Preservation Parcel, the 40% set -aside parcel with 36.54 acres (Parcel 43-A-16) established in 2002, should remain "preserved". Families in the adjacent Glendobbin Ridge subdivision recently purchased their lots with the expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain that way. Also, it seems clear that the UDA line in this area of the Stonewall District seems to follow no natural boundaries nor follow any zoning logic. It is my opinion that even though the current UDA would double the value of my property I feel that the UDA is inappropriate for this area and should be lifted. Third, high density communities do not exist in this area, what is being proposed will reshape this entire community and pave the way for more of this type of development. Fourth, in the rezoning request, this requested high -density subdivision adjoins the industrial park so there is real concern about the likelihood of running a street into the industrial- park which would result in a mix of residential and industrial traffic through the industrial park as well as through residential areas for cut over access to Glendobbin, Apple Pie Ridge, and Rt. 522. Fifth, VDOT estimates a traffic increase of an additional 1300 trips daily on Glendobbin Rd., Payne Rd., Welltown Pike, and Apple Pie Ridge. These additional trips are on top of the already existing traffic and a lot of this additional traffic would happen during the worst times when the road system out here is already flooded with the surge when school lets out and work shifts change. As it is the access to this area off of Welltown Pike to the east and Apple Pie Ridge to the west is backed up in the mornings and afternoons. In closing I urge you to deny this request for rezoning because the proposed high -density subdivision is not compatible with the surrounding area and would create serious traffic issues. Sincerely, J.P. Darlington 1 R` .. 3 � � Sri '! �� � �� ��I 1 . �v ti gyp:. 1 �� � ;�� - � � �� � � �� �. � � 4, a, 1 � � , , �� i ,� �. �, �.'•:.:. c�,, ��; �I � ,� ' ,� ��� �� �. ,,, �1I ,,,,, _` .. ' 10A Sv 14 1 •w•q 7 .,� ,� I to ,. V ♦ � i , r� r r Y 1 r _ } --- -. . ;` _ •r A .fie �' ,.ah'•'�,�I��q� y � - __ ry- T ..�+, ' i �, i ' ",'.,}� , •`y 's• +t.• .'�. Fair 'iC' `,p�,�. ram'• Y•'i _ AT AF At I • �y`�' - .. - - . .• - r - - - - _ a mow. ~.ice.. - _ - �� -_ -' . - � +r�7•`-�._ - - a,.;` r� mar,+ "'r } - �- `-1- -Y-. � _ e _ —ell _ ^a, ` - ski► t _ ot toe _ • �I '."� mow.• � - -•- -.a+ -...sue ,t ` - > '°�'�• � '� •+ .•9 ,,.w- - JP . +.' ! -- t' T•� s � w .- Y „� ..a. �T r HARRISON & JOHNSTON, PLC 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Telephone 540.667.1266 Facsimile 540.667.1312 March 30, 2006 Mrs. June Wilmot, Chair Frederick County Planning Commission 412 Westside Station Drive Winchester, VA 22601 MAR 3 1' Stephen I.. Pettler, Jr. Direct Fax 540.545.8582 pettler@harrison-johnston.com Mobile 540.664.5134 Re: Rezonine Annlication #17-05 for Russell-Glendobbin.• Adjoining property of Harley and Roxie Ostlund Dear Mrs. Wilmot: Please be advised that I represent Harley and Roxie Ostlund. They are the owners of lot 15 of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. This property adjoins the lots proposed to be re -zoned in the above referenced application which comes before the Planning Commission on April 5, 2006. In fact, 36.5387 acres of the land proposed for rezoning (over half) is the rural preservation lot created during the subdivision approval of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. There is an easement on my clients' property which is referenced in the Russell-Glendobbin proffer statement (dated March 10, 2006) and the impact analysis dated March 2006. The Ostlunds have sought my counsel regarding concerns they have about the easement and the deed of dedication relative to the rural preservation lot. The Ostlunds have asked me to report my findings to you and the other members of the planning commission (who I have copied with this letter). My findings are as follows. When the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was created, as deed of dedication with restrictions was granted in favor of the property owners in the subdivision. This was recorded on January 9, 2003 in the Clerk's office for Frederick County. The deed of dedication incorporates the subdivision plat which creates the lots in the subdivision. On the plat, there is set forth an easement titled "50' PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT" from the cul de sac at the end of Union View Lane, 25 feet of which runs across my clients lot (lot 15) and 25 feet which runs on lot 16. There is no reservation of the noted easement by the declarant of the subdivision recited in the deed of dedication. However, there is a note on the plat, which reads as follows: The proposed private driveway/road is not built according to street specifications of and will not be maintained by, the Virginia Department ofTransportation or Frederick County. The improvement and maintenance of said driveway/road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway/road. Said driveway/roads will not be considered for inclusion into the state secondary system until they meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway/road to acceptable standards shall not be borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County. Letter to Frederick County Planning Commission, March 30, 2006 Page 2 The plat also sets forth the following note on the 36.5387 acre lot which is the subject of rezoning: 40 % RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED PER SECTION 165- 54D ZONING ORDINANCE) A copy of the page showing these notes is attached with this letter. The Russell's proffer statement, at paragraph 11.3, sets forth their proffer to create a "private gated connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane for emergency access. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50-foot access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View Lane." This is the easement shown to be on the Ostlund's property (in part). Given these facts, I have advised the Ostlunds regarding their rights relative to the easement on their property and the deed of dedication as follows: 1 • The deed of dedication does not appear to grant the 50' access easement in favor of the "Reserve Lot." As this is not expressed in the deed of dedication, Virginia law requires one to look to the plat. The note on the plat expressly states that the easement was not granted to VDOT as the public roads in the subdivision were. Instead the note states that the "improvement and maintenance of said driveway/road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway/road." The "owners of lots which are provided access" are arguably the owners of lots 16 and 15 as the Reserve Lot was created to be set aside for the benefit of the subdivision as a whole. Thus, there is an issue as to whether or not the "Reserve Lot" in the rezoning application has a right to use the easement on lots 15 and 16. 2. As a matter of law in Virginia, "no use may be made of the easement which is different from that established at the time of its creation and which imposes an additional burden upon the servient estate." Haves v. Aquia Marina Inc , 243 Va. 255, 414 S.E.2d 820 (1992), citing Cushman Corporation v Barnes, 204 Va. at 253, 129 S.E.2d at 639-40 (1963). Under the instant facts, if it is assumed that the 50' access easement is grated eserve Lot, the joinder of that lot with an additional 30 acres and the subdivision of the resulting fvor of the parcel into 60 lots creates an enormous additional burden on the Ostlund's lot 15. At the time the, easement was granted, it was granted in favor of a rural preservation lot. Now it is proposed to serve as an access to a 60 home subdivision (although admittedly not a prim access). The result of such a change of use is that the easement is therefore extinguished as set forth in the Cu_ opinion. See also, Ellis v. Simmons, 270 Va. 371, 619 S.E.2d 88 (2005). 3. The note on the plat pertaining to the fact that the Reserve Lot cannot be further subdivided arguably prohibits the owner of the lot from doing so. The deed of dedication expressly Letter to Frederick County Planning Commission, March 30, 2006 Page 3 allow the owners of lots in Glendobbin Ridge to enforce its terms. The deed of dedication contains conflicting restrictions regarding subdivision of the Reserve Lot. It is exempted from a general restriction imposed on all other lots in the subdivision (paragraph 16), but imposes a restriction in the plat. Virginia Code § 15.2-2265 provides that the recordation of a valid plat conveys the rights set forth therein to the locality designated. This is regardless of there being a deed of dedication or statement in a deed of dedication specing the ts. fyirigh See, Burns v. Board of Su —isors Stafford Coun 26 Va. 506, 312 S.E.2d 731 (1984). , 2 Thus the Russells are deemed to have granted the right to enforce the "no further subdivision" restriction set forth in the subdivision plat to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County as a matter of law. 4. The Ostlunds have a cause of action against the Russells to stop them from subdividing the Reserve Lot as the plat of the subdivision which they relied upon when they purchased their property in 2004 expressly states that the Reserve Lot will not be subdivided. Thus, under principles of equity, the Russells should be estopped from now subdividing land which the public record appears to restrict. Any ambiguity created in the deed of dedication and plat drafted by the Russells is their doing and it would be unjust to allow the Russells to benefit from this to the detriment of the innocent purchasers of the lots in the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. The Ostlunds understand that with the exception of the rights set forth in item No. 3, the issues set fort are theirs to pursue against h Russells. t Howeveo the r,they ty asask that you give consideration to these matters in weighing Hopefully your decision will obviate their need tkt independent action. approve the rezoning request. Thank you for your courtesy and attention to the Ostlund's concerns. Should you or any member of the Planning Commission have any questions in any regard, please do not hesitate to contact me. With best regards, I am SLP/j dw Enclosure Cc: All Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission Susan Eddy, Frederick County Planning (By hand delivery) Mr & Mrs. Ostlund • • C 43- M01 RISQ-21 ' 00 o DA 00 OD W NO. U55 v 0 <gryE� 1 (fit p' 04 m m p SURvV' T M. FURSUNAU The proposed private driveway/toed is not built according to strescspecilications of and will not be maintained by. the Virginia Department of lens orWw or Frederick County. The imprm- ment and maintermm of said driveway/road shall be the sole responsibility of the amm of lots which are provided with access via the driveway/road. Said driveway/roads will not be - considered for inck»bn Into the stale secondary system until they most the applicable construction standards of ilia Virginia Department of Transportation. The cost •ol bringing said drivawey/road to acceptable standards stall not be borne by ilia Virginia Department of 1mMorlation nor by Frederick County. FINAL PLAT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN'RIDGE STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY. VIRGINIR m m ry ty SPRING VALLEY 111411 SECTION 4 0 z lot 73 ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MA SHALL MILLS 43-9-73 , lot 72 RA ; lot 71 RA lot 70 'RA RA VACANT ' 43-9-72 VACANT 43-9-71 VACA0 VACANT 97.41*17" E p _N 66001-07"V 1519.94' 50. BRL _ 40 % RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. 43-9-70 (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED PER SECTION 165-54D OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE) �13RAIN \� FIELD �__—A' s �3 N CV Of M 50, QRL _ S 68009'59"E 122Q 0' MCKOWN 1 43-A-15 RAVACANT I LOT 16 z I J a m n INC. c r.. I a - wcnlU aoM> rl z I w tDLn a tC3(D Cn> N o d• �— N�" z z a U Q LOTccI5�� �7 rev 10/10:02 FURSTMAU SURVEYING' (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER. VIRG.INIA , 22601 DATE: SEPT. 16, 2002 SCALE: I" = 2 5 0' 1 r" -+' Y- xrY'-' • j .� yC�y r„{•r"r •-• b�„�;'.`,•,+•''y'.ry�•.`...'•"�1�'�sui:r, , `� � e.tta . � _ '+ a S .��ti ►ri k �bj/"Q1 ,,�.,.;,�t '�_;•'� - .. t of 'ilk ilk 04 fill 1,3 t 'r _ 16 10 i 4� �" I�t � •. k'T w ( , , - _ r i Alt .: i 44 s plow, � a �'y���l�� It r e.� s. �' � � i S w `k c ��'•l• �- _ . •'"'y, ' Ati�'�-^"-jam .ct��,"- . -N�.= ,/� " .,, L •a's*t �,.. a7,Yr• Y �y. +i1 _,a�/1r► .".La y 'd.''' F' .. + s r„_ ,>rt� ..�a �y; ryt`'Y ' .\ .. �� �- �. .f Fes• . �-. � �1��� ��� Y•��+ ytR�,Y`jry+y� � 'Y{ � _ tY� � � .,may ' �� ' �yt '•` k t F} •tom' �, hi"c•,,,. '� i» X r,.. ; • y�l��4` �"!1+1yL'� s: �� A •ic.. "yam +�` '�T �,�,�{ f� � .''yJ�' �j, ` ,. � '�.�q�,•dy �, +r�'-. .�„r �r� + s �x^x .' �•iclt! 1�. � � r cif •� '.`� + �,��' � �"�,,,� tint"� •�^�� rt . w. _, ' � 1'.�4r` s �` j•R 'ro"�."i' '� w,.'y�"wa, :'�,yr -.. L+_ r .C" .a- f � ! ? s �3 ,�-" - __ _ . 3 cs ._ r � .r _ _ - wt E ; , s^ .-f. _ z jtg y(• _ •..w - -' s _ r< � _ - - ... -►.-• -,• '�,. -r' _ � '91�. �� � •_t o..� z ;or- "+�. ...r.,�: "�6 d" _« �•` '/z.-•.��y-i} i ^ - r _ .r b - .... l-� ...Al_ - or Y... �- - ,._ - - � .. ,-� .-'/ � *�- �,; � �,���` fire' it »' _ - �• - ...4 �_ ISM �• _ 's;j V14� _-* "I . s Y . .^, � �-• .e �..� � � �+� _ .3sc�� i 'sue ^. . • 0 Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Russel l-Glendobbin Rezoning Sign-up Sheet to speak during the public hearing Srcleoner) Name (please print) ?Address Magisterial District (c street Cl p1 City C, 2 d r bno L V/4 Sim twa 0 'Su po or Name (please print) osition ? Address � Magisterial District (circle one) Street /f y%�(�%5/Ilu ��i`✓' U�'� �r /S City 6 P �� upport,or Name (please print) Orpastfon ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street �2' iL 1� t E C,ty Gi GaCL WOpi r Name (please print) ? add,t, Magisterial District (circle one) Street� Ul `IN�„/vl Supp rt or .y Name (please print) po itAddress Magisterial District e street 1,% 1 C�.�� K�..`�=.vt� l � Yl City Q rj Za W SUDJDQLLQr Name (please print) Oppos' on ? Address Magisterial District (cir� one) Street 3Zo UwiaJ f ew L.*xe , City �1itn s t2 V/ S'f'Pi�te wrZ-l� Support or Name (please print) ion . Address Magisterial District !" lN1I (c one) street 2 Z Z CA ,, r r-� %� w — L'%� I C f��� City L%r t ( C C Supp or Name (please print) ppo i i Address Magisterial District City Cr Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Street City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Street City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) s- y Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning Sign-up Sheet to speak during the public hearing Su ort o Name (please print) Opposition ? Address 4,54"d Uagisterial District / (ale one) StreetToP �f dI¢ <'� (, �%'✓ sl �1 �v c. ,.G� ctY /� P' /�1.9�ttr*+s g,ii ,0.�4 %�ft.is-...1< Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Street City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Street city Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) st-ee, cy Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) stree! C.cy Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) s:,, Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) CY Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street c tr Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street city Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) city Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning Sign-up Sheet to speak during the public hearing po or Name (please print) osition ? Addre-sn Magisterial District f (circle one) StreetQ/'fPay NY' l� $ �d_�4t WG city I v^ w c n uppo or j� Name (please print) position ? Address g �i l� h c Magisterial District (�le one) street �1 two � City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District OFile one) Street L'L City lif'//^ _ Nd cvn Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? (cIrele one) Address street 36 % do #cry+, Magisterial District (�e7orkJ oror Name (please print) Opposiion ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Street j 4 >, M a I Su o or Name (please print) ppo tion . Address 13z Wi �.y( b1ve Magisterial District I r (ci one street j M �� C+ty Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) s—_: Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street C AY Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street c ty Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Street City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Street aty Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) IcIty street I I N • s Planning Commission Public Hearing for the Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning Sign-up Sheet to speak during the public hearing Name (please print) Sup rt or Op iti17 on ? Address Magisterial District (c le one) S: eet � c,v ppo or Name (please print) Opp ion ? Address Magisterial District (c a one) street ` city J Z/ upp or Name (please print) Opp ition ? Address Magisterial District ( le one) street 35� C'�•..,,,�l City 'Support or Name (please print) Opp sition ? Address Magisterial District (c le one) street City Su or Name (please print) p tion . r Address Magisterial District ci e one) A street 3c v ti f o� \/I cr,� city Suppooir Name (please print) pposi n ? , Add re s Magisterial District S� (c one street 2tP �7- rl � � �� City ort or Name (please print) O pos* ion ? Address Magisterial District 1 (, (ci one) Street C �7�L� �.J L� tv \� Ci .L City `. %. • t- L L rt or SIile Name (please print) Oion ? Address Magisterial District one) upp or Name (please print) Op ition ? Address Magisterial District (cif le one) street t 3 v/,t or Name (please print) On3 Yie Address Magisterial District (ne) street �(, cF;Ut City (A,IW rltcZ� b';� zzcc'- -'9�tj��,�rt�v Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) street City Support or Name (please print) Opposition ? Address Magisterial District (circle one) Street City JW;`01-06 02:01Pm From-540 7004 540 635 769 T-820 P.001/001 F-748 1 NAPILJR, POND, ATH1:Y & ATPIEY, P.C. 91-l'ORN EYS A:I' LAW A5 N. ROYAI.AVENUR RL). BOX 91I5 FRONT ROYAL, VLRUNIA 22fi30 RONAI-0 LEWIS NAPIhIk .I. DANIEL PUNT) Il REMBEMY M.,YNEY 0 .u, 01W L. Km i.w..1 a. ,I. DAN1II.POND Ill .10WN S. BELL Facsimile: (540) 667-0370 John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 June 1, 2006 HONE 040) 645-21915 FAX (540) 635.7004 lawyel-Ahipm law.runu PLF-kSE REPLY'I'U: P.O. KOX 41)5 Re: Request to Move Date of public Nearing on Rezoning Application #17-05 (Russell- Glerldobbin) Dear John: My firm represents Glen W. Russell and Pamela L. Russell with respect to Rezoning Application #17-05 relating to Tax Map Parcels 43-A-15('B) and 43-A-16 containing approximately 67.73 acres located in the Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County (Russell-Glendobbin), As a result of scheduling conflicts related to another matter, I request Lhat the Public Hearing before the Frederick County Board of Supervisors be removed from the June 14, 2006 Agenda and placed on the June 28, 2006 Agenda for Public Hearing and Final Action. T apologize -for any inconvenience related to nay request, however, I believe it is important that I be able to attend this meeting on behalf of my client. Lastly, if you are amenable to my request, at your earliest convenience, please confirm in writing that the date of the Public Bearing has been moved, Sin el , Clifford L. they, Jr, Cc- Eric Lawrence, Director of Planning Facsimile: (540) 665-6395 Patton HarrOost & Engineers SuIveyuIS Plnnn-r, Associates,pc April 11, 2006 Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 AN i 1 W RE: Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning Application Amendments Dear 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 PRl rezoning application to both remove the existing Glendobbin Ridge preservation tract l l 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 Chant,li. 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 Chantill, itself. As the waiver is no longer needed for the application and due to the fact that the Bridgewater scale of the project has decreased, we would like to request that the proposed rezoning Fredencksb,, i be sent back to the Planning Commission in order to obtain a recommendation based Leesburg upon the merits of the amended application. Richmond Virginia Beach Winchester Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Woodbridge LABORATORIES Sincerely, Patton Harris Rust & Associates MARrIAND OFFicE', Ballimore� Columbia Freder"k Patrick R. Sowers GermanIow r Hollywood PRS Hunt Valley WEST VIRGINIA Enclosure Revised Proffer Statement OFFICE. Marlinsf.urrT cc: Susan Eddy, Frederick County Planning T 540 667.21 3U F 540.665,0493 P.\Planning\ReZoningAPPlications\FrederickCounty\Paramount-Orrick\PC PmfferAmendl-etter 032806.doc 1 17 East Piccadilly Sti— i 22601 14 . 40 0 RONALD LEWIS NAPIER J. DANIEL POND II KIMBERLY M. ATHEY CLIFFORD L. ATHEY, JR. J. DANIEL POND III JOHN S. BELL NAPIER, POND, ATHEY & ATHEY, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 35 N. ROYAL AVENUE PO. BOX 395 FRONT ROYAL, VIRGINIA 22630 April 4, 2006 Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission APR 5 2006 PHONE (540) 635-2123 FAX (540) 635-7004 lawyers@npaalaw.com PLEASE REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 395 Re: Memorandum of Law Related to Application for Rezoning of Tax Map Parcels 43-A- 15(B) and 43-A-16 Containing 67.73 Acres Located in the Stonewall Magisterial District of Frederick County (Russell - Glendobbin) Dear Planning Commissioners: The 67.7242 acre Russell-Glendobbin property which is the subject matter of this rezoning application consists of two parcels, one of which is 36.6389 acres (Parcel A) and the other is 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. QUESTIONS PRESENTED The foregoing Memorandum of Law addresses the following questions presented: (1) Whether the applicant has the right under Virginia law and the Code of Frederick County to apply for this rezoning when a portion of the land was the Rural Preservation Parcel (40 % parcel) of Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision; and (2) Whether the Frederick County Planning Commission would be acting in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan and the county zoning ordinance by approving theapplication application for rezoning to Residential Performance (RP) when the land is within the Urban Development Area? 1 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. 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). 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. Approximately 37 acres of the site is platted as the preservation parcel (40 % parcel) of the existing Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. 5. A Rural Preservation Parcel is normally reserved exclusively for open space or agricultural uses; however, Section 165-54(D)(3) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance encourages the Board of Supervisors to release a preservation parcel that is within the UDA from such development restrictions. 6. The rezoning of the site for single family residential development is consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, which expressly calls for suburban residential uses to predominate on this property because it is wholly within the UDA. 7. The integration of average one acre lots contained within this proposal 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 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. 8. The Applicant has offered a proffer program that will appropriately and effectively mitigate the impacts of this development. 9. The portion of the UDA wherein the Russell-Glendobbin property is located is a transitional area that currently includes light industrial, low density residential, and agricultural land uses. 10. 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. 11. 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 2 Plan within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Section 15.2-2223 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, provides for the preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan by each locality in the Conunonwealth of Virginia. Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223 states in pertinent part that "the local planning commission shall prepare and recommend a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the territory within its jurisdiction and every governing body shall adopt a comprehensive plan for the territory under its jurisdiction. In the preparation of a comprehensive plan, the Planning Commission is required by the Commonwealth to make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of its territory and inhabitants. The Comprehensive Plan must be made with the purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted and harmonious development of the territory which will, in accordance with present and probable future needs and resources, best promote the health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the inhabitants, including the elderly and persons with disabilities. (See Section 15.2-2223, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended) The Commonwealth also requires that the Comprehensive Plan designate the general or approximate location, character, and extent of each feature shown on the plan and indicate where existing lands or facilities are proposed to be extended, widened, removed, relocated, vacated, narrowed, abandoned, or changed in use as the case may be." The plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter, must also show the locality's long-range recommendations for the general development of the territory covered by the plan. That plan must include, but need not be limited to: The designation of areas for various types of public and private development and use, such as different kinds of residential, including age -restricted, housing; business; industrial; agricultural; mineral resources; conservation; recreation; public service; flood plain and drainage; and other areas; The state also requires the preparation of an official map and capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance, a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps, mineral resource district maps and agricultural and forestall district maps, where applicable. (See Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223, et seq.) Generally, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223, the County of Frederick has prepared a Comprehensive Plan along with an Official Zoning Map. Moreover, the Frederick 3 County goveriurient has designated certain areas of the county for residential development which it refers to as its Urban Development Area. Because the 67 acre Russell -Glendobbin parcels are clearly within the Urban Development Area as designated by the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors pursuant to its authority under Virginia Code Section 15.2-2223, an outright denial of a rezoning petition seeking a residential zoning classification for this particular site would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and potentially subject Frederick County to litigation to enforce its Comprehensive Plan by Glen and Pamela Russell. In addition, Section 165-54(D) of the Frederick County Code which pertains to Rural Areas Districts and Rural Preservation Lots states as follows: 1. Within the RA Rural Areas District, lots as small as two acres shall be permitted on tracts over 20 acres in size, subject to the following: a. Forty percent of the parent tract must remain intact as a contiguous parcel. b. This acreage must be designated prior to the division of the fourth lot. C. No future division of this portion of the parent tract will be permitted. 2. Exception to single forty -percent parcel. In cases where excessive topography or other natural features of a site create a situation where a higher quality subdivision design resulting in less physical and/or visual disruption could be achieved by allowing two residual parcels to be created, the Planning Commission may permit the 40% to be made up of two parcels. 3. Board waiver of division restriction. Ten years from the date of the creation of any forty -percent parcel and following a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors may release the parcel from the restrictions of Subsection D(1) through the process of rezoning, provided that the rezoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan in effect at that time. Any forty -percent parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included within the UDA as a result of a future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten-year restriction on rezoning. (See Section 165-54(D), Code of Frederick County) Specifically, Frederick County Code Section 165-54(D)(3) states that any 40% parcel which is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) at the time of its creation or is included within the UDA as a result of the future expansion of the UDA, shall be eligible for rezoning at that point and shall not be subject to the ten-year restriction on a change of zoning and further resubdivision. As a result thereof, even though the 36.5389 acre Parcel A which is contained within the Russell-Glendobbin site is currently a preservation parcel as defined in Frederick County Code Section 165-54(D) as a result of the Russell's 2002 subdivision which created Glendobbin �t J Ridge Subdivision, that Rural Preservation Parcel "shall still be eligible for rezoning" since at the time of its creation as a Rural Preservation Parcel within the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Areas Subdivision, the Rural Preservation Parcel was located within the Urban Development Area. In conclusion, this Application for rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County since the land is wholly within the Urban Development Area. This Planning Commission reconunended and the County Board of Supervisors adopted a future Land Use Map which reflects that the subject property should be rezoned to residential performance as permitted in the Urban Development Area and the Code of Frederick County. This remains true even though a portion of the property was subdivided in 2002 to a Rural Preservation Lot. Therefore, I request, on behalf of my clients, Glen and Pamela Russell, that you approve this Application. Sincerely, CW4 Kimberly M. Athey R HARRISON & JOHNSTON, PLC 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P.O. Box 809 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Telephone 540.667.1266 Facsimile 540.667.1312 March 30, 2006 Mrs. June Wilmot, Chair Frederick County Planning Commission 412 Westside Station Drive Winchester, VA 22601 !,.'AF, Q I Stephen L Pettler, Jr. Direct Fax 540.545.8582 pe ttler(;k harrison-johnston.com Mobile 540.664.5134 Re: Rezoning Analication #17-05 for Russell-Glendobbin; Adjoining property of Harley and Roxie Ostlund Dear Mrs. Wilmot: Please be advised that I represent Harley and Roxie Ostlund. They are the owners of lot 15 of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. This property adjoins the lots proposed to be re -zoned in the above referenced application which comes before the Planning Commission on April 5, 2006. In fact, 36.5387 acres of the land proposed for rezoning (over half) is the rural preservation lot created during the subdivision approval of the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision. There is an easement on my clients' property which is referenced in the Russell-Glendobbin proffer statement (dated March 10, 2006) and the impact analysis dated March 2006. The Ostlunds have sought my counsel regarding concerns they have about the easement and the deed of dedication relative to the rural preservation lot. The Ostlunds have asked me to report my findings to you and the other members of the planning commission (who I have copied with this letter). My findings are as follows. When the Glendobbin Ridge subdivision was created, as deed of dedication with restrictions was granted in favor of the property owners in the subdivision. This was recorded on January 9, 2003 in the Clerk's office for Frederick County. The deed of dedication incorporates the subdivision plat which creates the lots in the subdivision. On the plat, there is set forth an easement titled "50' PRIVATE ACCESS EASEMENT" from the cul de sac at the end of Union View Lane, 25 feet of which runs across my clients lot (lot 15) and 25 feet which runs on lot 16. There is no reservation of the noted easement by the declarant of the subdivision recited in the deed of dedication. However, there is a note on the plat, which reads as follows: The proposed private driveway/road is not built according to street specifications of and will not be maintained by, the Virginia Department ofTransportation or Frederick County. The improvement and maintenance of said driveway/road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway/road. Said driveway/roads will not be considered for inclusion into the state secondary system until they meet the applicable construction standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway/road to acceptable standards shall not be borne by the Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County. • • Letter to Frederick County Planning Commission, March 30, 2006 Page 2 The plat also sets forth the following note on the 36.5387 acre lot which is the subject of rezoning: 40 % RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED PER SECTION 165- 54D ZONING ORDINANCE) A copy of the page showing these notes is attached with this letter. The Russell's proffer statement, at paragraph 11.3, sets forth their proffer to create a "private gated connection between the internal road network for the project and Union View Lane for emergency access. Said connection shall be extended from the Property across the existing 50-foot access easement within the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision to the current terminus of Union View Lane." This is the easement shown to be on the Ostlund's property (in part). Given these facts, I have advised the Ostlunds regarding their rights relative to the easement on their property and the deed of dedication as follows: 1. The deed of dedication does not appear to grant the 50' access easement in favor of the "Reserve Lot." As this is not expressed in the deed of dedication, Virginia law requires one to look to the plat. The note on the plat expressly states that the easement was not granted to VDOT as the public roads in the subdivision were. Instead the note states that the "improvement and maintenance of said driveway/road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lots which are provided with access via the driveway/road." The "owners of lots which are provided access" are arguably the owners of lots 16 and 15 as the Reserve Lot was created to be set aside for the benefit of the subdivision as a whole. Thus, there is an issue as to whether or not the "Reserve Lot" in the rezoning application has a right to use the easement on lots 15 and 16. 2. As a matter of law in Virginia, "no use may be made of the easement which is different from that established at the time of its creation and which imposes an additional burden upon the servient estate." Haves v. Aauia Marina Inc., 243 Va. 255, 414 S.E.2d 820 (1992), citing Cushman Corporation v Barnes, 204 Va. at 253, 129 S.E.2d at 639-40 (1963). Under the instant facts, if it is assumed that the 50' access easement is granted in favor of the Reserve Lot, the joinder of that lot with an additional 30 acres and the subdivision of the resulting parcel into 60 lots creates an enormous additional burden on the Ostlund's lot 15. At the time the easement was granted, it was granted in favor of a rural preservation lot. Now it is proposed to serve as an access to a 60 home subdivision (although rim access). The result of such a change of use is that the easement is therefore extinguadmittedly not a ished h d as set forth in the Cushman opinion. See also, Ellis v. Simmons, 270 Va. 371, 619 S.E.2d 88 (2005). 3. The note on the plat pertaining to the fact that the Reserve Lot cannot be further subdivided arguably prohibits the owner of the lot from doing so. The deed of dedication expressly Letter to Frederick County Planning Commission, March 30, 2006 Page 3 allow the owners of lots in Glendobbin Ridge to enforce its terms. The deed of dedication contains conflicting restrictions regarding subdivision of the Reserve Lot. It is exempted from a general restriction imposed on all other lots in the subdivision (paragraph 16), but imposes a restriction in the plat. Virginia Code § 15.2-2265 provides that the recordation of a valid plat conveys the rights set forth therein to the locality designated. This is regardless of there being a deed of dedication or statement in a deed of dedication specifying the rights. See, Burns v. Board of Supervisors, Stafford Counly, 226 Va. 506, 312 S.E.2d 731 (1984). Thus the Russells are deemed to have granted the right to enforce the "no further subdivision" restriction set forth in the subdivision plat to the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County as a matter of law. 4. The Ostlunds have a cause of action against the Russells to stop them from subdividing the Reserve Lot as the plat of the subdivision which they relied upon when they purchased their property in 2004 expressly states that the Reserve Lot will not be subdivided. Thus, under principles of equity, the Russells should be estopped from now subdividing land which the public record appears to restrict. Any ambiguity created in the deed of dedication and plat drafted by the Russells is their doing and it would be unjust to allow the Russells to benefit from this to the detriment of the innocent purchasers of the lots in the Glendobbin Ridge Subdivision. The Ostlunds understand that with the exception of the rights granted to the County as set forth in item No. 3, the issues set fort are theirs to pursue against the Russells. However, they ask that you give consideration to these matters in weighing the decision to approve the rezoning request. Hopefully your decision will obviate their need to take independent action. Thank you for your courtesy and attention to the Ostlund's concerns. Should you or any member of the Planning Commission have any questions in any regard, please do not hesitate to contact me. With best regards, I am Ve trul y Ste h n L. Pettier, Jr. SLP/jdw Enclosure Cc: All Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission Susan Eddy, Frederick County Planning (By hand delivery) Mr & Mrs. Ostlund C n Tr 43_ I MORRIS A-2/ ^' S_-3`8.. w�19 UL r 1 o UO DA C 00 M A LT �� M. FURSTENAU �z NO. 1455 m I o q o o m m ry fV in Z lot 73 43-9-73 RA VACANT 3 67.41'17" E The proposed private drkw ey/road Is not built according to street specifications of and vAN not be maintained by. the Virginia Department of Ttu»poration or Frederick County. The Improve- ment and malydwiarx a of said driveway/road shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of lob W-Ach are provided with access via the driveway/road. Said driveway/roads will not be - considered for inckition into the slate secondary system until they ,.most the applicable construction standards of ilia Virginia Department of Transportation. The cost of bringing said driveway/read to acx eph"s standards shell not be borne by ilia Virginia Department of Transportation nor by Frederick County. FINAL PLRT RURAL PRESERVATION SUBDIVISION GLENDOBBIN RIDGE STONEWALL DISTRICT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SPRING VALLEY SECTION 4 ALL LOTS IN THE NAME OF MA SHALL MILLS INC. lot 72 RA ; lot 71 RA lot 70 RA ' 43-9-72 VACANT 43-9-71 VACA0 VACANT ; d _N 68001 ' 07"W 1519.94' _ _ 43-9-70 / 00 z OD U 50' BRL (D 4) Q •-- 0 In 1 40 % RESERVE LOT 36.5387 AC. (CANNOT BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED PER SECTION 165-54D OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE) O BRAIN \� c' FIELD ; % 2dcr Well90site 3, LV 50' BRL 44L2' MCKOWN 43-A-15 RA VACANT I I J m O <tiF- (D z ti Q too) U moMj t z LLI (D a Ln LO Q O(D �> �� MQ 00 0 �ct z S 68009'59"E 1220 0' i I I LOT 16 1 �7 LOT IS Is I _ rev 10/10.'02 F[JRSTENAU SURVEYING • (540) 662-9323 111 SOUTH LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 t— z d U d DATE: SEPT. 16, 2002 SCALE: I" = 250' HARRISON & JOHNSTON, PLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 809 WINCHESTER, VIRQINIA 22604 Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Department of Planning 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 ii:UJIii!teiii;r:I, E Or I' irya 1 *i • March 30, 2006 APR 9 Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner The Department of Planning & Development 107 N. Kent St., 2"d Floor, Winchester, VA 22601 Ms. Eddy, My name is J.P. Darlington and I am writing to you to formally express my concerns over the proffered rezoning application, # 17-05 of Russell- Glendobbin. I own land adjoining two sides of the Russell property in question. I have three hundred acres which consists of 51 5- acre lots and a 45- acre parcel on which I live. All of this land is part of Spring Valley Estates. My land extends from Rt. 37 to large lots along Glendobbin Rd. I have a number of concerns and objections to this request for rezoning. First, the requested land use is inconsistent with the surrounding area. The proposal for less than 1/2-acre lots would be adjacent to land owned by me and the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision, created in 2002, which contains two- to five -acre lots and a large set -aside parcel which together meet the RA zoning of the area specifying an average density of one home per five acres. Most subdivisions along Glendobbin Road, inside of the UDA, contain lots of five acres or even greater. Most other parcels in the immediate vicinity are zoned RA and contain either five -acre home sites or large orchards. Second, the Preservation Parcel, the 40% set -aside parcel with 36.54 acres (Parcel 43-A-16) established in 2002, should remain "preserved". Families in the adjacent Glendobbin Ridge subdivision recently purchased their lots with the expectation that the set -aside parcel would remain that way. Also, it seems clear that the UDA line in this area of the Stonewall District seems to follow no natural boundaries nor follow any zoning logic. It is my opinion that even though the current UDA would double the value of my property I feel that the UDA is inappropriate for this area and should be lifted. s � e • Third, high density communities do not exist in this area, what is being proposed will reshape this entire community and pave the way for more of this type of development. Fourth, in the rezoning request, this requested high -density subdivision adjoins the industrial park so there is real concern about the likelihood of running a street into the industrial park which would result in a mix of residential and industrial traffic through the industrial park as well as through residential areas for cut over access to Glendobbin, Apple Pie Ridge, and Rt. 522. Fifth, VDOT estimates a traffic increase of an additional 1300 trips daily on Glendobbin Rd., Payne Rd., Welltown Pike, and Apple Pie Ridge. These additional trips are on top of the already existing traffic and a lot of this additional traffic would happen during the worst times when the road system out here is already flooded with the surge when school lets out and work shifts change. As it is the access to this area off of Welltown Pike to the east and Apple Pie Ridge to the west is backed up in the mornings and afternoons. In closing I urge you to deny this request for rezoning because the proposed high -density subdivision is not compatible with the surrounding area and would create serious traffic issues. Sincerely, . e.D a 4rl i g 6on 9 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 February 16, 2006 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of Russell-Glendobbin Property (#17-05) Dear Patrick: M FIE COPY The Frederick County Planning Commission, at their meeting on February 15, 2006, granted a postponement of the Russell-Glendobbin Rezoning Application #17-05 as per your written request. The application is now scheduled to be heard at a Planning Commission Public Hearing on April 5, 2006. If you have any question regarding this action, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, nX. Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Russell-Glendobbin Subject: Russ ell-Glendobbin Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:21:32 -0500 From: "Diane Kearns" <didi@shentel.net> To: <seddy@co.frederick.va.us> Hey Susan Just formally noting Fruit Hill's opposition to this rezoning: RP next to orchard with no setback, (shouldn't be an option), doesn't fit in with neighboring property, technically able but shouldn't be requesting rezoning on set aside so soon. All the things we spoke of last night Thanks.... since everyone seemed to think it would go absolutely no where I didn't bother Gary with it. Diane 1 of 1 2/14/2006 3:38 PM Glendobbin Postponement Subject: Glendobbin Postponement Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:44:09 -0500 From: "Patrick R. Sowers" <Patrick.Sowers@@a.com> Organization: PHR+A To: "'Mike Ruddy"' <Mruddy@co.frederick.va.us> Mike, I left you a voicemail but I wanted to send you an e-mail as well to verify the postponement request for the Russell-Glendobbin application. We would like to postpone the public hearing for 60 days in order to revise the application appropriately. Thanks, Patrick Patrick R. Sowers Planner Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 www.phra.com 1 of 1 2/15/2006 9:50 AM Patton Harr i�l�ftust & Associates,pc En(pii, ­ Sure-w, f, Non-,, l,irid ,(iF­ Ai, I it. I-. i FF9 1 4 February 14, 2006 Mr. Michael Ruddy Deputy Director of Planning Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Russell -Glen dobbin Public Hearing Postponement Request P1 Dear Mr. Ruddy, H\ This correspondence is to serve as formal notice that our client wishes to postpone the public hearing scheduled for the February 15, 2006 Planning Commission meeting for the CORPORATE. Russell-Glendobbin rezoning application. Progress is currently being made on both a revised proffer statement and generalized development plan. As such, the application in its current state does not reflect the current development scheme of the property. We VIRGINIA OFFICES nt respectfully request a postponement of the application until such time that the project GDP and proffers can be revised. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, PATTON HARRIS RUST ASSOCIATES LABORATORIES: J _ L hanly Z, - Patrick R. Sowers, Planner MARYLAND OFFICES I'tll'I'fl'I Fit, (tl'Ili_h Gr_'r fT cm town Hllnt VI11IE'y WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE'. r�<11 II r:�'�,tii lli� T S 4 0 66/ 21'r F 540 665 0493 7 Fast PI, r aiillly "tn •- t Wier J, ,I,•I VA Russell-Glendobbin Subject: Russ ell-Glendobbin Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 09:07:54 -0500 From: "Patrick R. Sowers" <Patrick.Sowers@phra.corn> Organization: PHR+A To: "'Eric Lawrence"' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us>, "'Susan Eddy"' <Seddy@co.frederick.va.us> CC: "'Chuck Maddox"' <cmaddox@shentel.net> Eric, After discussions with our client, we would like to further delay the Russell-Glendobbin planning commission meeting date. We would like to place the application on the February 15 PC meeting agenda. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Patrick Patrick R. Sowers Planner Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 IF 540.665.0493 www.phra.com 1 of 1 1/9/2006 9:57 AM Russell Glendobbin PC Meeting Date 0 0 Subject: Russell Glendobbin PC Meeting Date Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 15:00:16 -0500 From: "Patrick R. Sowers" <Patrick.Sowers@phra.com> Organization: PHR+A To: "'Susan Eddy"' <Seddy@co.frederick.va.us>, "'Eric Lawrence"' <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> CC: "'Chuck Maddox"' <cmaddox@shentel.net> Susan and Eric, This correspondence is to serve as formal notice that our client wishes to postpone advertisement of the Russell Glendobbin rezoning application. We would like to place the application on the agenda for the first Planning Commission meeting in February. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Thanks, Patrick Patrick R. Sowers Planner Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 www.phra.com 1 of 1 12/22/2005 4:58 PM COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING July 12, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RC: REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 FOR RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, July 26, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 417-05 (Russell-Glendobbin Project), a proposed conditional rezoning of property of Glen W. and Pamela L. Russell, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC, to rezone 31.1851 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, with proposed proffers on the property sought to be rezoned, including a proffer to limit the number of dwellings to 30 on the property, and proposed proffers on adjoining property owned by Applicants. The property sought to be rezoned is identified by Property Identification Number (PIN) 43-A-15B. The additional properties to be subject to proffers, but not to be rezoned, are (i) PIN 43-19-57, a 6.89 acre parcel zoned M1 (Light Industrial) District, and (ii) PIN 43-A-16, a 36.54 acre Preservation Tract zoned RA. Parcels 43-A-I5B and 43-A-16 are located south and adjacent to Glendobbin Road (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Parcel 43-19-57 is located at the northern terminus of Kentmere Court, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. A copy of the Proffer Statement is on file in the Department of Planning and Development. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Sheet in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely.. /X-. 4t Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 to 0 This is to certify hat he attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, FrArick County, Virginia: Glen & Pamela Russell 270 Panarama Dr. Winchester, VA 22603 �� Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Attn: Charles Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 n Winchester, VA 22601 BHS, LC PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Betty McKown 223 Payne Rd. Clearbrook, VA 22624 Lenoir City Co. PO Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Harley & Roxanne Ostlund 328 Union View Ln. Winchester, VA 22603 43 -20- - 16- HARBOURNE, KEVIN S HARBOURNE, ARLENA K 329 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER,VA 22603 43 -20- - 13- WALKER, DANIEL L , WALKER, KAREN P 12516 CLIFF EDGE DR HERNDON,VA 20170 Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTV OF FREDERICK I, k6,U, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforcWhid, do hereby certi that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner for the Depar men of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated e9 (y has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the sam in my State and County aforesaid. /1) Given under my hand this ;Q-:4z day of My commission expires on ARY PUBLIC oV154 Ralph & Theresa Kaiser 6029 Sumner Rd. Alexandria, VA 22310 Rosanna Mateo 13554 Shardlow Ct. Bristow, VA 20136 KSS, LC PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Trustees of James Darlington Trust 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Cheryl Morris PO Box 2802 Winchester, VA 22604 Shenwin, LLC PO Box 2555 Staunton, VA 24404 Glendobbin Ridge, LLC 270 Panorama Dr. Winchester,VA 22603 Rajdeep S. & Connie M. Parmar 247 Union View Lane Winchester, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 John and Monica S. King 309 Union View Ln. Winchester, VA 22603 Jaen and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 51610 (Tien �: Pamela Russell 270 N`harariia Dr. Winchester, VA 22603 Glen & Pamela Russell 270 Panarama Dr. Vnchester, VA 22603 Glen & Pamela Rus,.ell 270 Panarama Dr. Winchester, VA 22603 Glen & Pamela Russell 270 Panarama Dr. Winchester, VA 22603 Glen & Pamela Russell 270 PanaramaL - OLzz VA'NVI10W % 31S HO OHOSSN33H9 IM WinchestgjlNiihu WM lv HlIWS'8 H3111W V-Z6 - .-V--" £5 Glen & Pai�jt mell VA'NV310W 270 Panarama 11E 31S HO OH08SN333 LON Winchest©I1IMH "'W�A .LV H1.IWS 19 H3111W V-Z6 - -V - E5 vvvvvv.avery.com 1-800-GO-ANIEPIO Glen & Pamela Russell 270 Panarama Dr. Winchester, VA 22603 Glen & Pamela Ru-,sell 270 Panarama Dr. Winchester. -VA 22603 Glen & Pamela Russell ✓ 270 Panarama Dr. Winchester, VA 22603 Glen & Pamela Russell 270 Panarama Dr. Winchester, VA 22603 Glen & Pamela Russell 270 PanarAM-YYZ t/A'NV3101N vdinches%,J=vIV HlIWS Is 311 W V-Z6 - -V - £9 Glen & Pamela Russell 270 Panai-Ni` zz t/A'NV310W Winches�� ; nhr�Nt lNVIV H1.IWS 12 U311IW V-Z6 - -V - £5 @Ms @AUSAV 9 AIMAV-09-008-L uaorAaane•n AAAA ®L9L5;l.aege6 al zesill4n apldea a6eq:)es a 49 96ea.mogl}ue uolssaiduil t � s paw; s f � t t 3 x tf a -f 1 I tl � t t t. f A ' k k d t Y f iLZ 01 ,S € 9 t p $ s r'd ✓A^:3 R J Y r p' Jam and Smudge Free Printing Use Avery@ TEMPLATE 5161@ 177 M www.avery.corn 1-300-GO-AV P JO xK�1'1Es,III D01rig 0 51rVi0 1✓ G & 'vl Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 G & -TM Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Ct rporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 G & M Iomes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly,'VIA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three; LI,C 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 ®L9Ls @AU3AV 9 Aa3AV-09-008-L WOE-AA9Ae-MAAM @L9LS I!Aege6 ai zesillin apide.r 96epas a 19 a6eajnogijue uoisseAdwi 3 i 1 , t e° � � lrt�1 a�trrr� _f e i h � S T } f i f♦ t f Moca J �inc�eS-�er� v ,Z7-c03 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING May 31, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 FOR RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public bearing being held on Wednesday, June 14, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 417-05 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-15B. Any interested parties having questions or wisliing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 0 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on S� �w from the Department of Planning and Development,' Frederick County, Virginia: Glen & Pamela Russell 270 Panarama Dr. Winchester, VA 22603 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Attn: Charles Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 BHS, LC PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Betty McKown 223 Payne Rd. Clearbrook, VA 22624 Lenoir City Co. PO Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Mai -shall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 I_uu1V 1 y UV 1+KL11L1K11. Harley & Roxanne Ostlund 328 Union View Ln. Winchester, VA 22603 43 -20- - 16- HARBOURNE, KEVIN S HARBOURNE, ARLENA K QV\. 329 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER,VA 22603 43 -20- - 13- WALKER, DANIEL L WALKER, KAREN P 12516 CLIFF EDGE DR HERNDON,VA 20170 Ralph & Theresa Kaiser 6029 Sumner Rd. Alexandria, VA 22310 Susan K. Eddy, Senior PlaimieV- Frederick County Planning Dept. J I, &y'Q')M t:) auw� ' , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner for the Department of Plamling and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 5 p (9 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in i y State and County aforesaid. Given tinder my hand this , 1 day of 0 0 M commission expires on 1-CZ/M&U' y r �. NOTARY PUBLIC I0 Vf` Rosanna Mateo 13554 Shardlow Ct. Bristow, VA 20136 KSS, LC PO Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Trustees of James Darlington Trust 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Cheryl Morris PO Box 2802 Winchester, VA 22604 Shenwin, LLC PO Box 2555 Staunton, VA 24404 43 -20- - 9- GLENDOBBIN RIDGE, LLC 270 PANORAMA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 -20- - 7- PARMAR, RAJDEEP S PARMAR, CONNIE M 247 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 L1 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING DATE CORRECTION June 7, 2006 TO: TIIE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 FOR RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, June 28, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #17-05 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-15B. This application will not be considered on Wednesday, June 14, 2006. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 4 This is to certify, t at the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: Hai -ley & Roxanne Ostlund Glen &Pamela Russell 328 Union View Lane 270 Panorama Drive � � Y'� Winchester, VA 22603 Winchester, VA 22603 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Kevin S. & Arlena K. Harbourne Attn: Charles Maddox 329 Union View Lane 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 �� V\ Winchester, VA 22603 Winchester, VA 22601 BHS, LC Daniel L. & Karen P. Walker 12516 Cliff Edge Drive P.O. Box 2368 Herndon, VA 20170 Winchester, VA 22604 Betty McKown Ralph & Theresa Kaiser 223 Payne Road 6029 Sumner Road Clearbrook, VA 22624 Alexandria, VA 22310 Lenoir City Co. P.O. Box 1657 Winchester, VA 22604 Marshall Mills, Inc. 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 _zLJ3_NL) T. eAAA I Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDEFJCK I, a Notary Public in and for the State and County afor aid, do hereby ce y that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner for the Dep�rtn ent of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated o , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the sai e _iA my State and County nFore-,nid- Given under my hand this My commission expires of c i /C—e Rosanna Mateo 13554 Shardlow Court Bristow, VA 20136 KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 Trustees of James Darlington Trust 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 Cheryl Morris P.O. Box 2802 Winchester, VA 22604 Shenwin, LLC P.O. Box 2555 Staunton, VA 24404 Glendobbin Ridge, LLC 270 Panorama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 Rajdeep S. & Commie M. Parmar 247 Union View Lane Winchester, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 John and Monica S. King 309 Union View Ln. Winchester, VA 22603 Mcssagc 0 0 Pagc 1 of 1 Diane Walsh From: Eric Lawrence [elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 5:05 PM To: Susan Eddy, Diane Walsh, 'Bev Dellinger'; Renee' S. Arlotta Subject: Russell-Glendobbin rez The Board has accepted the appliants request to postpone the public hearing from June 14th until June 28th. Since we had already sent out the adjoiners, we need to send out a correction note that sinply states the meeting date is the 28th.... J-h W V' 6/2/2006 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING May 3, 2006 TO: TIIE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 FOR RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #17-05 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-15B. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, _S:Lx1b-fV-D T. &QA� Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify, t mt the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on 0 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frecferick County, Virginia: 43 •20• • 15- 43 . A• - 15-B OSTLUND, HARLEY E & ROXANNE L RUSSELL, GLEN W & PAMELA C 270 PANARAMA DR �(�,j: �% 328 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603.2763 0i-U I' " WINCHESTER, VA 22603 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Attn: Charles Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 43 - A• - 13- BHS, LC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER, VA 43 - A- - 15- MCKOWN, BETTY G. 223 PAYNE RD CLEARBROOK, VA. 43 -19- - 2- LENOIR CITY COMPANY PO BOX 1657 WINCHESTER, VA 43 -9- 4. 73- MARSHALL MILLS, INC. 1543 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.1568 43 -20- - 16- HARBOURNE, KEVIN S HARBOURNE, ARLENA K 329 UNION VIEW LN p,-WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 -20- - 13- WALKER, DANIEL L WALKER, KAREN P 12516 CLIFF EDGE DR HERNDON,VA 20170 43 -20- - 4- KAISER, RALPH A & THERESA K 6029 SUMNER RD ALEXANDRIA, VA 22310.1844 22624-1774 43 -20- - 3- MATED, ROSANNA M 13554 SHARDLOW CT BRISTOW, VA 20136 22604.8157 A -,0 A b&-)X. &d 22602.4320 Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, a Notary Public in and for the State and County afore id, do hereby certif that Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner for the Department o Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated (� C , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this �� day of My commission expires on 0 V 651�_ 43 -12.3- 18- • KSS, LC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.1568 43 - A- - 19- TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES PEYTON DARLINGTON TRUST 1543 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4328 43 -A- - 21- MORRIS, CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.2002 43 -19- - 60- SHENWIN, LLC PO BOX 2555 STAUNTON,VA 24404 43 -20- - 9- GLENDOBBIN RIDGE, LLC 270 PANORAMA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 -20- - 7- PARMAR, RAJDEEP S PARMAR, CONNIE M 247 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER,VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 v' • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING April 12, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 FOR RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #17-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, 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 (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 43-A-15B and 43-A-16. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, IV. Ad'� Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • This is to cert' th t the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on b� from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43 -20• 15- 43 - A- - 15-B RUSSELL, GLEN W & PAMELA C 270 PANARAMA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22603.2763 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Attn: Charles Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 43 - A- - 13- BHS, LC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER, VA 43 - A- - 15- MCKOWN, BETTY G. 223 PAYNE RD CLEARBROOK, VA. 43 -19- - 2- LENOIR CITY COMPANY PO BOX 1657 WINCHESTER, VA 43 -9- 4. 73- MARSHALL MILLS, INC. 1543 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.1568 22624.1774 22604.8157 22602.4328 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK OSTLUND, HARLEY E & ROXANNE L 328 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 -20- - 16- HARBOURNE, KEVIN S HARBOURNE, ARLENA K 329 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 -20- - 13- WALKER, DANIEL L WALKER, KAREN P 12516 CLIFF EDGE DR HERNDON, VA 20170 43 -20- - 4- KAISER, RALPH A & THERESA K 6029 SUMNER RD ALEXANDRIA, VA 22310.1844 43 -20- - 3- MATEO, ROSANNA M 13554 SHARDLOW CT BRISTOW, VA 20136 (�L A. a A wx A&j Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. 1, a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do heigby certify that Susan V. Eddy, Senior Planner for the parts ent of Planing and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State an County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of alp My commission expires on 3l Ada /...1 / EV /� _ / 0 V6e 43 -12.3• 18- � • "�' KSS, LC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.1568 43 - A- - 19- TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES PEYTON DARLINGTON TRUST 1543 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4328 43 - A- - 21- MORRIS, CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.2002 43 -19- - 60- SHENWIN, LLC PO BOX 2555 STAUNTON,VA 24404 43 -20- - 9- GLENDOBBIN RIDGE, LLC 270 PANORAMA DR WINCHESTER,VA 22603 43 -20- - 7- PARMAR, RAJDEEP S PARMAR, CONNIE M 247 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 v" 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING March 22, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 FOR RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 5, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #17-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, 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 (Route 673), approximately 3,250 feet west of the intersection of Glendobbin Road and Payne Road (Route 663), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 43-A-15B and 43-A-16. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on (� from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43 -20- - 15- 43 - A- - 15-B OSTLUND, HARLEY E & ROXANNE L RUSSELL, GLEN W & PAMELA C 270 PANARAMA DR 328 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603.2763 WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 -20- - 16- Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC HARBOURNE, KEVIN SHARBOURNE, ARLENA K Attn: Charles Maddox 329 UNION VIEW LN 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 WINCHESTER, VA 22603 Winchester, VA 22601 43 -20- - 13- 43 - A- - 13- WALKER, DANIEL L BHS, LC WALKER, KAREN P 12516 CLIFF EDGE DR PO BOX 2368 HERNDON, VA 20170 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1560 43 -20• - 4- 43 • A• - 15• KAISER, RALPH A & THERESA K MCKOWN, BETTY G. 6029 SUMNER RD 223 PAYNE RD ALEXANDRIA, VA 22310.1844 CLEARBROOK, VA. 22624.1774 43 -20• - 3- MATEO, ROSANNA M 43 •19• - 2- LENOIR CITY COMPANY 13554 SHARDLOW CT PO BOX 1657 BRISTOW, VA 20136 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.8157 43 -9• 4- 73- MARSHALL MILLS, INC. 1543 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4328 -dU Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, „ a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do reby certify that SusW K. Eddy, Senor Planner for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 3 a-k� , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this X)- j d day of 1KZW Z c, My commission expires on C-�w NOTARY P LIC 43 -12. 3. 18- KSS, LC , PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.1568 43 - A- - 19- TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES PEYTON DARLINGTON TRUST 1543 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4328 43 -A- - 21- MORRIS, CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.2002 43 -19- - 60- SHENWIN, LLC PO BOX 2555 STAUNTON,VA 24404 43 -20- - 9- GLENDOBBIN RIDGE, LLC 270 PANORAMA DR WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 -20- - 7- PARMAR, RAJDEEP S PARMAR, CONNIE M 247 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 f COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING February 1, 2006 TO: TIIE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #17-05 FOR RUSSELL-GLENDOBBIN On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 07-05 of Russell-Glendobbin, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, PC to rezone 67.73 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance District) for 130 single family homes, and to request a waiver of the preservation lot restrictions established with the Glendobbin Ridge Rural Preservation Subdivision. 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), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 43-A-15B and 43-A-16. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, J4-t'�� Susan K. Eddy Senior Planner SKE/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 K This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on a_) b h6 —from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 43 20 15 43 - A- - 15-B OSTLUND, HARLEY E & ROXANNE L RUSSELL, GLEN W & PAMELA C DWO U- 270 PANARAMA DR 328 UNION VIEW LN WINCHESTER, VA 22603.2763 WINCHESTER,VA 22603 43 -20- - 16- Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC HARBOURNE, KEVIN S Attn: Charles Maddox HARBOURNE, ARLENA K 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 329 UNION VIEW LN Winchester, VA 22601 F �� Q L\ WINCHESTER, VA 22603 43 - A- - 13- 43 -20- - 13- BHS, LC WALKER, DANIEL L WALKER, KAREN P PO BOX 2368 12516 CLIFF EDGE OR WINCHESTER,VA 22604.1568 HERNDON,VA 20170 43 -20- - 4- 43 - A- - 15- KAISER, RALPH A & THERESA K MCKOWN, BETTY G. 6029 SUMNER RD 223 PAYNE RD ALEXANDRIA, VA 22310.1844 CLEARBROOK,VA. 22624.1774 43 -20- - 3- 43 -19- - 2- MATED, ROSANNA M LENOIR CITY COMPANY 13554 SHARDLOW CT PO BOX 1657 BRISTOW, VA 20136 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.8157 43 -9- 4- 73- MARSHALL MILLS, INC. r 1543 MILLWOOD PIKE C WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.4328 Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner Frederick County Planning Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do ereby certify that S n K. Eddy, Senor Planner for the D71- partment of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this 1,/fi� day of &-Ae4dA-j�p My commission expires on D V t-//Cl 43 -12.3- 18- • • KSS, LC PO BOX 2368 WINCHESTER, VA. 22604.1568 43 - A- - 19- TRUSTEES OF THE JAMES PEYTON DARLINGTON TRUST 1543 MILLWOOD PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.4328 43 - A- - 21- MORRIS, CHERYL GRIMM PO BOX 2802 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.2002 43 -19- - 60- SHENWIN,LLC PO BOX 2555 STAUNTON,VA 24404 G & M Homes Number Three, LLC 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Ste. 205 Chantilly, VA 22603 *TO: BARBARA - DATA PROCESSING (�- FROM:BEV �Pi nin Please print 9 Dept. a sets of labels by TH, hWS! ADJOINERS RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2"d floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Address Property 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=�1--1-, Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Betty G. McKown 223 Payne Road Property #: 43-A-15 ✓ Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Lenoir City Company (M1) 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: MarshallMills, 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 A P&- gs 5 Name and Address Property Identification Number (PIlI�) 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 lZ 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. & The sa K. Kaiser 6029 Sumner Road Property #: 43-20-4 Alexandria, VA 22310 Name: Property #: 43-20-3 Mabee ��M CbaRti4y' ' Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property#: 43-12-3-18 Winchester, VA22604 Name: KSS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #: 43-12-3-1 Winchester, VA 22604 add: �t3- A- 19 6 K&z.. --Al-o s— P.710s BARBARA-DATA PROCESSING OM: BEV - Pi Dept. ni Please print sets of labels by THANKS! ADJOINERS RUSSELL - GLENDOBBIN Adjoining Property Owners Rezoning Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2"d floor of the Frederick County Administrative Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name and Address Property 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 #: Winchester, VA 22604 Name: BHS, LC P.O. Box 2368 Property #:'43-z4- Winchester, VA 22604 Name: Betty G. McKown 223 Payne Road Property #: 43-A-15 Clearbrook, VA 22624 Name: Lenoir City Company (Ml) 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,1nc. 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 A P1�-Es Name and Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property #: 43-9-4-67 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property #: 43-9-4-66 Name: Marshall Mills, Inc. Property #: 43-9-4-64 Name: Harley E. & Roxanne L. Ostlund Property #: 43-20-15 Name: Glen W. & Pamela L. Russell Property #: 43-20-16 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC Property #: 43-20-13 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC Property #: 43-20-10 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC Property #: 43-20-9 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC Property #: 43-20-7 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC Property #: 43-20-6 Name: G & M Homes Number Three, LLC Property #: 43-20-5 Name: Ralph A. & Theresa K. Kaiser Property #: 43-20-4 Name: o &-M 149mes'`d�, + -' r r r• Property#: 43-20-3 t,la� o��M Name: KSS, LC Property #: 43-12-3-18 Name: KSS, LC Property #: 43-12-3-1 GD 57 Address 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 1543 Millwood Pike Winchester, VA 22602 1950 Kathy Court Winchester, VA 22601 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, VA 22603 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 4451 Brookfield Corporate Dr., Suite 205 Chantilly, VA 20151 6029 Sumner Road Alexandria, VA 22310 P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 P.O. Box 2368 Winchester, VA 22604 ;�E s 6 O:BARBARA-DATA PROCESSING ` ROM:BEV - Planning Dept. i lease tint _ sets of labels by /-7 s THANKS! t C Q I - We- jwec� a -fie a n e `F T- -1�uSS-P—II- G(ercko (o14► \. SOme- AeuD D AAA / 3 0 �- z l6 .43 Zo 13 � 3 2 0 -7 Sinn 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 3 4�DATA PROCESSING FROM:BEV - Planning Dept. Please print �� sets of labels by 3 �c THANKS! A3 Z0 13 --/ 43 2n q � 43 Z0 � 04 � It' Rob,. AW, fit Y V,4 - la t _qk gs'�Aa i AM 03-29-2006 P A W" 'T I . P , Ali VA PC wi eel, W4 t. 03-29-2006 00 %A NF AIW d A- 03-29-2006 .: - . ,,;kd•.:�.'-:cam my - ) ` � •T _ � i _ -.. . ice• .^ �� - Jn i .. ` t .. _ ' • .'/�,• ♦ ' ^ •' ems, _03-29-2006 F, r • {S 9 i rp w 'y` �•; 3`+fit `. �:�{�} . 00. 20. 2006 36 •b Ap wn + N9. ' .gip' • r =+t` ,r i� ' l �' �!�� �' ' 4 �..> ate:✓y',�'-" .'e - ,,cc ' .. O y. r 03• 29• 2006 A Tar f III 03-29-2006 1. � Val.. od NIL !9— A� A 14 03-29-2006 1 f , - WI Al -iA A Z 'Al 03-29-2006 oil �; } roAM z � 411'- Ile IN 03-29-20 s I '61 9 177 7 ",PwTi� f 03-29-2006 it• • �, , �. (, • � .; � � �S i :try.pi '�� + �• l `it' 1 ' � •'1� I t I J¢. a its v pop IS fill call `� • •t"icy' r. �e.t ` y i+ l j !rw 11 •{� { I >,c w t. Ms Ci [■[■ /�• d � I• � � ..1 i• awn j / I,i � . + t �; r - -� 7 - i r f 03-29-2006 k4l i r7) i YI a`. leg Mo 1 ,i� ~� r.3� •s. iim OF ",-zilwilz -JAmok 7 '' 0 r, t d i; it. . i Ii•»'ts f. 02.07.2006 � 4 • . >! .elf^ . � 1� , 111 INOm dl Board'11, Fre1' Count, 11 / p i; s•.. �: . 1 � � �, - - � F ;3 a,- •� /fir s.. � . 'K t��✓ '�. �.�4 f i4'•. � t � �., � � �'.. ` +/`�rJk' `� .�� 5-���• yam. 1 ,: _ 1 {•, - r � t AV 7 06 m %fall 02-07. .2 006 ( LA S_<.*- � I' C'(_�,Y ��r i 0 Document Approval Form PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TMIE OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. E TTIALS DATE & TEWE Candice Bernie Mark Susan Eric Mike Kevin John COMMENTS:_ CO i\,\ o (e-4 e� Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): 1 )My S I 0 Sy