HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-23 Comments
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Staunton/Edinburg Land Development
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
Mr. Cheran,
This office has completed our review of the Dover Hill Crossing II rezoning application from Ken
Dondero. This application is proposing to rezone Tax Map Parcel 65-A-16 from Rural Area (RA) to Rural
Performance (RP). The parcel consists of 4.75 acres +/-. We offer the following items for the County’s
consideration of this rezoning:
• Transportation proffer 8.2 advises the applicant proffers to reserve a 105’ right-of-way for
future dedication at no cost to the County for a period of 25 years beginning the date of
rezoning approval. A sunset clause does not seem appropriate so long as this roadway is shown
on the County’s comprehensive plan. Removal of the sunset clause and providing the right-of-
way dedication and any necessary easements with this rezoning may be more appropriate.
• The rezoning advises the two-lane roadway from Senseny to the southern limits of the property
to serve the 25 units will initially be private but built to VDOT Standards. We recommend this
be a public street to ensure the roadway is properly constructed and maintained until such time
as the ultimate roadway section is completed.
• The rezoning should address any additional right-of-way needs for the ultimate typical section
for Senseny Road which is shown as an Urban Four Lane Divided Collector Roadway on the
Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.
• The proposed connection to Senseny Road is located at a signalized intersection, with three legs
of the intersection being active. Please note that the development will be responsible for
upgrading the signal to accommodate the fourth leg of the intersection at their cost. This is a
general advisory statement for awareness. Future signal design may result in modifications to
the intersection including a westbound left turn lane on Senseny Road.
• To ensure optimal phasing and operation of the existing traffic signal, a left turn lane exiting the
site may be required.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this rezoning request. If you have any
questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us.
Thank you,
Timothy Rhodes
Land Development Engineer/ Edinburg
Virginia Department of Transportation
540-534-3206
timothy.rhodes@VDOT.Virginia.gov
26
Rezoning Comments
Frederick Water
Mail to:
Frederick Water
Attn: Engineer
P.O. Box 1877
Winchester, Virginia 22604
(540) 868-1061
Hand deliver to:
Frederick Water
Attn: Engineer
315 Tasker Road
Stephens City, Virginia
Applicant's Name: _____________________________ Telephone: __________________
Mailing Address: _________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Location of property: _________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Current zoning: ___________ Zoning requested: ____________ Acreage: _______
Frederick Water Comments: _
Please refer to the letter dated April 24, 2023 to Ken Dondero from Eric Lawrence.
Frederick Water Signature & Date: ______________________________________________
Notice to Frederick Water - Please Return This Form to the Applicant
Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their
review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis,
and any other pertinent information.
April 24, 2023
315 Tasker Road PH (540) 868-1061 Eric R. Lawrence
Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Fax (540) 868-1429 Executive Director
www.FrederickWater.com
Water At Your Service
April 24, 2023
Ken Dondero
305 Senseny Road
Winchester, VA 22602
K305dondero@comcast.net
RE: Rezoning Application Comment
2216 Senseny Road – Dover Hill Crossing II
Tax Map Numbers: 65-A-16
4.75 acres
Dear Mr. Dondero:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments on the Dover Hill Crossing II
residential rezoning application package, dated April 18, 2023, and received at Frederick Water
on April 20, 2023. Frederick Water offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect
upon Frederick Water’s public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon.
The project parcel is located within the sewer and water service area (SWSA) and the Urban
Development Area (UDA), and therefore by county policy, Frederick Water’s water and sewer
services are available. The application’s Impact Statement is silent on the projected quantities
of water and sewer generation from the proposed land use.
Water service is available via an existing 8-inch water main located on the northside of Senseny
Road. An 8-inch gravity sanitary sewer service is also available on the northside of Senseny
Road. The applicant is responsible for confirming that adequate water and sewer capacities are
available to meet demands, and for constructing any improvements necessary to facilitate
utilization of the services.
Water and sanitary sewers are to be constructed in accordance with Frederick Water standards
and specifications. Easements will be required to accommodate infrastructure that is dedicated
to Frederick Water. Please be aware that Frederick Water is offering these review comments
Page 2
2216 Senseny Road – Dover Hill Crossing II residential rezoning application
Ken Dondero
April 24, 2023
without the benefit or knowledge of a proffered proposed use and water and sewer demands
for the site.
Please keep in mind that water supplies and sanitary sewer conveyance capacities change daily;
with each new customer connection brings additional demands and generated flows. Additional
upgrades to the sanitary sewer system may be necessary for the project to connect and
contribute to the system once the site’s sanitary sewer generations are known. This letter does
not guarantee system capacities to accommodate your development proposal.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer review comments.
Sincerely,
Eric R. Lawrence
Executive Director
Frederick County Public Schools
Development Assessment
Project Name:Dover Hill Crossing II
Assessment Date:
Housing Type Housing Units#
Elementary
School Student
Generation
Middle School
Student
Generation
High School
Student
Generation
Total Student
Generation
Single-Family Detached 0 0 0 0 0
Single-Family Attached 25 5 2 2 9
Multifamily 0 0 0 0 0
Mobile Home/Other 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 25 5 2 2 9
Elementary
School Cost
(JSES square
footage, 2024-
28 CIP per
square foot
costs)
Middle School
Cost
(Aylor square
footage, 2024-
28 CIP per
square foot
costs)
High School
Cost
(2024-28 CIP)
Total Capital
Costs
School Cost $36,600,000 $68,800,000 $137,400,000
Program Capacity 500 1,016 1,250
Per Student Cost $73,200 $67,717 $109,920
Students Generated by this Development 5 2 2
This Development's Impact on FCPS Capital Costs $366,000 $135,000 $220,000 $721,000
Average Capital Cost Per Unit $28,840
Student Generation
Capital Costs
May 3, 2023
FY 2021 Actual
Cost Per
Student
Total Student
Generation Annual Impact
This Development's Impact on FCPS Operational Costs $14,214 9 $128,000
Average Annual Operational Cost Per Unit $5,120
Elementary
School (Grades
K-5)
Middle School
(Grades 6-8)
High School
(Grades 9-12)
2022-23 School Attendance Zone*Evendale Admiral Byrd Millbrook
March 31, 2023 Student Enrollment 554 801 1,509
2022-23 Program Capacity 607 900 1,341
* - School Attendance Zones are subject to change.
# - Using applicant's assumptions regarding number of housing units.
Annual Operational Costs
School Facility Information
Planning Office Wayne Lee, Coordinator of Planning and Development
leew@fcpsk12.net
1415 Amherst Street https://www.frederickcountyschoolsva.net/ 540-662-3889 ext. 88249
P.O. Box 3508
Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546
May 9, 2023
Mr. Ken Dondero
305 Senseny Glen Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Re: Dover Hill Crossing II rezoning application
Dear Mr. Dondero:
Frederick County Public Schools has reviewed the Dover Hill Crossing II rezoning application submitted
to us on April 19, 2023. Our understanding is that this development proposal includes 25 single-family
attached units. We estimate that this development will house 9 students, including 5 elementary
students, 2 middle school students, and 2 high school students. The high school that will be serving this
development is currently over capacity. In order to properly serve these additional students, Frederick
County Public Schools would spend an estimated $128,000 more per year in operating costs (or $5,120
average per unit per year) and an estimated $721,000 in one-time capital expenditures (or $28,840
average per unit). You will find, enclosed with this letter, a more detailed assessment of the estimated
impact of Dover Hill Crossing II on FCPS, including attendance zone information.
Please feel free to contact me at leew@fcpsk12.net or 540-662-3888 x88249 if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
K. Wayne Lee, Jr., ALEP
Coordinator of Planning and Development
enclosure
cc: Dr. George Hummer, Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Osborne Abbey, Interim Assistant Superintendent for Administration
Mr. John Grubbs, Transportation Director
Mr. Calvin Davis, Assistant Director of Transportation
Mr. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, Frederick County Planning
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
540/722-8383
Fax 540/667-0370
E-mail rwillia@fcva.us
May 2, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Mr. Ken Dondero
305 Senseny Glen Drive
Winchester, VA 22602
Re: Rezoning Application – Dover Hills – Tax Map Parcel Number 65-A-16 (the
“Subject Property”)
Dear Mr. Dondero:
You have submitted to Frederick County for review a proffer statement (the “Proffer
Statement”), for the proposed rezoning of the Subject Property, comprised of 4.75± acres, in the
Redbud Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District to the RP (Residential
Performance) Zoning District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion
that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer
statement, subject to the following comments:
Record Owners/Signatures – Because we record proffer statements in the land records,
following approval, the Proffer Statement should show the full names of the owners and
in boldface type, with the last names underlined, to facilitate proper indexing of the
document by the Clerk’s Office. Also, as there are four owners of the Subject Property,
the Proffer Statement needs a separate signature page for each owner. This is true even if
you are relying on the powers of attorney for the other owners; the pages for each of them
would need to show that you are signing by power of attorney.
Introductory paragraph 2 – I note that the Proffer Statement defines the term “Applicant”
to include all future owners and successors and interest, but for clarity, the best practice is
simply to have the Proffer Statement refer consistently throughout to “Owner” and to
have the Proffer Statement define that term to include all future owners and successors
and interest. As a practical matter, there is no difference between the owners and the
Mr. Ken Dondero
May 2, 2023
Page 2
applicant in this rezoning, so there is no need to use the extra term “Applicant” in the
Proffer Statement.
Generalized Development Plan (“GDP”) – The materials I received did not include a
copy of the GDP. Consequently, I am unable to offer complete comments on the Proffer
Statement, as one aspect of my review typically entails confirming that an included
generalized development plan properly corresponds to the provisions of the proffer
statement to which it applies. Accordingly, please consider this comment letter to be
incomplete. Also, the phrase “and shall include the following” and the colon, at the end
of introductory paragraph 2 is not appropriate, as the Proffer Statement appears to include
matters that would not necessarily be subject to or related to the GDP.
Proffer 1.1 – For best clarity, if the following corresponds with your intent, the first
sentence might better read: “Development of the part of the Property that is west of the
area proposed for the extension of Channing Drive across the Property shall be limited to
not more than 25 single family attached dwelling units.” Also, staff should be aware that,
with respect to the remainder of the Subject Property, the only limitation is that multi-
family dwelling units would be prohibited.
Proffers 2 through 5 – As written, these proffers are applicable to single family attached
dwelling units, but, to the extent that the Proffer Statement may allow for development of
other housing types, particularly on the eastern portion of the Subject Property, the
proffers do not specify cash payment amounts for other housing types.
Proffer 3.1 – The proffer contains a typographical error in its reference to a certificate of
occupancy.
Proffer 6.3 – I must ask whether this item is appropriate for inclusion as a proffer. The
proffer is quite particular as to the internal operations of the development, as opposed to
addressing impacts on public facilities. Further toward this end, I therefore must note that
County staff would not necessarily have the relevant expertise to opine on the appropriate
level of funding that a homeowners’ association should have for its operations. As such,
it would seemingly be inappropriate for the County to pass judgment as to such a
provision, by considering it as part of the Proffer Statement.
Proffer 8.1 – The proffer is ambiguous as to the length of the road segment the owner will
construct, whether it will be “to the extent necessary to provide access” or whether it will
be to the southern property line. Also, the second sentence is unnecessary; the owners
always have the right to attempt obtaining funding from whatever source they wish, but
the proffer cannot obligate the County to support a specific funding approach.
Proffer 8.2 – If the intent is to reserve right-of-way for the entire length of Channing
Drive over the Subject Property, then the Proffer should so state that the reservation is for
such entire length. In that some of the materials refer to a parallel trail, staff will need to
Mr. Ken Dondero
May 2, 2023
Page 3
confirm adequacy of the proposed right-of-way width; staff will also want to note that the
Proffer Statement does not provide for construction of the trail.
Proffer 8.3 – The precise purpose of this proffer is not necessarily clear, especially
without my having had the benefit of receiving a copy of the GDP. Is this related to the
Channing Drive right-of-way? Is this something else? What is this?
I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable
and appropriate for this specific development, as my understanding is that review will be done by
staff and the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Roderick B. Williams
County Attorney
cc: Wyatt Pearson, Director, Planning & Development, Frederick County (via email)
John Bishop, Assistant Director, Planning & Development, Frederick County (via email)
Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, Planning & Development, Frederick County (via email)