PC 10-18-00 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
OCTOBER 18, 2000
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab)
2) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab)
DISCUSSION ITEM
3) Star Fort Management and Interpretation Plan
(Ms.Lohr)....................................... ...................(A)
PUBLIC MEETING
4) Master Development Plan #06-00 for Shenandoah, (a major revision to the previously -
approved "Wheatlands" MDP) submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for the
development of a 926 -acre site for an Age -Restricted Residential Recreational Community.
This property is located on the south side of Route 277, approximately 3.5 miles east of
Stephens City, and approximately one mile south of the intersection of Routes 277, 340 and
522 and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 87-A-102 and 103 in the Opequon
Magisterial District.
(Mr. Tierney) .........................................................(B)
5) Other
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
5401665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0632
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Amy M. Lohr, Planner II M
Subject: Star Fort Management and Interpretation Plan
Date: October 10, 2000
In 1999, the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development was awarded $25,000 from the
American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) to develop a management and interpretation plan for
Star Fort. Star Fort, a component of both the second and third battles of Winchester, is a valuable
interpretive resource, not only for our area, but for the Shenandoah Valley as a whole.
The goal of the plan is to provide guidelines for immediate and long-term management, preservation, and
interpretation of the site. Oculus, an historic preservation consulting firm based in Charlottesville,
Virginia, produced the plan in coordination with members of the County Staff and Robert Rhodes,
Chairman of Fleet's Virginia Battery, Middlesex Artillery, and the current owner of the property.
The plan recommends a phased approach to site management and an estimated monetary expenditure for
each of the three phases. Generally speaking, phase one addresses the need to stabilize the site to prevent
further degradation. Phase two addresses initial site development and preservation of the identified
resources. Finally, phase three details possible access points for the public and illustrates a scheme for
enhancing the interpretive experience for the visitor.
A copy of the plan has been provided for you. Staff will be available to accept your comments and/or
questions regarding the plan.
AML/ch
Enclosure
I/ Amy Common PCMemos starfort plan.wpd
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
PC REVIEW DATE: 10-18-00
BOS REVIEW DATE: 11-08-00 (tentative date)
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-00
"SHENANDOAH"
(A Major Revision to the Approved Wheatlands MDP)
LOCATION: The property is iocaied on the south side of Route 277, approximately 3.5 miles east
of Stephens City, and approximately one mile south of the intersection of Routes 277, 340 and 522.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 87-A-102 and 103
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) District
Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) and MH1 (Mobile Home Community District)
Use: agricultural, residential, mobile home park and vacant
South: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: agricultural, residential and vacant
East: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: residential and vacant
West: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas)
Use: agricultural, residential and vacant
PROPOSED USE: Age -Restricted Residential Recreational Community
REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Note: all review agency comments are contained in their entirety
within the enclosed booklet titled; Shenandoah - Active Adult Resort Gated Community "Age
Restricted"
MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah
Page 2
October 6, 2000 0*cr� • �,
Virginia Dept. of Transportstion: See attached letter from Barry Sweitzer, Transportation
Roadway Engineer at VDOT, to O. W. Clifford & Associates dated 8/23/00 and Inter -Office
Memorandum from Robert Childress to J.A.Copp dated 8/4/00.
Sanitation Authority: Recollimend approVd as noted:
Frederick County Sanitation Authority will need approval from Clarke County to
extend water and sewer service into their county.
2. I will need to see how you plan to extend the water line on SR636 and connect to our
existing system.
Will the existing eight -inch water line be sufficient to supply the area served?
4. I have marked two locations where I feel the water lines need to be looped to ensure
better service.
Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet the intent of the Open Space and Recreational
Unit Requirements. However, more detailed information is needed by this department to
complete a final review of the open space and recreational amenities. (Staff note: Since the
date of this comment, the requested information has been provided to the Parks and
Recreation Department.) �®
001 - l l: See attached comment sheet dated 9/8/2000. :SVP r
County Engineer: See letter from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. to C.E. Maddox dated
9/6/00.
Y The Department has had several
meetings with Dogwood Development and is currently working on a memorandum of
w"n understanding on managing the lake and surrounding land. We have developed a cordial
Pf"If working relationship and they have been receptive to addressing the concerns we have raised.
Several issues remain to be resolved but we see no major problem with resolving these
issues.
Clarke County See letter from Charles Johnston, Planning Administrator to C. E. Maddox
dated 9/8%00. r � �,t ! Cb,40
Warren County: See letter from Douglas P. Stanley, AICP, County Administrator/Planning
Director to C. E. Maddox dated 8/23/00.
MDP 406-00 of Shenandoah
Page 3
October 6, 2000
Planning Department:
History._ The property comprising this site was rezoned from A2 (Agricultural) to R-5 in
October of 1975. A Master Development Plan for a project titled "Wheatlands" containing
a total of 1,463 dwelling units was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors
on July 10, 1991.
Pro 'eco t Scope:
The project currently proposed is situated on two parcels which total 926 acres. The proposal
calls for the construction of 2,130 units or 2.3 units per acre which is equivalent to the
maxim�va permitted density in the R-5 zone. Construction would be phased over a minimum
of six years. The development will be an age -r esti is ed, gated commun i ty with private roads
as provided for in the recently approved amendments to the R-5 zone and as stated within
the notes that have been submitted for inclusion on the Plan. Proposed recreational amenities
include a community center, outdoor pool, walking and/or biking trails and other facilities,
the total value of which far exceeds County requirements. In addition to the residential
component, the proposal also includes a significant commercial area or village center. The
R-5 ordinance permits up to 6% of the gross acreage of the development (approximately 55
acres in the case of the Shenandoah project) to be devoted to commercial uses.
Issues:
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
There are a number of features of the proposed development that will have an impact on
VDGIF property and will, therefore, require their approval. Proposals for relocating the
State's entrance, private versus public access points to the lake, the conveyance of proposed
easements and removal of trees on State-owned or controlled property, and a schedule for
water quality testing are examples of such issues. Prior to final approval of the proposed
development, an executed raemorandam of twdersianding or same other form of binding
arrangement between the developer and the VDGIF which addresses all of the relevant points
contained within the proposed plan design and notes will need to be provided and included
by reference on tl :: Plan.
2) Transportation
The traffic analysis provided by the applicant and reviewed by VDOT indicates that the
proposed development would generate approximately 40% fewer average daily trips than
would be anticipated by the currently -approved Wheatlands plan, or roughly 17,000 trips per
day versus 30,000 under the Wheatlands plan. VDOT has questioned the degree of this
MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah
Page 4
October 6, 2000
projected reduction. With or without a reduction in the number of trips generated, there are
a number of issues to be addressed.
The property has frontage on State Routes 277, 522/340 and 636, Planned entrances onto
each route would be constructed in conjunction with various phases of the JQvelopment. The
primary entrance would be the relocated VGIF's entrance to Lake Frederick which would is
proposed to be constructed as part of Phase 1. The Plan notes indicate Route 636 would be
resurfaced with prime and double seal from the applicant's property line to the presently
paved section prior to the issuance of the 750' building permit. VDOT comments indicate
that the resurfacing should be asphalt concrete. The Plan notes should be amended
accordingly.
The VDOT comments call for the elimination and/or relocation of a number of crossovers
and entrances along Routes 522/340, some of which could be accommodated by rerouting
traffic within the project to other proposed entrances. In particular, concern has been
expressed by VDOT, as well as Warren County, regarding the direct access from the
commercial area to Route 522/340. VDOT also has noted concern over the entrance to the
assisted living facilities located at the northern end of the 522/340 frontage within Clarke
County. These comments should be addressed through modifications to the entrance designs
and locations, as well as throti.0-i appropriate notes on the plan which link the various road
improvements to specific stages of the development.
A number of the proposed road names are unacceptable based on County standards that
restrict the duplication of existing road names. Prior to approval of the Final MDP, all road
names will need to be re -submitted for review and approval.
3) Fire and Rescue
The MDP notes contain an offer of a Fire and Rescue facility site which is proposed to be
h donated. The applicant states their desire to have the facility constructed within their
proposed "village center," however, the Fire Marshal cormaents state that "The suggested
site within the village center is not, an acceptable location to serve the citizens of Frederick
County. " The proposed plan note states that the offer is good for a period of five years and
can be extended for an additional five years "if satisfactory progress is being made off site
development." The offer goes on to state that the site must be in the village center or in an
off-site area that "adequately serves Shenandoah." If an off-site location is chosen, a one-
time offer of $20,000 is also included.
While the staff does not question the applicant's sincerity in making this offer, we feel that
as currently worded, the offer is too vague to be effectively enforced. How large is the site
being offered? Does the five-year clock start at the time of MDP approval? Who is to select
MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah
Page 5
October 6, 2000
the site and how is the selection to be made? As for the five-year extension on the offer, who
determines if "satisfactory progress" is being made? How, when and to whom would the
$20,000 contribution be made?
Some resolution of these issues will be necessary prior to final approval of the MDP.
4) Library Site
to addition to a fire and rescue site, the applicant is also offering up to one acre of land for
a period of five years as a location for a County Library. The note also states that the
developer will provide the "site and planning should the County library decide to construct
and operate a facility." As with the offer of a fire and rescue station site, staff feels that while
the offer is well -intended, the wording is much too vague to be effective. In order to be
effective, a specific site should be identified and made available upon the request of the
Board of Supervisors. To do otherwise invites confusion and disagreement in the future as
to what was intended by the offer.
5) Environmental Features
Along xith the request for MDP approval and as permitted by Section 165-77 R of the
Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is requesting waivers to the disturbance limits of a number
of environmental features. The waivers requested areas follows:
A waiver to disturb three -tenths of an acre of the existing 5.68 acres of wetlands o
roughly 5%. The area to be disturbed would be for a road crossing south of the dai
Without a waiver, no disturbance of wetlands is permitted.
12
A waiver to disturb an unspecified amount of floodplain. The location and extent of
floodplain existing within the site has not been provided. Logically, this information
needs to be provided prior to approval of a waiver request.
A waiver to disturb 60% o°_+: t_l+e woodlands as opposed to the customary 25% limit.
The applicant will be required to provide two-inch caliber shade trees at 50' intervals
along all streets, as well as provide a minimum of 20 landscape plantings, at least 1/4
of which are trees with a minimum two-inch caliper, for each "single family small
lot" (as defined by the County Zoning Ordinance) platted.
6) Other waivers Rea tested
In addition to the waiver for disturbance of environmental features, the applicant is also
MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah
Page 6
October 6, 2000
requesting a waiver of -internal residential separation buffers. The Zoning Ordinance
normally requires residentult separation buffers bet,,. =een single-family and multi -family
housing types. A waiver of the road efficiency buffer requirement is also being requested.
Section 77.H of the R-5 Zoning District regulations provides for a waiver of these
requirements.
7) Village Center
The applicants are proposing a fairly significant "village center" �.v hich will likely contain
a variety of commercial uses. The R-5 Ordinance gives the Planning Commission the
authority to require the submission of a generalized development plan depicting, the type and
location of uses, access and circulation pattern within the identified village center, The
Commission should determine whether this is something they wish to require. If so, it would
be appropriate to place a note on the MDP which indicates that a plan will be provided for
the Commission's review prior to the issuance of permits for development within the village
center.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/18/00 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The proposed Shenandoah project falls within the permit density limits of the R-5 zone and the
proposed amenities exceed ordinance requirements. Although a number of waivers have been
requested, the Ordinance makes provisions for each. The Commission will need to determine
whether the requests are warranted.
The majority of identified transportation improvements, such as the need for signalization and turn
lanes, are commonly addressed prior to subdivision approval. The Commission should make their
desires known regarding the issue of relocation or removal of the specified entrances. The
Commission will also need to make a determination as to whether they are comfortable with the
current projections for trip generation.
While there is a desire for clarification regarding the offer of fire and rescue and library sites, staff
feels it should be noted that this is an application for MDP approval and not a rezoning.
There are other issues which remain unresolved, perhaps the most notable being the need to secure
a formal agreement with the VDGIF which addresses the identified concerns, however, staff feels
confident that the remaining issues can be satisfactorily resolved prior to final approval of the Master
Development Plan.
O:\Agendas\COMM ENTS\MDP's\shenandoahmdp.wpd