Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-89 Wheatlands (Revised) (1 of 2) - Opequon - Backfile (2)
April 3, 1991 _ 4:06pm G JHF 4 W i NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS _ The under igned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. The developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways. (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate County and State authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522 between the foregoing entrance and Double Tollgate, the developer may provide that second entrance upon approval of a revision to this MDP. (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during Phase 8 of the development hereof, or at such earlier time as the developer may determine is necessary to access other Phases of the project. 3. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a trail system within the project to permit pedestrian access from 0 within the development to, among other places, the Lake, to private recreation areas, to the community center, to commercial areas, and to the school site located within the project. 4. Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development: 5. , Provision of sewer and water service. (a) The subject --property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The developer shall cause to be constructed.a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown -on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia ._State :;Water Control Board. Upon. completion and acceptance thereof;;:such facility shall be .conveyed-. to the Frederick-Winchester;;:--ery ce-". Authority, for operation. by the Frederick County Sar#tat=ion Authority, in accordance with an agreement for the purpose;.;;. ( c) .. Any . 1.i,f:� .. stations . which..may . be. "Co'n-ilt.-6 to service. the. .developTent . shall..be -of . a..class . approved..hy the Saanitation .Authority .as su££i.Gient tfa. prbv- ide. maximum. reasonable protection.in.the.event.of.mechanical.or.electrical.failure.. (d) Public water shall be provided by meam§"'of an existing public water line. 6. Fire and.rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick. County Board of Supervisors, made. at any time within twelve years from...:the;-;.date of platting of the .first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for ,the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue': station within the aforesaid, period, and title shall revert., to the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in accordance with the. -terms of the grant. 7. Open space reserved. The developer shall retain not less than the required.,,6peri space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, 'in the. locations identified for mandated open space on the MVP: 8. Potential development of reserved areas. 2 (a) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as Commercial/Industrial Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP for the purpose, or as they may be properly rezoned by Frederick County to permit commercial or industrial uses. (b) These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future commercial and industrial development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational, parkland, or other public uses. 9.- Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes' of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on _ the__MDP,__in accordance. with and to implement the_-..recommenda-tions contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990•, prepared by Thomas J . Grizzard, Ph.D. , P . E - . The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve the highest practicable coverage of non -point run-off, and as much as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to achieve coverage of 75% thereof. To the maximum extent that it may be "possible to do upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs.to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to an appropriate homeowner's association,..or. .to..such..other appropriate.entity .as.may .be.determined. by. Frederick. County. and the *.developer,.and. subject.to. the. provisions.. of.5l6,.hereof . (d) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing.- vegetation surrounding the'Lake, an additional. buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be established, and no building or other.physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone. The said additional buffer shall be in the form of an easement for conservation and water quality preservation purposes, _ 3. 10....Public. access. to. Lake. Frederick. The. Developer..wi.11 ..provide up to five public.. access. . areas conforming.to .recommendations of the Virginia. Department. of. Game and. Inland. Fisheries,. in. its. reDox ..to .Robert .W _ Watkins. dated March.20,.1991. No boat landing, fishing pier, or boat dock shall be constructed on any of these sites without the prior written consent of the Department. 11 ... Provision.of.adequate.monumentation. The ..Developer . sha11.. provide. permanent . monumentation.. at approximately. 10DO..foot..intervals .around. the. perimet,es..of .the Lake, . for. .purposes. .of . surveying. axid..mapping. the. same.,. and . to assist.in.the.correct.location.of.all.boundary.lines. 12. School site dedication. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School --Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 13. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's Association land for a community center serving the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP. This site shall be dedicated prior to initiation of development in the phase of the development within which the site is located. 14. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP. The developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of dwelling units, attached, detached, or multi -family, may be constructed in any one year period after the date of final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from year to year, provided, however, that no more than 30% of the permitted units may be constructed in any one year period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day_ of treatment capacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State Water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to .the site. 15. Homeowners' Association. (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners' associations within the project to perform the functions common to such associations, including, but not limited to, center. (i) Construction and operation of a community (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities,.subject.to.the.provisions.of.§16,.hereof. (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas. (b) Any such homeowners' associations shall also .be authorized, inter alia, to review and approve lot building plans to insure that the location of individual homes on specific building lots causes minimum disturbance of those sites. In order to maintain the maximum undisturbed area, and the woodland nature of the project, any such association shall be granted the authority to forbid the cutting or removal of any trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, except as may be necessary to the actual construction of a home, a driveway thereto, and for the 5 installation of infrastructure connections, and for the purpose of a suitable yard area surrounding the home site. 16 ... Establishment. of .escrow .a.ccaunt .£or. maintenance. of. BMP facilities. The. Developer. shall . establish. La escrow. account..with . an agent. suitable .to .Erederick .County,. ox. such other. account. as.may be. .approved. by.. the.. County, ..to. reaeive ..axLd . disburse.. funds sufficient..to . insure. the. perpetaia.l..maintenance. .of . all. Best Mauagement..P.ractlaes . facilities..which. may. .be ..crons.traictecL . in accordance .with .this Phan.... This. account .may,..hut is. not. required to, . include. payment . of . some. or- . all. of..any . fees . which. may .be collected.by .a. Homeowners:. Assoc iation.created dai accordance. with these. dzatss.. for. .the. purposes..for. . which..such . is created... Notwithstanding. any. sauns..w.hich may .be contributed. by the .Homeowners'. Ass,ac.iatiran.,. the. Developer.shall Ajapood;L into. the said. account. the. sawn .a£ $100.00 per lot, for. sach..l of .which may. be subject. to..an .approved. Final. Master..Dp-vs:lapment .Rlan,..payable upon. recordation. A.f..a .final . subdivision. plat. .therefo _ ..These sums, . and. .any .interest. accrued. .thPs:eJarL,..may. be. used. in .their discretion.by any. Homeowners. s.Associatiou, .or Jay. the. appropriate officials..Erederick . County.,..the..Frederick . County. .Sanitation Authority, ..or. the ..V.irgi.nla, ..Department . of.. Game. and.. Inland Fisheries, .as .may .be .spe-ci tied by. officials. of. Frederick. County, for.the.purpose.of.perpetually.maintaining.such.facilities.in.a safe.and.efficient.manner.. Fred L. Glaize, III JASBO, Inc. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of , 19_, do hereby certify that Fred L. Glaize, III, whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. 1990. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of 0 Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of , 19_, do hereby certify that James L. Bowman as of JASBO, Inc., whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of 1990. JHF33:mdpnotes.002 Notary Public ►A April 3, 1991 4:06pm D JHF I\ NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN { WHEATLANDS The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. The developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways. (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate County and State authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522 between the foregoing entrance and Double Tollgate, the developer may provide that second entrance upon approval of a revision to this MDP- (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during Phase 8 of the development hereof, or at such earlier time as the developer may determine is necessary to access other Phases of the project. 3. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a trail system within the project to permit pedestrian access from within the development to, among other places, the Lake, to private recreation areas, to the community center, to commercial areas, and to the school site located within the project. 4. Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development: 5. Provision of sewer and water service. (a) The subject -property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The developer shall cause to be .constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia State: ;Water Control Board. Upon. completion and acceptance thereo.f,Ysuch facility shall be conveyedi .to the Frederck-Winchester:,�I ice Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanction Authority, in accordance with an agreement for the pu-rpose. (c) ..Any. 3_i_f t..stations . which. may . be..c ti ugt.6d . to . service. the. .development. - shall..be . of aclass . approved..h.. the Sanitation.Authorit�.asutpi-proride. _ - - maximum. reasonable Protection.in.the-event.of.mechanical.or.electrical.failure.. (d) Public water shall be provided by means'of an existing public water line. 6. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, made, at any time within twelve years from..the.::date of platting of the .first phase of the MDP, the developer.shall dedicate to any appropriate public,or private entity denoini.nated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within the aforesaid period, and title shall revert.: to -the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in accordance with the terms of the grant. 7. Open space -reserved. The developer shall retain not less than the required.;.operi. space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, in the locations identified for mandated open space on the MDP: 8. Potential development of reserved areas. 2 (a) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as Commercial/Industrial Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP for the purpose, or as they may be properly rezoned by Frederick County to permit commercial or industrial uses. (b) These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future commercial and industrial development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational, parkland, or other public uses. 9.- Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, inaccordance- --with and to implement the... recommenda-tions-__ ... contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J . Grizzard, Ph . D . , P . E . The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve the highest practicable coverage of non -point run-off, and as much as it is reasonably practicable to do so, to achieve coverage of 75% thereof. To the maximum extent that it may be possible to do upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs.to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to an appropriate homeowner's association, .. or. . to. . such. .other appropriate. entity. as. may. be.determined. by. Frederick. County, and the.developer,.and. subject.to. the. provisions. of.516,.hereof. (d) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing. vegetation surrounding the Lake, an additional.buffer zone of 50 feet beyond ,the legal boundaries thereof shall be established, and no building or other.physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone. The said additional buffer shall be in the form of an easement for conservation and water quality preservation purposes, 3 10....Public.access.to.Lake.Frederick. The. .Developer. .will . gram e,up to five public.. access. .areas conforming.to .recommendations of. the Virginia. Department. of. Game and. Inland. Fisheries,. in. its. xp_aart .to .Robert .W _ Watkins. dated March.20, .1991. No boat landing, fishing pier, or boat dock shall be constructed on any of these sites without the prior written consent of the Department. 11...Provision. of. adequate.monumentation. The. .Developer- . shall. . provide. . permanent. monumentation..at approximately. 1DDD..fxxot .intervals . around. the. pexm,et�ex..of i. the Lake, . for. .purposes .of . surveying. and mapping. the. sam,e.,:.and . to assist.in.tha.correct.location.of.all.boundary.lines. 12. School site dedication. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 13. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's Association land for a community center serving the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP. This site shall be dedicated prior to initiation of development in the phase of the development within which the site is located. 14. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP. The developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP- (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of dwelling units, attached, detached, or multi -family, may be constructed in any one year period after the date of. 'final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from year 4 to year, provided, however, that no more than 30% of the permitted units may be constructed in any one year period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day_ of treatment capacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State Water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public .water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to .the site. 15. Homeowners' Association. (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners, associations within the project to perform the functions common to such associations, including, but not lien t6 to, center. (i) Construction and operation of a community (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities,.subject.to.the.provisioas.of.516,.here0f. (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas. (b) Any such homeowners, associations shall also be authorized, inter alia, to review and approve lot building plans to insure that the location of individual homes on specific building lots causes minimum disturbance of those sites. In order to maintain the maximum undisturbed area, and the woodland nature of the project, any such association shall be granted the authority to forbid the cutting or removal of any trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, except as may be. necessary to the actual construction of a home, a driveway thereto, and for the 5 installation of infrastructure connections, and for the purpose of a suitable yard area surrounding the home site. 16 ... Establishment -of .escrow .aaaaunt .£oar. maintenance. of. BMP facilities. The. Developer..shall . establish. an. .escrow. account..w:Lth . an agent. suitable .to .Frederick .County,. rox. such other. account. as. may be. . approved .lay.. the.. County, ..to ..receive ..arui . disburse.. funds sufficient..tQ . insure. . the . p rpetual..maintenance..of . all. .Best .Management..Rracti.ces . facilities. .which. may. .be. rcAns:trazctad.. in accordance .with .this Plan.... This. account .may,. hut. Ss. not. required to, . include. payment . of . some. or . all. of. any . fees . which. may . be collected.by .a. Homeowners:. Assoc iation.created .i.n. accordance. with these. Jiates.. for. .the . purposes. .for. which. .such. Asso�cd,&tdDxL . is created... Notwithstanding. any. sums. whi ch may. be contributed. by the .Homeowners'. As.soc.i.atj_on.,. the. Developer .shall Aepasd;L into. the said. account. the. sawn .a£ $100.00 per lot, for. such .Lat .which may. be subject. to..&n .approved .Final. Master. .DP_vs:Lopni,erLt..Plan, .payable upon. recordation. of. .a . final. subdivision. plat. .thexaf xr.... These sums, . and. .any... interest. accrued..thexe. ,..may . be. userL in . their discretion.by any. Homeowners: s.Assoc iatiou, .or hy. the.appropriate of f icials ..Erederlak . County.,.. the. Erederick . County.. Sanitation Authority, ..or. the ..V.irginia. ..Dp-partmant.. of.. Game. and.. Inland Fisheries, .as .may .be .spaci.f.Lad by. officials. of. Frederick. County, for. the. purpose. of.perpetually. maintaining. such. facilitios.In. a safe.and.efficient.manner.. Fred L. Glaize, III JASBO, Inc. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of , 19_, do hereby certify that Fred L. Glaize, III, whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of 1990. b Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of , 19_, do hereby certify that James L. Bowman as of JASBO, Inc., whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of , 1990. JHF33:mdpnotes.002 Notary Public v11 NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and for the further description of certain aspects of the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, and submission of final MDPs for the development of the subject property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. The developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways. (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate County and State authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522 between the foregoing entrance and Double Tollgate, the developer may provide that second entrance upon approval of a revision to this MDP. (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during Phase 8 of the development hereof, or at such earlier time as the developer may determine is necessary to access other Phases of the project. 3. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a trail system within the project to permit pedestrian access from within the development to, among other places, the Lake, to private recreation areas, to the community center, to commercial areas, and to the school site located within the project. Such trail system shall be located as generally shown on the MDP. 4. Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development. 5. Provision of sewer and water service. (a) The subject property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The developer shall cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board. Upon completion and acceptance thereof, such facility shall be conveyed to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in accordance with an agreement for the purpose. (c) Any lift stations which may be constructed to service the development shall be of a class approved by the Sanitation Authority as sufficient to provide maximum protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failure. (d) Public water shall be provided by means of an existing public water line. 6. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, made at any time within twelve years from the date of platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within the aforesaid period, and title shall revert to the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in accordance with the terms of the grant. 7. Open space reserved. The developer shall retain not less than the required open space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, in the locations identified for mandated open space on the MDP. 8. Potential development of reserved areas. 2 (a) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as Commercial/Industrial Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP for the purpose, or as they may be properly rezoned by Frederick County to permit commercial or industrial uses. (b) These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future commercial and industrial development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational, parkland, or other public uses. 9. Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property. (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices, in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations contained in "An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. The BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve coverage of 75% of the area of the property which drains into Wheatlands Lake. To the maximum extent that it may be possible to do upon final engineering, this percentage of coverage shall be exceeded. All, BMPs shall be either of the wet or dry pond type, as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering of any subwatershed within the property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Designing Urban BMPs," published by Washington Metropolitan Council of Governments, current as of the date of final design. All such facilities shall be designed for a minimum stormwater detention period of forty hours, with a design classified as "High" with regard to the overall removal capacity, as shown in Figure 2.4 of the aforesaid Manual. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the developer, provided that the developer may assign this responsibility to an appropriate homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer, or as may be provided in Section 16, hereof with respect to the transfer of such responsibilities. Maintenance required hereunder shall include routine and non - routine maintenance as recommended in the aforesaid Manual, as necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs. 3 (d) Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to determine BMP effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Such testing shall be at the developer's expense, until such time as a homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility for funding such testing shall be transferred to the said association. The results of such testing shall be provided forthwith to Frederick County, to DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowners's association created in accordance with these Notes. '(e) In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the Lake, an additional buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be established, and no building, tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth, construction of trails, disturbance of existing vegetation, or other physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone except as may be necessary to construct and maintain the BMPs provided for herein, and except as may be necessary to obtain direct access to the additional public fishing areas provided for herein. The said additional buffer shall be in the form of an easement for conservation and water quality preservation purposes. Such easement shall be granted to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries within 60 days of the recordation of a final subdivision plat -for any section of the development. (f) Any use of property which may be owned by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries shall be subject to the express prior written consent of the Department first obtained. 10. Public access to Lake Frederick. The Developer will provide not less than three nor more than five public access areas conforming to recommendations of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, in its report to Robert W. Watkins dated March 20, 1991. Right-of-way for such access, and parking areas, shall be provided to the Department, but the Developer shall not be responsible for any costs associated with the construction thereof. No boat landing, fishing pier, or boat dock shall be constructed on any of these sites without the prior written consent of the Department, and with the written concurrence of the developer. Such areas shall be suitably signed to indicate their location and public nature. The Developer agrees that to the extent such sites have been physically located at the time of design of the roads from which access thereto will be provided, it shall design curb cuts necessary for standard commercial entrances to such access points, with access thereto to be constructed at the expense of others. 11. Provision of adequate monumentation. The Developer shall provide permanent monumentation at approximately 1000 foot intervals around the perimeter of the Lake, for purposes of surveying and mapping the same, and to assist in the correct location of all boundary lines. 12. School site dedication. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School Board a school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 13. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's Association land for a community center serving. the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP. This site shall be dedicated prior to initiation of development,in the phase of the development within which the site is located.- 14. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in. accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP. The developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of dwelling units, attached, detached, or multi -family, may be constructed in any one year period after the date of final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from year to year, provided, however, that no more than 30% of the permitted units may be constructed in any one year period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day of treatment capacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State Water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. 5 (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to the site. 15. Homeowners' Association. (a) The developer shall cause to be created one or more homeowners' associations within the project to perform the functions common to such associations, including, but not limited to, center. (i) Construction and operation of a community (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities, subject to the provisions of §16 hereof. (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas. (b) Any such homeowners' associations shall also be authorized, inter alia, to review and approve lot building plans to insure that the location of individual homes on specific building lots causes minimum disturbance of those sites. In order to maintain the maximum undisturbed area and the woodland nature of the project, any such association shall forbid the cutting or removal of any trees greater than 6 inches in diameter, except as may be necessary to the actual construction of a home, a driveway thereto, and for the installation of infrastructure connections, and for the purpose of a suitable yard area surrounding the home site. On those lots physically adjoining Wheatlands Lake, not more than 30% of the area thereof may be disturbed in accordance with this section. 16. Establishment of account for maintenance of BMP facilities. (a) The developer or its assignee, as provided above, shall establish an escrow or other separate account to receive and disburse funds to insure the perpetual maintenance of all Best Management Practices facilities which may be constructed in accordance with this Plan. Notwithstanding any sums which may be contributed to such account by the homeowners' association, the developer shall deposit into the said account a sum equal to the estimated per lot share of five years' maintenance expenses for 2 the BMPs to be constructed, based on reasonable maintenance expenses of 5% of the total estimated costs of construction thereof, as such construction cost estimate may be approved by the Frederick County Engineer. Such contribution shall be made for each lot which may be subject to an approved Final Master Development Plan, payable upon recordation of a final subdivision plat therefor. (b) The sums segregated in accordance with the foregoing, and any interest accrued thereon, shall be used by the developer or his assignee, or by the appropriate officials Frederick County, or the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, for the purpose of perpetually maintaining such BMP facilities in a safe and efficient manner, and to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs as referenced above. No other use of the escrowed funds shall be permitted. (c) Inasmuch as there are means under existing Virginia law for the creation of limited purpose governmental entities with the authority to raise revenues directly from and limited to the parties benefitted by public improvements, and to construct, operate, and maintain those improvements in perpetuity, then in the event that the appropriate public authorities of Frederick County or the Commonwealth of Virginia shall duly create a watershed improvement district, a sanitary district, or another appropriate public entitT for the purpose of funding, operation, and maintenance of the Best Management Practices facilities to be constructed to service this project, all responsibility and obligation for funding, construction, operation, and maintenance thereof shall be transferred from any homeowners, association created hereunder, to the said public entity immediately upon the request of that entity, at no cost thereto. Fred L. Glaize, III JASBO, Inc. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of , 19_, do hereby certify that Fred L. Glaize, III, whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. 7 1990. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of , Notary Public STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of 19_, do hereby certify that James L. Bowman as of JASBO, Inc., whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. 1990. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of Notary Public .r W, r COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5650 U1 C� MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST FAX 703/667.-0370 The application is not complete if the following are not present one.. 1. Tw6 sets of comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan; I-INI VDOT / -/%--`f/ City of Winchester / /7 /Co. San. Auth. /'/ ' /Inspections Dept. Fire Marshall I -ILL Co. Hlth. Dept. J-/ 7- % Parks & Rec . /LL7- 4/ Airport Authority j0 2. ),2 copies of the MDP application I)-)5- b 3. 25 copies of the plan on a single sheet 4. 1 reproducible copy of the plan (if required) 5. a 35mm. slide of the plan * One copy of the application and comment sheets, three copies of the plan and the marked plans from the review agencies should be enclosed in a package which will be forwarded to the County Engineer. TRACKING 7 DATE •�ev15FG�- 1J-13 D Application Received to Ji I/ j)• -`-qo *Hp Ynformation forwarded to Consulting Engineer Review/Invoice received from Engineer #}proved, N�791 4r` � 5c Fee Paid (amount $ ) MDP heard by Planning Commission MDP heard by Board of Supervisors Final MDP submitted with review agency, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors comments addressed; deed of dedication bond estimate Final plat information forwarded to Engineer I Review received from Engineer j / �� P-) 71to Final Fee paid and MDP approved. M� • 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 July 18, 1991 G. W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Charles Maddox P.O. Box 2104 Winchester,_ Va. 22601 Dear Chuck: This letter is to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of July 10, 1991. The revised preliminary master development plan, #006-89, for Wheatlands was approved for 1288 single-family houses, 175 townhouse units, village centers, a school site and future development. This property is located 3.5 + east of Stephens City and one mile + southwest of Double Tollgate in the Opequon District and is identified as parcels 102 and 103 on tax map 87. Please submit the final master development plan for administrative approval with the revisions that were indicated at the July loth Board meeting in a letter dated July 10, 1991 from the law offices of Hazel and Thomas to Kenneth Y. Stiles. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding the final approval requirements. Sincerely, Kris C. Tie ey Deputy Director KCT/slk cc: Fred L. Glaize, III, and Jasbo, Inc. THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 AGENCY APPLICATION/ COMMENTS P/C review date: 2/20/91 P/C review date: 4/17/91 BOS review date: 7/10/91 REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational) 926.266 Acres LOCATION: 3.5 miles + east of Stephens City and one mile + southwest of Double Tollgate; adjacent and south side of Va. Route 277; adjacent and west side of Va. Route 522. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational), land use; vacant ADJOINING ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use; single family and vacant and zoned R-5 (Residential Recreation), land use; public lake GPIN: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 and 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 PROPOSED USE & IMPROVEMENTS: 1288 single-family and 175 townhouse units, village centers, school site and future development REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See letter dated June 7, 1991. Fire Marshal: Fire lane requirements will be addressed on site plans or construction drawings. At various strategic points around the lake emergency fire lanes leading to the waters edge, 20' in width and with the capability of supporting a 35 ton piece of apparatus in all weather, will be necessary to facilitate immediate water rescue efforts. See memo attached. Frederick Co. Parks and Rec.: Recreational units need to be identified on the plan. Also, specifications for recreation equipment, shelters and tennis facilities should be submitted for review and approval. It appears that PMDP meets open space requirements. Page -2- Wheatlands Revised PMDP Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to this proposal as long as public sewer is provided to serve all components of the projects. Regional Airport: See attached comments. Sanitation Authority: First review - 13 items - correct and resubmit. An agreement regarding the acceptance of the Waste water Treatment Facility has been reached, see letter dated April 17, 1991. Inspections Department: This request for master development plan approval shall comply to Use Group "R" Residential for Single Family Dwellings and Townhouses, Section 309.0, of the BOCA National Building code 111987". Use Group for village center, school and future development will be determined at time of plans review. Engineer: See attached letter dated December 17, 1990. Department of Game and Inland Fisheries: See letter dated June 20, 1991. Planning and Zoning: BACKGROUND This Wheatlands Master Development Plan application came before the Planning Commission on November 15, 1989 at which time the Commission tabled action on the application until January 3, 1990. The applicants later requested that consideration of the application be postponed beyond the January meeting. Subsequent to the applicants request for postponement, the Intergate Company withdrew as co -applicant in the proposal on May 25, 1990. On February 14, 1990 the Board of Supervisors adopted an amended Zoning Ordinance which contained among other things, revised regulations for the R-5 zoning district. On November 11, 1990 a partial application was received for a revised MDP. Comment sheets from required review agencies were received on January 17, 1991 completing the revised application. As the initial application for MDP approval was received prior to the adoption of the amended regulations, this revision to that application has been reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of the initial submission. Unless otherwise indicated, references.to R-5 regulations in the remainder of the staff report refer to the old R-5 regulations. Page -3- Wheatlands Revised PMDP DENSITY The proposed uses indicated on the MDP are consistent with the R-5 regulations. The maximum number of residential units permitted given the acreage of the parcels involved, minus the acreage included in the future development areas, school site, fire and rescue site and waste water treatment site have been subtracted, (76 acres in total) is 1,878. A maximum of 1,652 single family units and 245 townhouses units would be permitted under the regulations. The MDP indicates a total of 1,463 units (a reduction of 337 units from that of the initial proposal) with 175 of these being -townhouses, for a gross density of 1.7 units per acre. These numbers are also below the density limits of our revised R-5 regulations. OPEN SPACE A minimum of 35% of the gross acreage of the site is required as open space. This amounts to 324 acres for this site. Open space indicated on the MDP falls short by 10 acres, at 314 acres. This ten acres appears to be the 35% that would come from areas set aside for school, fire and rescue and waste water treatment sites. COMMERCIAL AREAS A maximum acreage permitted for commercial uses is 12 acres per 1000 lot owners, or 17.5 acres. Commercial uses are to be located in the village centers and be of a nature relevant to neighborhood shopping needs. Areas intended as village centers should be labeled as such rather than "commercial". Any proposed commercial or industrial use of the areas designated as future development areas will require a rezoning. TRAFFIC The traffic impact study submitted projects 1,884 trips a day during the AM peak hour and 3,219 trips during the PM peak hour for the development as a whole. The report also indicated that with signalization and turn lanes at both the entrances on 277 and on 340/522, the intersections will operate at least a level of service B. However a level of service C is indicated during peak hours at the unsignalized intersection of Route 636 and Route 277. The Virginia Department of Transportation had numerous Page -4- Wheatlands Revised PMDP questions and concerns regarding the initial traffic impact analysis. The applicant responded with a revised report dated March of 1991. VDOT has again listed some concerns which will need to be addressed prior to any final approval of the MDP. The interior road network has been revised to reduce the excessive length and number of cul-de-sacs and to eliminate stub cul-de-sacs. The proposed improvements to Rt. 636, and the construction of entrances on Rt. 340/522 and Rt. 277 should be tied to the construction of a specific number of units rather than to a phase of the development. WATER QUALITY The applicant provided a report which projected the likely impacts of the development on the lake. The County Is Engineer reviewed the report and indicated in his letter of December 17, 1990 that he was satisfied with the report assuming the proposed BMP are carried out. A copy of the report and the revised MDP were also transmitted to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) for their review and comment. The department has taken an active role in reviewing this development proposal as a result of a mutual agreement between the applicant, County, and DGIF to treat the Department as a official review agency. Numerous meetings have been held in an effort to resolve all concerns of DGIF, the staff and other review agencies. The most recent of these meetings was held on May 15, 1991 in the Manassas office of Hazel and Thomas. Subsequent to this meeting, DGIF reviewed the suggested compromise actions offered by the applicants --their response is contained in an attached letter dated June 20, 1991. Of the many varied issues raised by DGIF throughout the review process, it appears that all have been favorably addressed by the present ,version of the MDP with the exception of the following: It remains a point of negotiation between the applicant and DGIF as to who will be responsible for the actual construction of parking areas associated with additional access points to the lake. While the applicant has committed to conveyance of flood 0 0 Page -5- Wheatlands Revised PMDP easements to DGIF, the present MDP does not show the location of these easements. The method which will be utilized to insure continued maintenance of the stormwater retention ponds has not yet been determined. It appears that the proposal favored by both .the applicant and DGIF would be the creation of a Sanitary District. It is the staffs feeling that this would also be the alternative which would provide the greatest degree of protection from the County's perspective. MISCELLANEOUS When appropriate and warranted, the provision of buffers between single family and multifamily housing units should be considered. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: (For 2/20/91) Table, until such time that comments are received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on the revised application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2120191: Tabled until such time that comments are received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on the revised application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 4117191: Approval, by majority vote, with the condition that all review agency comments, including those of DGIF and the Planning Staff, be satisfactorily addressed and that where appropriate, these agreements be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to approval of the Final MDP and before the subdivision stage. The vote was as follows: Yes (to approve): Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Sherwood, McDonald, Copenhaver, Marker, Golladay No: Thomas, Rinker STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: (For 7/10/91) Approval, contingent upon an agreement being reached between the applicant, DGIF and the County regarding the maintenance of storm retention ponds, and the concerns of VDOT and all other review agencies being addressed prior to final approval. REVISED WHEATLANDS PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION Opequon Magisterial District County of Frederick, Virginia, Prepared for Fred L. Glaize,III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 November 1990 by gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. FREDERICKSBURG - WINCHESTER ,�z APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: 9 November 1990 Application #: OWNERS NAME: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. BOX 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (Fred L. Glaize, III & James Bowman) (Please list the name of,all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 Phone Number: (703) 869-1800 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc.. Inc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester. Va 22601 Phone Number: _(703) 667-2139 Contact Name: Tom Price or Chuck Maddox REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. Background Information: 1. Development's name: 2. Location of property:3.5 mi ± east of Stephens City & 1 mi ± southwest of Double Tollgate. Adjacent & southside of Va Rte 277, Adjacent and west side of Va Rte 522 3. Total area of property:926.266 Ac. (Frederick County Land) 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map: 87 Tax parcel: 102 & 103 Tax ID # (21 Digit): 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 5. Property zoning and present use: R-5 (Vacant) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use:A-2 (Single Family & Vacant) & R-5 (Public Lake) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family, Townhouses, Village Centers,School Fire & Rescue and Future Development 8. Magisterial District: Opequon 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended XX • General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes X_ No Scale Yes_X_ No Legend Yes_X No Boundary Survey Yes_X No Total Area Yes X No Topography Yes_X N o Project Title Yes_X_ _ No Preparation and Revision Date Yes_X No Applicant Name Yes X No 2. Number of phases proposed? Nine (9) 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes XX_ No 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes No XX 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes XX_ No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes XX No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes XX_ No Note:Separate Colored Plans have been submitted along, with this application for environmental features 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area o Disturbed Area in Open Space Floodplains 0 0 0 Lakes and ponds _ 0 0 _ 0 Natural retention areas 0 0 0 Steep slopes (15 0 +) 222 43 78 Woodlands 856 193 270 1► • 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Yes _X_No Entrances Yes_X_No Parking areas Yes No_X_ Utilities (mains) Yes_X No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Yes_X No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes No N/A X If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? finale Family Detached Traditional (449) SF Detached Cluster (839) & Townhouses (175) 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes_X_No Acreage in each housing type Yes_X_No Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes_) NO Total acreage Yes_X_No Number of dwellings of each type Yes_X_No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space? 35% 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes_X No 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? Tennis Courts & Picnic Shelters in addition to Tot Lots required for Townhouse Development Areas._ 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No X NN 141990 1 • r 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X_ Note: 70' R/W includes 25' Buffer each side w/Earthberms or Evergreen Landscaping or both. 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No_X 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes X No 10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes No X_ Energy Conservation Yes No_X Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No X Underground Utilities Yes No_X Street Design Yes No X_ 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? N/A 12. How will the bonus factors be used? N/A Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21-digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett Address: Rt.1,Box 87 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0096A Name: Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk Address: Rt.1,Box 98 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-001-0000-0000-000BO Name: Randolph H. Cornwell Address: 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-00980 Name: John W. & Delphia E. Cornwell Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-00990 Name: Isaac Gardner & Bertie Clark Address: Rt.1,Box 89 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-01000 Name: Irvin G. & Lila M. Meyers Address: P,.O. Box 54 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-01010 Name: Robert L. & Janie S. Sandy Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-01230 Name: Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter Address: Rt. 1,Box 401-A Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-01070 Name: J. David & Dirma V. Headley Address: c/o Ralph Gregory 606 Carter Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-01050 Name: David A. Headley Address: Box 72 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-01O3A Name: Jeffrey E: Williams Address: Box 87 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94000-AOO-0000-0000-00010 Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A0O-001-0010-0000-00110 Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0001-000A-00120 Name: Albert M. & Terri L. Grady Address: Box 442 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.##: 94A00-001-0011-0000-00200 Name: Norman N. & Constance N. Tolken Address: 4712 Reservoir Road N.W. Wash. D.C. 20007 Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00060 Name: Oak Ridge Properties Address: P.O. Box 885 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000=0000-0273D Name: Bobby W. & Gladys E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-A Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273C Name: Lee E. Campbell Address: 2566 Chain Bridge Rd Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va 22180 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273B Name: Loretta D. &. Howard L. Bailey Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-B Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02720 Name: Tibow c/o Jeni Address: P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02230 Name: Patrick C. & Lillian C. Madigan. Address: Rt. 1,Box 163 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0266A Name: Walter F. & Daisey M. Lewis Address: Rt.1,Box 272 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02200 Name: John.Max Leight & Joann G. Lillian Address: 5037 Massie St. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property,I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02180 Name: Milton K. & Beatrice Apperson Address: Rt.1,Box 93 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00150 Name: Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 155 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0016B Name: Ross Giles Cooke & Robert L. Cooke & Mary Jane Cooper Address: Rt. 2,Box 278 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00960 Cum 0 ' COi11/ OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE !D 7n LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS 7 log Control No. 102490537 Date Received 102490 Date Review ______- Applicant Name G. W. Clifford & Assoc. ����������.......... Address P. O. Box 2104 ������...........`��....... �.......................`��.� Winchester, Virginia 22601 __ Project Name Wheatlands _.......... ......................... ........ ........ ........ ______________.... _..... ... ....... __ Phone No. 703-667-2139 Type of Application Master Development Current Zoning R-5 ......... ......... _ 1st Due Fire Co. 11 1st Due Rescue Co. 11/12 ....................... ___-Election District Opequorl RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System X Residential Sprinkler System X ............ Automatic Fire Alarm System X Other Recommend the use of sprinklers _-___- ____ _ in all planned buildings. Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X ........... __.___ Fire Lanes Required; Yes X No -------- ----'- Comments: Fire lane requirements will be addressed on site plans or '-----------------'-------------'-----'---'-----'-------------------'----------- construction drawings. Roadwav/Aislewav Widths Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X Special Hazards Noted; Yes X No .... ............. ...... Comments: At various strategic points around the lake, emergency fire - lanes, leading to the waters edge, 20' in width, with the capability of . ........ supporting a 35 ton piece of apparatus in all weather will be necessary to �`������.... �����`��`������������..... `. ......... . ..... . . .. facilitate immediate water rescue efforts. -Continued- 10 � Hydrant Locations; Adequate ' � Inadequate Not Identified ' Siamese Coonection Location; Approved Not Approved Additional Comments: See Attached. Review Time 3.75 hr. Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal X Not Identified X Thomas W. Owens Director COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA M E M O R A N D FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT 21 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia 22601 TO: Planning Commission: County of Frederick VIA: Thomas W. Owens, Director Fire and Rescue Department / FROM: Douglas A. Kiracofe, Fire Marsha e) Fire and Rescue Department SUBJECT: Wheatlands Master Development Plan DATE: February 7, 1991 Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal On the submitted plan there is a note on fire hydrants that states (1) hydrant within 300' of single family homes and (2) hydrants within 400' of multifamily structures. This should be (2) hydrants within 300' of multifamily structures and (1) hydrant within 400' of single family structures per Chapter 10 Article 2-3-5.2. Referring to the fire station site, it is not a good design to have a fire or rescue station located so close to a school. The morning and afternoon traffic, school bus activity, and children who live within walking distances of the school would create a difficult and unsafe situation for apparatus responding to an incident. The fire station site shown is two acres and it is felt by our staff as well as Stephens City Fire Company that three acres would be necessary to eventually put a full fire and rescue station in place. Purchasing necessary land for expansion at later dates becomes too costly at times for individual fire companies to grow with the demand for services so a full fire and rescue facility should be planned for early on in the process. Specific requirements for fire lanes, fire hydrants, etc. will be reviewed on site plan or construction drawings. DAK:jla cc: Stephens City Fire Company File WL- X DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth-F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens Citv, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- lacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. Winchester Regional Airport Comments: Airport Signature & Date: Q ,:-(NOTICE TO AIRPORT-(P,LEASE TURN THIS FR M TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. Please consider the following comments when reviewing this Request for Master Development Plan: The Developer should be familiar with and be required to comply with the provisions of the Frederick County Airport Zoning District (AP-1) and Airport Support Area (ASA) described in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The developer should also be familiar with the provisions and requirements of the following codes: Title 15.1 Code of Virginia, Section 489 (Purpose of Zoning Ordinances) and Section 491.02 (Airport Safety Zoning). Title 5.1-25.1 Code of Virginia (Permits Required for Erection of Certain structures.) As Winchester Regional Airport expands services and operations, noise associated with such expansion is very likely to increase. The Airport Support Area established by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is designed to discourage residential development in the vicinity of the airport to preclude citizen concerns for noise created by aircraft operating on, to and from Winchester Regional Airport. If the developer is planning residential development adjacent to the ASA or under a commonly used flight path used by aircraft outside -the ASA as they arrive or depart the Airport, he should be encouraged to insulate all habitable structures for noise and be required to specifically address, in the property Covenants and Easements, existing airport related noise and the probability of increased noise as airport operations expand. FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY JAMES H. DIEHL, CHAIRMAN C.A. MOLDEN, VICE CHAIRMAN E.O. RUDOLPH, 111. SEC.-TREAS. DONALD R. HODGSON NED M. CLELAND. PH.D., P.E. WILLIAM F. EDMONSON Mr. John H. Foote Hazel & Thomas The Old Piedmont Building 9324 West Street Manassas, VA 22110 POST OFFICE BOX 618 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE 703 - 665-5690 April 17, 1991 REFERENCE: Wheatlands Agreement Dear John: WELLINGTON H.JONES, P.E. ENGINEER - DIRECTOR As stated in my telephone conversation, the Sanitation Authority approved the agreement for the referenced development at their meeting held April 8, 1991. Since the treatment plant will be dedicated to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, it may be necessary to have that Authority join the agreement. But that is more a matter of form than substance, and can be addressed prior to signing the agreement. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, W. H. Jones, P.E. Engineer -Director /ths cf. Robert W. Watkins - Frederick County Planning & Development D, ��uR '. E ' APR 1 T igg ` �mot 0 G.W.CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20 S.CAMERON ST. PO BOX 2104 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 703-667-2139 TO Suite 100 Fairfax, Va 22030 46 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE 22 October 1990 I ATTENTION Paul Bernard RE: WhPatlanric PMf1P WE ARE SENDING YOU n ATTACHED F1 UNDER SEPARATE VIA ❑ HAND DELIVERED ❑ CHANGE ORDER17 SAMPLES SHOP DRAWINGS Fx-1 PRINTS ❑ PLANS COPY OF LETTER COPIES DATE 11 DESCRIPTION 3 July 90 Revised PMDP of Wheatlands 1 TrioGeneration Stud b Callow 1 PMDP Application ❑� ARE TRANSMITTED F-1 APPROVED/SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED/AS NOTED FOR YOUR USE ❑ RETURN/CORRECTIONS AS REQUESTED 0 FOR REVIEW or COMMENT 17 FOR BIDS DUE _19 REMARKS Paul, son. #� .III n#I-.nr r cnnivn {n♦ #h..:r rp -iina V�i-J 7c.iu Lv u., aa...� .yv..... ..... .. .... . �... JOB NO. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SPECIFICATIONS ] OTHER ❑ RESUBMIT FOR APPROVAL ❑ SUBMIT FOR DISTRIBUTION ❑ RETURNED_ CORRECTED PRINTS ❑ LOAN PRINT/RETURN RETURN/WITH SIGNATURES COPY TO: Kris Tierney SIGNED Thomas W. Price B.J. Tisinger Fred L. Glaize, III REV. 2.0 James Bowman Jim Patry APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: _19 October 1990 Application #• OWNERS NAME: Fred L. Glaize III & jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City Va 22655 _(Fred L. Glaize III & James Bowman) (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo Inc. _P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 Phone Number: (703) 869-1800 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Gilbert W Clifford & Assoc,, In c. P.O. Box 2104 WinchestQr, Va 22601 Phone Number: (703) 667-2139 Contact Name: Tom Price or Chuck Maddox PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. 1. Development's name: Wheatlands 2. Location of property:3.5 mi ± east of Stephens City & 1 mi + southwest of Double Tollgate Adjacent & southside of Va Rte 277. Adjacent and west side of Va Rte 522 3. Total area of property:926.266 Ac. (Frederick County Land) 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map: 87 Tax parcel: 102 & 103 Tax ID # (21 Digit): 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 5. Property zoning and present use: R-5 (Vacant) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use:A-2 (Single FamilX & Vacant) & R-5 (Public Lake) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family, Townhouses, Village Centers,School & Future Development 8. Magisterial District: Opequon 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended XX, General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes_X_ No Scale Yes_X No Legend Yes X No Boundary Survey Yes_X_ No Total Area Yes_X No Topography Yes_X_ No Project Title Yes X_X_ No Preparation and Revision Date Yes _ No Applicant Name Yes X_ No 2. Number of phases proposed? Nine (9) 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes XX No 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes No XX 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. .Yes XX� No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes XX No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes XX No Note:Separate Colored Pfan—s have been submitted alonq with this application for environmental features 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area o Disturbed Area in Open Space Floodplains 0 0 0 Laces and ponds _ 0 0 _ 0 Natural retention areas 0 0 0 Steep slopes (15 0 +) 222 43 78 Woodlands 856 193 270 L� • 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Yes X No Entrances Yes_X_No Parking areas Yes No—X Utilities (mains) Yes X No 10. Has,a conceptual stormwater management plan been. provided? Yes_X No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes No N/A X Residential Uses If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? Single Family Detached Traditional (449), SF Detached Cluster _(839) & Townhouses (175) 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes X No Acreage in each housing type Yes NNo Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes_N__No Total acreage Yes X No Number of dwellings of each type Yes X No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space? 35% 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes X No 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? Tennis Courts & Picnic Shelters in addition to Tot Lot required for Townhouse Development Areas 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No X— , 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X_ Note: 70' R/W includes 25' Buffer each side w/Earthberms or Evergreen Landscaping or both. 8.. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No X 9. Are -required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes X No 10. Are any.of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes NoX_ Energy Conservation '' Yes No _X Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No X Underground Utilities Yes No X_ Street Design Yes No X 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? N/A 12. How will the bonus factors be used? N/A ZPlease list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street).of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly,'the complete 21-digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett Address: Rt.1,Box 87 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.##: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0096A Name: Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk Address: Rt.1,Box 98 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.##: 87000-001-0000-0000-000BO Name: Randolph H. Cornwell Address: 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va 22655 REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,In c. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. Parks & Recreation Department Comments: Recreation units need to be identified on the plan. Also, specifications for recreation equipment, shelters and tennis facilities should be sub- mitted for review and approval. It appears that PMDP meets open space requirements. Parks ,signature and Date: 11/6/90 (NOTME TO PARKS - PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your respDnsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. IF AR 17 0 0 0 • REQUEST FORMASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS City of Winchester, Virginia ATTN: Tim Youmans, Planning Director 15 N. Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-1815 The City of Winchester offices are located in Rouss City Hall at 15 North Cameron Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,Inc P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. City of Winchester Comments: (J[k✓t,, -3 dQ I/otzs h nc �t o✓er %D U-;JS (v]g al ire to /vn,/S �%enE�kl.h� 46o.r f- % 00 ,��,�os w" 44 svlt aces �o h {rl. �e��e 177, fire `J%s£s �o �¢ se e � l ? P4 )%es //S S' ! �,� �• fa LCrc✓,[��c �✓el"od f�i oD.�.n-�5�cicr� r tion�r.b�� e y ��JF.-� ����e Q..,o✓n'F o �Je,,cehT �� oQ�., s�kcr" n/Lv.sEA 4 1 ' — S€- !"rr7o A i ti i v F T EssF ►�� F= r-t-- - City Signature and Date'' (NOTICE TO CITY - PLEASE RET /n HIS FORM TO TH A NT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please also attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. RECEIVED OCT 2 4 1990 U H- T 1991 i 0 • CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 703-667-1815 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Tim Youmans, Planning Director FROM: Jesse Moffett, Director - Public Utilities DATE: November 15, 1990 SUBJ: WHEATLANDS The only concern that I have is that this development certainly is going to have a considerable demand for water. I am aware that this might eventually be serviced by the system that the County is proposing in Stephens City, utilizing quarry water. Because of the immense growth in this area of the County, I think it would be wise for the City to request that consideration be given to conducting hydraulic analysis of this additional load from both the prison site and this additional development. I believe we need to know the impact on our ability to maintain adequate service to customers north of Stephens City. Right now, the Fredericktowne meter for the Frederick County Sanitation Authority is drawing approximately 600,000 gpd. If you incorporate Stephens City with the Wheatlands and the prison, we could be looking at demands exceeding 1 million gpd in just this southern corridor. pc: Ed Daley, City Manager "THE APPLE CAPITAL" RECEIVED 1990 Frn) JAN I T 1991 9 REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick -Winchester Health Department ATTN: Herbert L. Sluder, Sanitation Engineer. P.O. Box 2056, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 667-9747 .J The Frederick -Winchester Health Department is located at the intersection of Smithfield Avenue and Brick Kiln Road, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn•Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. Health Department Comments: Health Signature and Date: /6 z0 / ^� (NOTICE TO HEALTH DEPT. - PLEA RET THIS FORM TO A NT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. f JAN I T I991 i • n n,7 a OCT £ 1„0 -rk S - REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Sanitation Authority ATTN: Wellington Jones, Engineer/Director P.O. Box 618, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the second floor of the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,Inc P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 AGENT: G W Clifford & Assoc P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn•Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity, Sanitation Authority Comments: STAB/,E'w / 3 /T,E�sr S — C'OAA�CT�r �FFS!/�3�Y/77 Sanit . Signature & Date • sd7 , (NOTICE TO SANITAT IO LEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach TWO copies of your plans and/or application form. REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Inspections Department ATTN: Kenneth L. Coffelt, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5651 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 Court Squard in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 r Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 - Name of development and/or description of the request:ca�n 1 WHEATLANDS (previously titled Lake Frederick) •� Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & west side and ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity, Inspections Department Comments: c N -r ® /a-" ib(pD> d 0 a, o-!1 �m�r �S%' %O GIS e GN ov Q /� 4 s do ., -/1 �-f --o r- � ` �We,�.H74Ts s«��o:�,Q,�d ,i Tow:�Lic�c;se5 Sc��40� C7 U-4— �a/� i^oy-0 e�;-7` .c C]L���hi L cJ / is:q Inspect. Signature & Date: yJ - i 9 - 9 0_ (NOTICE TO INSPECTIONS - PLC SE RETURN THIS rORM TO AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. L i VJAN 7199 ' ENGINEERS,CORRESPONDENC ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS December 17, 1990 Kris Tierney, Assistant Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA. 22601 Re: Wheatlands Water Quality Report 17555.017 Dear Kris, We received Dr. Grizzards response to our comments of his report regarding the impact the proposed development may have on the existing lake. His response adequately addresses our primary concerns regarding the lakes predicted water quality. It is apparent to us that BMP's should be required with this development in order to preserve the water quality. Even with an effective BMP program, additional nutrients will most likely enter the lake. This added nutrient level, according to Dr Grizzards report, will enlarge the life support system for a satisfactory fishery. I have no further questions regarding this report or the predicted water quality assessment of the lake provided BMP's are made a part of the proposed stormwater management plan. Sincerely, ONOHUE ASSO ES INC. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB/j la file: r/f/AD8 ■ 11240 96ples Mill Road, Suite 100, Fwrfax, Virginia 22030 ■ 703385.3566 �D on t 8� ■ Fax 7193.3�5j$g9 Printed on � recycled paper. OR1240 Waples Mill Road ENGINEERS Suite 100 ARCHITECTS Fairfax, Virginia 22030 SCIENTISTS 703.385.3566 Kris, Tierney, Assistant Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, Box 601 Winchwster, VA 22601 Your Authorization: Signed Agreement Wheatlands Water Quality Report Review of Comment Responses Principal Project Manager Engineer Admin. Assist .5 hrs 1.0 hrs 1.0 hrs .5 hrs Total Direct Total Indirect @ 48.00 @ 33.25 @ 19.90 @ 14.50 TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE Date: Dec. 17 ,1990 Please Reference: Project No. 17555.017 Invoice No. 9010278 Client No. 07534 24.00 33.25 19.90 7.25 84.40 126.60 $211.00 t November 30, 1990 Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 9 Court Square P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Wheatlands ENGINEERS a) Revised Preliminary Master Development Plan ARCHITECTS b) Water Quality Report - Wheatlands Lake c) Traffic Impact Analysis SCIENTISTS #17555-017 Dear Kris: We have reviewed the above items and offer the following comments or remarks for consideration of this project. A. WATER QUALITY REPORT 1. In conducting the study, five (5) sample locations were utilized which appear to be reasonable areas: a) #1 at the main body of the lake adjacent to the dam; b) #2 at the connection point to the east finger; c) #3 at about midway up the east finger; d) #4 at about halfway up the main body of the lake; and e) #5 at about 2/3 up the main body of the lake. 2. Test results and discussion in the report indicate that the lake is currently in the Trophic State Index (TSI) 30-40 range. Low oxygen levels in the 25 to 45-ft. depths indicate substantial degradable organic matter is present in the lake. In most cases, the oxygen levels drop to or near zero at those depths. 3. Based on the results of pH readings, the alkalinity values, and oxygen levels, algal activity is currently present in the lake system. With the above conditions, it is our opinion that it is not prudent to assume an average of .005 mg/L Total Phosphorous which gives a Trophic State Index Phosphorous (TSI-P) of 27 indicating a better water quality than is apparent by other indicators. The probable phosphorous loading should be between .005 and .01 mg/L. ■ 11240 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703.385.3566 Telefax 703.385.8319 Due to the complexities involved in conducting lab test for chlorophyll, this test was not performed. Therefore, results were not available to verify the assumption that chlorophyll (a) is less than 7 vg/L or a value low enough to place the TSI at a range less than 30. We agree that the existing water quality should be in the TSI upper range of 30 to 40 as suggested with the Secchi depth which indicates the lake is in pretty good shape. 4. Upon review of the Land Use Acreage Table, some of ENGINEERS the areas do not appear correct. The most apparent ARCHITECTS is the area of open water. The plan indicates SCIENTISTS approximately 164 acres of lake with 50-ft. buffer. This could have some impact on the Phosphorus Loading projections and should be looked at by the Consultant. 5. The report confirms that a successful BMP program needs to be designed, implemented and maintained with the development of this project. Even with a successful BMP program achieving up to 75% coverage of the project, the degradation of the water quality of the lake will occur. The TSI will change from the current range of 30-40 to a range of 50-60. BMP for water runoff quality will be an important factor in the long term success of this development. Efforts need to be made to approach as close to 100% as practical the coverage with BMP facilities. It will also be important to ensure proper maintenance of these facilities. This will most likely be the responsibility of a homeowners association. Some form of agreement and understanding will need to be developed that would outline maintenance requirements and water quality sampling provisions. B. TRAFFIC STUDY AND ACCESS ISSUES 1. This study does not indicate any background traffic as a result of other planned developments in the area. I am not aware of any planned developments in the immediate area but this should be confirmed by the Planning Staff. 2. The escalation factor used for the "No -Build" scenario is 4% in this report. This factor appears reasonable. Mr. Kris Tierney November 30, 1990 Page 2 • 3. The proposed lane configurations in Figure 8 appear satisfactory based on the volumes generated in the report. 4. The level of service at the intersection of 636 and 277 will be downgraded from "B" to "D" as a result of the "Build" traffic projection. Additional background traffic from other developments east of Stephens City could reduce this to the point of failing. ENGINEERS 5. The MDP comments are as follows: ARCHITECTS a) The intersection with the 110' entrance R/W SCIENTISTS and the two 70' R/W extension will need to be worked out to provide smooth transitions. b) Final road geometrics and design will need to be based on the anticipated traffic flow. c) Although I personally prefer cul-de-sacs, there is one dead end cul-de-sac which appears to exceed 2400 feet in Phase I. This could be tied to the second cul-de-sac in Phase 2 to reduce the unconnected length and provide better circulation. C. GRADING, DRAINAGE. AND EROSION CONTROL 1. The obvious objective here will be to disturb as little as possible the existing conditions and preserve the natural areas. 2. As previously indicated, BMP design practices will be necessary to preserve the existing lake to reasonable water quality standards. Detailed design calculations will need to be supplied with the final drawings. 3. This will include an aggressive erosion and sedimentation control program during construction. This program will need to be a part of the design and construction plans. Mr. Kris Tierney November 30, 1990 Page 3 • • Provided that the water quality impacts meet the satisfaction of the State Commission on Game and Inland Fisheries, and with the incorporation of items that will satisfy the comments listed above, I can recommend approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan in relation to general engineering, drainage, and erosion and sedimentation issues. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sinc , ENGINEERS /DONOHUE_ SOCIAT INC. ARCHIT ECTS SCIENTIS'�S Paul A. Bernard, PE Project Manager PAB:mb cc: Chuck Maddox, P.E. Gilbert Clifford & Associates, Inc. Mr. Kris Tierney November 30, 1990 Page 4 • 11240 Waples Mill Road • ENGINEERS Suite 100 ARCHITECTS Fairfax, Virginia 22030 SCIENTISTS 703.385.3566 Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, Box 601 Winchwster, VA 22601 Your Authorization: Signed Agreement Wheatland Revised PMDP Water Quality Report Traffic Impact Analysis Principal Project Manager Senior Engineer Engineer Technician Admin. Assist OL,��3t�j, -� �Arn-d,?�,cv✓ �12-lq I go P41 , 1.0 hrs @ 48.00 12.0 hrs @ 33.25 8.0 hrs @ 33.25 12.0 hrs @ 19.90 1.0 hrs @ 12.65 1.0 hrs @ 14.50 Total Direct Total Indirect TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE Date: Nov. 29, 1990 Please Reference: Project No. 17555.017 Invoice No. 9009780 Client No. 07534 48.00 399.00 266.00 238.80 12.65 14.50 978.95 1468.43 $2447.38 41999 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703 / 678-0682 December 18, 1991 G. W. Clifford & Associates Attn: Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: This letter is to notify you that on December 16, 1991 the Frederick County Planning Department administratively approved the revised master development plan, #006-91, for Wheatlands. This plan outlines the construction of 1288 single-family houses, 175 townhouse units, village centers, and a school site along with undesignated future development. This property, zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational) and consisting of 926.266 acres, is located 3.5 ± miles east of Stephens City and one mile ± southwest of Double Tollgate in the Opequon District and is identified as GPIN's 87000OA0001020 and 870000A0001030. Enclosed, for your files, are five signed copies of the final plan. Please do not hesitate to call this office if you have any questions regarding this approval. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Director KCT/slk enclosure cc: Fred L. Glaize, III, and Jasbo, Inc. Tom Price, G. W. Clifford & Associates THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 TRANSPORTATION CORRRSP j JUN 2 991 MMONWEALTH of VIRGIN .1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P 0 BOX 278 RAY 0. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 2282a COMMI$$IONCR WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT 6NGINCER (703) 984-4133 June 7, 1991 Callow Associates, inc. Ref.: Wheatlands Development ATTN.: Mr. Lance Hartland 12007 Sunrise valley Drive Frederick County Suite 160 Reston, VA 22091 Dear Lance: Attached is a copy of a memorandum from the Transportation Planning Division (Mr. George N. Pierce). It addresses some areas of your revised report which require correction, i apologize for being late in providing you this information. Sincerely, William H. Bushman, P.E. Transportation Resident Engineer WHujsl Attach. xc: Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr. Mr. J. B. Liamond Mr. D. E. Ripley Mr. R. B. Childress b, S� rye Q /L RAY D, PETHTEL COMMISSIONER 14 COMMONWEALTH of V1RQ1N1A PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 A ril 91 1991 .,� ., �.. •'_n �; :goo Memoran�dam`- To - Mr. R. L. Moore RICHARO C. LOCKWOOD YRANSPCR'ATION PLAWNG ENGINEER Wheatlands Development (Formerly Lake Frederick) Traffic Impact Study (Rev. 3/91) As requested in Mr. Bushman's letter to Mr. Lance Hartland (dated March 21, 1991), we have reviewed the subject report and offer the following comments: A. Some minor discrepancies still exist in the revised report; however, these items will not affect the final conclusions. A copy of the report (less Appendices) is attached as'Exhibit A, and minor corrections are noted. B. Two major discrepancies that significantly impact the analysis and conclusions at the intersection of Routes 277/340/522 are ; 1. The base year geometry is incorrectly displayed and utilized for capacity calculations (see page 4 and capacity work sheets). A copy of a recent intersection condition diagram is attached as'Exhibit B'for your ready reference. 2. version 1.4 of the FHWA capacity analysis software was used to perform Level -of -Service calculations. We noted in our previous review (February 19, 199i), the differences between versions 1,4 and 1,5 relative to the number of left -turning vehicle movements executed during_ the "green ball" phase; and VDOT Policy concerning_ computer programs. The combination of incorrect geometry and the outdated version of the software program lead to a conclusion that only minor adjustments to the intersection geometry are needed to attain LOS B (C) for the Year 2000 Build Condition. (See page 12). Mr. R. L. Moore Page 2 April 9, 1991 In order to attain the desired "LOS", however, the geometry should be revised as shown in`Exhibit C: Please note that the Routes 340 and 277 discharge lanes will require widening to allow for a safe and effective merge movement for the through traffic movement. C. Based on the improvements recommended in the report (e.g. signals, left -turn lanes, etc.) and the revisions noted in item B herein, we feel that negative traffic impacts of the site generated traffic will be sufficiently mitigated. Furthermore, we recommend that the developer bear the cost of all improvements. If you desire additional information or further discussion cc these comments, please contact G. N. Pierce (786-r3600) of my staff. ,/TC� R. C. Lockwood Attachments Transportation Planning Engineer Gyp/vv cc: Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr. w/attachments Mr. A. L. Thomas, Jr. " Mr. W. C. Jeffrey Mr. R. L. Perry / Mr. W. H. Bushman ✓ Mr. D. E. Ripley Mr. J. S. Diamond " " �•i 1�Glr1j•}� rNnx: i" COMMONWEALTH of VlRCIINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 February 6, 1991 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Wheatlands/ Lake Frederick Development Routes 277, 340, 522 & 636 Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties This is to acknowledge receipt of the above referenced project's revised preliminary master development plan dated February 4, 1991. All changes appear to have been made as discussed at our meeting of last Friday. We see no major design problems with this submittal and feel a safe and effective roadway network can be achieved through the ongoing design and review process. As you are aware, we will not be able to offer any additional comments on this proposal until the traffic impact study has been revised and resubmitted for further review. Should you have any questions concerning the above or if we -can be of further assistance, please give us a call. RBC/rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. D. E. Ripley Mr. R. W. Watkins Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer (� 12, C � ---it— By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. _D M OW IE FEB - 71991 I FEB TRANSP�')RTATION C.r)P THE ^1'Z' "_`JIIR" V COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER (703) 984-4133 January 25, 1991 Mr. John Callow C/O Callow Associates, Incorporated 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 160 Reston, VA 22091 Dear John: This is to confirm the meeting for the Wheatland Development Traffic Plan Review. The meeting is scheduled for January 31, 1991 at the Edinburg Residency Office at 10:30 a.m. Our office is south of the Town of Edinburg on Route 11, approximately 1.3 miles. Sincerely, William H. Bushman, P.E. Transportation Resident Engineer WHB/ sl xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr_ George N. Pierce C/O Transportation Planning Division - C/O Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Director of Planning C/O Frederick County, Virginia Mr. R. B. Childress 19(K7,IsOU[E 2 i 1991 FANN1 tAL TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 91CT f FNTI IRY CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC.FINEIVED `= RESIDENCY Transportation Planning & Design Consultants g 1 DEL O KDW MEMORANDUM 13.KbC ❑RLF DATE: January 25, 1991 Ref. 5397 TO: William Bushman, Virginia Department of Transportation FROM: D. Lance Hartland, Callow Associates, Inc. kj1 RE: Wheatlands Development - VDOT Transportation Comments Callow Associates has reviewed the transportation comments on the Wheatlands traff.c study, dated October 15, 1990, and prepared the following responses: A. Introduction (page 1) Comment 1: The Portion of the site located in Clarke County is not addressed. Response: As the site plan shows, no development will occur within the portion of the site that is in Clarke County. Comment 2: An unusually distant 'build -out" year (2000) was selected; however, a large portion of the site is labeled "FUTURE" on the Master Plan and not included in the impact analysis. Response: The year 2000 is a reasonable build -out year. If ten years is considered unusually distant, then please respond with your proposal for the build -out of this development. Regarding the portion of the site labeled 'FUTURE", it was included in the analysis. (47 acres x .25 FAR = 511,830 SF of Light Industrial). B. Existing Conditions (page 1) Comment 1: The report does not include a complete and up-to-date inventory of the existing facilities. Response: The revision in lane geometry traffic counts at the Double Toll Gate intersection results in the same level of service shown on Figure 3. The lane geometry at the Route 636/Route 277 intersection can be a single 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive - Suite 160 - Reston, Virginia 22091 - (703) 476-0001 - (703) 648-9427 - FAX# (703) 264-0358 William Bushman -2- January 25, 1991 wide lane or two narrow lanes, since pavement marking do not exist, i.e; left turns and right turns operate exclusive of one another. Comment 2a: The traffic turning movement data at the intersection was collected in July, 1989 and factored to represent 1990 data. Response: This is standard procedure and widely accepted. The growth factor used was obtained from VDOT counts. Comment 2b: The factored turning movement was then balanced to match the more recent traffic turning movement at the intersection of Route 277/636. This balancing process is not logical due to the distance and various traffic producing land use activities between the two intersections (e.g. mobile home park and Fulton Trucking Co.). Furthermore, this process introduced a bias into the east -west traffic movement resulting in unrealistic volumes for the 1990 existing conditions (See Attachment A). Response: In the reanalysis, the traffic counts at the Double Toll Gate intersection were only increased to reflect 1990 conditions. Again, this is standard traffic engineering procedure, widely accepted. Comment 2c: The level of service capacity analysis shown on Page 1 and in Appendix B are based on incorrect geometry and biased traffic data for the intersection of Routes 277/340/522 and must be reevaluated to reflect actual conditions. Response: The lane striping has apparently changed since our traffic counts. The new existing lane geometry was used with the revised 1990 volumes to reflect the actual conditions. The level of service for both intersections analyzed on Figure 3 of the traffic study will remain the same, even with the revised geometry. Comment 3a: The unsignalized capacity analysis shown for the intersection of Route 277/636 is based on incorrect lane geometry. The short radius returns and the angle of intersection will not accommodate two approach lanes on the northbound approach of Route 636. Response: See response to comment B2c. Comment 3b: Furthermore, the level -of -service is shown for the entire intersection; however, this type of analysis relates to only specific movements as stated in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM-85) and in Appendix B of the report. Therefore, the unsignalized capacity analysis must be • 0 William Bushman -3- January 25, 1991 corrected to reflect actual lane geometry and display LOS results for the specific turning movements. Response: This point is irrelevant because Figure 3 shows all the critical movement levels of service to be A' during both peak hours. Therefore the overall level of service for the intersection will be `A' for both peak hours. Comment 3c: We also note that the capacity analysis was conducted with default values contained in the computer software (% Heavy vehicles, % grade, peak hour factors, etc). Actual traffic adjustment values should be used to more accurately reflect existing conditions. Response: Using the default value is standard procedure. The traffic study was conducted to reflect future traffic conditions when the Wheatlands development is completed, thereby the default values are more reflective of future planning conditions. C. No -Build Scenario (page 5) Comment la: The inaccuracies noted in the existing conditions analysis will obviously be magnified in the forecast (Year 2000 No -Build) analysis, and not likely simulate future conditions. Therefore, it is imperative that the No -build scenario be reevaluated to reflect the corrected land geometry, revised traffic data, and traffic adjustment factors. Response: The revised background traffic and the existing lane geometry were used for the No -Build Scenario. The resulting level of service change only in the P.M. from V to `C' at the Double Toll Gate intersection. Comment lb: For your information, our staff analysis (performed for the intersection of Route 277/340/522) indicates a LOS V can be expected for the Year 2000 No -build condition without the lane modification noted on page 5 of the report. Response: See response to comment Cla. D. Build Scenario (page 5) Comment 1: The trip generating activities noted on page 5 and tabulated in Table 1, page 8, do not include the total site development. A review of the site master plan indicates that approximately 49 acres (labeled "FUTURE") and 12 acres (labeled "SCHOOL' and "FIREHOUSE") in Frederick County have not been included in the trip generation tabulations. We estimate that the excluded acreage might add an • 0 William Bushman -4- January 25, 1991 additional 4,500 P.M. peak hour trips to the roadway network (See Attachment B). This issue should be clearly defined and evaluated in the build scenario. We also note the acreage in Clarke County has not been addressed. Response. The trip generation on Table 1 of the traffic study does take into account to the whole development. All of the "FUTUR8 DEVELOPMENT" was assumed light industrial at a .25 FAR and the "School" and 'Firehouse" will attract internal trips and are not peak hour generating uses. Comment 2: The trip assignment/distribution shown on page 8 appears reasonable; however, a graphic representation of the internal site distribution should be included in the report. Furthermore, the external distribution should be reviewed by Frederick County of icials as assure con ormity with oca v n anne long-range employment and nonemployment activities in the surrounding area. Response: An internal site distribution graphic is not needed because the site was broken down into three zones. The distribution pattern from each zone was determined from the regional distribution and the minimum time paths to achieve the total site distribution shown on Figure 6 of the traffic study. The overall site distribution was based upon existing travel patterns, and a report prepared by Housing Data Reports, a division of Regardies, Inc. Comment 3a: The capacity analysis calculations and resulting levels of service must be revaluated to reflect the changes noted in the base year and no - build conditions. Response. See responses to comments 3b - 3d. Comment 3b: The assumption that the unsignalized intersection of Routes 277/636 will operate at an acceptable level of service (Build Condition) due to "gaps" caused by the signalized intersection of Route 277 and Proposed Wheatlands Drive is questionable (see page 12). This assumption does not consider the significant distance between the intersections which will allow the westbound traffic platoons to disperse; or that the signalized intersection of Routes 277/Wheatlands will have no impact on the eastbound traffic approaching the intersection of Routes 277/636 from the west. C� William Bushman -5- January 25, 1991 Response: The Route 277/Route 636 intersection was reanalyzed with signalization in the Build Scenario. With the existing lane geometry, it will operate at level of service `B' during the A.M. peak hour and `C' during the P.M. peak hour. (See HCS worksheets attached) Comment 3c: The conclusion that the Routes 277/340/522 intersection will operate at LOS B and C during the A.M. and P.M. peak periods respectively is erroneous due to incorrect base year and no -build lane geometry. Response: A modification to the existing lane geometry was required in the Build Scenario to achieve an acceptable LOS `C; that is why the modified lane geometry shown in Figure 8 was used - Comment 3d: The LOS `B' reported for the intersection of Route 277 and Proposed Wheatland Drive is overstated (page 12) due to a recent change in calculating capacity when protected plus permissive signal phasing is used. We have reviewed this intersection using up-to-date capacity procedures (version 1.5 of the FHWA capacity software) and find that the proposed geometry will provide only a LOS D on the westbound approach. Adjustments are necessary to attain at least a LOS `C' on all approaches. Response: The lane geometry shown in Figure 8 for the Route 277/W7teatlands Drive will provide a LOS `C' at all approaches in the P.M. peak hour even when no left turns were allowed in the permitted phase. Upon review of your analysis of this intersection, adjustments in the phasing of the other approaches would improve the westbound approach level of service. (See HCS worksheets attached) Comment 4: The build scenario does not include an assessment of traffic queues on the intersection approaches. We would point out that the Hi hwav Capacity Manual - HCM-85 (page 9-62) recommends that consideration be given to the use of double left -turn lanes when the volume demand exceeds 300 vehicles per hour. As several of the build -condition scenario left turn movements approach or exceed this criteria, the analysis should be reevaluated to insure adequate lane geometry. • William Bushman -6- January 25, 1991 Response: On Page 9-63, the Hip f� iwyy Capacity Manual (1985) states where left -turn volumes exceed 300 vph, provision of a double left -turn lane should be considered. The Route 277/Wheatlands Drive intersection operates adequately with a single left -turn lane in the westbound direction. A gueue analysis is determined that the westbound left turn lane should be 318 feet long (see queue worksheet attached). We do not see the need for a double left turn at this approach. Attachments cc: Richard C. Lockwood, VDOT Fred Glaize, Bowman & Glaize Jim Bowman, Bowman & Glaize John Foote, Hazel & Thomas Tom Price, Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc. DLH:clt 0 • OUE ANALYSIS ------------ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ALTERNATIVE: FM PEAK. HOUR INTERSECTION: ------------------------ ROUTE 277/ WHEATLANDS DRIVE YPH: #lanes: CPH: G/C: ------- EDL 0 ------- -------------- 40 Q EDT 305 1 40 0.221 EGR 427 1 40 0.588 WIRL 461 1 40 0.324 WBT 54.3 1 40 0.544 WBR 0 0 40 0 NDL 460 1 40 0.368 NDT i) i_) 40 0 NDR. 49' 1 40 0.647 SBL 0 0 40 0 SDT 0 0 40 0 SYR i) C) 40 i) auto length: 20 20 20 i ) 20 20 20 20 20 20 - 20 prop DUE: factor: (feet) 2 i) 2 242 2 180 2 318 1 o-z 2 297 E i) 2 178 2 0 0 2 i 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET........ WHEATLANDS DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET...... ROUTE 277 AREA TYPE ........................... OTHER NAME OF THE ANALYST ................. CALLOW ASSOCIATES DATE OF THE ANALYSIS ................ 1/23/91 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................ FM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: WHEATLANDS — 2000 — BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SF' ----- ----- ----- ----- LEFT C) 461 460 � ) THRU 305 547, RIGHT 427 493 c: RTOR (RTOR volume must be less than, or equal to RIGHT turn; volumes.) • INTERSECTION GEOMETRY Page NUMBER OF LANES PER -DIRECTION INCLUDING TURN BAYS: EASTBOUND = 2 WESTBOUND = 2 NORTHBOUND = 2. SOUTHBOUND = 0 EB WB NB SB LANE TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH TYPE WIDTH 1 T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 T . 12.0 R 12.0 T 12.(:) R 12.0 T 12.o 4 5 6 L - EXCLUSIVE LEFT. LANE T - EXCLUSIVE THROUGH LANE LT - LEFT/THROUGH LANE TR - THROUGH/RIGHT LANE LR - LEFT/RIGHT ONLY LANE R - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT LANE LTR - LEFT/THROUGH/RIGHT LANE ADJUSTMENT FAVORS GRADE HEAVY VEH. ADJACENT FKG BUSES K) K) Y/N (Nm) (Nb) PHF ---- EASTBOUND ( j. f 1f j .. .( Sf 1 � - - N C) f j - - f 1. 9f 1 - WESTBOUND 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 NORTHBOUND 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 SOUTHBO ND 0.00 2.00 N 0 0.9 ; Nm = number of parking m,aneuver-s /hr; Nb = number of buses stopping/hr CONFLICTING PEDS PEDESTRIAN BUTTON (peels/hour) (Y/N) (min T) ARRIVAL TYPE ------------ ---------------- EASTBOUND ----------------- N 8.5 _ WESTBOUND : i N 8.5 - NORTHBOUND 0 N 14.5 - SOUTHBO� AND N 14.5 - min T = minimum green time for pedestrians IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------•--------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... WHEATLANDS DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... ROUTE 277 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.... 1/23/?! ; FM PEA:: OTHER I MPORMA..i.. I ON : • SIGNAL- SETTINGS — OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Page- PRETIMED LOST TIME/PHASE 3.0 CYCLE LENGTH = 68.0 EAST/WEST PHASING PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE PHASE-4 EASTBOUND LEFT THRU X - RIGHT X REDS WESTBOUND LEFT X X THRU X X RIGHT FEDS NORTHBOUND RT X SOUTHBOUND RT GREEN 15.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW + ALL RED 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 NORTH/SOUTH PHASING PHASE-1 PHASE-2 PHASE-3 PHASE-4 NORTHBOUND - LFEFT x THRUI FIGHT x PED'S SOUTHBOUND LEFT THRU RIGHT FEDS EASTBOUND RT X WESTBOUND RT GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW + ALL RED ';.c_; C?,C? 0.0 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... WHEATLANDS DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... ROUTE 277 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.... 1/27/91 ; PM PEAK: OTHER INFORMATION: • 9 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT W()F--:K:SHEE1 Page-4 LANE LANE ADJ. MVT. ADJ. LAME GRP. NO. UTIL. GROWTH GRP. PROP PRQF VOL. PHF VOL_. GRP. VOL. LN FACT. FACT. VOL. LT RT EB LT 0 0.90 C) TH 30 0.90 339 T 339 1 1 . goo 1.000 339 0.00 00 0 . 0_, RT, 427 0.90 474 R 474 1 1.000 1.000 474 0.00 1.00 WB LT 461 0.90 51E' L 512 1 1.000 1.000 512 1.00 0.00 TH 543 0.90 603 T 603 1 1.000 1.000 603 0.00 00 0.00 RT 0 0. 90 C ) NB LT 460 0.90 511 L 511 1 1.000 1.000 511 1.00 0.00 TH (:) C) . 9 (-) C ) RT 493 0.90 548 R 548 1 1.000 1.000 546 0.00 00 1.00 S E; LT 0 0.90 ci - TH 0 0.90 C) Denotes a Defacto Left Turn Lane Group IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... WHEATLANDS DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... ROUTE^.•77 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS.... 1/. ._/91 ; PM PEAK: OTHER INFORMATION: WHEATLANI- S - 2000 - BUILD SATURATION FLOW ADJUSTMENT WORK:SHEET Page-5 I DEAL ADS,. SAT. NO. f f f f f f f f SAT. FLOW ---- LNS --- W ----- ----- HV ----- G R ----- - BB ----- A ----- RT ----- LT ----- FLOW EB - ---- T 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1782 R 1800 1 1.000 0.990 990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.850 1.000 1515 WB L 1800 1. 1.000 O - WO 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.950 1697 T isoo 1 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 i . c, 00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1782 NB L isoo 1 1.000 0 . 9?0 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.850 1515 R 1800 1 1.000 0.990 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.850 1.000 151 f SB IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... WHEATLANDS DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/ SOUTH STF'EET ... ROOTE 277 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS .... 1 /21/91 ' FM PEAK OTHER I NFo ;MAT I ON WHEA TLANDS - 2000 - BUILD CAPACITY ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Page-6 ADJ. ADJ. SAT. FLOW LANE GROUP FLOW RATE FLOW RATE RATIO GREEN FEATIO CAPACITY v/c (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) RATIO EH T _ ?9 17S2 0.190 0.221 39.3 0.862 * R 474 1515 0.313 0.588 891 0.532 WB Lperm. 0 Lprot. 512 1693 0.303 0.324 548 0.935 * T 603 1782 0.339 0.544 970 0.622 NB L oil 1515 0.337 R 548 1515 0.362 SB Cycle Length, C = 68.0 sec. Lost Time Per Cycle, L = E.0 sec. ILENTIFYING INFORMATION 0.36B 557 0.918 0.647 980 0.559 Suer W/O critical = 0.854 X critical = 0.9=7 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..... WHEATLANDS DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... ROUTE 277 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS .... 1 /'2.1/91 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION: WHEATL ANDS - 2000 - BUILD t LE=VE_L---OF--SERVICE Wt-RKSHEET page-7 DELAY LANE DELAY LANE LANE DELAY LOS v/c g/C CYCLE d GROUP d PROG. GRP. GRP. BY BY RATIO RATIO ----- LEN. ----- 1 ----- CAR'. ----- 2 ----- FACT. ----- DELAY ----- LOS ---- APP . ----- APP. ---- - EB ----- T 0.862 0.221 68.0 19.4 393 12.2 1.00 31.6 D 17.2 C R 0.532 0.588 68.0 6.4 891 0.5 1.00 6.9 B WB L 0.935 0.544 68.0 10.9 54S 17.1 1100 26.0 D 17.7 C T 0.622 0.544 68.0 8.1 970 0.9 1.00 9.0 B NB L 0.918 0.368 68.0 15.6 557 14.5 1.00 0.1 D 17.4 C R 0.559 0.647 68.0 5.0 980 0.6 1.00 5.6 B SB Intersection Delay = 17.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME. OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..... WHEATLANDS DRIVE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET... ROUTE 277 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS .... 1 / 2 - 91 FM PEQ: OTHER INFORMATION: WHEATLANDS - 2000 - BUILD r 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..RTE 277/RTE 636 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE ,.........1/24/91 - TIME .......... AM PEAK COMMENT... ... �WHEATLANDS - 2000 - BUILD W/ EXISTING GEOMETRY --------------------------------- VOLUMES : __________________________________ GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : ~ EB WB 'NB SB LT 7 18 81 15 : LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 609 2 1En 10 : 12.0 12.0 .12.0 12.0 RT 31 10 47 21 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR' 0 . 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 .12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 ' 12.0 12.0 --- -------- ADJUSTMENT FACTOR, '^ GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS RED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%)' Y/N Nm Nb Y/N. min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N / 13.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 ' 5 N 13.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 . N 13.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0.90 5 'N - _13.8 3 SIGNAL ---------------- SETTINGS ' CYCLE LENGTH = 71.0 ' PH PH-2 PH- -3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X` TH X TH K RT X RT X PD PD _ WB LT X SB LT X TH X . TH X ` RT X RT X PD ' PD GREEN 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.^� YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.O 0.0 ----------------------------- _------------------------------ LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LTR 0.641 0.704 5.2 B 5.2 B WB LTR 0.435 0.704 3.6 A 3.6 A NB LTR 0.504 0.211 19.9 C 19.9 C SB LTR 0.162 0.211 17.4 C 17.4 C ______________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.609 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..RTE 277/RTE 636 ~ ** AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST.......CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE ........... 1/24/91 TIME .......... PM PEAK - COMMENT ....... WHEATLANDS - 2000 _ BUILD W/_EXIS. ING GEO|ETRY VOLUME S --~''�~ ' - EB WB NB : GEOMETRY SB : WB LT 28 59 69 �� 'EB 1I : LTR 12.0 LTR 12 0 LTR ^ NB 12 0 LTR SB l��.0 TH 693 902 7 RT 127 15 q : 12.0 12 0 ^ ^ 12 0 ^ 12^0 25 RR 3� : 12 0 � �^ 12^0 12.0 12,0 0 0 0 o : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : '12. 0 12. 0 12 � �_�_12.0_______12.0________12.0________12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED ^ BUT ARR ` TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm ` Nb Y/N ^ EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 ' 0 0.90 5 N min T 13 8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 � 0 0.90 5 N 13^8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 'N 0 0 0.90 5 N 13^8 3 SB0.2.00N0�__. CL0.95N13~8 PH-1 PH-2 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 70 0 EB LT X PH-3 ` PH-4 PH PH-2 - PH 3 - PH^4 NB LT X TH X � TH X RT X � � RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 55.0 0.0 � 0.0 0.0 GREEN 9 0 0 0 0 0 YELLOW 3.00.0___ ^ C) C. YELLOW 30 0^0 0 0 0^0 0^0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C EB G/C DELAY LOS APP D-LAY ^ � APP ^ LOS LTR 0.841 0 786 7 8 B 7^8 ^6 B WB LTR 0.987 0^786 236 . . 23 C C NB LTR 0 566 0 129 24 5 ^ C 24^5 C SB LTR 0^327 0^12q 21^5 ^^__ C21.5________ C INTERSECTION: Delay = 16.8 (sec/veh) V'C = 0.928 LOS =-------- 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SDMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION. .DOUBLE TOLL GATE/ AREA TYPE. ....OTHER ANALYST. ......CALLOW ASSOCIATES DATE ........... 1/24/91 ' TIME.,........AM PEAK COMMENT.......WHEATLANDS - 2000 - BUILD W/ NEW GEOMETRY - VOLUMES : GEOMETRY 'EB WB_ I NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 111 197 83 59 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L- 12.0 TH 333 365 262 16' : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT -79 89 220 86 : 12.0 12.0 T 12.0 7 12.0 RR 0 0 28 20 : 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' '12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE [IV ADJ PKG. BUSES PHF PES PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 ' 0 N 26.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 26.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SB' 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 ' SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 63.0 . - PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X ' TH X TH X ` RT RT X . . PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X ` TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD ' GREEN 15.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 ' 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C 4]ELAY LOS APP. DELA� APP. LOS EB L 0.147 0.683 2.7 A �� 11.3 B TR 0.667 0.397 � 13." B WB L 0.255 0.683 3.0 A 11.5 B TR 0.735 0.397 15.2 C NB L 0.310 0.22213.2 B T 0.386 0.222 16.0 C R 0.306 0.460 8.2 B SB L 0.332 0.222 16.0 C 13.7 B T 0.242 0.222 15.3. C R 0.105 0.460 7.3 B INTERSECTION: Delay =` 12.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.559 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT *********** ill ************* It. ***********************************************n INTERSECTION..DOUBLE TOLL GATE/ AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST.......CALLOW ASSOCIATES DATE ..........1/24/91 TIME..........PM PEAK COMMENT.......WHEATLANDS - 2000BUILD NEW GEOMETRY VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 162 335 147 � . - . 12.0 TH 571 627 296 475 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 178 87 255 187 : 12.0 12.0' T 12.0 T 12.� RR 0 0 80 60 : 12.0 12.0 R 1?.0 R 12.� : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.� 12.0 ' ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSHF ES PPEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/K Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 26.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 26.5 _3 NB 0,00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 ' 0 N 14.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 78.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 .PH-4 � PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X � RT X PD PD WB LT X X ' SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 40.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 4.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.341 0.641 5.3 R. 23.1 C TR 0.944 0.513 27.0 D WB L 0.732 0.641 15.3 C 18.7 C TR 0.884 0.513 20.3 C NB L 0.511 0.282 20.2 C 20.5 C T 0.504 0.192 21.9 C R 0.455 0.282 18.1 C SB L 0.447 0.282 18.9 C r4.4 C T 0.809 0.192 27.9 D R 0.330 0.282 17.0 C INTERSECTION: Delay = 21.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.844 LOS = C n r. COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN COMMISSIONER RESIDENT ENGINEER (703) 984-4133 January 9, 1991 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E., V.P. Ref: Wheatlands/ C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. Lake Frederick Development 200 North Cameron Street Routes 277, 340, 522 & 636 Post Office Box 2104 Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: We have reviewed the above referenced project's preliminary master plan and traffic impact analysis. Our comments may be found in the attached copy of a letter from Mr. R. C. Lockwood dated December 11, 1990 and as follows: 1. We feel the interior roadway network design is poor, especially the cul-de-sacs. These streets should either be shortened and/or lengthened to connect with through roadways in order to provide better traffic flow. v 2. The "bulb" cul-de-sacs are undesirable and should be eliminated. 3. It appears the "ring" road intersects fairly close to the main entrance roadway to the development at Route 340/522. A determination should be made to consider whether this design has the potential of creating traffic flow problems. This intersection should also be analyzed to determine the type of traffic control needed. 4. Additional right-of-way may need to be reserved along the property frontage with Route 277 in order to accommodate necessary improvements at this connection. Before we can offer any additional comments, the above listed items will need to be addressed. Should you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, W. H. Bushman, Resident Engineer By: R. B. Childress, Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. R. L. Moore, Mr. J. B. Diamond, Mr. D. E. Ripley, Mr. R. W. Watkins C� [E,u YE: JAN 14 1991 wciH • � Via, �� � M o � CAL 7)1 L i COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION / 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D. PETHTEL RICHMOND. 23219 RICHARD . LOCKWOOD COMMISSIONER `/ TRANSPORTATION NNING ENGINEER December 11, 1990 \ \l Wheatlands Development_ P (Formerly Lake Frederick) Traffic Impact Study Frederick and Clarke �� tiis,^�"/�\�t�: MEMORANDUM ' n � TO - Mr. R. L. Moore We have reviewed the revised report (dated October 15, 1990) for t ject impact study; and conclude that the impact of the site generated traffic on local roadways has not been adequately or thoroughly addressed. The basis for our conclusion are as follows: A. INTRODUCTION (page 1) The portion of the site located in Clarke County is not addressed. ' 2. An unusually distant "build -out" year (2000) was selected; however, a large portion of the site is labeled "FUTURE" on the Master Plan and not inlcuded in the impact analysis. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS (page 1) I. The report does not include a complete and up-to-date inventory of the existing facilities 2. The traffic turning movement data at the intersection was collected in July, 1989 and factored to represent 1990 data. The factored turning movement was then balanced to match the more recent traffic turning movement at the intersection of Routes 277/636. This balancing process is not logical due to the distance and various traffic producing land use activities between the two intersections (e.g. mobile home park and Fulton Trucking Co.). Furthermore, this process introduced a bias into the east -west traffic movement resulting in unrealistic volumes for the 1990 existing conditions (See Attachment A) The level of service capacity analysis shown on page I and in Appendix B are based on incorrect geometry and biased traffic data for the intersection of Routes 277/340/522 and must be reevaluated to reflect actual conditions. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY !fl tf jt% 14 i Mr. R. L. Moore Page 2 December 11, 1990 3. The unsignalized capacity analysis shown for the intersection of Routes 277/636 is based on incorrect lane geometry. The short radius returns and the angle of intersection will not accommodate two approach lanes on the northbound approach of Route 636. -` Furthermore, the level -of -service is shown for the entire intersection; however, this type of analysis- relates to only specific movements as stated in `. the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM-85) and in Appendix B of the report. Therefore, the unsignalized capacity analysis must be corrected to reflect.::::,`' actual lane geometry and display LOS results for the specific turning movements. We also note that the capacity analysis was conducted with default values contained in the computer software (% Heavy vehicles, % grade, peak hour factors, etc). Actual traffic adjustment values should be used to more accurately reflect existing conditions. C. NO -BUILD SCENARIO (page 5) I. The` inaccuracies noted in the existing conditions analysis will obviously be magnified in the forecast (Year 2000 No -Build) analysis, and not likely simulate future conditions. Therefore, it is imperative that the No -build scenario be reevaluated to reflect the corrected lane geometry, revised traffic data, and traffic adjustment factors. For your information, our staff analysis (performed for the intersection of Routes 277/340/522) indicates a LOS 'B' can be expected for the Year 2000 No-. build condition without the lane modification noted on page 5 of the report. D. BUILD SCENARIO (page 5) I . The trip generating activities noted on page 5 and tabulated in Table I, page 8, do not include the total site development. A review of the site master plan indicates that approximately 49 acres (labeled "FUTURE") and 1.2 acres (labeled "SCHOOL" and "FIREHOUSE") in Frederick County have not been included in the trip generation tabulations. We estimate that the excluded acreage might add an additional 4,500 P.M. peak hour trips to the roadway network (See Attachment B). This issue should be clearly defined and evaluated in the build scenario. We also note the acreage in Clarke County has not been addressed. 2. The trip assignment/distribution shown on page 8 appears reasonable; however, a graphic representation of the internal site distribution should be included in the report. Furthermore, the external distribution should be reviewed by Frederick Count officials o assure conformitywi oca anne n ranae emp oyment and nonE=Ioyment activities in the surroun ina • • • - __ ___ �- i i � ���� °AN 1 4 � � � i i�'' '''I ,, ``t `� i 1 j 1 �I� � � -���- Mr. F<.L. Moore � Page 3 December 11 1990 3, The capacity analysis calculations and resulting levels of service' must be revaluated to reflect the changes noted in the base year and no -build ` assumption that the unsignalized intersection of Routes 277/636 wil unacceptableThe operate.at an level of service (Build Condition) .caused by the signalized intersection of Route 2// and Proposed Wnean nd Drive is qveu//vvmb.e (see page /2/ This "=svxp/'u"/ does //u/ consider the u/ym/icun/ u/umoce between the n//e/oec//u"/s which.will u/m"v the westbound traffic platoons to disperse; or that the signalized intersection of -Routes 277/Wheatlands Drive will have no impact on the eastbound traffic approaching the intersection of Routes 277/636 from the west. The conclusion that the Routes 277/340/522 intersection will operate at LOS B and C during A.M. and P.M. peak periods respectively is erroneous due 'TO incorrectUo .ono nn-build |geometry. ' ..- ^-_~ 1131 ._'-.._- for the intersection_of .'--.--.. and . ' ...___ 12) calculating capacity when protected plus permissive signal phasing is used. We have reviewed this intersection using up-to-date capacity procedures (version 1.5 of the FHWA capacity software) and find that the proposed geometry will provide only.a LOS D on the westbound approach. Adjustments are necessary to attain at least a LOS ICI on all approaches. 4. The build scenario does not include on assessment of traffic queues on the intersection approaches. We vvoVid point out that the Highway Capacity Manual -��(���-85 (page 9-62) recommends that consideration"--' use of double left -turn lanes when the volume darnomj exoaedo300 vehicles per hour. As several of the build -condition scenario left turn movements approach or exceed this criteria, the unu|yoiu should be reevolooted to insure adequate r lone geometry., For your information, we have discussed the variation in level of service results obtained from version 1.4 and 1.5 of the FH\@/\ capacity software with Mr. [-once``� Hartland of Callow Associates, Inc., however, no corrective actions were discussed. The basic difference in the two versions is the number of vehicles assigned to the permissive (green boll) phase of the olgnu| cycle. The revised version (1.5) greatly reduces this volume, thereby increasing the green time in the protected phase. The impact of this ` change increases the total delay time and lowers the. intersection level of service. '.� . ' ' ^' � ^ ' ., ` `' JAN b�V ;u ` Mr. R. L. Moore Page-4 December I I , 1990 In summary, it is our recommendation that the report be returned to the consultant for a reevaluation that more accurately reflects the existing and anticipated traffic operating conditions derived from up-to-date capacity analysis procedures and as noted in our review comments. A copy of the report has been highlighted with our comments and included herewith for your use and information (See Attachment 'C'). We would also note that the master plan shows a portion of existing Route 636 to be abandoned. This design should be reviewed closely by. VDOT field personnel to insure no private access is severed..:;:;;:... Furthermore, the plan proposed a stop condition for the Route 636 thru traffic. As the traffic analysis does not indicate any significant site volumes utilizing this entrance Phis intersection should be redesigned to allow free flow movement for the Route 636 through traffic. Should you desire additional information or further discusion of our review comments, please contact G. N. Pierce (786-3600) of my staff. R. C. Lockwood Transportation Planning Engineer ' Attachments GNP /vv cc: Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr. Mr. A. L. Thomas, Jr. Mr. W. C. Jeffrey Mr. R. L. Perry Mr. W. H. Bushman Mr. D. E. Ripley j Mr. J. B. Diamond 9 WHEATLArJDS FREDER 1CK Goonv7y f,TE 277 19 �O -- pm PLAK. 19 ga T M rficToRu) 19 90 7'M C FRcrn 1788) RTE 5 22 (4 69) y82 ATTAGHME NT A (3Z1) 3�3 I5t 23 G 10 <IL 2 7iooT �— 62 (54� 317 343 E-- ! 8y (2 7y) 3YB y31 637 55/C53 231(3y3 19 —T 32a /93 (7)12--_T yo5 (3o0 (153)Z53 —� I G► 1 I 3 355 2-5 5 4 � � � 3 � 85 5� (y5)(82)C50) 36y l �8 �► (3 31) (I. 7) . RTE l0 34, 532 (508) Rt� 5ZZ/3y6 R F 3Yo �_3 731 Al ATTACHMENT B WHEATLANDS TRIP GENERATION ADJ. STREET PM TOTAL 4 PM RATE TRIPS PM TYPE UNITS PHASE ACRES PROD ATTR PROD ATTR TRIPS FUT DEV FUT 9.0 FUT DEV FUT 10.0 FUT DEV FUT 13.0 FUT DEV FUT 7.0 FUT DEV FUT 10.0 FIRE STATION UNKN 2.0 SCHOOL UNKN 15.0 MULTI-FAM 95 1 36.0 0.22 0.46 21 44 65 SINGLE FAM 25 1 18.5 0.37 0.63 9 16 25 SINGLE FAM(CL) 30 1 15.0 0.37 0.63 11 19 30 SINGLE FAM(CL) 20 1 8.0 0.37 0.63 7 13 20 SINGLE FAM 42 2 32.0 0.37 0.63 16 26 42 PHASE 1 TOTAL TRIPS 140 SINGLE FAM(CL) 125 2 72.0 0.37 0.63 46 79 125 PHASE 2 TOTAL TRIPS 167 RETAIL(SHOP CEN) 135 3 3.0 2.87 2.75 388 371 759 PHASE 3 TOTAL TRIPS 1215 • LT. INDUSTRIAL 301 3 7.0 0.91 0.12 274 36 310 PHASE 4 TOTAL TRIPS 181 SINGLE FAM 45 3 35.0 0.37 0.63 17 28 45 PHASE 5 TOTAL TRIPS 141 SINGLE FAM(CL) 47 3 24.0 0.37 0.63 17 30 47 PHASE 6 TOTAL TRIPS 1017 SINGLE FAM(CL) 55 3 34.0 0.37 0.63 20 35 55 PHASE 7 TOTAL TRIPS 184 SINGLE FAM 10 4 8.0 0.37 0.63 4 6 10 PHASE 8 TOTAL TRIPS 165 SINGLE FAM 17 4 11.5 0.37 0.63 6 11 17 PHASE 9 TOTAL TRIPS 85 SINGLE FAM 8 4 6.0 0.37 0.63 3 5 8 --------- SINGLE FAM 21 4 20.0 0.37 0.63 8 13 21 TOTAL PM TRIPS 3295 SINGLE FAM(CL) 125 4 65.0 0.37 0.63 46 79 125 MULTI-FAM 80 5 32.0 0.22 0.63 18 50 68 CONSULTANT'S SINGLE FAM(CL) 73 5 37.0 0.37 0.63 27 46 73 TOTAL PM TRIPS 3219 RETAIL(SHOP CEN) 95 6 2.0 3.18 3.05 301 288 589 --------- LT. INDUSTRIAL 210 6 5.0 0.91 0.12 191 25 217 DIFFERENCE 76 SINGLE FAM 51 6 40.0 0.37 0.63 19 32 51 ' SINGLE FAM 48 6 38.0 0.37 0.63 18 30 48 SINGLE FAM(CL) 17 6 7.0 0.37 0.63 6 11 17 SINGLE FAM(CL) 41 6 19.0 0.37 0.63 15 26 41 NOTE: FROM CONSULTANT'S BUILD SINGLE FAM(CL) 54 6 26.0 0.37 0.63 20 34 54 SCENARIO ON P. 5, THE ADDED SINGLE FAM 68 7 49.0 0.37 0.63 25 43 68 TRIPS GENERATED ARE SINGLE FAM 8 7 6.0 0.37 0.63 3 5 8 SINGLE FAM(CL) 30 7 13.0 0.37 0.63 11 19 30 • SINGLE FAM(CL) 78 7 38.0 0.37 0.63 29 49 78 COMM. 16 ACRES 2190 SINGLE FAM 21 8 18.0 0.37 0.63 8 13 21 LT. IND. 50 ACRES 2243 TOTALS 3142 PRODUCTIONS SINGLE FAM(CL) 68 8 29.0 0.37 0.63 25 43 68 1291 ATTRACTIONS SINGLE FAM(CL) 76 8 32.0 0.37 0.63 28 48 76 SINGLE FAM 85 9 74.0 0.37 0.63 31 54 85 NEW TOTAL PM TRIPS 7728 TOTALS 926.0 1668 1626 3295 CONSULTANT'S TOTAL PM TRIPS 3219 TOTAL M-FAM 175 68 39 94 133 --------- TOTAL S-FAN-CL 839 419 310 529 839 DIFFERENCE 4509 TOTAL S-FAM 449 356 166 283 449 TOTAL SING FAM 1288 775 477 811 1288 TOTAL LT. IND. 511 12 465 61 526 TOTAL RETAIL 230 5 688 660 1348 TOTALS 1668 1626 3295 9 R JAN 1 412--1 • 0 _ L T i ACAM F N i ..... TRAFFIC rMPACT STUDY OF WHEATLANDS prepared for BOWMAN AND GLAIZE Glaize Development, Inc. P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Virginia 22601 prepared by CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 160 Reston, Virginia 22091 (703) 476-0001 October 15, 1990 L9 JAN 14 1991 L-1 .................... .... ...... . .. . . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No: LIST OF FIGURES ................ ... .......................... LIST OF TABLES °. .......: ....................................... iv ...INTRODUCTION ................... ` ... ......................... EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................... NO -BUILD SCENARIO ..........................................:. 5 . . BUILD SCENARIO 5 ................................................ CONCLUSION.................................................... 12 APPENDIX A COUNT SUMMARY .................................... . APPENDIX B - LEVEL OF SERVICE ` .......` .......................... .y..,{r t J JAN 14 1. Vicinity Map F. 2. Existing Road Network and Peak Hour Volumes 3. Existing bevel of Service and Lane Geometry 4. 2000 No -Build Peak Hour Volumes 5. 2000 No -Build Level of Service and Lane Geometry 6. Wheatland Trip Distribution 7. 2000 Build Scenario Peak Hour Volumes ' 10 8. 2000 Build Scenario Level of Service and Lane Geometry ; r _ .•:�� is iii CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. i JAN INTRODUCTION This report documents the analysis of traffic conditions associated with the proposed osed Wheatland development. This development is a mixed use community proposed for _Frederick County, Virginia (See Figure 1). The site consisting of approximately 926 developable acres, is located just south of Route 277 and west of Route 522. This report is in support of an application for rezoning to include a total of 1,288 single-family dwelling units, 175 townhouse units, 228,690 square feet of retail use, and 511,830 square feet of light industrial uses. This report presents the findings of an analysis of the traffic impacts of the proposed development. It examines the projected traffic volumes and road improvements for the build -out year of 2000. V EXISTING CONDITIONSa� _- Route 277 exists as a rural two-lane highway and intersects with Route 522/340 (Double Toll Gate), and Route 636. Route 636 is a rural two-lane collector. U.S. Route 522 exists as a four -lane divided highway and U.S. Route 340 is a two-lane highway. Traffic counts were taken during April 1990 at these intersections. A summary of the data is included in Appendix A- Figure 2 shows the resulting peak hour volumes and 24 hour (ADT) volumes. The peak hour volumes were evaluated for level of service using the existing lane geometry (See Figure 3). The Double Toll Gate intersection operates signalized at level of service `B' in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The Route 277/Route 636 intersection curtgntl G G%7CCK y operates unsignalized at level of service `A' in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. 6M;4_1 � 1r0j1e1nen'1- an/y7Gr U/7 LDS. g Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in Appendix B. Level of service definitions are also provided in Appendix B for signalized and unsignalized intersections. CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC I (-)-21 D M. (�� [E 5 w M I f,Yw 14 iQsi v C r: 0 9 7 �G (�)9 a� yti��., 27 N 1} �h SITE a AM(PAt) CApn C'� "eatlands Figure 2: Existing Road Network and Peak October 15, 1990 1 Hour Volumes U.S. RL 340 is ie CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC 3 0-6 JAN Y (4),q M UNSlONAU�LIC13 • AIA) Ar�r /� Rr Z,, S I TL • PAVeMQiT 13 UNMAIiI® elrr Wrarm Call ACCCMMOCATE TWO NORh DM0 C LAND AM(PM) "eatlands October 15, 1990 v0' �. a I� / 7^ / e� � R U.S. Rt. 340 ! CO m R�Fy♦ Co c0. Figure 3: Existing Level of Service and Lane Geometry CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC 4 NO -BUILD SCENARIO Background Traffic The existing peak hour and 24 hour counts were increased at a rate of 4 percent per year. This percent growth was the average growth of Virginia Department of Transportation counts conducted between 1985 and 1988 east of the site. These increased peak hour and ADT volumes represent the 2000 No -Build Scenario (See Figure 4). Level of Service �. 1.i Callow Associates has performed capacity analysis at the same intersection analyzed in the AA5__ 0 -IV �p�tRlrcT - existing conditions assuming the same lane geometry for the No -Build Scenario. The ZZ analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition of the future traffic without the Wheatlands development (See Figure 5). The Route 277 Route -� Gi �...� .. C ' 636 intersection level of service will be 'A' .p Ain both peak hours without signalization. The < D — � Double Toll Gate intersection will operate signalized at a level of service_`D' in the P.M. 40 GTleak hour. This signalized level of service is inadequate therefore the lane geometry was modified to raise the P.M. level of service. Left turn lanes were added at the eastbound and westbound approaches, with this modification the level of service will increase to `B' in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. BUILD SCENARIO Trip Generation Q The Wheatlands development proposes to construct approximately 1463 residential dwelling P units, 21 acres of commercial uses, and 62 acres of light industrial uses. The traffic �¢G generated by the development was estimated by using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition (1987). Table 1 gives the resulting trips generated by the Wheatlands for the A.M. and P.M. peak periods. CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC 5 • ;; r� � C�' C� � �� � � � 1 u . ____. JqN 141991 Jp W teatlands 11 Figure 4: No -Build Scenario Peak Hour Volumes October 15, 1990 C4LLOW ASSOCIATES, INC 6 CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC 7 JAN 141-,111�„ 9 FJJAN 14 1- Wheatlands Figure 7: Build Scenario Peak Hour Volumes October 15, 1990 ;:F/ 701r ?"?a CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC 10 2-13 6 0 D I IE (�7, M 0 W IE JAN 14 Iq-91 CALLOWASSOCIATES, INC 11 o Route 277 and Route 636 will operate unsignalized at level of service `E' in the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The minor movements will experience delays because the mainline through volumes on Route 277 will take the reserve capacity of intersection. However, the signalized Wheatlands Drive j intersection to the east will cause gaps in the traffic that will allow the min7)or /po movements to operate adequately. (�V{lp'� a b004 Prm 4f Wt 4. o Route 277 and Route 522/340 will operate signalized at an acceptable level 0 of service `B' in the morning peak and 'C' in the evening peak hour, with the Ll� th the modified lane geometry used in the No -Build scenario. Route 277 and Wheatlands Drive snwill operate signalized at a level of service urin both peak hours. �c o Route 522 and Wheatlands Drive will operate signalized at level of service B' during both peak hours. Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in Appendix B. CONCLUSION KV — P,W0_&,t Ce�.a-i.c%c S In the year 2000, the intersections analyzed in the existing conditions were also analyzed in the No -Build Scenario. The Double Toll Gate intersection will require east and westbound left turn lanes to operate at level of service `B' or better in the peak hours. The Route 277/Route 636 will remain unsignalized and operate at level of service `B' or better in the peak periods. For the Build Scenario, the Wheatlands development will generate 1,884 trips in the morning peak hour and 3,219 trips during the evening peak hour. The levels of service of the analyzed intersections will decrease slightly from the No -Build Scenario. The two site CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC 12 C - 15 1C�G�GuXC� �` I jpN 14199� access points along Route 277 and Route 522/340 will require turn lanes and signalization to operate at level of service 'B' or better during the peak hours. CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC 13 e_ /(.0, JAN f '40 YIX T - Vhffdlafic/s 140#0 COMMONWEALTH of V1RQ1N1A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 December 20, 1990 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E., V.P. Ref: C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Frederick, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Wheatlands/Lake Frederick Development Routes 340/522 & 277 Clarke & Warren Counties This is to acknowledge receipt of the above referenced project's preliminary master development plan and traffic impact analysis submitted with your letter of November 6, 1990. We have forwarded the package on to our District Office in Staunton and Central Office in Richmond for their review. Once we are in receipt of any comments they may have we will pass them along to you. In the meantime, should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please give give us a call. 02 RBC / rf / xc: Mr. D. E. Ripley Mr. R. W. Watkins Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Permits & Subd. Spec. Senior p R@IEodIR DFr. 2 61990 I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN EDINBURG, 22824 RESIDENT ENGINEER (703) 984-4133 RAY D. PETHTEL 1989 COMMISSIONER December 12 Ref.: Wheatlands/ Maddox, Jr., P.E-, vice President Lake Frederick Development Mr. Charles E. Inc. C/o G. W. Clifford & Associates, 20 South Cameron Street p. O. Box 2104 22601. Winchester, VA Dear Chuck: act' Study you furnished ched are comments relative to the Traffic Imp Atta previously. WF'ygill need the areas listed Before e additional r ecommendations can be analysed, . addressed. let us know if you have any questions.. Please Since elV, William H. Bushman, P.E. Resident Engineer WHB/sl attach. Moore xc: Mr. Robert L. Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. D. E. Ripley Mr. R. B. Childress Mr..Rob6rt Watkins 272$3o 0 ti 686j ,l, A � � a TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO Mr. D. E. Ripley Staunton, Virginia FROM J. B. Diamond December 8, 1989 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Study Rte. 340/522/277 Wheatlands - Clarke, Frederick & Warren Co. The traffic impact study provided by the developer has been reviewed by the Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering Divisions and we believe it would be appropriate to respond to the developer and include the following comments: 1) Provide site plan for entire development. The master site plan originally submitted does not agree with traffic impact study or vice versa. 2) Establish a "build -out" year to reflect completion of entire development. 3) Forecast traffic volumes and perform capacity analysis on existing roadway network for the "build -out" year with and without site traffic (build and no build condition). Capacity analysis should include rural 2-lane and 4-lane arterial procedures as appropriate. 4) The lower than average trip rates utilized in the study should be justified by the developer. 5) Trip distribution background information should be provided to substantiate the selected distribution of trips. 6) A site plan with an internal roadway network should be provided to substantiate trip assignment to the proposed entrances. The original Master Plan indicated an internal :ing road around the lake connecting with the Virginia Game and Inland Fisheries access road. Indications are that the connection to the access road may not be permitted. This could have a significant impact on the distribution of traffic and anticipated flow of traffic within the development. 7) The selected roadway improvements necessary to accommodate the generated traffic should be clearly identified. IT- D Cam:... .�:1CZ�40( ,�r.f- r n ••�- A ..i Mr. D. E. Ripley Page 2 December 8, 1989 After the developer has provided a more complete and thorough traffic impact study, we will re -submit to the Central Office for review. J. B. Diamond District Traffic Engineer By: K. B. Downs Transportation Engineer KBD/sc CC., Mr. Robert L. Hoore Mr. W. H. Bushman DEPARTMENT OF GAME INLAND FISHERIES • ��r Is (e�z n 0 w I E OCT 17 n ► COMMONWEALTH of VIRC-jINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisberies October 15, 1991 Mr. Kris Tierney Frederick County Department of Planning and Development P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Wheatlands, Final Master Development Plan Dear Mr. Tierney, In response to your letter dated September 12, 1991, offering us the opportunity to review the Wheatlands Subdivision Final Master Development Plans the following comments are submitted: On the Plan of Development - 1. Under the ACREAGE CALCULATION, "less VA GAME Tract B (Lake & 50' Es'mt Around) ----- 164. 00 Acres" and also shown in the lake under "EX. 164 Acre LAKE (Includes 50' Easement Around Lake Perimeter)"; Both of these statements indicate that the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries owns a 50' easement around the lake. Our deed description recorded in Deed Book 145 on Page 75 indicates that the 50' strip is owned in fee simple. We recommend that the term "easement" be changed to "strip in fee simple" to reflect the correct ownership situation. - 2. My staff has discussed the area of coverage of the Storm Water Management Ponds (SWMP) with Mr. Maddox. His statement at that time was that the Developer has agreed to seventy five percent (75%) coverage of subdivision land with the SWMP's and that would be attained with each recorded section. So that no misunderstanding occurs our calculations regarding area of coverage indicate that only sixty five percent (65%) of the subdivision's land draining to the lake is covered by the SWMP's shown on the Master Development Plan. So that the coverage of land by SWMP's meets the seventy five percent required we recommend that your staff verify the area of coverage for each subdivision section prior to recording or alternatively require that storm water management areas be added to the MDP to reflect the required coverage. 4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104 (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) Equal Opportunity Employment Programs & Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 0 i Final Notes 1. Claus 1. Mixture of housing types. (b) The developer shall reforest ..'. Inland Fisheries. The term "reforest" is too broad a term. We recommend that an additional sentence be added to 'this section specifying type(s) of trees to be used, size of tree by minimum diameter of trunk and some density of planting for each type of tree. 2. Claus 9. Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (g) Flooding easements . Master Development Plan. The term "flooding easement" is too broad. We recommend that the easement be specified by elevation and that the elevation be set at the elevation level of the top of the dam at 628.5' above msl. Please make sure that these revisions are incorporated into the final MDP. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. We remain available to discuss these and other issues related to the subject development with you and other concerned parties. Sincerely, Dinesh Tiwari, CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Division cc: Kenneth Y. Stiles, Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervisors John H. Foote, Esq., Hazel & Thomas James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Art Buehler, Director, Va. Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control Specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director-DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division DGIF Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division Kenneth E. Turner, Capital Outlay Project Manager i�_ �! /.J \(V. L�c� ie{I it r�t COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries July 12, 1991 Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Director Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: PROPOSED "WHEATLANDS" DEVELOPMENT LAKE FREDERICK, FREDERICK CO. Dear Mr. Watkins: For your information and files, I am enclosing copies of my June 20 & 25, 1991 letters to John H. Foote, Esq. requesting specific revisions to the Preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) for "Wheatlands". Because of an oversight on our part, you were not copied these letters earlier. As per Mr. Foote's letter of July 10, 1991 to Chairman Stiles, the developers have agreed to all MDP note revisions requested by the DGIF, including those contained in my letters of June 20 & 25, 1991, attached herewith. Please make sure that all of these revisions are infact incorporated into the Final MDP. Also, we reauest that the DGIF be given the opportunity to review the Final MDP prior to it's approval by the Frederick County. Last, but not the least, we remain concerned about the ability of a homeowner's association to fund and maintain the proposed Best Management Practices (BMP) facilities as outlined in the MDP. Please consider this our formal request to the Frederick County to establish an appropriate public entity for the purpose of funding, operation and maintenance of the BMP facilities to be constructed to service the "Wheatlands" development. 4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104 (804) 367-1000 (V / TDD) 1-800-252-7717 (V / TDD) Equal Opportuniy Employment, Programs and Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 0 . Mr. Robert Watkins July 12, 1991 Page 2 Thank you for your consideration of these requests. We remain available to discuss these and other issues related to the subject development with you and other concerned parties. Sincerely, Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Division Attachments cc: Kenneth Y. Stiles, Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervisors John H. Foote, Esq., Hazel & Thomas James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Art Buehler, Director, VA Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control Specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director-DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division DVT/amc i JUL 1 6 COMMONWEALTH of VIRC-jINIA-- Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/T DD) (804) 367-1000 (V/'TDD) June 20, 1991 Mr. John H. Foote, Esq. Hazel & Thomas The Old Piedmont Building Third Floor 9324 West Street Manassas, Virginia 22110 Re: PROPOSED "WHEATLANDS" DEVELOPMENT LAKE FREDERICK, FREDERICK CO. Dear John: We have reviewed your letter of May 21, 1991 suggesting revisions to the proposed Master Development Plan (MDP) for "Wheatlands". Your response does address several of our concerns in a satisfactory manner. The remaining items from my April 17, 1991 letter to Mr. Watkins that need further resolution are listed below: '11. Water Quality and Aquatic Life in the Lake:" After a careful review of the areas covered by the stormwater Management Ponds (SWMPs) on your MDP, we find that approximately 65% coverage is attained. I suggest that you ask Mr. Maddox to contact Mr. Ken Turner of my staff to address this discrepancy. Also, we suggest following revisions to your MDP Notes to clarify and specify performance standards: Items A through D Note (b): The last sentence should be revised to read as follows: All such facilities shall be designed for a minimum stormwater detention period of forty d hours, with a design classified as "High" with regard to the overall removal capacity as shown in figure 2.4 of the above mentioned Manual. Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities i Mr. John H. Foote, Esq. June 20, 1991 Page 2 Note (c): The entire note should be revised to read as follows: Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the Developer. Such maintenance shall include routine and non - routine maintenance as recommended in the above mentioned Manual, and as necessary to achieve intended purposes of the BHPs. The Developer may assign this responsibility to an appropriate homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the Developer, or as may be provided in section 16, hereof with respect to the transfer of such responsibilities. Note (d): The first sentence should be revised to read as follows: Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to determine BHPs effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Item "H" Note (e): As per our previous request, we suggest that the last sentence of this note be revised to read as follows: Such easement shall be granted to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries within 9-e- 60 days of the recordation of a final subdivision plat for any section of the development. • Mr. John H. Foote, Esq. June 20, 1991 Page 3 "2. Flooding Easements:" We recognize the Developer's intent to convey the requested flooding easements to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Would you please let us know when the description of these easements will be submitted for our review? In any case, we suggest that the MDP identify these areas as "Flooding Easements to be granted to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries". \v "3. Public Access To Lake:" We suggest that the last sentence of this Note be revised to read as follows: The Developer agrees that to the extent such sites have been physically located at the time of design of the roads from. which access thereto will be provided, it shall design and build standard commercial entrances to such access points, with access thereto to be constructed at the expense of others. "6. Enforcement of Proposed Mitigation Measures:" We maintain that the $100 deposit is not sufficient for the required maintenance of the BMPs. Therefore, we suggest that you obtain cost estimates for the construction of the BMPs and apply 5% of this total construction cost on a yearly basis for the maintenance as recommended by the above mentioned Manual. In addition, we suggest the following: Note 16 (a): The first sentence should be revised to read as follows: The Developer, or the homeowners' ______-_____ crembed heretinder his assignee, as provided in Section 1-C above, shall establish an escrow or other separate account to receive and disburse funds to insure the perpetual maintenance of all Best Management Practices facilities which may be constructed in accordance with this Plan. x Mr. John H. Foote, Esq. June 20, 1991 Page 4 Note 16 (b): The entire Note should be revised to read as follows: The sums segregated in accordance with the foregoing, and any interest accrued thereon, shall be used by any hameowners' assoc±ation' Or by the apVTOY.L.L a be the Developer, or by his assignee, for the purpose of perpetually maintaining such BMP facilities in a safe and efficient manner and to achieve intended purposes of the BMPs as referenced in Section 1-C above. No other use of the above stated funds shall be ermitted. Finally, we suggest that the Developer and the County explore the possibility of creating a limited purpose entity to insure continued funding and maintenance of the BMPs in perpetuity. We remain available to discuss this and other issues related to our concerns. Sincerely, Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Division DVT/dc CC: James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Billy Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston Art Buehler, Director, VA Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director-DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRC-jINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/TDD) (804) 367-1000 (VlTDD) June 25, 1991 Mr. John H. Foote, Esq. Hazel & Thomas The Old Piedmont Building Third Floor 9324 West Street Manassas, Virginia 22110 Re: PROPOSED "WHEATLANDS" DEVELOPMENT LAKE FREDERICK, FREDERICK COUNTY Dear John: After a quick review of the revised MDP notes, dated June 21, 1991, I am offering the following comments: -1. "Flooding Easements" - Reference to these easements, as previously requested, has not been incorporated into the Notes. —2. "Public Access To Lake"- No revision adding "and built" has been incorporated into Note 10. - 3. "Enforcement and Mitigation Measures" - We suggest that second sentence of Note 16 (a) should be revised to read as follows: Notwithstanding any sums which may be contributed to such account by the homeowner's association, the developer shall deposit into the said account sum equal to the estimated per lot share of five year's maintenance expenses for the BMPs to be constructed, based on reasonable per year maintenance expenses of 5% of the total estimated costs of construction thereof, as such construction cost estimate pray shall be approved by the Frederick County Engineer. Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities =� r Mr. John H. Foote, Esq. June 25, 1991 Page 2 If there are any questions on these comments, feel free to call me. Thank you. Sincerely, V Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Division DVT/dc CC: James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Billy Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston Art Buehler, Director, VA Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director-DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division * , P.01 * .* TRANSACTION REPORT * � * JUL-10-91 WED 14:54 * * * * DATE ST`RT SENDER RX TIME PAGES NOTE * * JUL-10 14:51 7 �3307430 2925" 3 OK * * ****************************************************************** v" ,'°~" ' SENT BY: HAZEL&THOf,'AS ManaSHS 0-10-91 ; 2:44PM ; 7033030-o "!036670370 4 1 fit• R1Me 8"gry, our" 0tM .. •. ow •w "WAIPAIA, yIM1104 as>fla Ilea) e3"do .r. rOARFA I e•naWre low alto rAJRMIW IAMIt saint. I.O, sox I /COI /441.4 exVRGM, VIAOIMIA 1008 (704) 041.4SO0 LtMauM #►Ilea OVITa we 44A,i Rms"106 PAWI1►T Ltt00uM, "maIMIA $WS t762) 10*4000 wlr M�'IeM A ►IIOt'g01�K TNM iIANA&AM OFNCt Tat 060 lILOMONT SU160IM0 1111110 P60001 0324 W96T iTRiRT MANASSAS, VIRGINIA 111a110 (703) 330-7400 MLT110 (703) 003-7474 VAX (703) 730'7430 DATE: '� o Tt 'IwCOPY nf1 aPit �' r% ` Q .u1 OFT10E mum FROM N1 WER OF FAMS MCLUIDINO C4VO PAGE) MESSAGd V osone" Opp" 411 ILW /OA MAN Inget, sum am 0,s. aft" AKItMOMs, VIRGINIA a*aee NYAM s4A-sA�l) wl%4"uTee offlsi w MOIt*t1 xe11T &Taffeta ►OUNT% II40111 P.O. a" M t 40 wltte11t0Tt1L, V11101NtA @sob$ wAIw1A110 OMs$ #into a 10* 1s0 %W eAATIMOM 011991 eALTIMpRe, "Arw" Ame a Igoe Isen resseaa wA"104ROO Or/Na evive 404 Mo it1111 nVAMIAM MY[. w.Mt, wren11101 , RC. 000" 48041 soo-to" SHOULD ANY PAOES BE MISSINO, tLEASE GALL OUR TRLWOPY OPMLAlrOR AT (M) 641-459L The tntormattoa soetateod in this �aaittdie t emp k iaktmatsoa itttc d o* ON the an of twWividual of entity aama above, any my be attorney/cHent ptivkPd and 4=6&4"L V the madu Of Ws a)easay* is aot the tAtepdWA todpkat, you arc hereby aot9W that any 0"M15RU0111, Qbulbudorl of CON'" of a1 ommunkadod is AdcQy prohibited Itrou bm teeeive+d this atmmaai 2601s 1A tltfot, ppease hitmodtatt botJ4 us by tckphOrA and mum the orfenai mesas# to w at the above WIVA via the U.S. Postal Suvk& NO ANS LINE BUSY SENT BY:HAZEL&Tt40MAS Manassae 7-10 ; 2:45PM 703f07430-* 17035670370;# 2 ALE](ANDRIA OFFICE SIO KING STREET, SUITE 200 P, O. Box S So ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 33313 (703) 430-8400 FA1RFAX OFFICE 3110 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE, SUITE 1400 F-. O. BOX 19001 FALLS CMVRCH, VIRGINIA l2042 (703) 541-4300 LEESEURO OFFICE SUITE 300 440S4 RIVERSIDE PARKWAY LEESSURO, VIRGINIA 22079 (703) 729•E600 LAW OFFICES RROFESSIONAL CORPORA110N ANASSA$ OFFICE THE OLD PIEDMONT BUILDING THIRD FLOOR a324 WEST STREET MANASSAS, VIIl01NIA 2 21 10 (703) 330-7400 METRO (703) 803-7474 FAX (703) 330-7430 July 10, 1991 Kenneth Y. Stiles, Chairman Board of supervisors of Frederick County Virginia Winchester, Virginia Dear Mr. Chairman: RICMIMOND OFFICE 411 EAST FRANKLIN STREET, IUITC SOO P, O. SOX 3-K IRICHMONO, VI - MCI NIA E3200 (804) 344.3400 WINCHESTER OFFICE 107 NORTH K£NT STREET, FOURTH FLOOR P.0, SOX 2740 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 42001 (703) 414111s-006d MARYLAND OFFICE SUITE 2100 120 EAST BALTIMORE STREET SALTIMORE, MARYLAND 2180e (301) 793.3500 WASHINGTON OFFICE SUITE 400 2001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUi, N.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. tbOOs 48031 OSB-7000 At your meeting on July 10, 1991, the Board will consider approval of the Preliminary Master Development Plan for the Wheatlands project with which the Board is well familiar. The owners of the Wheatland& property have been engaged in extensive discussions with numerous review agencies and private individuals with respect to the development of the site. The Master Development Plan before you reflects virtually complete agreement as to all matters which have raised during review, although many of the matters agreed to are not required by any law or ordinance. The owners believe, however, that they have produced a plan for a first rate development which will long serve the interests of Frederick County. several small matters do not appear on the Plan as it is before you, but the owners wish to make the Board aware of certain other changes that they are willing to make to the Plan. As you may have read in the local papers, the owners have, following discussions with representatives of the Coi=onwealth Coalition, agreed to move a proposed townhouses section from its present location near the proposed community center, and to place them elsewhere on the site in a suitable location. The owners will agree both to the reforestation of that area (which has been denuded of vegetation for many years), and to place it in a conservation easement. This will provide a buffer between the fishing area, and the community center, and a visual buffer around the entire Lake. SENT BY:HAZEL&THC•MAS Manassa07-10-91 ; 2:46PM ; 703310430-4 17036670370;# 3 Kenneth Y. Stiles, Chairman July 10, 1991 Page 2 tAW OFFICES H&7h11a5 A PpoFf8910NAL CORPORATION Further, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has requested three additional changes be made to the notes. First, it has requeA4,ed that the Notes be amended to reflect that flooding easements be provided. The owners have frequently stated that they will and we repeat that commitment. They are willing to provide the easements as expeditiously as possible after the approval of the Master Development Plan. They do not, however, wish the approval of the Plan to be contingent upon the actual provision of those easements, since their final preparation can be accomplished most efficiently as further engineering is finalized. Second, the owners are willing to put in curb cuts for public Lake access as they design and develop the internal road network. They do not intend to construct any access roads, or parking areas, but it is our understanding that DGIF does not ask that. Finally, DGIF asks a small change to Note 16(a) with respect to maintenance of BMPs. The change is acceptable to the owns We would respectfully request that the Board approve this application as it is before you, and that final approval be conditioned upon these changes being reflected in any Final Plans which may he submitted. We thank the County for its patient consideration of this proposal. JHF:jw cc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Fred Glaize Jim Bowman Chuck Maddox Sincerely yours, YTHO S, P.C. M Foote j -~~_. P.01 * + TRANSACTION REPORT * » JUN-21-91 FRI 832 * * * * DATE START SENDER RX TIME PACES NOTE * * * * JUN-21 8:25 8043679147 69269N 5 0K * * * ****************************************************************** �UtJ 21 '91 07:26 DEPT AME & EI'=H • P. 1 Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHM01`10, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (Vi f00) (904) 387-1000 (ViTDO) TELECOPIER TR"SMITTAL -. DATE: _ `__- �) -_� ) PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: il . , NAME., ''� _'T" � � , .�i �r r _k)- i lt.=- t FIRM: TELECOPY PHONE NO.: OFFICE PRONE NO.: FROM: TELECOPY PHONE NO.: (804 367-2147 OFFICE PHONE NO.: 0604) 367-1000 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES (including cover letter): TITLE: PLEASE TELEPHONE (804) 367—I000 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES TRANSMITTED. Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Pao!lltles T TUN 21 '91 07:27 DEPT rJ AME & EISH COMMINIO d WEAL H it '3• I RQI I A Department of Game and Intand lusher ies 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX `11C4 RICHMOND. VA 23230 1-80C-252-7717 (V/TDD) ( 1367-1000 (✓/TM) June 20, 1991 Mr. John N. Foote, Esq. Hazel & Thomas The Old Piedmont Building .third Floor 9324 blest Street, Manassas; Virginia '22110 Res PROPOSED "WHEAT -LANDS" DEVELOPMENT LAKE FREDERICK, FREDERICK CO. Dear John We have reviewed your letter of May 21, 1991 suggesting revisions to the proposed Master Development Plan �MDF) for "Wheatlands". Your response does address several of our concerns in a satisfactory manner. The remaining 1tents from my April 17, 1991 letter to Mr. Watkins that need further resolution are listed below.. "1. dater Quality andAquatic Life in the Lake:" After a careful review of the areas covered by the tstormwatea flanagemWnt Pcnds on your MDR', we find that approximately 65% coverage is attained. I suggest that you ask Mr. Maddox to contact Mr. Ken Turner of my staff to address this discr8pancy. Also, we suggest following revisions to your MDP Notes to clarify and specify performance standards: Items A through. 0 Note (b) = The last sentence should be revised to read as follows; .All such facilities shall be designed for a. mini1ium 5tur3f wa per detention Period of forty hours, with,LLa :design classified as High" with regard to the overa_ reruoval capacity as shown __ 1ii figure 2-44-- of the Al?ove mentioned Manual. Equal Opportunity Employe,lenf, k•rograrns and Facilities 4 i ' • JUM 21 191 07 : 3F DEFT 0 _ AME . F I'=;H r ' 0.3 fir. aohn 14. Foote, Esq. _Tune 20, 1991 Page 2 Note Wb The entire note should be revised to read as follows: Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be incorp-Qi:ated into the project shall be assigned to the Developer. Such isai,ntenance shall include routine and non - routine maintenance a.s.....recommended in theta A!2gv Manual, and as necessary to achieve intended purposes of he BHPs. The Developer may assign this re � $y.....� .... �, an appropriate homeowner; s association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the Developer. or as may be provided in section 16, hereof with respect: to the transfer of such responsibilities. pi?tq.�..��..�.. . The first sentence should he reprised to read as aoliow,rsz Water quality testa in Lake Frederick to deterring 19MPs effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developers and the Virginia DepaAt.ment of dame and inland Fisheries, Item "H" P.o14g(ei a As per our previous requeat, we suggest that the last. sentence of this tote be revised to .rears as followers, Such easement shaII be oranted to the demignated VIrcinia. Department. of Game and Inland Fisheries within S�& 60 days of the recordation of a final subdivision plat for any section of the development. JUN -E1 '91 07:30 DEFT WAME 9: FISH to , Mr. .sohn H. Foote, Esq. June 20, 1991 Page 3 " 2. F loodiLl.g. g;ipApq t-- t " We recognize the Developer's intent to convey the requested flooding easements to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Would vou please let gas know when the description of these easements will be subvit.ted for our review In any c:a,se, we suggest that the MDF identify these areas as 'Flooding Easements to be AT qtq�d_ tq the yitginia Department of Gsi#e_.,kp4 Xnland Fisheries". „3. Pub-1.1 oess To Lade - bye suggest that the last sentence of this dote be revised to read as follows, The Developer agrees that to the extent such sites have been physically located at the time of design of the roads from which access thereto will be provided, it shall. design nd build mob— ~.o. r Standard comm-ercial, entrances to such access points, with access thereto to be constructed at the expense of ethers, Enforcement of Pr us e..... ,ration Heasures, " we maintain that the $100 deposit is not sufficient for the required maintenance of the Amps. Therefore, we suggest trhat, you obtain cost estimates for the construction of the BMPs and apply 51 of this total construct inn cast, on a yearly basis for the maintenance -as recommended bV the above mentioned Manual. Ir addition, we suggest the tollowinal Note 15 [ Lx i - The first sentence should be revised to read as follows, The Developer, or , Section .i�� ._a ve, shall establish an escrow or other zeparate account, to receive and disburse funds to insure the perpetual maintenance of all Best Management Practices facilities which may be constructed in accordance with this Plan. i •r .JUN c, ; ' 91 07 : :31 L?EF'T Ci f'1E F I:=,H % F, Mr. John H. Foete, Esq. June `C . 1991 Page 4 K_Q I�g_16 ( b )s The entire Note should be revised to read as follows The sums segregated in accordance with the foregoing, and any interest accrued thereon, shall he used by -sue C it t 1 On 0 V by e 1, r P the Develop r, or__ b.,,3C......., hip. assignee_, for the purpose of perpetually maintaining such BHP facilities in a safe and efficient manner and _ to achieve intended purposes of the BMPs a referenced in ectjQp _j-C.._above. No other rise of the above stated funds shall he ermi_tted Finally, we suggest that the Developer and the County explore the possibility of creating a limited purpose entity to insure continued funding and maintenance of the BHPs in perpetuity. We, remain avallabie to discuss this an4 other issues related to our concerns. Sincerely, � i q V Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Divisin;i rjVT/dc ccs James Madden, lzaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Bally Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston .Art. Buehler, Director, VA Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connell;,:, Erosion Control specialist, Department. of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director- DGIP Larry Hart, Assistant Dir8ctor-msib'' David Whitehurst, Chief. -Fish Division ;lack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental. Division Department of Game and Inland Mherks 4010 VEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-KO-252-M7 (V/TDD) (804) 367-1000 (V,,TDD) June 20, 1991 Mr. John H. Poote, Esq. Hazel & Thomas The Old Piedmont. Building 'third F=oor 9324 West Street, Manassas, Virginia 22110 Res PROPOSED "WHEATLAND-S" DEVELOPMENT LAKE r Y?EDERICK, = REDERICK CO. Dear John; lie have reViewed your letter of May 21, 1991 suggesting revisions to the proposed Master Development Plan iMDPj for "Wheatlands". Your response does address several of our concerns in a satisfactory manner. The regaining items ircm my April 1?, 1991 letter to Mr. Watkins that need further resolution are listed 1. rater Quality and Aquatic Life in the hake:" After a careful review of the areas covered by the etormwatex Mar—agement Pcnds 1.1011Mrs), on Your P.DP, we find that approximately 65% coverage is attained. suggest that you ask Mr. !Maddox to contact Mr. Tien Turner of my staff to address this discrepancy. Also, we suggest following revisions to your MDP Notes to cla-rify and specify performance standards: Items A through D Note (bpt The last senterice Should be revised to read as follows. \ All such faci_ities shall be designed for a v n-niLium storiDwater detention period of forty hours, with a design Llassifi.ed as "High' with regard to the overall removal capacity as shown in figure 2.4 of the above mentioned Manual. Equal Opportunity Employment. Programs and Facilities Mr. L ohn H. foote, Egg. _ une 20, 1991 Page 2 Note (c ) o The entire rate should use revised to read as follows: Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BHPs to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the Developer. Such Maintenance shall include routine and non - routine maintenance as recommended ia.., the 09,vt agntioned Manual: and as necessary to achieve intended purposes of the SHFs. The Developer may assign this r span.s..i.o:i.l. ty......... to an appropriate homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the Developer, -or as may be provided in section 16, hereof with respect to the transfer of such responsibilities, ....._..�..�_� The fi,rs't senten-ce should be revised to read as followsr v rater quality tests in Lake Frederick to detersine BMPs effectiveness shall be Conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Gable and inland Fisheries, Item " H' Mott (e): hs per our previous request, we suggest that the last sentence of this rote be revised to read as follows: Such easement shall ^e Granted to the designated qtmnt_ Virgi.nia. DeRartment of Game and Inland Fisheries within 3& 60 days of the recordation of a final subdivision plat for any section of the development. EFT-nF - GRT1E" t 13 r 0 fir. John H. Foote, Esq. June 20, 1991 'age 3 "2. Flood ino E We recognize the Developer's intent to convey the requested flooding easements to the Virginia Department of Gate and Inland Fisheries. Would you please let us kflora when thy; description o- these easements will be submitted for our review? in any case, we suggest that the MPP identify these areas as 'Flooding Basements to lie granted to the Virginia Department of 94,ijg ._4nd Inland Fisheries` ,.3. PuDIAP AYcews To Lade . We suggest that the last sentence of this Note be revised to read as follows, The Developer agrees that to the extent such sites have been physically located at the time of design of the roads from which access thereto will be provided, it shall design and wild - standard commercial entrances to such access points, with access thereto to be constructed at the exvense of others.\"6. Mpforcenttent of Pros�ose3 311tigation Hieasures. " We maintain that the $100 deposit is not sufficient for the required maintenance of the BHPs . Therefore, we suggest that you obtain cost estimates for the construction of the BMps and apply 5% of this total consttUtti.on cost on a yearly basis for the Maintenance as recommended by, the above mentioned Manual. In addition, wt suggest the following: Note 16 (a). The first sentence should be revised to read as follows: The Developer, or tfs-e �4 his a5ssgM4, as provided in Section above, shall establish- an escrow or other separate account to receive and disburse funds to insure the perpetual maintenance of all Pest Management Practices facilities which may be Constructed in accordance with this Plan. r 0 Hr, John H. Foote, Esq. June 20, 1991 Page 4 Vote 16 = b? ; The entire Note should be revised to read as follows, The sums segregated in accordance with the foregoing, and an}, interest accrued thereon, shall be used by ary h meowte-rs, affEc w , � a te- evvir t T --nitation Atth,,: i ,. y , or .. he - v Pitilet i-ez, the Developer, or by his assicnee, for the purpose of perpetually maintaining such BMP facilities in a safe and efficient manner and to achieve iDtended purposes of the . BRPs as referenced in Aecti4 1- C above. No other use of the above stated funds shall be ermitted Finally, we suggest that the Developer and the County explore the passibility of creating a limited purpose entity to insure continued funding and maintenance of the BMPs in perpetuity. We remain available to discuss this and other issues related to our concerns. Sincerely, V)'fi , r Dinesh V. '<'i�ari. ��- Chief, Lands and Engineering Division DVT/do cc: James Haddon, lzaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Silly Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston Art Buehler, Director, A Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control specialist., Department, of i--onservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud. Bristow, Director- DGIP Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DCIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish. Division Jack Raybourfte, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division I, a oroa MAY 2 - 1991 �ytiR COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRCjINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/TDD) (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Director May 1, 1991 Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MDP) FOR PROPOSED "WHEATLANDS" DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY Dear Mr. Watkins: This is a follow-up of our April 17, 1991 presentation to the Frederick County Planning Commission related to the subject matter. We remain concerned about several unresolved critical issues related to the impact of the proposed development on Lake Frederick. Following the April 17th planning commission hearing, you offered to facilitate a meeting of your staff, DGIF staff, developers and others to develop a satisfactory resolution of our concerns. Please know that we are anxious and available to participate in such a meeting. I hope that you will be able to arrange this meeting in the near future. Like you, we also desire to resolve our concerns prior to County Board of Supervisors' consideration of this application. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment. I look forward to hearing from you regarding the proposed meeting. Sincerely, Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Division DVT/dc CC: James Golladay, Chairman, Frederick Co. Planning Commission Larry Hart, Assistant Director, DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief, Fish Division, DGIF Art Buehler, Director, VA Division of Planning & Recreation Resources John Foote, Esq., Hazel and Thomas Billy Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/TDD) (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) April 17, 1991 Mr. Robert N. Watkins Planning Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 9 Court Square Winchester, VA. 22601 RE: PRELIMINARY MASTER SITE PLAN LAKE FREDERICK, FREDERICK COUNTY (WHEATLANDS) Dear Mr. Watkins: On April 10, 1991, we received the subject revised Preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) including the Notes dated April 3, 1991. As such, we did not have the adequate opportunity to study the proposed revisions in detail. We are, however, encouraged by the Developer's desire and interest in mitigating the adverse impact of the proposed development on Lake Frederick. A quick review of the latest revised plan indicated that several important issues raised in our previous comments need further resolution: 1. Water Qualfty and Aquatic Life in the Lake: A. The MDP should clearly specify the design criteria and performance standards for the extended detention ponds from Page 30 of Dr. Grizzard's report. Dr. Grizzard referred to several different standards of practice. We suggest that Fairfax County's Standards as related to BMP Water Quality Standards be utilized. p 1E61Eoe1E � (919AI D Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities • Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 2 April 17, 1991 B. The MDP does not distinguish between the wet ponds and the extended detention ponds. This distinction is important to review the effectiveness of the proposed storm water management system. C. The MDP shows a storm water detention time of "24 to 40 hours. We strongly suggest a 40 hour detention of the two-year flood as suggested on Page 32 of Dr. Grizzard's report. Dr. Grizzard's conclusion that only moderate increases in nutrient loading would occur was based on this performance standard. D. Our study of the MDP indicates that approximately sixty-five percent (65%) of the land area actually drains to the proposed retention ponds.Based on our engineering review, we suggest that the MDP indicate that seventy-five percent (75%) coverage .will be provided (delete words "reasonably practicable" from Page 3, Item 9(b) of the notes). E. The MDP Notes do not clarify compliance with "typical wooded lot detail" as requested previously. We suggest that the MDP state that no more than thirty percent (30%) of any. lot area will be disturbed. F. The proposed lift stations for sanitary sewer lines should be designed to provide "maximum protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failures" (delete word "reasonable" from Page 2, Item 5(1)). G. The MDP calculations show that the 17 acres of future commercial land are counted towards the thirty-five percent (35%) open space requirement. Since open space is critical to the water quality issue, we suggest that the County review the open space calculations for strict compliance with the County's ordinance. H. , The MDP states that "no building or other physical encroachment shall be permitted" in the 50 feet of additional 'buffer zone proposed by the Developer. In order for this buffer zone to be an effective filtering area for the surface runoffs, we suggest that tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth, and disturbance of existing vegetation be prohibited in this area, except for the disturbances that may be necessary to construct and maintain the BMP ponds. Also, the Notes should specify that the proposed conservation easement will be granted to the DGIF immediately following the recordation of the subdivision plat. It Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 3 April 17, 1991 2. 3. 4. 5. Flooding Easements: The MDP does not show to high waters in the lake. as requested previously. Public Access To Lake: the boundary of the land area that may be flooded due These areas should be designated for no development, The MDP states that "up to five public access areas" will be provided. We suggest that the notes should clarify that "minimum of three and a maximum of five" such public access areas will be provided. Vehicular and Utility Crossings: We suggest that the MDP note that the construction or use of the DGIF's property for such purposes shall be subject to necessary review and prior approval by the DGIF and by others, as required. Impact on Dam: We are still waiting to receive the Developer's report on the impact of the proposed development on our Dam, as previously requested. 6. Enforcement of Proposed Mitigation Measures: The MDP proposes an escrow account for the maintenance of the, storm water management structures. As previously stated, this issue is critical for protecting the future water quality of the Lake. We suggest that the County, in coordination with the DGIF, establish maintenance standards for these structures using the state's Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, Fairfax County's Guidelines, and other sources that may be available. Based upon these Standards, the cost of maintaining the structures can be derived. At this time, we do not think that $100.00 per lot, as proposed in the MDP, would be sufficient for the needed maintenance purposes. In summary, the legal and financial responsibility for the maintenance of these structures needs to be clearly established and noted on the MDP. :1 1� Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 4 April 17, 1991 Finally, we remain available to work with the County, the Developer and others to protect a valuable public resource. It is absolutely critical that our concerns contained in my previous communication of March 20, 1991, along with the comments above, be addressed satisfactorily prior to the approval of the MDP for the proposed development. Thank you .for giving us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief Lands and Engineering Division DVT:Iv cc: James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Billy Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston John ,H. Foote, Esq., Hazel & Thomas Art Buehler, Director, VA Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control Specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director-DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division 2 0 0 COMMONWEALTH ®f VIR(j]INIA Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/TDD) (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) March 20, 1991 Mr. Robert W. Watkins Planning Director Dept. of Planning & Development County of Frederick P. 0. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Preliminary Master Development Plan Wheatlands, Frederick County Dear Mr. Watkins: We have reviewed the revised Preliminary Master Site Plan for the proposed "Wheatlands" residential development surrounding Lake Frederick in Frederick County. The revisions to this plan have addressed some of the concerns raised in our November 9, 1989 letter to you. However, many important items of concern must be addressed to mitigate adverse impact of the proposed development on Lake Frederick: 1. Water Quality and Aquatic Life in the Lake: The developer has used Dr. Grizzard's best case scenario to suggest a future mesotrophic (moderate nutrient level) condition. However, the plan shows less than 50% of the stormwater retention basin coverage suggested by Dr. Grizzard. No details have been provided on the plan for removal of nutrients from stormwater runoff with the exception of areas designated as swamp. As such, the plan appears to use a standard retention basin design unlike the prototype extended retention facilities that Dr. Grizzard's analysis was based on. The standard retention basins are not effective in removing nutrients. Our conclusion is that the proposed development, as currently designed, will result in higher, eutrophic (nutrient rich) conditions than predicted by Dr. Grizzard. Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 20, 1991 Page 2 Eutrophication can have positive and negative impacts. However, the focus of our concern is the uncontrolled introduction of nutrients from the proposed development into Lake Frederick. The expected results of higher levels of nutrients will be a decrease in water clarity, proliferation of rooted aquatic vegetation to levels that may inhibit recreational use, production of large quantities of filamentous algae and expansion of the anoxic (no oxygen) condition in the hypolimnion (deeper and colder layer of the Lake). The fishery impacts will be a reduction in available habitat, but increased fish production in the epilimnion (upper layer). This may result in improved fishing for largemouth bass, bluegill and possibly catfish but would probably eliminate available habitat for such species as walleye. Also, without necessary mitigation measures, the use of pesticides in the proposed residential development will have a negative impact on the food chain in Lake Frederick. The proposed use of lift stations in the wastewater collection system is a real concern. Lift stations can be chronic problems and operational failures or loss of power can result in eventual overflow of raw sewage into the Lake. In summary, the proposed development will have a negative impact on water quality and aquatic life in the Lake. The additional future development in the watershed of Lake Frederick will multiply this adverse impact. As such, efforts well beyond Best Management Practices (B.M.P.) for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control should be required. The following mitigating features are suggested for incorporation into the master site plan design: A. The proposed development should comply with water quality improvement standards as outlined in Dr. Grizzard's report. We share Dr. Grizzard's concerns regarding nutrient removal and recommend that Fairfax County's standards noted in his report be required for this development (see Attachment A). B. 750 of the land area draining into the Lake should be channelled through extended retention facilities as defined in Dr. Grizzard's report. Y Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 20, 1991 Page 3 C. Property covenants should require compliance with "typical wooded lot detail" shown on the plan. We concur with Mr. James Madden's suggestion in this regard (item #5) outlined in his March 13, 1991 letter to your office. D. The proposed lift stations should be of a class providing maximum protection from mechanical or electrical failures. E. Frederick County should insure strict compliance with the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation's Erosion and Sediment Control suggestions outlined in Attachment B. We would also like the opportunity to review and have input into the erosion control plan and work with the County to insure that it is fully implemented. F. Frederick County should insure strict compliance with it's open space requirement to help address the water quality of the Lake. Verification of the developer's calculations is needed to help answer many questions regarding what is included in the open space. G. The developer has proposed a 50-foot buffer zone on his property with no building or physical development. This is a very critical element of the overall mitigating effort to control run-off. In order to insure that restrictions on this buffer area are enforced, we desire that the developer grant us a conservation easement on his entire 50-foot buffer. In any case, tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth, and any disturbance of existing vegetation within this natural buffer should be prohibited through proper deed covenants as suggested by Mr. Madden. 2. Flooding Easements: This agency will continue to seek flooding easements along the Lake shoreline following elevation 628.5 (the top of the dam) to accommodate high water levels in the Lake due to storms. Regardless of the results of our efforts, Frederick County should insure that these areas go on record as being prone -to flooding during storm and should be set aside for no development. Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 20, 1991 Page 4 3. Public Access to Lake: We recommend that five (5) public access areas, each with a minimum of eight (8) car parking spaces and a 4-foot wide and 4-inch thick (minimum) gravel walk to the Lake's shoreline for bank fishing purposes, should be provided. These areas should be clearly marked as public use areas. No boat landing, fishing pier, or boat dock can be constructed without prior approval from this agency. 4. Fire Protection: Upon request, we would support installation of dry water hydrants on the developer's property to facilitate emergency use of lake water for fire fighting purposes. However, we cannot support establishment of additional lakeshore access to fill fire tankers as proposed. 5. Vehicular and Utility Crossings: The plan shows a bridge over this agency's access road to accommodate an internal loop road within the development. Also, crossing of this agency's property would be required to accommodate the development's utilities. Necessary review and approval process for the proposed crossings of agency -owned property has been initiated. An agreement must be reached between this agency and the developer prior to any construction on the agency -owned property. G. Impact on Dam: The County should require the developer to provide a comprehensive report on the full impact of the increased stormwater runoff on the capacity of the existing dam. If modifications to our dam or spillway are required as a result of increased runoff, the developer should bear the full cost of such modifications. Currently the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation is upgrading the dam's classification to Class I. Therefore, the developer's report should address the probable maximum flood (PMF) calculations required for a Class I Dam. 7. Boundary Review: There are virtually no corners set along the developer's property line around the Lake. In order to address potential encroachment of the agency -owned public property, we request that the developer establish permanent monuments (property markers) at approximately 1000-foot intervals along his property line around the Lake. y 0 Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 20, 1991 Page 5 8. Enforcement of proposed mitigation measures: We are concerned about the maintenance and enforcement of the mitigation measures during and after the construction. As stated by Mr. Madden, homeowner associations are not the best means for the enforcement of the covenants or for the maintenance of the stormwater management system. Therefore, the County should make every effort to reduce proposed mitigation measures into leaallv bindina and enforceable requirements. We think this is most critical to protect the subject public fishing resource. For example, the possibility of County maintained stormwater management system funded through landowner/developer fees should be explored. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. We remain available to discuss/review Frederick County's future comments and requirements related to this proposal. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, 71� Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Division Attachments DVT/dc CC: James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Billy Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston Art Buehler, Director, VA. Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control Specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director-DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division NAME OF FIR FAX NUMBER: tam 0 ATTACHMENT A COMMONWEALTH OF V4RGINIA COUNTY OF FAiRFAX FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COUNTY OF FAIRFAX DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BONDS AND AGREEMENTS BRANCH Centerpointe I - Plaza North 4050 Legato Road Fairfax, Virginia 22033 FAX NO. (703) 591-9421 1per(4 pral� HATE: 3 j2o/ ?( RESARDING: we Utz d IJ66e DeTt T�iE: q 00 a rn PAGES TRANSMITTED: 38 , WITH IrUS COVER SHEET: 39 MESSAGE:— rid az�ltg 1177� e" I'nQ /at), PLEASE CALL: (703) 2416 -- f73Iv FOR RMUNSMISSION OR QUESTIONS BONDS AND AGREaMM BRANCH, DM, Telephone (703) 246-159 PH 020790 United States Constitution Bicentennia A Bicenrennial Community PART 2: WET PONDS I. FACILITY DESCRIPTION A. General DesG_i.rtion Unlike stormwater management practices which are designed to control the volume of runoff resulting from relatively Large infrequent storm events, the design of water quality facilities requires the control of smaller, more frequent events. The guidelines presented in this section are intended for application on small scale pond designs. The controlling factor associated,with wet pond design is the establishment of a permanent pool of water above which storm inflow is stored and released at lower rates. The depth of the permanent pool must accommodate the pond volume required'for dry weather uses and pollutant trapping mechanisms. In most localities the design of the wet pond must also consider stormwater management (i.e. quantity) needs. Wet ponds are depressions partially filled with water which are constructed by excavation and embankment procedures. Soil testing and compaction procedures -must verify the.ability of the soils to retain a standincg.pool of water. The release of overflow.is.-regulated by�an outlet device designed to discharge flows at.various,elevations and peak rates. A typicalprofile of'a wet pond.is presented in Figure S . 3. • � * a y I•; t principal release pipe set on negative slope to prevent clogging riser with trash raC rip rap for sediment forebay emer ency shoreline protection spil way deep water zone / for gravity settling normal pool i elevation T VI ,rcap barrel r i p rap 1' i�``' '� concrete base lox flow drain eeergent aquatic plants anti -seep for pond =intenance Cutoff min. 8' collar trench Figure 3.3 Profile of a Typical. Wet Pond (Source., Modified after Md DNR, 1986) B. Principles o Mit antic Water ouality impacts The basic mechanisms of pollutant removal operating in wet ponds are the gravity settling of pollutants, biological stabilization of nutrients, and to a lesser degree, infiltration of soluble nutrients through the soil profile. Long retention times provided•.by wet ponds promote the biological and physical removal of both soluble and nonsoluble pollutants. The establishment of a pool depth which results in quiescent conditions can effectively immobilize particulate pollutants between storms. The particulate materials settle into the sediment while some of the soluble particles, may pass through the sediment by means of infiltration. The immobilized pollutants are not typically resuspended unless pool depths are so shallow as to allow the resuspension by the -3.24- effects of influent velocity or wave action. Removal of soluble pollutants is accomplished primarily through the mechanisms of biological stabilization of nutrients. The biological activities of plants, algae, and other aquatic organisms serve as an effective mechanism for removing soluble nutrients from the water column. To encourage biological stabilization of the pond, the designer should consider the environmental parameters affecting the activities of the biotic community such as dissolved oxygen levels, temperature, sunlight and pH. The high pollutant concentrations typically observed during the first part of ar runoff event can be effectively diluted and stored in a properly designed wet pond facility. Results of a study conducted in the Occoquan Watershed by the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory indicate that the first flush of particulate type contaminants occurs regularly on non-agrioultural areas (Griffin, Randall and Grizzard, 1980). Wet ponds can catch and retain this first flush in a manner that is highly responsive to sedimentation processes. C. Pollutant Removal Rates Reported results on the pollutant removal capabilities of wet ponds indicate that they are more effective than extended detention dry ponds in removing pollutants from runoff (Illinois EPA, 1986; MWCOG, 19$3). Reported estimates by MWCOG (1987) and by EPA for the NURP program (US EPA, December 1983) indicate that nutrient removal.efficiencies for wet ponds vary directly with the ratio of the. volume of the permanent pool to the volume of runoff produced from the mean storm- (0.45 inch in the Occoquan Watershed) over the drainage basin. When the volume of the.permanent pool.is.three times the required BMP volume as determined from Chart A, the removal efficiencies are on the order of 92% for sediment, 65t -3.25- for total phosphorus and 48% for total nitrogen. These removal rates were determined by using values from Table 45 in NVPDC (November 1979) and applying them to Figure 4.6 in MWCOG (1987) . II. DESIGN PRQCEDUREa A. petermining Size and Shape of pond The following steps are recommended for the design of wet ponds for water quality purposes. 1. Determine the volume for BMP purposes us' ct Chart A as described.in Chapter 2. Multiply this value by three to get the required volume of the permanent pool. The Chart A value (Appendix 2.3) is multiplied by three to achieve the pollutant removal rates reported on pages 3.25 - 3.26. If other methods are used to size the pond, prior approval from the local jurisdiction must be obtained. 2. Estimate basic dimensions of the pond. This is a trial and error process in which the designer tries to fit the required BMP volume (and stormwater , management volume if 'requited) into a pond which works well with the site. Each site has its own unique limiting factors. Some constraints other than the existing topography include the, location of existing and proposed utilities, depth to bedrock, location and number of existing trees, etc. The designer can analyze possible pond.configurations by varying the surface area and depth and -then determining the corresponding available storage. General guidelines for establishing -a pond -3.26- V configuration which will promote pollutant removal are noted on pages 3.30 through 3.34. 3. Design outlet for peak shaving ur uses If the facility is also intended for stormwater management purposes, provide additional volume above the permanent pool and perform appropriate routing and reporting procedures as outlined by the local jurisdiction. 4. Calculate the BMP credit,for the facility by determining the total volume of the normal pool. Compare this volume to three times the BMP volume from Chart A. f. a. Examples of Sizing Wat Ponds Example 1 -- Basic Design. A 15 acre lot is to be developed into.a commercial shopping center. The percent imperviousness of the site after development is expected to be 83%. The natural topography of the site limits the depth of the detention pond to six feet. The lot will be graded so that the entire 15 acres will drain into the proposed pond, Note that this procedure assumes that the site has already been determined to be appropriate for a wet.pond facility. 1. Determine Volume. Using an impervious values of 83%, Chart A. indicates a required storage volume of" 2600.cf/acre. For this site, the storage volume. is: (15. acres.) (2600. cf%acre).-., 3.9,,000 cubic. feet. To meet the BMP' requirements by using -a wet pond,'the total required.storage under the normal pool must be 1. 2.7 7- , three times this storage volume, or: 3 x 39,000 = 117,000 cf (or 2.7 acre-ft). 2. Estimate Basic Dimensions. Determination of the dimensions of the wet pond can be accomplished through an iterative design procedure controlled by the limiting parameters of minimum depth, length to width ratio, inclusion of a peripheral ledge, aesthetic values and general workability within the proposed development. To determine the basic dimensions of the pond, an average depth of 5 to 8 feet should be used as a limiting design parameter. A trial average depth of five feet was chosen for this pond design due to site limitations. Preliminary dimensions of average length equal to 300 feet and average width equal to 100 feet are obtained when the depth is 5 feet at the outlet. The resultant length to width ratio of 3:1 is acceptable. The corresponding surface area for the wet pond is 30,000 square feet. A 15 foot wide aquatic bench is included in the proposed grading of the facility. (See discussion on page 3.31.) The slope of the banks above the permanent pool should be 3h:ly. After grading the pond area to meet the above criteria, the areas at 2 foot contour intervals are measured by planimeter, after which a graph of "Depth versus cumulative volume,, is prepared. The total storage volume at a depth of five feet is read from the graph to be 122,250 cf, or, (2.8 acre-ft). 3. Design outlet for Peak Shaving purposes. Peak flow outlets should be sizedin accordance with appropriate stormwater management volumes. The reader is referred to local requirements for specific -3.28- v instructions on stormwater management calculations. 4. BMP credit for this facility is the volume of the permanent pool provided by the wet pond, or in this case, 122,250 CF. Since the volume of the normal pool is greater than three times the BMP volume (117,000 CF), no further modifications are required. Example 2 -- Credit for Serving Offsite Areas. There is a proposed residential development, part of which is to be served by a wet pond with a drainage -area encompassing residential lend use including 8 acres onsite (with 35% imperviousness) and 3 acres offsite (with 45% imperviousness). The following procedure should be followed: 1. Determine Required Volume. The effective imperviousness of the site to be served is': ( (8 ac) (35%) + (3 ac) (45%) j/ 11 ac = 38%. ` From Chart A, the BMP storage factor is 1250 cf/ac. Minimum storage volume for this site is: (1250 cf/acre)(11 acres)= 13,750 CF. To meet BMP requirements by using a wet pond, the total storage under the normal pool must be 3 x 13,750 = 41,250 CF. 2. Estimate. Basic Dimensions. A wedge-shaped pond is graded to work with the existing topography. An average length of 190' and an average width of 55' is obtained when the depth. is 61. The length:width ratio is 3.5:1 - this.is acceptable.. A 101 wide safety ledge is included in the design.at.. approximately 3' below the proposed. water: surface-.. elevation. The side slopes of the- pond. above: the normal pool are set: at 3h:ly. The cumulative storage at a.depth of'6 feet is measured to be 42,600 CY. -3.29- 3. Design the Outlet for Peak Shaving Purposes. The design of the outlet structure should be guided by stormwater management guidelines, therefore, the reader is referred to local requiremnents For further guidance. 4. The BMP credit for this facility is the volume provided by the permanent pool of the wet pond, or in this case 42,600 CF which is greater than three times the BMP volume (41,250 cF). OK C. Guidelines for Facilit Confi uration In order to enhance the effectiveness of BMP ponds, the dimensions of the pond must be sized appropriately. Merely providing an adequate storage volume will not ensure maximum Pollutant removal. To promote settling and to avoid creating stagnant areas of the basin, the design of BMP ponds should consider aesthetics, length to width ratio, cross sectional areas and basin slopes. See the discussion of these aspects on pages 3.10 through 3.12. Additional factors to consider in the design of wet ponds include enhancing sedimentation, peripheral ledges and depth of the normal pool. Enhancing sedimentation Sedimentation Gan be enhanced by providing a settling area at the principal inlet to the pond. The accumulated sediment can be removed efficiently since it will be present in a localized area which is easy to access. There are two commonly used configurations. The first one (Figure 3.4a) incorporates a shallow flat entrance to the pond which allows velocities to be greatly reduced and causes particulates to settle out of the water. The second configuration (Figure 3.4b) is effective because a relatively deep (31) area is -3.30- ie�'�'f4�'��.{c;i�`,r •fat r y. i��+S�c`���. ;.. .. ... .... _, separated from the rest of the pond by an underwater berm. Again, the large surface area acts to reduce velocities and the underwater berm prevents the settled sediment from migrating to the downstream portion of the pond. �14, m (b) Figure 3.4 Pond Configurations to Enhance Settling A major consideration affecting the configuration of the pond should be the preservation of the natural appeal of the site. The shape of the pond should complement the natural topography of the site. Peripheral Ledaes Two types of peripheral ledges are recommended for wet ponds. Either a safety ledge or an aquatic bench should be Provided beneath the normal pool and extend around the perimeter of all. wet ponds (except at the inlet where a sediment.foxebay. will be�located). The depth and side slopes to. the: peripheral ledge will.. be selected based", on the fact that aquatic vegetation will.thrive.in water -with depths less than.three.feet. •-3.31- . I t� r{ii,s$#rr3 }; i rY ai r f J x e lu,.,i.;..",,.x.a.l.ts:,M'a ,.a:,�,. Uri.•2,:3:� 4w...t:,ir.iar„,�.�k.;_ ` r.�..,....' ._. _.._ __, _ r t r ti. , is _ 3h:lv'' 3- (a) SAFETY LEDGE I' to 2' w„ 3h:Iv� or flatter Io't t (b) AQUATIC BENCH Figure 3.5 Two Types of Peripheral Ledges for Wet Ponds If it is desired to prevent vegetative growth along the edge of the pond, the underwater side slopes should be steep so that deep water will be encountered quickly. However, to prevent children from getting into deep water too quickly, a safety ledge should be incorporated. See Figure 3.5a. In this case, the side slopes below the normal pool will be approximately 3h:ly and extend to a depth of 3 feet at which point the ledge would become level for 5 to 1.0 feet. Below the safety ledge, the pond sides would slope to meet topographic or volumetric constraints. An aquatic bench can be used to promote the establishment of vegetation along all or part of the periphery of the pond. See Figure 3.5b. in addition to benefitting wildlife and creating a natural buffer, the vegetative zone can serve as an additional sink for soluble pollutants. Side slopes below the permanent pool should be 3h:ly or flatter and should extend to a depth of 1 to 2 feet at which point the ledge would become Level for approximately 1.5 feet (MWCOG, 1987). Depth of Permanent Pool To determine the proper depth for a wet pond, numerous factors must be considered. Of primary concern is the need to -3.32- provide an adequate permanent pool so as to ensure efficient pollutant removal during long-term combination of dynamic and quiescent conditions (Illinois EPA, 1986). The volume of the permanent pool will determine the amount of pollutant removal that can be achieved. In the Occoquan Watershed, wet ponds will be considered to act as BMPs if the normal pool volume is equal to or greater than three times the required BMP volume determined from using Chart A. Sized this way, the pond will achieve the pollutant rates reported on pages 3.25 to 3.26. The reader is referred to MWCOG (1987) for other ways of sizing the permanent pool. Utilization of an adequate pond depth is also important in minimizing the effects of wind and velocity currents. For wet ponds with a surface area greater than about one acre, it is recommended to have riprap placed along the shoreline to prevent undercutting. Excessive inlet velocities, which may lead to resuspension of pollutants, can be avoided by providing adequate depth at the inlets. it is recommended that ponds be designed to provide an average depth of 5 to 8 feet which will allow for efficient pollutant removal and will prevent the growth of weeds. If the pond is too shallow (less than 3 feet), vegetation will tend to grow throughout the pond area.. Excessive depths in wet ponds can have negative effects on the pollutant removal efficiency of the facility. MWCOG (1987) states that average pond depths greater than eight feet should be avoided due to increased potential for thermal stratification and anoxic conditions in the bottom layer. Stratification of deep water bodies lessens the volume of water available. for biological degradation of pollutants. The increased potential. for release of certain nutrients and heavy metals -,from the sediment under anoxic conditions will: lessen the effectiveness of the wet pond as a EMP facility. -3.33- In determining the height of the embankment for a wet pond, the level of freeboard must. be considered. Freeboard is the difference between the elevation of the design high water (typically the 100-year elevation) and the top of the settled embankment. A minimum of one foot of freeboard must be provided as a safety factor. Outlets A riser pipe -barrel system for release of runoff in excess of the BMP volume should be sized according to standard peak shaving design procedures. The riser must have a base attached with a watertight connection and have sufficient weight to prevent flotation of the riser. It is highly recommended to include a drainpipe or other appropriate means (preferably gravity driven) to empty the pond for emergency or maintenance purposes. If it is desired to draw the water down only partially (e.g. for weed control) then vertical sections of pipe can be attached to the drain with the top of the pipe set at the desired water surface elevation. Extended Detention Wet Ponds By having small negatively sloped drainage pipes connected to the riser, it is possible to discharge storm volumes slowly from below the level of the permanent pool. See Figure 3.6. This method is used in Montgomery County, Maryland to prolong the detention time of storm volumes above the level of the permanent pool. This type of pond is also referred to as an extended detention wet pond. By #10Y1t detaining the storm runoff, quiescent ZYQ Ala conditions are maintained and chances aw N for sedimentation are improved. By NEGATIVELY discharging flow from below the water SLOPED INTAKE surface, the chances of the outlet being I clogged are reduced. Figure 3.6 Detail of an Extended Detention Wet Pond Drainage Pipe -3.34- III. Design Consajera� A.'Anplicahility The decision to use a wet pond for water quality protection must be based on certain site specific considerations. The most important aspect is the existence of an adequate baseflow to ensure that a permanent pool can be maintained. other Factors to consider in the evaluation of a site are topography, soil characteristics water location and use, Land value, accessibility, and daesthetic ar environmental concerns, The location of the �d utilize the natural characteristics of the site ninsorder to obtain maximum storage volume with minimum earth removal. An evaluation of the topography of the drainage area to the proposed wet pond is necessary to ensure that an adequate baseflow exists to retain a permanent pool of water. The Maryland Water Resources Administration has developed a table which gives guidance on sizing a pond based on the watershed size, the type of development and the soil types 1986). A Soil Conservation Service rule of thumb(Md D states that a area will support that four acres of draina g pport one acre-foot of permanent storage in a pond in the occoquan Watershed 1.982) • This (USDA, guide can be used to estimate the maximum normal Pool storage that can be expected for a given drainage area. Soil. permeability Should be evaluated to determine the ability of the pond site to maintain a permanent. pool of. water. ,Identification Of' ground water levels. may also provide information concerning the available baseflow fpr the pond.. Inadequate baseflowproposed can lead to nuisance situations such as the growth of unattractive vegetation and development -3.35- i Xi..'r,.L�.+.... �,'i..Ri'iy� f.•:teT.-�J..-. , r...•.'.-. _ 0 • of mosquito breeding areas. Land value and existing utility location are other factors to be considered in the initial site evaluation. High land values may prevent the use of wet ponds due to the large surface area required. In making this determination, one must be certain that the benefits of creating a recreational open space and improving the aesthetic environment are properly assessed. if existing utilities are in an area which is being considered for wet pond construction, the cost of relocating the utilities may have a significant impact on the site selection. B. Practicality in comparison with other standard types of BMPs, wet ponds have been shown to be the most effective means of providing water quality protection. The increased pollutant removal rates due to the longer retention times and the enhancement of biological degradation results in a strong recommendation for using wet ponds on suitable sites. In addition to providing higher pollutant removal rates, wet ponds are also amenable to the objectives of stormwater management and erosion and sediment control. If the pond is to be used during construction of the site as a sedimentation control it will be the developer's responsibility to remove sediment and to dispose of it properly before any bonds can be released. Any streams that will remain natural after development should be protected from erosion and scouring during the land disturbing activities even though they will convey flow to the sedimentation pond. Higher property values of adjacent. residential lots and potential groundwater recharge are additional benefits to be associated with the use of wet ponds. Disadvantages to be -3.36- 1 . considered affecting the practicality of the use of wet ponds include safety factors and the higher costs of construction. Cost considerations must also be, addressed by the design engineer. For a detailed outline of costs of construction, operation and maintenance, consult mwcoG (1987). MWCOG has indicated that wet ponds are typically" more cost effective ,for larger.sites/drainage areas. C. sea]`ina the Pond Floor If the soils at the pond site are too permeable to hold water, steps must be taken to reduce the seepage by sealing the floor of the pond. The least expensive method of increasing the imperviousness is through the process of compaction. After the' pond has-been graded, the top 8 to 10 inches are scarified. Then the loosened soil is rolled under optimum moisture conditions usingfour to six sheepsfoot roller, passes of a For ponds with impounded water to a depth of 10 feet, the compacted seal must be at least 8 inches this (USDA, 1982). k Another method of sealing the pond is by using a clay blanket which consists of a well -graded mixture of soil containing at least 20t clay. impounded water or less, the clay blanket For ponds wmth 14 feet of thickness of 12 inches, ust have a minimum uniformly over the pond area mnXguto 8 e should be spread h layers. layer is compacted under optimum moisture cconditio Each four to six �Ons by using Passe of a sheepsfoot roller. Any Of clay blanket that will be subject to dry conditionstand the freezing and thawing conditions should be protected ba 1 18 inch thick layer of y a 2 to gravel. (USDA, 1982). A third. option of protecting -the pond against seepage losses involves the use of a waterproof liner. Plastic membranes are placed in strips on the Pond floor with 6 inch -3.3.7- overlaps at the seams, and then covered with 6 inches of earth and gravel. The bottom 3 inches of the soil layer should be finer than silty sand (USDA, 1982). D. vegetation Plant vegetation should be encouraged along the basin perimeter in order to stabilize the land/shore interface and to provide shade. The following recommendations are directed towards the establishment of vegetative cover associated with a wet pond. The use of water tolerant species of vegetative cover is highly recommended for the pond floor and slopes to facilitate infiltration, reduce erosion, aid decomposition of settled particles during the drying cycle, increase water clarity and light transmission, shade and cool surface waters, and prevent resuspension of settled pollutants (Helfrich and Weigmann, 1979). The Fairfax County Public Facilities Manual (1985) indicates that forage and fodder crops such as canary grass, fescue, perennial rye, orchard grass, and bermuda grass can be used successfully with high discharges and are tolerant of variations in water quality. Since each type of vegetation has positive and negative features, it is recommended that the site be critically evaluated to determine the most effective type of vegetation. The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (VSWCC, 1980) can be used for preliminary choices. For further guidance contact the Soil Conservation Service or Extension Agents of Virginia Tech or refer to the basin landscaping guide provided in MWCOG (1987). E. Alternate. Pond Environment After designing the pond to meet water quality and quantity requirements, other aspects should be considered that may affect the use of the pond. There are tradeoffs involved -3.38- ' J between providing a safe environment, an aesthetically appealing environment and a wildlife environment. often by designing the pond to provide one of the above environments, the other two environments cannnot be established to their full capacity. The designer and developer should be aware of the tradeoffs and should determine which aspect should take priority and which aspects will be compromised. it is during the design phase that these factors should be considered to allow for the eventual construction of an effective, safe and pleasant facility. Designers and reviewers should be aware that it is the Homeowner's Association who will be maintaining the pond. In addition to meeting volumetric constraints, the pond should also be a safe and enjoyable part of the development. Safety In relation to the general site location of the pond, it is advisable for jurisdicitons to establish a minimum setback from the 100 year boundary of the pond to any dwelling lot and to establish a minimum elevation clearance from the 100 year elvation of the pond to the lowest floor of a dwelling. MWCOG (1987) suggests a 25 foot horizontal setback and Fairfax County requires 18 inches of vertical clearance (Public Facilities Manual, 1985). Shoreline slopes should be stabilized with riprap or vegetation as soon as possible. Slopes along. the periphery of the pond should be no greater than 3h:ly for safety and vegetative cover considerations. A safety ledge.approximately V- deep just inside the perimeter of the: pond is.recommended. (See discussion. on page, 3:..31. ) Access to. the. pond: can be limited. through the use of thorny shrubs or - fences. Inflow and outflow structures should be protectedand designed to -3.39 minimize safety hazards. Grills should be incorporated into inlet and outlet designs to deter possible entry. Control devices subject to theft or vandalism should be adequately protected. The reader is referred to the APWA Manual (1981) for specific recommendations regarding precautions for large outflow structures. Aesthetics In addition to providing water quality protection, wet ponds can also offer recreational uses, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, and emergency water supply. To promote these alternative uses, the facility should be designed to be compatible with the surrounding area. The following suggestions are made as general recommendations intended not only to improve the effectiveness of wet ponds, but also to enhance the aesthetic and ecological effects of the facility. Biological stabilization of nutrients can be promoted through the incorporation of irregular shorelines with shallow depths at the perimeter. A direct result of this is a greater diversity of habitat for aquatic species which generally results in a more stable biotic population. Aeration, through the use of fountains or pond aerators,- may be necessary to ensure an adequate supply of oxygen during certain seasons of the year. Well designed landscaping, regular maintenance and weed control will enhance the aesthetic appeal of the site. It is recommended that architecturally treated concrete be used for outlet structures so that the color and surface texture of the structures offer visually pleasing variations. For additional information concerning the design of aesthetically pleasing outlet structures, the reader is referred to the ASCE Outlet Control. Pamphlet (ASCE, 1985). -3.40- Wildlife Habitat When a wet pond is being designed, or a dry pond is being converted to a wet pond, the possibility of enhancing wildlife populations and activities should be considered. Enhancement of wildlife habitat has many benefits including aesthetic appeal, recreational improvement and pond efficiency. Relatively simple techniques such as varying the depth of the pond can have positive effects on the species diversity. The minimum depth of water capable of supporting fish life is five feet over 10 percent of the surface area. Pond aeration., through the use. of fountains or by pumping air and releasing it at the bottom of the pond, may be necessary to ensure an adequate supply of,dissolved oxygen necessary for aquatic life to survive. The provision for shade can mitigate the thermal variations that occur seasonally. The landscaping guide in MWCOG (1987) gives additional information on selecting vegetation appropriate for wildlife. A recent study by the National Institute for Urban Wildlife indicated that the typical retention pond design does not promote the establishment of an attractive, stable Wildlife population (Adams and poVe, 1983). In the report the following suggestions are'made to guide the design of retention basins if it is desired to attract wildlife: 1. Natural resources personnel should be consulted during the planning and approval stages of BMP implementation. 2. All potential pond locations should be evaluated to select the most suitable site in relation to the developed area and its surroundings, in recognition of physical, biological, social and economic factors, t, ter -3.41- 3. There should be an adequate baseflow. Seepage and evaporation rates should be considered in the design of retention basins. 4. The pond site should be located so as to minimize the disturbances to valuable existing wildlife habitat. 5. For maximum wetland wildlife value the water depth should be from 15 to 24 inches for 25 to 50t of the water surface area, with about 50 to 75% having a depth of approximately 3.5 to 4 feet. In northern regions, a greater depth may be necessary due to greater ice depths. 6. Pond depths should be designed with the capability to regulate water levels, including complete drainage for cleaning if necessary. 7. For larger ponds, approximately 5 acres or greater, islands are recommended. -3.42- { s 1�.nL..i IV. EXAMPLES OF EXISTING WET PONDS PROJECT: Izaak Walton League Park OWNER: Izaak Walton League of America LOCATION: Mount Olive Road Centreville, VA PROJECT: Fair Lakes Development Corporation LOCATION: Fair Lakes Parkway off of Rte 66 Fairfax County PROJECT: Bull Run Development LOCATION: Intersection of Route 234 and Sudley Manor Drive Manassas, Prince William County V. Checklist Based on the information presented in this section, the following page presents a summary of design considerations for wet ponds in the form of a checklist, for the benefit of designers and reviewers. This checklist should be used in conjunction with the general checklist presented in Chapter 2. Please refer to Part 3 of this Chapter maintenance considerations. -3.43- p cE(�� IEoe� MAR 2 2 1991 D 0 9 CHECKLIST FOR DESIGN OF WET PONDS (To be used in conjunction with General Checklist in Chapter 2) Facility Considerations: 2. site evaluation reflects adequate drainage area to support a wet pond, acceptable levels of baseflow, depth to water table, location of utilities and topographic constraints. 2. The volume of the normal pool has been sized to be equal to or greater than three times the required BMP volume as determined by Chart A. (or, the normal pool has been sized according to other methods and approval by the local jurisdiction has been obtained.) 3. Inlets and outlets are located appropriately to avoid short circuiting. Length to width ratio is not less than 3:1. 4. Freeboard is established at one foot or greater. S. A peripheral ledge is considered in the design. 6. The design of the riser includes an anti -vortex device and a trash rack. The design of the barrel includes anti -seep collars. 7. The riser has been designed to overcome buoyant forces. 8. A drain pipe is included in the design to allow a complete or partial drawdown of the permanent pool. other Considerations 9. Basin side slopes above the permanent pool are no steeper than 3h:ly. 10. All basin areas, including the embankment, are to be appropriately vegetated. 11. Onsite soils have been analyzed for appropriate use for embankment and/or core. If soils are not acceptable, fill material will be imported. 12. Top width and side slopes of embankment are appropriate for soil type used. 13. Core trench is included in embankment design. 14. Compaction standards are stated on plans. (continued on next page) -3.44- CHECKLIST -FOR DESIGN OF WET PONDS (continued) is. Embankment is designed for 10% settlement. 16. Riprap is specified at basin inlet and outlet points. 17. Volumes greater than the BMP volume are released at appropriate flow rates according to local stormwater management regulations. is. Spillway is located in cut or on undisturbed ground, and directs flow away from embankment and towards natural drainage pattern. 19. Access easements are provided. 20. Maintenance agreement has been prepared stating who the responsible party is and what operations will be performed. 21. Guidelines for construction are included on the plan. E • PART 3: CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING EXTENDED DETENTION DRY PONDS AND WET PONDS I. Dams and Embankments The downstream portion of extended detention dry ponds and wet ponds is typically a dam, or embankment which is usually constructed of fill material from the site. The designer should utilize the natural terrain and topography in order to minimize fill transport for dam construction. Designers and developers should be aware that pond designs with embankments which are greater than 25 feet high and which have a maximum impoundment capacity (measured from the top of the embankment) must be reviewed by the state Water Control Board. Additional restrictions and review time 'should be expected. Site Investigation Site investigation is necessary to determine if conditions are appropriate for construction of a pond embankment. The American Public Works Association (APWA) recommends that such site investigations include checking for unstable strata (soil and rock), identifying the elevation of the water table, and checking the permeability of onsite soils and rocks. The subsurface investigation should extend at least 5 feet below the proposed cut depths (APWA, 1981). The Army Corps of Engineers recommends a minimum top width of CIO + z/5], where z = height of embankment. (USDI, 1977). Guidelines for the dimensions of embankment top widths reported by the Soil Conservation Service are as follows (USDA,. 1980) : -3.46- Table 3.2 Embankment Top Width Dimensions Total Height of Embankment Tap Width )feed (feet) 10 or less 6 11 - 14 S 15 - 19 10' 20 - 24 12 25 - 34 14 35 15 f Vegetation Vegetation should be established on all embankment slopes in order to reduce erosion potential. However, in order to protect the embankment structure, only shrubs and bedding approved by SCS should be utilized; this basically excludes vegetative stock with a root system greater than 30 inches. No trees should be permitted to grow on the embankment. Fill Material Acceptable fill materials for the dam are .those that provide stability to the embankment and prevent seepage of. water through the embankment. A good mixture would include soils ranging from small gravel or coarse. sand to fine sand and clay in the right. proportions.. The:clay.content should comprise approximately, 20-t- by weight, of the-- mixture: (TJSDA, 1982)... Seepage through, the: dam: cane also_ .be. prevented. by placing- a core- of clay material in the'center- of the: fill. Cutoff Trench It is important to have a layer of impervious soil underneath the embankment to prevent failure of the dam by piping. ,If such a layer is not present at a shallow depth, then a cutoff trench should be incorporated into the foundation of the embankment. The Soil Conservation Service (USDA, 1982) recommends that the trench be cut underneath the centerline of the dam for its entire length. The trench should be cut deep enough to penetrate an underlying impervious layer by approximately 12 inches. The bottom of the trench should have a minimum width of 8 feet and the side slopes should not be steeper than 1:1. The trench is backfilled with layers of clay or a sandy -clay mixture and compacted under optimum moisture conditions. In addition to preventing undermining of the dam by seepage, the cutoff trench also acts to key the embankment into the substrata. overtoppina in designing embankments, the downstream effects of overtopping by a flood larger than the design storm must be considered. The design storm for small ponds in the occoquan Watershed will typically be the 100 year storm. Check with local jurisdictions for the required design storm for each pond. To reduce the chances of overtopping of the embankment by wave action and for general safety considerations, a level of freeboard is typically incorporated into the design of an embankment. It is recommended that a minimum of I foot of freeboard above the design storm be provided if the length of the pond is less than 660 feet. For ponds longer than 660 feet, a. freeboard of 1.5 feet. should. be provided.(UDSA, 1982) . -3.48- Fmergency Spillway It is strongly recommended that an emergency spillway be incorporated in the design of all extended detention dry ponds and wet ponds. The spillway is designed to safely convey the design storm out of the pond assuming that the principal spillway is clogged. Two alternative spillway designs are a concrete -lined structure and an earth spillway protected by vegetation, rock or other appropriate material. The preferred location of the emergency spillway is in cut or on undisturbed ground rather than over fill material.. The spillway and embankment should be protected from erosion as much as possible. outflow from the spillway should be directed away from the embankment and towards the natural drainage pattern. Access easements to the top of the data should not cross the emergency spillway. For guidance on spillway design refer to the SCS Engineering Handbook (USDA, 1980) . Design Guideline Summary 0 A summary of guidelines for the design of.embankments, based on those, included in the American Public Works Association Manual (APWA, 1981), are presented here. The Treader is referred to that guide for more detailed information. 1. Check soil and stream conditions immediately downstream to determine possibleeffects on the proposed dam. 2.. Give careful consideration to potential development of'sinkholes. 3. A soil.. survey should be= performed` and. the results analyzed by a. certified: sails; engineer/scientist. to determine if onsite.soils- are appropriate to use for the embankment. The soils engineer will also recommend maximum embankment slopes. t.✓�2t �,f ..., f t .. ..:�._ ..-.....� .{. sA . .:. k., r:r{�--. - .., .:' S{l ��� �F.41 l�j���S%J p. _.. 4. Be meticulous in specifying materials and compaction procedures for earth fills. Use SCS standards (USDA, 1087) or standards required by the local jurisdiction, whichever are more stringent. 5. Require field samples and testing of compacted fill. 6. Prepare a complete set of project specifications for all materials and workmanship. 7. Include a core trench in the design of the dam. 8. Provide sufficient freeboard between the design storm elevation and the top of the settled dam. Allow for 10% settlement. 9. Provide sufficient top width for embankment stability. 10. include anti -seep collars in the design of pipes placed through the dam/embankment. 11. Minimize the number of conduits passing through the daze/embankment. Specify that all trenches be sloped back 1:1 to allow for adequate compaction. 12. Protect slopes of structures against piping and erosion. 13. Grade the embankment with upstream side slopes no greater than 3h:ly and downstream side slopes no greater than 2h:ly. 14. Provide emergency spillway and route the flow to its final discharge point. 15. It is recommended that the entire design be reviewed by a certified geotechnical engineer.. 11. outlets Fairfax County staff has indicated that outlet!clogginq which results in extremely long detention times is aivcommon _ problem with extended detention dry ponds}. 4 Considerkation of debris accumulation should be incorporated into the design of outlet devices so as to minimize the need for maintenance and to improve the aesthetic appeal of the site.: Any floating -3.50- ... "".F`ait3=t.l;i7wE1C- r .. .,...5.i.� • ...... _ ... .......... .... ...� ..,.... ... �i,,a5tir:"i�'e?:3:�:�i • 0 debris trapped during a storm should be promptly removed. outlet structures should be designed with few or no moving parts to minimize maintenance problems. Location and design of outlet structures should provide for access yet should not be susceptible to vandalism. Periodic inspection and repair of the emergency spillway is also essential to the continued effectiveness of•the facility. Anti -"Vortex Device An anti -vortex device should be installed at the top of the riser. One configuration recommended in the Lake Tahoe Basin manual is a thin vertical plate normal to the centerline of the data and firmly attached to the top of the riser. The plate dimensions should have length equal to the diameter of the riser plus 12 inches and height equal to the diamater of the horizontal barrel (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1978),. Another example of an anti -vortex device is shown in Appendix 3.1. Trash Rack A trash rack should also be included in the riser outlet configuration. The ASCE Outlet Committee recommends the use of a protective screen covering the riser (ASCE, 1985). The Lake Tahoe Basin manual recommends the use of 44 reinforcing bars, 5 incheson center welded across the top of the riser (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1978). The City of Austin requires the use of trash racks, with openings no greater than one-third the diameter of the riser- (City of Austin, 1985). The authors recommend. the use of a trash. rack. that is hinged or otherwise easily removable to facilitate. debrist removal and access for internal: maintenance. of the: riser pipe.. Control devices subject. totheft, or...vandalisra_ should. be adequately protected. The trash rack. should, be locked: between maintenance visits to discourage tampering. Avoiding �3.57.-• .. . r vandalism can significantly reduce operation and maintenance costs and increase facility effectiveness. Safety A useful general approach for safety is to limit access to the facility site, to make the onset of hazards gradual, and to eliminate hazards wherever possible. safety precautions may include grills for inlets and outlets, rails or fences around areas where accidental falls may occur, and mild bottom slopes. The reader is referred to the American Public works Association manual (APWA, 1981) for specific recommendations regarding precautions for large outflow structures. Summary Guidelines Recommendations regarding the installation of inflow and Outflow devices include the following: 1. The recommended configuration for the outflow device is a vertical barrel and riser system. 2. The Lake Tahoe Basin manual (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1978) includes two alternative configurations for. the base of the riser pipe: a. A concrete base 18 inches thick with the riser embedded 6 inches into the base. The base should be square with each dimension 2 feet greater than the riser diameter. or, b. A 1/4 inch minimum thickness steel plate welded all around the -base. of the steel.riser to form a watertight connection. The-plate.should be designed so as to:prevent flotation. 3. The barrel should be placed on a.firm foundation to the lines and grades. indicated on the. plans. Fairfax County does not permit the use of corrugated metal f pipes in permanent drainage facilities. Backfill material should be placed around the barrel in 4 to 6 inch layers, and each layer should be thoroughly compacted with suitable hand -operated equipment to at least 2 feet above the top of the pipe and anti -seep collars before any heavy equipment is operated over it. 4. The riser should be rigidly and securely fastened to the barrel and the bottom of the riser must be sealed (i.e. watertight). The pipe spillway should discharge at ground elevation below the dam/embankment. All pipe joints must be securely fastened and watertight. 5. The riser may be built within the embankment (instead 3i of at the toe of the embankment) for better stability and to make the structure less noticeable. 6. The elevations and mechanical construction of outflow and inflow structures should be checked during construction. 7. Riprap should be placed just downstream of any areas where concentrated flow will enter the pond. The riprap will prevent erosion of the pond floor. if the riprap at the entrance is spread out and is at a .flat slope it will act as a stilling basin which will bath trap debris and act as a filtering device. III. Construction Considerations A summaryof guidelines for construction ofextended detention dry ponds and wet ponds is presented. here. These suggestions are based primarily on recommendations included in the: manuals of the American Public Works Association (APWA, 1981) and the Lake Tahoe Basin Manual_ (1978); the reader is referred to these two guides for more detailed information. -3 . S3- In general, better control of field operations is maintained if one contractor is employed to construct all stormwater management and best management practice facilities for the site. Frequent field inspections are. recommended. Layout stakes marked with grades should indicate the top and bottom of the slope of the basin excavation, the centerline of the embankment, and several spots throughout the Floor of the excavation. Elevation controls should be checked periodically throughout construction for compatibility with engineering plans. Recommendations regarding the construction of dams and embankments include the following: 1. The dam site should be prepared by adequate clearing of vegetation and removal of topsoil before construction. 2. Fill material should be taken from approved designated borrow areas, and should be free of roots, woody vegetation, oversized, stones, rocks of greater than six inches in diameter, etc. 3. Compaction standards should be designated in the design plans. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) compaction standards should be used as a minimum (USDA, 1987). Local jurisdictions may require a higher percentage of compaction. The more stringent of the two standards will apply. A general guideline is to apply fill in 6 to 8 inch lifts; an entire lift across the embankment should be completed before a new lift of material is applied. 4. The embankment should be built and compacted to an elevation which provides, for- settlement to the design elevation. If it is- a rolled -fill:.. embankment, a settlement allowance -of 5% should be. provided and if it is not a rolled -fill embankment_ then an allowance of io% settlement should be assumed. (USDA, 1982). -3.54- 5. To enhance embankment stability, anti -seep collars are used.to increase the line of seepage. Anti -seep collars are attached to conduits going through the embankment. They extend into the .fill perpendicular to the pipe• See the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook (VSWCC, 1980) for details and design of anti -seep collars. 6. All temporary trenches through the embankment should be sloped back at 1:1 to allow for proper compaction. 7. Bank slopes should be seeded and covered with loose straw immediately after construction to be stabilized as soon as possible. 7� IV. Operation and Maintenance Results of an American Public Works Association survey in which public agencies rated the severity of problems with wet and dry ponds indicate the following areas of concern: weed growth,. maintaining vegetative cover, sedimentation, bank deterioration, insect control, outlet stoppages, soggy surfaces, algal growth, fence maintenance, unsatisfactory emergency spillway, and dam failures/leakages. The main problem indicated for dry ponds was a soggy bottom, which hinders facility maintenance and growth of effective vegetative cover. The invert of the pond should be sloped at a minimum of 2* to prevent•the occurrence of standing water. A schedule for periodic maintenance should be. included in the design of the wet pond. Inspections Semi-annual. inspection and repair is recommended. The American Public Works Association indicates. the following areas should be checked.(APWA, 1981): -1.55 1. Dam settling, woody growth, signs of piping, signs of seepage on the downstream face of the embankment. 2. Condition of grass cover on embankment, pond floor and perimeter.of pond. 3. Riprap failures. 4. Deterioration of principal and emergency spillways. 5. outlet controls, debris racks, mechanical and electrical. equipment. 6. Outlet channel conditions. 7. Safety features of facility. 8. Access for maintenance equipment. The reader is referred to that manual for additional recommendations regarding annual inspection and repair. Sediment Accumulation Typical extended detention dry ponds and wet ponds are designed to provide effective pollutant removal capabilities by enhancing sediment deposition. The accumulation of sediment is an important parameter to consider when designing BMP ponds. Without periodic sediment removal, the effective life time of these facilities•will be greatly diminished and, therefore, a schedule of sediment removal should be established. Guidelines established in other areas of the country indicate that sediment should be removed when accumulation reaches six inches (City of Austin, 1985), or When the available BMP storage capacity of the pond drops below 0.2 inches of runoff per acre of drainage area (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1979). It can be anticipated that roughly once every 5 to 10 years sediment. will need to be, removed from an extended detention dry pond and once every 10 to 20 years for a wet pond (MWCOG, 1987). --3 .5 6 For large ponds, the costs associated with sediment removal and disposal are high. To reduce such costs, the designer should either include an onsite area for disposal of dredged material, and/or provide additional storage volume in the pond for anticipated accumulation (MWGOG, 1987). See Chapter 2 of this Handbook for a method of sizing an onsite sediment disposal area. Another option would be to dispose of the dredged material as appropriately packaged in bags at the local landfill. It is important to determine if the material will be accepted by the local landfill operator to ensure proper assessment of disposal costs. See Appendix 2.7 for appropriate local waste management contacts. Banks Maintenance of banks and slopes is also necessary for effective operation of BMP ponds. This primarily involves proper treatment of vegetative cover. Gradual slopes are necessary for establishing this cover and for ease of mowing. Fairfax county recommends a maximum of 3h:ly slopes for areas to be maintained by mowing. The pool and bank slopes should be shallow enough to allow access for dredging and mowing equipment. To maintain the aesthetic quality of the site and to prevent the growth of woody plants, mowing should be carried out at least two tames per year, with higher frequencies, on the order of 14 times per year for more visible areas. Costly repairs can be prevented if small areas of damage are repaired quickly. Rills and gullies .should be filled, compacted and reseeded after large storms. shoreline. To minimize the maintenance of the area. surrounding the shoreline, the slopes should be relatively flat, and- bank - stabilization materials such as riprap or vegetative cover should be incorporated into the design. As a minimum -3.57 0 9 requirement, areas of the shoreline which are adjacent to the embankment or those areas that are most subject to wind erosion must be stabilized. The layer of stones should be 12 inches thick placed on a 10 inch bed of gravel and should extend 3 feet below the normal pool elevation. It is also suggested to add a slight berm on the upstream face of the dam to support the riprap and prevent it from slipping (USDA, 1982). Ac— c Access for maintenance purposes should be provided in the form of a 20 foot wide, all weather access easement leading from the public right-of-way to the facility. The easement should extend around the entire facility. Some jurisdictions prohibit planting of shrubs within the easement. The access easement should be graded to accommodate maintenance vehicles (i.e. maximum lo% slope). The access easement should not cross the emergency spillway. Check with local jurisdictions for additional maintenance requirements. Effects of Animals For mosquito control, the ponds should be designed so as to prevent stagnant areas. Insect and algae control can be facilitated by providing adequate depth and length through the pond to prevent short circuiting of,the glow. Algicides are used sometimes but are not recommended as their use essentially adds pollutants to the water. To minimize odor problems, adequate water depth should be provided over settled pollutants, or aeration facilities may need to be incorporated into the design. When ponds are placed in areas where burrowing animals live, such as badgers, gophers or prairie dogs, it is recommended to place a heavy layer- of sand or gravel on the embankment to discourage burrowing which could lead to dam failure. (USDA, 1982). -3.58- 0 \ ri " w. co — y 1 l.J E:� D k-- '� 1 k7- maintenance Agreements it is strongly encouraged that :maintenance responsibilites be clearly established during the design phase in the for•.n of a maintenance agreement to ensure that the facility will indeed be maintained. See example of an agreement in Appendix 2.6. Dry ponds are not perceived as particularly pleasing by the public unless they are landscaped nicely and maintained properly. For best aesthetic appeal, particulary for facilities with public access or visibility, frequent (i.e. monthly) maintenance and semi-annual inspection visits for debris removal and mowing may be appropriate. in the Occoquan Watershed the local 3,urisdictions accept responsibility for maintenance of extended detention dry ponds used in residential and commercial developments, while homeowners are typically responsible for the maintenance of wet ponds. -3.59- v ■r MUFIIA wr.r a Irr.as am AMER WE a All on /awwwwww//iN�AMawaN/� O I /� ■/�/waasp/ailltV IN awi/waa/N IM /wall .�/ AMAIN■ Aw/ji//�.r/ /NN NIMISM wwpwsw�N d ow lol m �wwww�ruww■! IF NNIV A!■Naa aiwwawa - .s", .wr///re / Ii//w/w!r/a■� OEM wa//!i/ Il�iww!■wwwaiw / / �sHa/i/ Iw/www/aw/DRUNK Aid Iw11�wp■aw 1Nl..M.wwwi■I■wir .■!s■► .■riw■awa■w �//w/liaHi� Isar Iulwa//ai/ allow IrN*' •pMw///bawl i/Hwr•sww■nwI //iw// Aiggas//aai af/wwrpw■a■r •aai/I jiNw/WMon p-,ssINEW fan i' awN!/ Iaiwt/lslNaliaal INwralaw/wr I//iMW .aai/hiwa/wia/I lamashNnum >•w■1I /iwwawl /aa■n!a■ "Ill■1 IwiwaNw/ ♦alwwowl .I MM Iw■l�wwaw' .■■lwwp ANNE rwwti/NNEI >raw■Iwwy Iwiiwwa' .apai!!!N■awrowl !was<wr/ A■■aw/W IiwNilwwiw■g1t■ol �:i�iiiia■r.rgiwiNa�owl ■Nw' .iwlwwalr lawawaa■Mawslaaawsam ow owl w.Iwaw//Mar AwawawaaaiiwlwNpawl �.wwtswwsr ,!!■waaMialwwiwalwiiwll .awawwww�lr ■swaw�wiia■iuwa>usMn • BMP FACILITY DESIGN WORKSHEET Step 1. Determine the required BMP storage volume for the site.' A) Site area draining into the Occoquan Watershed B) Imperviousness of area in Step 1A: Impervious= or,C value = (Show computations for obtaining weighted values.) C) Chart A value= D) Total required BMP storage for -the site (A x C)= Step 2. Determine the required BMP storage for the proposed facility. A) onsite area (and offsite area if credit is to be taken) draining to the proposed facility. S) imperviousness of area in Step 2A: impervious= or, C, value (Show computations for obtaining weighted values.) C) Chart A value= D) Total BMP storage required for this proposed BMP facility (.A x C) _ Note: Repeat Step 2 for each proposed BMP facility. Step 3. Check uncontrolled areas. A) In the uncontrolled portions of the site, measure the open areas and any impervious areas that drain by sheet flow over an open area. B) Divide (A) by 2 C) Multiply (B) by the answer from I(C) Step 4. Check Site Coverage. f A) Total BMP volume provided: Sum all of Steps 2(D) and add to 3.(C). B) Percentage of storage volume provided: Divide 4(A) by 1(0). C) Compare 4(B) to 70% Design is accceptable if 4 (B) % > 70% Design is unacceptable if 4 (B) 1% < 704; if offsite credit is not to be taken: D) Total equivalent controlled area Add sum of Steps 2(A) to 3(B) E) Percentage of site that is controlled: Divide 4(D) by 1(A) F) Compare 4(E) to 70% Design is accceptable if 4(E) % > 70% Design is unacceptable if 4(E) _% < 70% _acres -cf/acre -cf acres cf/acre cf acres _acres cf _of % acres A- 2.4 r-1riFR 1-91 MUN 10W LESIGN REVIEW 1:11Vdf11ON R . 0 G step 5. Impervious Acres Served A) Measure total impervious area (including offsite area if credit is to be taken) ac B) Measure controlled impervious area (including offsite area if credit is to be taken) ac C) Measure onsite uncontrolled impervious areas that drain over open space ac D) Divide (C) by 2 ac — E) Add (B) to (D) then divide by (A) F) Compare 5(E) to 90% Design is acceptable if: 5(E) % > got Uncontrolled impervious area should be reduced if: 5(E) % < 90% A' 2.4 D l5 �j L5 �1J Lam, MAR 2 2 I991 Dl �P1R- 1 1 -'FA 1 MON 1 0 - 'y DES I GF4 RE: V I EW D I V T S I ON P- 05 w . PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL WORKSHEET 1. Area of site (including offsite area if offsite credit is to be taken) a acres 2. A) Area draining to BMP (including offsite area if offsite credit is to be taken) (b) acres or,. [(b)/(a)) * 100% _ *(100%) _ (c) _% of site B) Phosphorus removal efficiency of is (x) % or, [ (c%)/ (100%) ) * (x%) = (d) % * % _ % phosphorus removed 100 Repeat Step 2 for each BMP facility OPEN SPACE 3. A) Measure all open space and any uncontrolled impervious areas that drain by sheet flow over open space (including offsite area if offsite credit is to be taken.) or, .(b) -acres [(b)/(a)) * lo0$ _ *(100$) _ (c) _% of site B) Phosphorus removal efficiency of o en space is (x) or, [(c%)/(100$)) * (90%) = (d)% % = % phosphorus removed 100 4. A) Determine total $ phosphorus removed for the site: Sum (d) values % B) Compare 4(A) to 50% Design is acceptable if 4(A) > 50$ Phosphorus removal from the site must be increased if 4 (A) < 504; Note: Currently this worksheet is used for developments in Fairfax County. For values of x refer to the most recent Public Facilities Manual. A_ 2.5 D MpR 27, 21991 0 ATTACHMENT B COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Regional Office Route 4, Box 99-J Staunton, Virginia 24401 Tel. (703) 332-9991 March 7, 1991 Mr. Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief Lands & Engineering Division Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 RE: Wheatlands Subdivision Dear Mr. Tiwari: 4 MAR �°91 Rf�'flyfD De ''fte t&F en, John Mlinarcik and I have completed our review of the conceptual plans for Wheatlands Subdivision. The plans are not detailed enough relative to E&S and Stormwater Management design and placement, for us to offer specific comments; however, we have provided the following general comments concerning the same: Stormwater Management • Due to the Topography of the area surrounding the lake and the extent of proposed construction activity there, we feel that it will be difficult to avoid adverse impact to Lake Frederick both during and after the initial construction phases. • The buffer strip proposed to encircle Lake Frederick will provide some filtration and aesthetic benefit but it cannot be construed as to be capable of providing sub- stantial benefit for either temporary E&S or Stormwater Management functions. •, Our experience with Homeowner nance agreements (in the past) usually is a problem in having Association has shown t maintenance B.M.P. mainte- Letter to Mr. Dinesh Tiwari March 7, 1991 Page 2 completed in an acceptable and timely manner. Therefore, the same may be expected of the Wheatlands Homeowners Association. We have noted that the project area is primarily within the jurisdiction of Frederick County although Warren and Clarke Counties may ultimately have some construction activity within their respective boundaries. All three of these localities currently lack a separate Stormwater Management program, but rather they rely on implementation of stormwater controls through their E&S program. According to Minimum Standard #19' of the State E&S Regulations, all onsite channels and storm sewer must be capable of containing the 10-year frequency (Q10) storm event. The retention/detention design of the project area must quantitatively control the Q2 event. This may be done (with agreement) by use of the lake itself or preferably by separate control facilities which discharge into the lake. In either case, hydraulic analysis of the Lake Frederick Dam and any other impoundment should be completed for the 92 and Q100, to insure adequacy. Qualitative stormwater control is not addressed within the E&S Regulations. We are in the process of meeting localities throughout the Commonwealth to find out the interest in adopting separate Stormwater Management programs. Should Frederick County be receptive to adopting this voluntary program, then Quantitative and Qualitative Stormwater Management and long-term maintenance provisions for this project could be at a much greater level than that afforded through the county E&S program. There are several other design considerations that could prove beneficial in minimizing impact to the lake. These items are as - follows: 1) Design of the storm sewer system (where applicable) to direct flows away from the'lake area and into retention/ detention facilities located in open space areas surrounding the lake, would provide better debris and flow control. 2) All developed areas not controlled by a retention or detention facility should be controlled by other BMP's which are appropriate for given site conditions. 3) Maximizing the percent of pervious area and tree canopy will be beneficial both from a water quality perspective and in attenuating peak flows. M Letter to Mr. Dinesh Tiwari March 7, 1991 Page 3 Erosion & Sedimemt Control (E&S) • Due to the nature of the existing Topography, inevitably Lake Frederick will receive all runoff associated with the land disturbing activities during construction of the proposed project. Therefore, E&S should be implemented to the ultimate extent to limit impact on Lake Frederick. • Design, implementation, inspection, and maintenance regarding E&S should be strictly in accordance with The Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations VR 625-02-00. • Major emphasis should be placed on preserving the maximum amount of existing vegetation now located on the site in order to reduce the amount of land actually susceptible to erosive action. • Phased clearing operations and requirements for immediate soil stabilization should be considered during preparation of construction documents to further reduce negative impacts to Lake Frederick. • Require that sediment basins and other control drainage measures be.incorporated into the design of the E&S plan wherever possible, in.addition to more commonly specified controls such as silt fence, barriers, and other similar measures. • Require that the owner provide reports to monitor the effectiveness of the E&S controls as provided in Section 10.1-566 of the law to increase assurance of compliance throughout the construction period. If we can offer any further assistance in this matter, please feel free to contact either John or myself at (703) 332-9991. RRC:chr cc: Jimmy Edmonds John Mlinarcik Sincerel , Robert R. Conn lly Erosion & Sediment Control Specialist F_ COMMONWEALTH of VIRGI IA _ Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET (Ok�-que 010117? BOX 11104cc RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-m7 rviTDD)(eo4)367-,000 (V/rDD) UL 1989�Jul 6Y 1989 MID EDThe Honorable Ra VAGame 21 South Royal AenueR'Guest, ,1r,Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Re: Wheatlands (Frederick Co.) Lake 5 Dear Delegate Guest: (C' Thank you for your inquiry concerning Wheatlands Lake. appreciate direct inquiries regarding newspaper articles. always To my knowledge, we received no verbal or written assurances the donors or Frederick Count to be constructed around the lake either ficials concerning the numberrom of houses Since we a "Permitting " yPto rag l received no assurances, and have no densities, we do not contemplate any Court ractions onutate development he part of this agency regarding this housing density issue. It is unfortunate that the sportsmen in accepting "a white elephant Your area are upset with us for deal for the sportsmen. ThoughQutte the contrary, wethink we original engineer's estimate, the increased costs were caused got a good imposition of the National Dam Safety Program costs repaircosts exceeded the to this and many other dams around the state, by vem t required improvements design for a 100-year flood, the federal Instead of the standard Probable maximum flood, which is roughly program required redesign to a and for Wheatlands, about 30 inches of rainfallequivalintto a one da2000-year flood show we spent $485,215 in federal Land and Water Conservation dam repairs and onlyY• Our records $191,593 of Virginia sportsmen's move . funds on the get such a beautiful lake for such a small amount of the s orts is a good deal. Y•.. We,tiiink P men'.s me I must confess that when it comes to tax liabilities of dev or lot owners, we have no way....___.�.�,.. objective is to of factoring it into our actions.-f.oursone several of our provide public fishing for all those wantin to=fish:` associated with P roo fishing lake sites were acquired as donations ind the later developmentssed do If we the Tualit not create adverse taffectston the wateres for no st Y, the sportsmen are well served. Equal OPPortunity EmPlpyment, Programs and Farah►.. � Delegate Raymond R. Guest, Jr. -2- July 6, 1989 Apparently we need to clear up another bit of misinformation concerning the right of way to the lake. We do have a deeded right of way to the lake. The boaters and fishermen will be able to gain access to the lake by traversing this almost straight road to the dam. "Will we share the road with the subdivision?" I do not know at this time, but we will do that only if we determine that it is in the*best interest of the sportsmen. Our plans now are to turn the right of way over to the Department of Transportation so the road can be constructed with recreational access road funds. Our position regarding activities on the land surrounding the lake would be just the same for agriculture`or housing, which is simply to protect the water quality. If we know of or anticipate water quality problems, then we work on the source. We have no reason to believe the number of houses has a direct relationship to water quality if design, construction practices and sewerage treatment are handled properly. More houses may very well mean less lawn space with less runoff of lawn chemicals and pesticides. We might have more cause for concern if the surrounding land were cleared, tilled, and planted in some agricultural crop requiring annual herbicide and pesticide applications. Any change from the primarily wooded watershed will have some affect on the water quality of the lake. Our concerns should deal with how much the changes will affect the lake, and are those affects overriding. We actually add fertilizers to many of our lakes to increase fertility and fish production, so it is difficult to say how much development is too much. I entirely agree with you that special purpose funds should be reserved for their special purposes. If however, the spending of special purpose funds were prohibited if they benefited the subdividers of adjacent property, our program of providing land for sportsmen would be virtually shut down. There is always the possibility that land adjacent to us will be subdivided. Land next to our wildlife management areas and fishing lakes has always been attractive to developers since adjacent property owners feel their property value is enhanced by our presence. I hope I have answered your questions and cleared up some of the misinformation you received. We certainly do not want our constituents expressing indignation and disgust with us, and especially not for providing such a beautiful fishing lake in your area at a most reasonable price. If we can be of any further help, please let me know. Sincerely, James A. Remington Director LGH/lh:wpf bcc: Henry A. Thomas Lewis M. Costello EST JR. 27 f ROYAI. AVENUE f NONT ROYAL vI Q.— J7070 MINORITY FLOON LLAOLR THIRTY FIRST DISTRICT • e COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES RICHMOND June 28, 1989 CL)MMOTEE ASSIGNMENTS N VA U! AMU IN f..NNAL NAvI("ATInN I IIIA NLI. A 1.1.LL Ill IUNI I'- L I Mr. James A. Remington Q/P1 Executive Director JUNDepartment of Game and Inland Fisheries4010 West Broad Street CoIru sRichmond, Virginia 23230 FIsNOI �, Dear Jim:���� sI zk� I have been following with a great deal of interest the local media discussions concerning the Wheatlands subdivision in neighboring Frederick County and the acceptance on behalf of the state by the Game Commission of the lake located therein. I realize that this all transpired prior to your coming on board, but there are certain factors which I would like to have cleared up for me. First of all, did any individuals give assurances to the Commission as to the number of housing units proposed and were those assurances in writing? If so, could you provide me with a copy thereof. Secondly, did the Game Commission or any other branch of state government receive assurances from Frederick County and its representatives that there would be a limit on the number of houses surrounding the lake? If so, were any of those in writing and if so, could I have a copy. Thirdly, I have read that an assistant Attorney General has offered an informal opinion that the limitation on the number of houses is not enforceable. Do you, as Executive Director of the Commission, accept this informal opinion as fact or do you contemplate Court action to enforce the assurances given to the Commission and other state officials that there would be a limit of approximately 300 houses in the proposed subdi- vision? Many sportsmen in this area are highly upset that the Game Commission accepted "a white elephant", thereby reducing the property tax liability of the subdividers; have spent a large sum of money on correcting deficiencies in the impoundment structure and still has no dedicated exclusive right-of-way so that boaters and fishermen might make use of this lake upon which a large amount of license fee revenue, and perhaps federal funds, has been expended. Many people have expressed to me both indignation and disgust that representatives of state agencies were so lax and even derelict in their duties. do not attempt to attach any of the fault for these to you, but rather I would solicit from you an indication of your thinking and plan of action to 1--protect the lake from being surrounded by high density housing in contravention of the assurances given to the state. 2--an indication of how the lake is to be protected from surface run-off of lawn chemi- cals and pesticides from the housing and an indication of how the boaters and fishermen of the Commonwealth will be able to gain access to this lake without either winding through a subdivision or sharing an access route constructed from special funds with subdivision traffic. I do feel that because of their scarcity, special purpose funds should be reserved for their special purposes and not expended so as to give benefit to the subdividers of adjacent property. Looking forward to receiving the benefit of your feelings on these matters; with best regards, I remain Respe,c-tfully Xours, Raymond R. "Ody" Guest, Jr. RRGjr/co SANITATION CORRESPONDENC THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1991, by and between FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY, ("The Authority"), a Virginia corporation organized and existing under the provisions of the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act (Sec. 15.1-1239, et seq., Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended) of the one part,_ hereinafter called the Authority, and JASBO, INC. and FRED L. GLAIZE, of the other part, hereinafter called the "Developer". WHEREAS, the Authority owns and operates a water and sewer service in.the County of Frederick; and WHEREAS, the Developer desires to obtain water and sewer services from the Authority for the Wheatlands Development in the Opequon Magisterial District. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the following mutually beneficial terms, conditions and covenants, the parties agree that: 1. The Developer may connect to the water facilities of the Authority. 2. The Developer will construct or cause to be constructed, at its expense, water distribution,. water storage, and sewer collection and transmission facilities to serve all, of the aforesaid development. Such facilities shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the Authority and appropriate State agencies, if required, and in accordance with the Authority's Water and Sewer Standards and Specifications. 3. The water distribution and sewage collection facilities and appurtenances thereto so constructed shall become a part of the y water and sewer system of the Authority upon acceptance by the Authority. Upon completion of construction, the Developer agrees to execute and deliver to the Authority a Bill of Sale transferring title to said facilities to the Authority. The signature of the Authority on said Bill of Sale shall indicate its acceptance thereof as of the date of the Authority's signature. The Developer and the Authority agree that the facilities and appurtenances provided for herein shall be conveyed and accepted upon satisfactory completion, and not later than the completion of the phase of development during which any such facility or appurtenance is constructed. 4. The Developer shall maintain and repair the said water and sewer facilities and appurtenances at his expense for a period of one year commencing on the date of acceptance by the Authority as aforesaid, and in the event that the Developer fails to do so, the Authority shall have the right to cause any repairs that the Authority deems reasonably necessary to be made to those facilities and appurtenances, and to recover said costs directly from the Developer, or by appropriate action upon its bond. 5. The Developer will execute and record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court easements in the form approved by the Authority necessary to operate, maintain, repair, replace or. reconstruct said facilities. Evidence of the proper recordation of such deeds shall be provided to the Authority expeditiously after execution of the Bill of Sale as set forth herein. E 6. The Developer shall also construct or cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant of appropriate size to serve all of the Wheatlands Development, which shall be dedicated to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (hereinafter called the "FWSA"), or such other entity as that Authority may direct. The FWSA may enter into such agreements.with the Authority for the operation and maintenance of such plant as it deems necessary. Such plant shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the appropriate State agencies and the Authority and FWSA. The plant, if it is intended to be constructed in several phases, shall be constructed so that those approved portions of rated capacity completed during any one phase shall at all times exceed an agreed percentage of completed units in the proposed development. Upon completion of construction, the Developer agrees to execute and deliver to the Authority a Bill of Sale transferring title to said plant to the FWSA. The signature of the FWSA on said Bill of Sale shall indicate its acceptance thereof as of the date of the FWSA's authorized signature. 7. In the event that the Developer requires additional sewage treatment capacity in order to complete the development of the Wheatlands project, beyond that otherwise provided for in this Agreement, it shall design and construct any such facilities at its sole expense, subject to the approval of the FWSA and the appropriate state agencies, if any. In the event of such construction, all provisions of this Agreement shall apply to such additional capacity insofar as they are applicable. 3 8. The Authority shall have exclusive right to grant permission for service connections and extensions to the water and wastewater facilities constructed by the Developer to others than the parties hereto, and shall have the exclusive right to revenues derived from the operation of both water and sewer facilities referenced herein. 91. Any extensions of the sewer service provided for in this Agreement outside the boundaries of the Wheatlands Development as those boundaries are identified on the approved Preliminary Master Development Plan therefor shall be forbidden unless permission is expressly granted for such extensions by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors with the concurrence of the Developer. In the event that such extensions are granted, the Developer shall be reimbursed by any party acquiring any capacity in the wastewater treatment plant a pro-rata share of the cost of construction of the capacity which is to be acquired. 10. Costs incurred in the construction of water distribution and sewage collection described in this Agreement shall not be reimbursed to the Developer by the Authority. 11. The Developer shall not be required to pay any availability fees for sewer lines which the Developer shall have constructed or caused to,be constructed at its expense. 12. In order to insure that there shall be sufficient funds for the proper operation and maintenance of the sewage treatment plant available in the early stages of the development of the property, the Authority and the Developer shall establish a 4 0 • mutually agreeable sum of money to be placed into escrow, to be available to the Authority upon demand to defray the cost of such operation and maintenance of the treatment plant until such time as there are a sufficient number of Authority customers to support such operation and maintenance. Should there be unexpended funds in the said escrow account when sufficient connections to the system shall have been made, those funds, and any interest accrued thereon, shall be refunded to the Developer. The Authority shall permit no connections be made to the treatment plant until a sum sufficient to the purposes hereof shall have been agreed to. 13. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, and to their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. which are required--hereunder—may- be -forwarded to the parties by regular United States mail, at the following addresses: Notice to the Developer shall be sent to: James L. Bowman P. O. Box 6, Stephens City, Virginia 22655 Notice to the Authority shall be sent to: W. H. Jones Frederick County Sanitation Authority P. O. Box 618 Winchester, Virginia 22601 15. This constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and there are no other agreements, written or' verbal, between them with respect to the matters set forth herein. This 5 agreement may be modified by a further writing executed by the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the following duly authorized signatures of the respective parties are hereto affixed upon duplicate copies hereof, on the date first mentioned above. JASBO, INC. By: James L. Bowman, President FRED L. GLAIZE STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE COUNTY/CITY OF , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before.me this day of , 1991, by James L. Bowman, President and authorized officer of Jasbo, Inc. My commission expires: Notary Public C1 0 STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE COUNTY/CITY OF , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1991, by Fred L. Glaize. My commission expires: Notary Public FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY James H. Diehl, Chairman STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE COUNTY OF FREDERICK, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1991, by James H. Diehl as Chairman of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, a Virginia corporation, on behalf of the corporation. My commission expires: Notary Public SEAL: Esten 0. Rudolph, III, Secretary/Treasurer JHF33:wheat.011 7 March 31, 1991 1:59pm JHF A FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY POST OFFICE BOX 618 JAMES H. DIEHL, CHAIRMAN WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 C.A. MOLDEN, VICE CHAIRMAN E.O. RUDOLPH. 111, SEC.-TREAS. DONALD R. HODGSON PHONE 703-665-5690 NED M. CLELAND, PH.D., P.E. WILLIAM F. EDMONSON March 20, 1991 Mr. Jim Madden Winchester Chapter Izaak Walton League 328 Miller Street Winchester, VA 22601 REFERENCE: Wheatlands Dear Mr. Madden: W ELLINGTON H. JONES, P.E. ENGINEER - DIRECTOR In response to your letter, I offer the following with the number of my response corresponding to the number of your concerns as stated in your letter of March 10, 1991: 1. The wastewater treatment plant can be expanded to 0.5 MGD. Although there are no assurances the water quality standards will be the same when that expansion occurs, the process design will have to meet the standards required at that time. 2. A 0.5 MGD wastewater demand equates to a greater than 0.5 MGD water demand. Although our water system is limited to 2.0 MGD, by expanding that capacity future demands will be met. Regardless of the development of Wheatlands, the water supply capacity must be increased from time to time to meet future demands. The Authority does not determine what future County users will be provided water services. This is determined by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors through the Comprehensive Plan. 3. I am not aware of the State Water Control Board's status of a policy on "minimum stream flow". Regardless of that policy, I have complete confidence in the State Water Control Board fulfilling their responsibilities with regard to water quality. It is my understanding the discharge limits established for the Wheatlands Plant will sustain water quality standards without any flows in the stream, and that stream flow monitoring was a part of the permitting process. 4. The Authority routinely takes over the operation and maintenance of privately constructed water and sewer facilities. The majority of our lines are privately constructed. At this time, no wastewater treatment plants have been privately constructed and donated to the Authority. However, the Wheatlands Plant will be designed and constructed to meet State Health Department and State Water Control Board standards, the same standards that an Authority - constructed plant must meet. It is the Authority's position that the operation and maintenance of these facilities is best performed by the Authority, since we are a governmental agency that is operated on a continual basis. The Authority will insure that Jim Madden March 20, 1991 Page 2 capital cost of the plant will be funded or guaranteed by the developer. It is my understanding that the County is requiring the Authority accept the ownership of the water and sewer facilities at Wheatlands. 5. Individual sewage pumps are the responsibility of home owners. The major pump stations will be operated and maintained by the Authority. The system users will pay for the operation and maintenance of these stations through service charges While the addition of eight pump stations to the system will increase our responsibility, as previously stated, it is our position that the operation and maintenance of these facilities is best performed by the Authority since we are a governmental agency that is operated on a continual basis. Back-up electrical power for these pump stations will be provided by on -site generation or portable generators. The size and capacity of the pump station determines the type and back-up electrical generation required. 6. The issue for using the wastewater treatment plant as part of the required open space is not in the Authority's area of responsibility. This will be properly addressed by the Planning Commission. In closing, as a utility in the wastewater field, this plant will not degrade the quality of life for downstream land owners. Stream studies performed for the Authority have shown that wastewater discharge from a similar plant on Opequon Creek actually improves the quality of water in the stream. The greatest impact on water quality in the area from non -point sources is agricultural operations. The Wheatlands Plant, discharging 0.5 MGD, will place less waste load on the stream than a herd of thirty cattle. If you desire additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. yours,Sincerely W. H. Jones, P.E. Engineer -Director /ths cf. Frederick County Planning Commission 0 0 G.W.CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES, INC. 200 N.CAMERON ST. PO BOX 2104 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 7 0 3 - 6 6 7 - 2 1 3 9 TO: 11240 Wa les Mill Road Suite 100 Fairfax. VA 22030 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE JOB NO. 1 2/1 2/90 ATTENTION Mr. Paul Bernard RE: Whaatlanric WE ARE SENDING YOU q ATTACHED F-] UNDER SEPARATE VIA HAND DELIVERED F-1 CHANGE ORDER SAMPLES SHOP DRAWINGS ❑ PRINTS ❑ PLANS COPY OF LETTER THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SPECIFICATIONS F] OTHER COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 12/6/90 Revised Water Quality Analysis per your comments. ARE TRANSMITTED APPROVED/SUBMITTED X❑ FOR APPROVAL ❑ APPROVED/AS NOTED FOR YOUR USE RETURN/CORRECTIONS AS REQUESTED FOR REVIEW or COMMENT FOR BIDS DUE ____________19 REMARKS RESUBMITFOR APPROVAL SUBMITFOR DISTRIBUTION RETURNED_ CORRECTED PRINTS El LOAN PRINT/RETURN RETURN/WITH SIGNATURES COPY TO: Bob Watkins, Jim Bowman Jim Petry, SIGNED Thomas W. Price B. J. Tisinaer, Earl Sutherland, Fred Glaize, John Foote REV. 2.0 a Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P. E. Environmental Engineer 9408 Prince William Street Manassas, Virginia 22110 Office: (703) 3615606 Home: (703) 368 6856 MEMORANDUM TO: Chuck Maddox �� FROM: Tom Grizzard SUBJECT: Wheatlands Water Q lity Report DATE: 6 December, 1990 COPIES: B. Tisinger J. Foote Thank you for the review of An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake which you sent on 12/04/90. I have summarized my responses to the comments below. Although the reviewer was quite correct in pointing out the tabular error on lake area, the resulting change in Report conclusions were of no significance. I have attached corrected pages. I you would like to discuss the comments further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Dissolved Oxygen. Reviewer Comments. The Reviewer echoes the Report in noting that low dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnetic waters of the lake indicates the presence of substantial degradable organic matter. Response. The cause of the observed hypolimmetic anoxia is not apparent at this time. The Reviewer seems to ascribe it to the presence algal activity. The Secchi depth measurements made on the two sampling dates (06/14/90 and 06/26/90) indicate very high water column transparency and would seem to conflict with this assessment. The organic matter causing the deoxygenation of the hypolimnion may arise from a number of sources, of which autocthanous algal activity is only one. I do not have the lake construction history at hand, but if clearing of the impounded area was not complete, there may be substantial vegetative biomass present on the lake bottom, which would require years to fully stabilize. In addition, the influx of alloctanous materials in watershed runoff could contribute to the organic burden in the hypolimnion. In summary, the evidence at hand would only confirm that there is sufficient organic matter in the hypolimnion to deplete the dissolved oxygen by mid -summer. The low observed values of secchi depth and measured total phosphorus would argue against the principal reason being excess algal production. 0 Chuck Maddox 6 December, 1990 Page 2 Phosphorus Measurements. Reviewer Comment. The reviewer indicates that it would not seem prudent to assume non - detected phosphorus concentrations of 0.005 mg/L (mid -point between the method detection limit and zero), because such a value gives a TSI of 27, which indicates substantially better water quality than is apparent by other indicators. Response. Most of the manual and automated methodologies employed for phosphorus measurement have a 0.01 mg/L method detection limit. The classic work of C. N. Sawyer in 1947 in the Madison Lakes further reinforces the value as being near the limiting concentration for algal production. This has been confirmed in countless subsequent studies. The Reviewer's concern, therefore, that the detection limit reported is inappropriate for lake water quality assessment does not seem warranted. However, in order to assess the effect of the Reviewer's comment that a loading (sic) between 0.005 mg/L and 0.01.mg/L should have been used, an analysis of the 12 lake measurements was made applying a randomly generated multiplier to place values in the suggested range. The computed average of those randomly selected values, 0.0077 mg/L, would have resulted in a Carlson TSI(TP) of 33.6, which indicates somewhat higher water quality than the values computed on the basis of secchi depth. In fact, if one assumes the total phosphorus concentration to be the detection limit of 0.01 mg/L as P, the resulting Carlson TSI(TP) value of 37.4 may still be seen to be in the range of oligotrophic conditions. Land Use Acreage Table. Reviewer Comment. The Reviewer indicated that the land use areas in Table 3 of the Report do not appear to be correct, particularly the lake area, which was given as 12 acres. Response. The Reviewer is accurate in the observation that the lake area of 12 acres is incorrect. The planimetric determination of lake area at full pool was 112 acres, and apparently the first digit was dropped from the table. The area of 164 acres cited by the Reviewer includes land in the 50 foot buffer, and not the water surface. A revised Table 3 is attached, as well as other affected pages of the Report, including Figure 12. Using atmospheric deposition data developed in a recent BMP study conducted in Fairfax County by Virginia Tech, and applying 100 percent of those wetfall and dryfall phosphorus deposition rates to the lake surface, it was found that no significant changes in predicted summer chlorophyll concentrations resulted. Chuck Maddox 6 December, 1990 Page 3 Water Quality Degradation. Reviewer Comment. The Reviewer summarizes the his comments on BMP coverage with the observation that, "Even with a successful BMP program achieving up to 75% coverage of the project, the degradation of the water quality of the lake will occur." Response. It is not at all clear that summer chlorophyll a concentration increases to a level of 9.3 ug/L can be described as degradation of water quality. The EPA definition of mesotrophic conditions is 7 - '12 ug/L chlorophyll a. Further, as stated in the Report, the predicted range is consistent with the proposed recreation use of the lake. In fact, the development of a satisfactory fishery in the lake is probably dependent upon some enhancement of the nutrient supply. Table 4. Phosphorus Export Coefficients for Land Uses Included in Analysis for Wheatlands Lake Watershed. Land Use Description Impervious Fraction Annual Runoff (inches) TP Load (lb/ac/yr) Forest and Open Land 0.01 14.26 0.03 Low Density Single Family Residential 0.30 20.78 0.94 Multi -Family Residential 0.50 25.13 1.99 Trailer Park (Existing) 0.40 22.96 1.24 School Site 0.40 22.96 1.04 Recreation Complexes 0.60 27.30 1.24 Commercial Centers 0.75 30.57 1.38 Roadways 0.90 33.83 0.84 Open Water 1.00 40.00 0.52 Unclassified Open Land 0.05 15.35 0.49 0 o Total Lead o Total Zinc 25.2 percent 40.3 percent Using the above efficiency estimate for phosphorus, the pollutant exports and associated reductions from extended detention BMP implementation may be calculated. These, along with the net effect on pollutant transport to Wheatlands Lake, are shown in Table 5. The phosphorus loading, annual. average phosphorus concentration, and average summer chlorophyll a projections in Table 5 are summarized for six scenarios: (1) existing land use, (2) proposed land use with no BMP, and (3) through (6) proposed land use with variable coverage of the extended detention BMP. The phosphorus load and chlorophyll a data are also shown graphically for the same scenarios in Figure 12. Current Conditions. The existing condition of Wheatlands Lake with respect to phosphorus and chlorophyll a, a projected by the Rast, Jones, and Lee model is shown in Figure 12. As may be seen, the model predicts a current condition of 3.80 ug/L chlorophyll a. While the lack of chlorophyll data on the Lake make it impossible to directly compare the predicted value to current conditions, it is possible to compare the comparable phosphorus concentration. Referring back to Figure 9, it may be seen that Total P concentrations in the lake were below the detection limit of 10 ug/L, and the predicted existing condition summer Total P concentration is 11.7 ug/L, which indicates satisfactory agreement. Future Conditions - No BMPs. The proposed development of the site without BMPs in place would result in an over a four -fold increase in phosphorus export to the lake, resulting in a three -fold increase in summer chlorophyll a concentrations (11.9 ug/L). This would raise the lake trophic state to the high range of the moderately enriched condition shown in Table 2 (mesotrophy), in which decreases in transparency (secchi depth) would be anticipated, as would periodic episodes of increased algal growth. This condition would not appear to be an acceptable alternative for the lake, particularly given the current high water quality. Future Conditions - BMPs in Place. Should, however, the proposed development plan be undertaken with a mixture of extended detention BMPs, some substantial reductions in phosphorus export may be anticipated. Cases 1 - 4 in Table 5 show the impacts on phosphorus and chlorophyll a in the lake as a result of employing the BMPs at a rate of 100 percent coverage on all multi -family, commercial, institutional, and recreational centers; and at increasing increments of 25 percent for all single family areas and roadways. As a practical matter, Case 4 (100 percent coverage) cannot likely be achieved. It is likely, however, that BMP coverages of between 50 and 75 percent can be achieved for the single family portions ofthe site. These cases (2 and 3) would make it possible to keep summer chlorophyll a concentrations in the vicinity of 9.5 ug/L. While this is still indicative of a mesotrophic condition, it is at the middle of the scale, and would represent an acceptable condition for the anticipated use of the lake as a recreation site. In fact, some moderate 31 Table 3. Land Use Proposal for Future Wheatlands Development Land Use Description Area, Ac. Forest and Open Land 1075 Low Density Single Family Residential 393 Trailer Park 10 Multifamily Residential 5 School 15 Recreation Complexes 12 Commercial 9 Roadways 46 Open water (Lake Surface) 112 Unclassified Open Land (Buffer and Green Space) 259 Total Acreage in Basin 1936 27 I I • I 1 • • I• I • 111 I 11 � 111 1 1 1 • 11' Figure 12. Projected TP Loads and Chlorophyll a Values in Wheatlands Lake Under Various Scenarios. L-1 0 ADJOINERS LJ 0 April 3, 1991 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) THE APPLICATION OF: WHEATLANDS REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR: Single family townhouses, Village Centers, School and Future Development. This property, zoned R-5 (Residential, Recreational Community) and consisting of 926.266 acres, is located 3.5 miles east of Stephens City and one mile southwest of Double Tollgate, adjacent and south of Va. Route 277, adjacent and west of Va. Route 522, in the Opequon Magisterial District. This property is identified by GPIN 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 and 87-000-A00-0000-0000-01030. This revised preliminary master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of April 17, 1991 at 7:00 p.m., in the Board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak, may attend this meeting. Sincerely,. Kris C. Tierney Deputy Director KCT/slk 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 This is to certify st the attached correspondence mailed to the following on April 3, 1991 fri6the Department of, -planning andovelopment, Frederick County, Virginia: ,00<)C?C)t}C)gC)t�C7 --- . — - 11•: C r11�a)n��}� { t. Jf.ar,})C Fred L'. 'Glaize..III & .Jasbo, In,c I fit►l.I. rl::. I"'[a#;, r Err, P.O. Box 6 1 •, Stephens City, Va. 22655-- C}C} i.C). .Pity':!: v �u l...J 1 ll pi \; G. W. Clifford & Associates fi3'rGf:P'ttiiEaNftl V") Attn: C. Maddox / T. Price I P . O . Box 2104 t:3�}C}{}{)l�C}t}C)C)C)C)C)U{)t){) Winchester, b' j } Va. z2601 t:r•rt){)t)�7{){)tx)t)o{x){){)t){) :��x, a I.i. r i... t [.t�i r•¢• vn WFI:C•Y G: 1•SMS'Y',3~rVA. i�ti:i:'r••r'I:i:i'ti :i. t}'r I i:2'..:?ts}tSY'.':5.... I a 7t:ct.3YX) X} n I� fig••re>{?of>{)i.C>{5e}{)t){)t>t)fy?{)Xs, R'Y'� r:9t11 't::1 Yi4 , 1 IARC71...X) ic.'.. !-, )FIX •Y'i:i: f°'CI;:>'Y', VA rw•r„ s. x:{t:3X °S"sia "'"?ttc{';� :.'.'•?��c*:::�•,•• fi3"li)<)CIP,t}t)C){>C)C}d)C)C?C)t}:}. t);:';{ [::C31'iidWl•.::L..L.., f«`,hfa7t:31..:P"t•1 1 I., _ . till I:C'Y'1:: i^'t:i i'T', VA .•,.., p. . J.�, David Di V. He ey :I & rma d1 I C/0 Ralph Gregory Randol h H. Cornwell p 606 Carter Drive 4372 Lakeview Court Winchester, Va. 22601 I Stephens City, Va. 22655 fi3'�'C){)C)C•1C)C){}C)C)C?C)C)C)t)C}t)?•><Y+� ..10111-1 W F; X)f:E3...P'1 ta:r1 wl••rr. •Y•1::. rt't:3::3•r , V n >. I Kr's C.. e e , Deputy D' for Frederick Coun y Dept. Planning STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, Debi D. Swimley , a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director, for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated April 3, 1991' has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 3rd day of April 1991• My commission expires on September 30, 1993 a NOTARY PUBLIC C7 � ,h•II:E:61�X}I„1:Iii:Y, X}faV:CX} rl., 6J! t:1:'Y'lii: f°'C1#i3'Y• , VA A W:I:L..1 3:AM ,3 VA h Mary Margaret Grady White Post, Va. 22663 Albert.M. & Terri L. Grady Box 442, . l j' Stephens City., Va:' 22655 Y'd:9t...l�nl�l, Nt:9f::ii611! N. �a•r �. •;? .rei,::#:31::a��:�,�ta a: re rex? � r••! � w Ili 1�,1[�S::3i••i:i:!'•?t::'Y'[:9N, X) A C:.. f'�C}S}L)"l•... I OAKX)(:vlii: W'INC11.41313Y'I:R, VA., It:3t(aC}C)i}f1i)S}{)f3<}C?i}i}{}L)t}»:+•l t tn:l: X:a#i3t:1N , x t:)r-M-,4Y 14. c'„ tO.-ADY$ 1,::., #i3'Y'IA:i'�'I••tli::hl#,"a C;'t'."'('Y, Vdl.. 226151,15 I 't;3t!a{)d}L}fiL)S)C}{)C)S}{)S>S}Si{)»;?•r s t::(�ii'�i��•X{atiE:i...l.. I..:l'r:t:s. li:. rvY' . :i. X:4t:1}L ':5e'i) • ! 1 f C::i: ••('Y , V eh .. 11 Lee E': . Campbell I 2566::Chaln Bridge Rd..`, Apt: T-4 Vienna,, Va. 22180. . X;stl:l:t...lii:Y, L..t:9i��Gi:'r"Y'�IaXS'f)<}r'71t.S}C)S}C)L}S}C)C}t}t?-;.•�,;.:I ei3'Y'Gia"'1 if:Ea�#i3 C11:111Y , VA. t^'t:l Xi�t,:1Y, "•.?;;'ier'#i3 VA r• T 1. X.(:)}S i:i' 111ii:N;i3 C::I: •r'Y , V A iise!at}C}{}f1{}f?{}{}{}{}C}{}{}C}L}»:.T.»26 1A61••.TIER "V n t:. D61 #:3Y M .. I '<.3*,(•I:.:i"* !••il :tl#:3 ( 1"TY , VA. C." I TY , V A ., 1212tfa.t5":i Page -2- . Wheatland5 - - - £i3'ri}iYL)r1(}{?t7S}{}{) f}{}{)C}L}f?:l.;•�i r•`J^'f�•l::av::'tt:)V , Pjia:l...'r't7iV !� .. t�n••1:1: •r•c: I ��r.9#.�3•r• Mtn n a:?.i� �T �D..i •• £i�"t'L?i}Ut•"•sL}f?<}QL}i}L}i>i>C}C?L>:i.ris9 VA.. C;/C9 ROX-Mii:ln' .I... t:.C9t:wvv 27<9 N13 C;:I:'T'Y VA., ( Dinesh V. Tiwari } Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad St., Box 11104 Richmond, Va. 23230 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 February 6, 1991 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) THE APPLICATION OF: WHEATLANDS REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR: Single family, townhouses, Village Centers, School and Future Development. This property, zoned R-5 (Residential, Recreational Community) and consisting of 926.266 acres, is located 3.5 miles east of Stephens City and one mile southwest of Double Tollgate, adjacent and south of Va. Route 277, adjacent and west of Va. Route 522, in the Opequon Magisterial District. This property is identified by GPIN 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 and 87-000-A00-0000-0000-01030. This revised preliminary master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of February 20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m., in the Board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any, interested parties having questions or wishing to speak, may attend this meeting. Sincerely,_ . . ,. �s Kris C. Tierney Deputy Director KCT/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 WHEATLANDS -2- J. David & Dirma V. Headley C/O Ralph Gregory 606 Carter Drive Winchester, Va. 22601 3 new-10 < x):cru-1A V. VA� wx X> A - 0000c)(1.-t W* 1-1 xolm�:), "INNS CITY, VA Mary Margaret Grady Route I White Post, Va. 22663 a-rzimw, M(-,&tiY CITTY, VA DATISY pl RT. 1. X-.X:)X VA. ::I: cl.j r , jol.-liq MAll VA s)z W1117TH: P-03-r-, VA G33-*.4;U3N, W WTIIIXIIIIEKSTE:R IVY*. C-TTY, too 100001.001. J. 0000002 :M4N -T-1:.:RR:1: X-*.'(:A','< 442 CITY VA. rw. 9600<M.- OAK RIDGE :I:N(:,. wx VA NX C�XXI.MUIN, X14(:)X.1X14Y1wGI-C )YS 1:: S*YT::1::11--11:,.:N18 CXTY, V11.)- 212 Lee E. Campbell 2566 Chain Bridge Rd. Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va. 22180 '270 M 1:n*1::!1::-1,.11:::Ns c :rry, VA- 2 2 6 IZI 1.1.1; B60006• 00000 X-! n-:1: I 1:-:Y I R T. V6. VA 2 2 6 0.1 . .... M A D 1: ry, VA. II Dinesh V. Tiwari Dept. of Game & Inland Fisherie's 4010 West Broad St. Box 11104 Richmond, Va. 23230 This is to certify that e attached correspondence was ed to the following_on February 6, 19?-tom ME of Planning and Devc iment, Frederick County, Virginia: - — -----�:�:••r�i��i�n(){)cx(i()iaeztit�{y{)(a<; t; t:.(:)RNW1":I...I... , .JCH-4N W . is 1}1 :1...F'1.4 1 n Fred Z. Glaize, I'I'I Jasbo, Inc. P.O. BOx 6 Stephens City, Va. 22655 G. W. Clifford & Assoc. Tom Price/and/or Charles Maddox P.O. BOx. 2104 Winchester, Va. 22601 `.`T � WI••1:1:'rIil. r•�'(a::3�r', V�� � t:3••rc)t}c)()(}:1.c)()(}c:()<}()()()c}c)r.•s� . &2�'1F°•i.:;is:YlC !••!f-l1�Ct;ll...1:) lii:., ! j RT.' J. (t{(JX W1.41 r'Ei. I°'-'C)S)T, VA Randolph H Cornwel'1 4372 Lakevew''Court. Stephens City,- Va, 22655 _- - - --!i3'�{)C}C)t"i(}C)C)C}C){)C)(}{)C}(}C}�s•`ct3t (:a:)I+ l tE3•rC)UC}67{)C)C)C)C)C}{}(}<}C)() I rzl...r^,r�1<, a:::rnnt:� (:ac�,reX)I�Il:re WI••I:f T Ix I''(:J;ii'r', V61.. X:RV:f N !;i e"x I...xI..C.) li3tFsC}C}C}f1{)C?OC)t)C}C)C)C}C){91. ;?;:i I :i3(•lNX}y, Pit:JXs9Gi:f�'Y' •I...,, .� ,.JF•li�!:Glii :i"s., Vf`,,, Boyd Ritter • Rt:. 1, Box 4'0IA` Winchester, Va: 22601 VA l i Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick County Dept. of Planning R ETUR* TO FO SENDER REASOfn laf.•ned- C`N5CKED ' reL..11- efusey ►SUPi'c of Addr t stre— —_� ber n°t r M thisstat`e r 9.4AC)000100 3 ()()000()() 7.1 t " Y MONVICIARL—T F:jOX t}A"h 9 6 LJ COUNTY of FREDERICK IDepartment of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 February 6, 1991 TO THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) THE APPLICATION OF: WHEATLANDS REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR: Single family, townhouses, Village Centers, School and Future Development. This property, zoned R-5 (Residential, Recreational Community) and consisting of 926.266 acres, is located 3.5 miles east of Stephens City and one mile southwest of Double Tollgate, adjacent and south of Va. Route 277, adjacent and west of Va. Route 522, in the Opequon Magisterial District. This property is identified by GPIN 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 and 87-000-A00-0000-0000-01030. This revised preliminary master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of February 20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m., in the Board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak, may attend this meeting. Kris C. Tierney Deputy Director KCT/slk I� j� FEB I 1 L_ 9 Court Square 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COAPYY OFv REC RICK 9 COURT SQUARE P. 0. Box 601 WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter Rt. 1, Box 401A Winchester, Va. 22601 RETURN To ,VRITER NOT DIIELIVERABLE A ADM MI ,>;(AR W) FORDIMQ ORDER Oil E;tc COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/667-0370 February 6, 1991 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) THE APPLICATION OF: WHEATLANDS REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR: Single family, townhouses, Village Centers, School and Future Development. This property, zoned R-5 (Residential, Recreational Community) and consisting of 926.266 acres, is located 3.5 miles east of Stephens City and one mile southwest of Double Tollgate, adjacent and south of Va. Route 277, adjacent and west of Va. Route 522, in the Opequon Magisterial District. This property is identified by GPIN 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 and 87-000-A00-0000-0000-01030. This revised preliminary master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of February 20, 1991 at 7:00 p.m., in the Board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak, may attend this meeting. . Sincerely, a N Kris C. Tierney Deputy Director KCT/slk 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, V1 AGENDAS tlf+l P/C review date: P/C review date: BOS review date: 2/20/91 4/17/91 7/10/91 REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN W MATLANDS Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational) 926.266 Acres LOCATION: 3.5 miles ± east of Stephens City and one mile ± southwest of Double Tollgate; adjacent and south side of Va. Route 277; adjacent and west side of Va. Route 522. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational), land use; vacant ADJOINING ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use; single family and vacant and zoned R-5 (Residential Recreation), land use; public lake GPIN: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 and 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 PROPOSED USE & IMPROVEMENTS: 1288 single-family and 175 townhouse units, village centers, school site and future development REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See letter dated June 7, 1991. Fire Marshal: Fire lane requirements will be addressed on site plans or construction drawings. At various strategic points around the lake emergency fire lanes leading to the waters edge, 20' in width and with the capability of supporting a 35 ton piece of apparatus in all weather, will be necessary to facilitate immediate water rescue efforts. See memo attached. Frederick Co. Parks and Rec.: Recreational units need to be identified on the plan. Also, specifications for recreation equipment, shelters and tennis facilities should be submitted for review and approval. It appears that PMDP meets open space requirements. Page -2- Wheatlands Revised PMDP Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to this proposal as long as public sewer is provided to serve all components of the projects. Regional Airport: See attached comments. Sanitation Authority: First review - 13 items - correct and resubmit. An agreement regarding the acceptance of the Waste water Treatment Facility has been reached, see letter dated April 17, 1991. Inspections Department: This request for master development plan approval shall comply to Use Group "R" Residential for Single Family Dwellings and Townhouses, Section 309.0, of the BOCA National Building code 111987". Use Group for village center, school and future development will be determined at time of plans review. Engineer: See attached letter dated December 17, 1990. Department of Game and Inland Fisheries: See letter dated June 20, 1991.. Planning and Zoning: BACKGROUND This Wheatlands Master Development Plan application came before the Planning Commission on November 15, 1989 at which time the Commission tabled action on the'! application until January 3, 1990. The applicants later requested that consideration of the application be postponed beyond the January meeting. Subsequent to the applicants request for postponement, the Intergate Company withdrew as co -applicant in the proposal on May 25, 1990. On February 14, 1990 the Board of Supervisors adopted an amended Zoning Ordinance which contained among other things, revised regulations for the R-5 zoning district. On November 11, 1990 a partial application was received for a revised MDP. Comment sheets from required review agencies were received on January 17, 1991 completing the revised application. As the initial application for MDP approval was received prior to the adoption of the amended regulations, this revision to that application has been reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of the initial submission. Unless otherwise indicated, references to R-5 regulations in the remainder of the staff report refer to the old R-5 regulations. Page -3- Wheatlands Revised PMDP DENSITY The proposed uses indicated on the MDP are consistent with the R-5 regulations. , The maximum number of residential units permitted given the acreage of the parcels involved, minus the acreage included in the future development areas, school site, fire and rescue site and waste water treatment site have been subtracted, (76 acres in total) is 1,878. A maximum of 1,652 single family units and 245 townhouses units would be permitted under the regulations. The MDP indicates'a total of 1,463 units (a reduction of 337 units from that of the initial proposal) with 175 of these being -townhouses, for a gross density of 1.7 units per acre. These numbers are also below the density limits of our revised R-5 regulations. OPEN SPACE A minimum of 350 of the gross acreage of the site is required as open space. This amounts to 324 acres for this site. Open space indicated on the MDP falls short by 10 acres, at 314 acres. This ten acres appears to be the 35o that would come from areas set aside for school, fire and rescue and waste water treatment sites. COMMERCIAL AREAS A maximum acreage permitted for commercial uses is 12 acres per 1000 lot owners, or 17.5 acres. Commercial uses are to be located in the village centers and be of a nature relevant to neighborhood shopping needs. Areas intended as village centers should be labeled as such rather than "commercial". Any proposed commercial or industrial use of the areas designated as future development areas will require a rezoning. TRAFFIC The traffic impact study submitted projects 1,884 trips a day during the AM peak hour and 3,219 trips during the PM peak hour for the development as a whole. The report also indicated that with signalization and turn lanes at both the entrances on 277 and on 340/522, the intersections will operate at least a level of service B. However a level of service C is indicated during peak hours at the unsignalized intersection of Route,636 and Route 277. The Virginia Department of Transportation had numerous Page -4- Wheatlands Revised PMDP questions and concerns regarding the initial traffic impact analysis. The applicant responded with a revised report dated March of 1991. VDOT has again listed some concerns which will need to be addressed prior to any final approval of the MDP. The interior road network has been revised, to reduce the excessive length and number of cul-de-sacs and to eliminate stub cul-de-sacs. The proposed improvements to Rt. 636, and the construction of entrances on Rt. 340/522 and Rt. 277 should be tied to the construction of a specific number of units rather than to a phase of the development. WATER QUALITY The applicant provided a report which projected the likely impacts of the development on the lake. The_County's Engineer reviewed the report and indicated in his letter of December 17,-1990 that he was satisfied with the report assuming the proposed BMP are carried out. A copy of the report and the revised MDP were also transmitted to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) for their review and comment. The department has taken an active role in reviewing this development proposal as a result of a mutual agreement between the applicant, County, and DGIF to treat the Department as a official review agency. Numerous meetings have been held in an effort to resolve all concerns of DGIF, the staff and other review agencies. The most recent of these meetings was held on May 15, 1991 in the Manassas office of Hazel and Thomas. Subsequent to this meeting, DGIF reviewed the suggested compromise actions offered by the applicants --their response is contained in an attached letter dated June 20, 1991. Of the many varied issues raised by DGIF throughout the review process, it appears that all have been favorably addressed by the present version of the MDP with the exception of the following: It remains a point of negotiation between the applicant and DGIF as to who will be responsible for the actual construction of parking areas associated with additional access points to the lake. While the applicant has committed to conveyance of flood 1� 0 E Page -5- Wheatlands Revised PMDP easements to DGIF, the present MDP does not show the location of these easements. The method which will be utilized to insure continued maintenance of the stormwater retention ponds has not yet been determined. It appears that the proposal favored by both the applicant and DGIF would be the creation of a Sanitary District. It is the staffs feeling that this would also be the alternative which would provide the greatest degree of protection from the County's perspective. MISCELLANEOUS When appropriate and warranted, the provision of buffers between single family and multifamily housing units should be considered. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: (For 2/20/91) Table, until such time that comments are received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on the revised application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2120/91: Tabled until such time that comments are received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on the revised application. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS OF 4117191: Approval, by majority vote, with the condition that all review agency comments, including those of DGIF and the Planning Staff, be satisfactorily addressed and that where appropriate, these agreements be reviewed and approved.by the County Attorney prior to approval of the Final MDP and before the subdivision stage. The vote was as follows: Yes (to approve): Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Sherwood, McDonald, Copenhaver, Marker, Golladay No: Thomas, Rinker STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: (For 7/10/91) Approval, contingent upon an agreement being reached between the applicant, DGIF and the County regarding the maintenance of storm retention ponds, and the concerns of VDOT and all other review agencies being, addressed prior to final approval. :i f I JUN I 99f eOMMONWEALTH of VIRQ11141A � DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P 0 BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMt55iONCR WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT 6NGiNGEP (703) 984-4133 June 7, 1991 Callow Associates, Inc. ATTN.: Mr. Lance Hartland 12007 sunrise valley Drive Suite 160 Reston, VA 22091 Dear Lance: Ref,: Wheatlands Development Frederick County Attached is a copy of a memorandum from the Transportation Planning Division (Mr. George N. Pierce). It addresses some areas of your revised report which require correction. 1 apologize for being late in Providing you: this information. Sincerely, William H. Bushman, P.E. Transportation. Resident Engineer WHB sl Attach. xc: Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr. Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. D. B. Ripley Mr. R. B. Childress COMMONWEALTH of V!RC31NI A PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREET RAY D, PETHTEL �) C�� RICHMOND. 23219 RICHARD C. LOCKWOOD C00AMISS;0NER ; � '' �1'J BOA r i l 91 1991 1RANSPCRTATION PLANWNG ENGINEER Wheatlands Development 0Y..N ( Formerly Lake Frederick) {GI.`oc���' Traffic Impact Study (Rev. 3/91) ID MemorandAm' To - Mr. R. L. Moore As requested in Mr. Bushman's letter to Mr. Lance Hartland (dated IMarch 21, 1991), we have reviewed the subject report and offer the following comments: 13. Some minor discrepancies still exist in the revised report; however, these items will not affect the final conclusions. A copy of the report (less Appendices) is attached as`Exhibit A, and minor corrections are noted. B. Two u:ajor discrepancies that significantly impact the analysis and conclusions at the intersection of Routes 277/30/522 are : 1. The base year geometry is incorrectly displayed and utilized for capacity calculations (see page 4 Ind capacity work sheets). A copy of a recent intersection condition diagram is attached as`Exhibit B'for your ready reference. 2. version 1.4 of the FFWA capacity analysis software was used to per£crm Level -of -service calculations. ;�:e note(I in ouiz previcus review 19, 1991), the differences between versions 1.4 and 1.5 relat,ive to the number of left -turning vehicle movements executed during the "creen ball" phase; and VDOT Policv concernina computer programs. The combination of incorrect geometry and the outdated version of the software program lead to a conclusion that only minor adjustz:.ents to the intersection geometry are needed to attain LOS B (C) for the Year 2000 Build Condition. (See page 12). • Mr. R. L. Moore Page 2 April 9, 1991 In order to attain the desired "LOS", however, the geometry should be revised as shown in "Exhibit C: Please note that the Routes 340 and 277 discharge lanes will require widening to allow for a safe and effective merge movement for the through traffic movement. C. Based on the improvements recommended in the report (e.g. signals, left -turn lanes, etc.) and the revisions noted in item B herein, we feel that negative traffic impacts of the site generated traffic will be sufficiently mitigated. Furthermore, we recommend that the developer bear the cost of all improvements. If ycu desire additional information or further discussion of these comments, please contact G. N. Pierce (786--3600) of my staff. F . C. Lcck-: ood AttachmentsTransporta=:on Planning Enqineer GNP/vv cc: Mr. E. C. Cochran, Jr. "W/attachments Mr. A. L. Thomas, Jr. Mr. W. C. Jeffrey Mr. R. L. Perry Mr. W. H. Bushman Mr. D. E. Ripley , Mr. ,7. S. D:aniond " � UH ` y -- ^ ���U OFFREDERICK, VIRGIN��r FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 102490537 Date Received 102490 Date Review ------ _______ _ Applicant Name G. W. Clifford & Assoc' Address P. O. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Project Name Wheat land Phone No. 703-667-2109 Type of Application Master Development Current Zoning R-5 1st Due Fire Co. 11 1st Due Rescue Co. 11/12 ---- ---' Election District Opequon Automatic Sprinkler System Automatic Fire Alarm System in all planned buildings. RECOMMENDATIONS X Residential Sprinkler System X Other Recommend the use of sprinklers Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X Fire Lanes Required; Yes X No Comments: Fire lane reouirements will be addressed on site plans or construction drawings. Roadwav/Aislewav Widths: Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X Special Hazards Noted; Yes X No Comments: At various strategic points around the lake, emergency fire lanes, leading to the waters edge, 20' in width, with the capability of supporting a 35 ton piece of apparatus in all weather will be necessary to �����`������. facilitate immediate water rescue efforts. -Continued- COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGIN IA w FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT 1B 21 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia 22601 `%Nl; l 7 I ]7fl Thomas W. Owens Douglas A. Kiracofe Director Fire Marshal M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission: County of Frederick VIA: Thomas W. Owens, Director r-, Fire and Rescue Department FROM: Douglas A. Kiracofe, Fire Marsh a6I f Fire and Rescue Department ✓ SUBJECT: Wheatlands Master Development Plan DATE: February 7, 1991 On the submitted plan there is a note on fire hydrants that states (1) hydrant within 300' of single family homes and (2) hydrants within 400' of multifamily structures. This should be (2) hydrants within 300' of multifamily structures and (1) hydrant within 400' of single family structures per Chapter 10 Article 2-3-5.2. Referring to the fire station site, it is not a good design to have a fire or rescue station located so close to a school. The morning and afternoon traffic, school bus activity, and children who live within walking distances of the school would create a difficult and unsafe situation for apparatus responding to an incident. The fire station site shown is two acres and it is felt by our staff as well as Stephens City Fire Company that three acres would be necessary to eventually put a full fire and rescue station in place. Purchasing necessary land for expansion at later dates becomes too costly at times for individual fire companies to grow with the demand for services so a full fire and rescue facility should be planned for early on in the process. Specific requirements for fire lanes, fire hydrants, etc. will be reviewed on site plan or construction drawings. DAK:jla cc: Stephens City Fire Company File DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 OIL w G 0 i REQUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Ja bo,Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens Citv, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 :AGENT:. G.W. m-fford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- jacent to U.S.' Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. Winchester Regional Airport Comments: Airport Signature & Date: a �� , a o :.-(NOTICE TO AIRPORT -'.'PLEASE AETURNITHIS FR M TO THE AGENT-) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. G • • FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY POST OFFICE BOX 618 JAMES H. DIEHL, CHAIRMAN WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 C.A. MOLDEN, VICE CHAIRMAN E.O. RUDOLPH. III, SEC.-TREAS. DONALD R. HODGSON PHONE 703 - 665-5690 NED M. CLELAND, PH.D., P.E. WILLIAM F. EDMONSON April 17, 1991 Mr. John H. Foote Hazel & Thomas The Old Piedmont Building 9324 West Street Manassas, VA 22110 REFERENCE: Wheatlands Agreement Dear John: WELLINGTON H.JONES, P.E. ENGINEER - DIRECTOR As stated in my telephone conversation, the Sanitation Authority approved the agreement for the referenced development at their meeting held April 8, 1991. Since the treatment plant will be dedicated to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, it may be necessary to have that Authority join the agreement. But that is more a matter of form than substance, and can be addressed prior to signing the agreement. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, W. H. Jones, P.E. Engineer -Director /ths cf. Robert W. Watkins - Frederick County Planning & Development I11 .;tit; i ENGINEERS " yz• ARCHITECTS Y T y tX SCIENTISTS December 17, 1990 Kris Tierney, Assistant Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA. 22601 Re: Wheatlands Water Quality Report 17555.017 Dear Kris, We received Dr. Grizzards response to our comments of his report regarding the impact the proposed development may have on the existing lake. His response adequately addresses our primary concerns regarding the lakes predicted water quality. It is apparent to us that BMP's should be required with this development in order to preserve the water quality. Even with an effective BMP program, additional nutrients will most likely enter the lake. This added nutrient level, according to Dr Grizzards report, will enlarge the life support system for a satisfactory fishery. I have no further questions regarding this report or the predicted water quality assessment of the lake provided BMP's are made a part of the proposed stormwater management plan. Sincerely, ONOHUE ASSO ES INC. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB/j la file: r/f/AD8 ■ 11240 Waples Mill Road, Suite 100, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ■ 703.385.3566 ■ Fax 703. Printed nn ,��; reccc/cd p(11) er t .1UH 21 '31 07:27 DEPT 0 ME & FIoff P. is Department of Game and Inland Ralterks 4010 WEST GP,OAO STREET BOX 1•1104 RICHMOND, VA �3230 1-604-252-7717 (VITDD) (804) 367-1000 (VIT=) June 20, 1991 Mr. John H. Foote, Esq. Hazel & Thomas The Old Piedmont Building Third Floor 9324 West Street, Manassas, Virginia 22110 RA; PROPOSED "WHEATLAND- S" DEVELOPMENT FAKE riREDERICK, FREDERICK CO. Dear John We have reviewed your letter of May 21, 1991 suggesting revisions to the proposed Master Development Plan 'MDP; for "Wheatlar.ds". Four response does address several of our concerns in a satisfactory manner. The remaining ?teals from my April 17, 1991 letter to Mr. Watkins that need further resolution are: listed below, %. rater Quality and Aquatic Life in the Lake:' After a careful review of the areas covered by the stdrmw4te Managemant Ponds (SW14Ps) on your MDP, we fired that approximately 65 a coverage is attained. I suggest that you ask Hr. Maddox to contact fir. Tien Turner of my staff to address this discrepancy. Also, we suggest following revisions to your MDP Notes to claiify and specify performance standards: Items A through D Note (b). The last sentence should be revised to read as follows: All such facilities shall be designed for a Minimum stor water detention period of forty hours, with—._A...d+`.sign classified as "High" with regard to the overall removal capacity as shown in figure 2.4 of th above mentioned Manual. Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities JUN 21 '91 07.Z8 DEFT 0 AME &. FISH • F.3 '4 r Hr. John N. Poote,, Esq. June 20, 1991 Page Note tcia The entire note should be revised to read as fol ows: Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BHPs to be incorporated into the project shall, be assigned to the Deyotl o er, Such -maintenance sell include routine and non - routine maintenance as recommended in the ab ve t ned Manual,, and as necessa to achieve intended purposes of the SHPs. The Developer say assign this rtsponsib.114ty..... _.._to. an appropriate homeowner ° s association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the Developer, or as may be provided in section 16, hereof with respect to the transfer of such responsibilities. N..gt.e ! 4,l. y The first sentence should be revised to read as follows: Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to deteraine BHPs effectiveness shall be conducted at least annually according to a schedule agreed to by the Developer and the Virginia Department of Came and Inland Fisheries, Item MR" KQZ.*_ ( e ) a As per out previous request, we suggest that the last sentence of this note be revised to read as follow e s Sueh easement shall be granted to the Virginia Departmentof Came and Inland r isheries within 3'-& 60 days of the recordation of a final subdivision plat for any section of the development. f JUN 21 '91 07:20 DEPT I.OAME & FIEH isP.4 Mr. Jahn H. Foote, Esq. June 20, 1991 Page � "2 . Flood i illg &4sg gents : " We recognize the Developer's intent t? convey the requested flooding easements to the Virginia Department of Game and Tnland Fisheries. Would you please let us know waken the description of these easements will be submitted for our review? In any case, we suggest that the HDP identify these areas as "Flooding Easements tq he gragted to the Virginia Department of eland Fisheries" "3. Pubi c Access To make;" We suggest that the last sentence of this Note be revised to .read as follows, The Developer agrees that to the extent euch sites have been physi-cally located at the time of design of the roads from which access thereto will be provided, it shall design and build t standard coMmercial entrances to such access points, with access thereto to be constructed at the expense of othe z. "6. Enforcement of Proposed M;*tioation HeaE;u�-es. w We maintain that the $100 deposit is not sufficient for the required maintenance of the Bmps. Therefore, we suggest that you obtain cost estimates for the construction of the BMPs and apply 5% of this total construction Cost on a yearly basis for the maintenance as recommended by the above mentioned Manual. I'n addition, we suggest the Note 15 d a i : The first sentence should be revised to read as follows, The Developer, or a3s!Ocitteient _rat .d fheret. dtr his assignee, ag provided in Section 1-C above, shall establish an escrow or other separate account to receive and disburse funds to insure the perpetual maintenance of all Best Management Practices faciliti8s -;,"hich m`y be con8tructed in accordance with this Plan. JUN 21 '91 07:31 DEPT DAME & FISH 46 P.- Mr, John H. Foote, Esq. June :210, 1991 Page 4 Note 16 ( b) ; The entire Note should be revised to read as follows: The sums Segregated in accordance with the foregoing, and _]r lilteie3t accrued thereon, shall be used by a homeowners' r r w br e - , or the _.,. the Department pDeveloper, or by his assignee, for the purpose of perpetually maintaining such EHP facilitie8 in a safe and efficient manner and to achieve intended purposes of the Bmps as referenced in Sgctiyn 1-C above, No other of the above stated funds shall be ermitted. Finally, we suggest that the Developer and the County Explore the possibility of creating a limiteli purpose entity to insure Continued funding and maintenance of the BHPs in perpetuity. We remain available to discuss this and other issues related to our concerns. Sincerely, Dine8h V . s iwari . CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Division D14T!dc CC$ James Madden, l'zaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Billy Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston Art Buehler , Director, VA Div -:ion of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Direetor- DGlr Larry Hurt, Assistant Director-Dryi ' David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division REVISED WHEATLANDS PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION Opequon Magisterial District County of Frederick, Virginia. Prepared for Fred L. Glaize,III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 November 1990 by gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. FREDERICKSBURG - WINCHESTER __..... APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST RFVI AFn MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: 9 November 1990 Application #: OWNERS NAME: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 .(Fred L. Glaize, III & James Bowman) (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 Phone Number: _(703) 869-1800 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Phone Number: Contact Name: (703) 667-2139 Tom Price or Chuck Maddox REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. Background Information: 1. Development's name: 2. Location of property:3.5 mi ± east of Stephens City & 1 mi ± southwest of Double Tollgate. Adjacent & southside of Va Rte 277. Adjacent and west side of Va Rte 522 3. Total area of property:926.266 Ac. (Frederick County Land) 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map:. 87 Tax parcel: 102 & 103 Tax ID # (21 Digit): 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 5. Property zoning and present use: R-5 (Vacant) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use:A-2 (Single Family & Vacant) & R-5. (Public Lake) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family, Townhouses, Village Centers,School,Fire & Rescue and Future Development 8. Magisterial District: Opequon 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended XX -; 0 • General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes X_ No Scale Yes_X_ No Legend Yes_X_ No Boundary Survey Yes_X_ No Total Area Yes X No Topography Yes_X No Project Title Yes_X_ No Preparation and Revision Date Yes_X_ No Applicant Name Yes X No 2. Number of phases proposed? Nine (9) 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes XX_ No 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes No XX 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. YeS_XX_ No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes XX No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes XX_ No Note:Separate Colored Plans have been submitted along with this application for environmental features 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area o Disturbed Area in Open Space Floodplains 0 0 0 Lakes and ponds _ 0 0 _ 0 Natural retention areas 0 0 0 Steep slopes (15 0 +) 222 43 78 Woodlands 856 193 270 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Entrances Parking areas Utilities (mains) Yes X No Yes _X_No Yes No_X_ Yes X No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Yes_X No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes No N/A X If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? Single Family Detached Traditional (449), SF Detached Cluster (839) & Townhouses (175) 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes_X_No Acreage in each housing type YeS_X No Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes _X No Total acreage Yes_X_No Number of dwellings of each type Yes_X No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common - open space? 35% 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes _X No 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? Tennis Courts & Picnic Shelters in addition to Tot Lots required for Townhouse Development Areas. 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No X 16k — — is rr 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X Note: 70' R/W includes 25' Buffer each side w/Earthberms or Evergreen Landscaping or both. 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No_X 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes X No 10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes No X_ Energy Conservation Yes No X Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No X Underground Utilities Yes No_X Street Design Yes No —X-- 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? N/A 12. How will the bonus factors be used? N/A Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21-digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett Address: Rt.1,Box 87 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.##: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0096A Name: Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk Address: Rt.1,Box 98 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-001-0000-0000-000BO Name: Randolph H. Cornwell Address: 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00980 Name: John W. & Delphia E. Cornwell Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00990 Name: Isaac Gardner & Bertie Clark Address: Rt.1,Box 89 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01000 Name: Irvin G. & Lila M. Meyers Address: P.O. Box 54 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01010 Name: Robert L. & Janie S. Sandy Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-01230 Name: Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter Address: Rt. 1,Box 401-A Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01070 Name: J. David & Dirma V. Headley Address: c/o Ralph Gregory 606 Carter Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01050 Name: David A. Headley Address: Box 72 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0103A Name: Jeffrey E. Williams Address: Box 87 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00010 Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0010-0000-00110 Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0001-000A-00120 Name: Albert M. & Terri L. Grady Address: Box 442 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.##: 94A00-001-0011-0000-00200 Name: Norman N. & Constance N. Tolken Address: 4712 Reservoir Road N.W. Wash. D.C. 20007 Property I.D.##: 94000-AOO-0000-0000-00060 Name: Oak Ridge Properties Address: P.O. Box 885 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-0273D Name: Bobby W. & Gladys E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-A Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.##: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-0273C Name: Lee E. Campbell Address: 2566 Chain Bridge Rd Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va 22180 Property I.D.##: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-0273B Name: Loretta D. & Howard L. Bailey Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-B Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.##: 86000-AO0-0000-0000-02720 Name: Tibow c/o Jeni Address: P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.##: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-02230 Name: Patrick C. & Lillian C. Madigan Address: Rt. 1,Box 163 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A0O-0000-0000-0266A Name: Walter F. & Daisey M. Lewis Address: Rt.1,Box 272 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02200 Name: John Max Leight & Joann G. Lillian Address: 5037 Massie St. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02180 Name: Milton K. & Beatrice Apperson Address: Rt.1,Box 93 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00150 Name: Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 155 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0016B Name: Ross Giles Cooke & Robert L. Cooke & Mary Jane Cooper Address: Rt. 2,Box 278 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D._#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00960 • is COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM To: Frederick County Planning Commission From: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director Re: Wheatlands: Response to DGIF Comments Date: April 4, 1991 Comments on the proposed Wheatlands development have been received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and a copy of the comments are attached. The comments were forwarded to the applicants and they have responded by revising the MDP. Staff comments and those of other review agencies have not been addressed in this revision, all revisions appear to pertain solely to the DGIF review. SUMMARY OF DGIF COMAUNTS The comments and recommendations made by the DGIF are summarized below. Where appropriate, the applicant's response is indicated in italics. 1. The retention ponds shown on the plan are not specified in terms of their design. DGIF points out that the ponds should be of the type described in the water quality report by Dr. Grizzard which was submitted with the application. 2. Grading of the site should be done in such a way that 75 % of the drainage is channelled through the retention ponds. The applicants have included a diagram depicting the type of retention pond as well as a statement that "as much as it is reasonably practical to do so,... (obtain)... coverage of 75 % ". 3. Covenants should require compliance with the "typical lot" detail shown on the MDP. 4. Lift stations should be of a type design providing the maximum protection from mechanical and electrical failures. The applicants have provided a statement to this effect on the MDP. 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 Page 2 Wheatlands: Response to DGIF Comments April 4, 1991 5. DGIF requests that they be permitted to review and have input into the erosion and sedimentation control plan. 6. Verification of the open space calculations. 7. Request for a conservation easement on the 50' buffer or that cutting, clearing or other disturbance of vegetation be prohibited. A statement has been included to the effect that the buffer shall be in the form of an easement for conservation and water quality preservation. 8. Continue to urge that a flood easement be granted or at a minimum that the areas prone to flooding be on record and be set aside from development. 9. Provide five access areas for bank fishing along with parking. OAccess areas will be provided. 10. Dry water hydrants be used rather than providing emergency vehicle access points to the lake. 11. Provide a report on the impact of the increased stormwater runoff on the dam. 12. Provide monuments at 1000' intervals along the property line. The plan states that such easements will be provided. 13. Suggest that the County establish legally binding and enforceable requirements for maintenance of the stormwater management system. The applicant has included language that the would require the developer to provide $100.00 per lot for the purpose of maintaining the ponds. 0 • Page 3 Wheatlands: Response to DGIF Comments April 4, 1991 STAFF COMMENTS It is the staff s opinion that the applicant has made a good faith effort to respond to the DGIF comments; however, there are still a significant number of details that need to be worked out. There are also unresolved problems with reviews from other agencies. . Of the as yet unresolved DGIF comments, the most significant appear to be the maintenance of the stormwater retention ponds and the impact of the increased runoff on the dam. It would be desirable not only to have a guaranteed fund, (it is at this point uncertain whether $100 per lot would be sufficient) for the maintenance, but to also have some assurance that the maintenance would be scheduled at appropriate intervals. The staff would also concur that some analysis should be made to insure that no structural problems will develop with the dam as a result of increased runoff into the lake. STAFF RECON EVU- RATION Numerous agreements between various parties such as the applicant, the County, the Sanitation Authority and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries need to be negotiated. The staff feels that agreements can be reached and therefore recommends approval of the PMDP with the condition that all review agency comments, including those of the DGIF and the planning staff be satisfactorily addressed and that where appropriate, these agreements be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to approval of the FMDP. 0 PC Review - 2/20/91 PC Review — 4/17/91 0 REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #i006-89 kul lot, t. . ` - Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational) 926.266 Acres LOCATION: 3.5 miles ± east of Stephens City and one mile ± southwest of Double Tollgate; adjacent and south side of Va. Rt. 277; adjacent and west side of Va. Rt. 522. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational), land use; vacant ADJOINING ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use; single family and vacant and zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational), land use; public lake GPIN: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 and 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 PROPOSED USE & IMPROVEMENTS: 1760 single-family and 40 townhouse units, village centers, school site and future development REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See letter dated -February 6, 1991. Fire Marshal: Fire. lane requirements will be addressed on site plans or construction drawings. At various strategic points around the lake emergency fire lanes leading to the waters edge, 20' in width and with the capability of supporting a 35 ton piece of apparatus in all weather, will be necessary to facilitate immediate water rescue efforts., See memo attached, Frederick Co. Parks & Rec.: Recreational units need to be identified on the plan. Also,'specifications for recreation equipment, shelters and tennis facilities should be submitted . for review and approval. It appears that PMDP meets open space requirements. 9 PC Review - 2/20/91 PC Review - 4/17/91 Page -2- Wheatlands Revised PMDP Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to this proposal as long as , public sewer is provided to serve all components of the projects. Regional Airport: See attached comments. Sanitation Authority: First review - 13 items- correct and resubmit. Inspections Department: This request for master development plan approval shall comply to Use Group "R" Residential', for Single Family Dwellings and Townhouses, Section 309.0, of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". Use Group for village center, school and future development will be determined at time of plans review. Engineer: See December 17, 1990 letter attached. Planning and Zoning: BACKGROUND This Wheatlands Master Development Plan application came before the Planning Commission on November 15, 1989 at which time the Commission tabled action on the application until January. 3, 1990. The applicants' later requested that consideration of the application be postponed beyond the January meeting. Subsequent to the applicants request for postponement, the Intergate Company withdrew as co -applicant in the proposal on May 25, 1990. On February 14, 1990 the Board of Supervisors adopted an amended Zoning Ordinance which contained among other things, revised regulations for the R-5 zoning district. On November 11, 1990 a partial application was received for a revised MDP. Comment sheets from required review agencies were received on January 17, 1990 completing the revised. application. As the initial appl-ZM—tion for MDP approval was received prior to the adoption of the amended regulations, this revision to that application has been reviewed under the regulations in effect at,the time of.the initial submission. Unless otherwise indicated, references to R-5 regulations in • the remainder of the staff, report refer to the old R-5 regulations. PC Review - 2/20/91 PC'Review - 4/17/91 Page -3- 40 Wheatlands Revised PMDP DENSITY The proposed uses indicated on the MDP are consistent with the R-5 regulations. The maximum number of .residential units permitted given the acreage of the parcels involved, minus the acreage included in the future development areas, school site, f ire and rescue site, and waste water treatment site have been subtracted, (76 acres in total) is 1,878. A maximum of 1,652 single family units and 245 townhouse units -would be permitted under the regulations. The MDP indicates a total of 1,463 units (a reduction of 337 units from that of the initial proposal) with 175 of these being townhouses, for a gross density of 1.7 units per acre. These numbers are also below the density limits of our revised R-5 regulations. OPEN SPACE A minimum of 35% of the gross acreage of the site is required as open space. This amounts to 324 acres for this site. Open • space .indicated on the MDP is slightly below this at 318 acres. It is also unclear whether the acreage of the sewage treatment plant (estimated to be 10 acres) has been included as a part of the open space calculation. This discrepancy needs to be addressed. Sufficient assurances that open space, shown within the future development areas will remain as such needs. to be provided.. COMMERCIAL AREAS The maximum acreage permitted for commercial uses is 12 acres per 1000 lot owners, or 17.5 acres. Commercial uses are to be located in the village centers and be of a nature relevant to neighborhood shopping needs. Areas intended as village centers should be labeled as such rather than "commercial". Any proposed commercial or industrial use of the areas designated as future development areas will.,require a rezoning. TRAFFIC • The traffic impact study submitted projects 1,.884 trips a day during the AM. peak hour and 3,219 trips during the PM. peak C� PC Review - 2/20/91 PC Review - 4/17/91 • Page -4- Wheatlands Revised PMDP hour for the development as a whole. The report also indicated that with signalization and turn lanes at both the entrance on 277 and that on 340/522, the intersections will operate at least a level of service B. However, a level of service E is indicated during peak hours at the intersection of Rt. 636 and Rt. 277. The Virginia Department of Transportation had numerous questions and concerns regarding this report. The applicant has responded in writing to these concerns, it is anticipated that all concerns will be satisfactorily addressed. The interior road network has been revised to reduce the excessive length and number of cul-de-sacs and to eliminate stub cul-de-sacs. The plan should indicate an area along the northern boundary of the property to -be dedicated for future widening of Route 277. The proposed improvements to Rt. 636, and the construction of entrances on Rt. 340/522 and Rt. 277 should be tied to the • construction of a specific number of units rather than to a phase of the development. WATER QUALITY The applicant has provided a report which projects the likely impacts of the development on the lake. The County's Engineer has reviewed the report and indicates in his letter of December 17, 1990 that he is satisfied with the report assuming the proposed BMP are carried out. A copy of the report and the revised MDP were also transmitted to the Department of, Game and Inland Fisheries for their review and comment. We have not received comments from DGIF to date, however in a conversation with the Richmond office on February 5, 1991 they indicated that they intended to provide comments and left the possibility open that we might have them prior to the February 20, 1991 meeting. The comments received from DGIF on the initial. proposal indicated a concern over the possible impacts of erosion and sedimentation on the lake both during and after construction.. The Department expressed a desire to comment on the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and Storm Water Management Plan and to take part in monitoring the project for compliance. The department requested that flood easements and a buffer PC Review 2/20/91 PC Review 4/17/91 • • Page -5- Wheatlands Revised PMDP around the lake be provided, and noted that a joint access road was not a possibility. A 50 foot buffer around the lake, in addition to that owned by the DGIF.has been provided and the joint access has been eliminated. It is unknown whether the other concerns and.comments will change in light'of the revised proposal and the report on water quality. MISCELLANEOUS A written agreement with the Sanitation Authority regarding the future acceptance of the wastewater treatment plant should be provided prior to final MDP approval. When appropriate and warranted, the provision of buffers between single family and multifamily housing units should be considered. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (for 2/20/91) Table, until such time that comments are received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on the revised application. Prior to any final approval, satisfactory comments will need to be received from the Virginia Department of Transportation, a formal written agreement between the applicant, the Sanitation Authority, and the County regarding the wastewater treatment facility will need to be provided, and all relevant review agency comments will need to be addressed. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS of 2/20/91: Tabled until such time that comments are received from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on the revised application. CO IMONWEAI.THl of _IIRQ1NTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG. 22824 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 February 6, 1991 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Wheatlands/ Lake Frederick Development Routes 277, 340, 522 & 636 Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties This is to acknowledge receipt of the above referenced project's revised preliminary master development plan dated February 4, 1991. All changes appear to have been made as discussed at our meeting of last Friday. We see no major design problems with this submittal and feel a safe and effective roadway network can be achieved through the ongoing design and review process. As you are aware, we will not be able to offer any additional comments on this proposal until the traffic impact study has been revised and resubmitted for further review. Should you have any questions concerning the above or if we -can be of further assistance, please give us a call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer C�12,By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC / rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. D. E. Ripley / Mr. R. W. Watkins V '. FEB - 7 IIA L_ 4 0 • COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA C FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT 21 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia 22601 I't8 Thomas W. Owens Douglas A. Kiracofe Director Fire Marshal M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission: County of Frederick VIA: Thomas W. Owens, Director Fire and Rescue Department FROM: Douglas A. Kiracofe, Fire Marsha j' Fire and Rescue Department SUBJECT: Wheatlands Master Development Plan DATE: February 7, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- • On the submitted plan there is a note on fire hydrants that states (1) hydrant within 300' of single family homes and (2) hydrants within 400' of multifamily structures. This should be (2) hydrants within 300' of multifamily structures and (1) hydrant within 400' of single family structures per Chapter 10 Article 2-3-5.2. Referring to the fire station site, it is not a good design to have a fire or rescue station located so close to a school. The morning and afternoon traffic, school bus activity, and children who live within walking distances of the school would create a difficult and unsafe situation for apparatus responding to an incident. The fire station site shown is two acres and it is felt by our staff as well as Stephens City Fire Company that three acres would be necessary to eventually put a full fire and rescue station in place. Purchasing necessary land for expansion at later dates becomes too costly at times for individual fire companies to grow with the demand for services so a full fire and rescue facility should be planned for early on in the process. Specific requirements for fire lanes, fire hydrants, etc. will be reviewed on site plan or construction drawings. DAK:jla • cc: Stephens City Fire Company File DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 L- • • • REOUEST FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,Inc. P.O.Box 6 Stenhens Citv, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 :AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 �ttn•Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and _ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity_ Winchester Regional Airport Comments: Airport Signature & Date: a oci�?Q .(NOTICE TO AIRPORT -;PLEASE RETURN THIS F M TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. • 1J • Please consider the following comments when reviewing this Request for Master Development Plan: The Developer should be familiar with and be required to comply with the provisions of the Frederick County Airport Zoning District (AP-1) and Airport Support Area (ASA) described in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The developer should also be familiar with the provisions and requirements of the following codes: Title 15.1 Code of Virginia, Section 489 (Purpose of Zoning Ordinances) and Section 491.02 (Airport Safety Zoning). Title 5.1-25.1 Code of Virginia (Permits Required for Erection of Certain structures.) As Winchester Regional Airport expands services and operations, noise associated with such expansion is very likely to increase. The Airport Support Area established by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is designed to discourage residential development in the vicinity of the airport • to preclude citizen concerns for noise created by aircraft operating on, to and from Winchester Regional Airport. If the developer is planning residential development adjacent to the ASA or under a commonly used flight path used by aircraft outside the ASA as they arrive or depart the Airport, he should be encouraged to insulate all habitable structures for noise and be required to specifically address, in the property Covenants and Easements, existing airport related noise and the probability of increased noise as airport operations expand. n E, L i NV u Is ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS December 17, 1990 Kris Tierney, Assistant Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA. 22601 Re: Wheatlands Water Quality Report 17555.017 Dear Kris, We received Dr. Grizzards response to our comments of his report regarding the impact the proposed development may have on the existing lake. His response adequately addresses our primary concerns regarding the lakes predicted water quality. It is apparent to us that BMP's should be required with this development in order to preserve the water quality. Even with an effective BMP program, additional nutrients will most likely enter the lake. This added nutrient level, according to Dr Grizzards report, will enlarge the life support system for a satisfactory fishery. I have no further questions regarding this report or the predicted water quality assessment of the lake provided BMP's are made a part of the proposed stormwater management plan. Sincerely, ONOHJE ASSOC ES INC. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB/j la file: r/f/AD8 • N 11240 Waples Mill Road, Suite 100, Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ■ 703.385.3566 D ors f 8 #W ■ Fax 103.3 Sik19 �,— — Printed on � 'reeled cwper. L� 0 • • REVISED _WHEATLANDS PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION Opequon Magisterial District County of Frederick, Virginia. Prepared for Fred L. Glaize,III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 November 1990 by • gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. FREDERICKSBURG - WINCHESTER 0 • • APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: 9 November 1990 Application #: OWNERS NAME: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (Fred L. Glaize, III & James Bowman) (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 Phone Number: (703) 869-1800 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc Inc P.O. Box 2104 Winchester,Va 22601 Phone Number: Contact Name: _(703) 667-2 13 9 Tom Price or Chuck Maddox • REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on -the master development plan. 1. Development's name: Wheatlands • 2. Location of property:3.5 mi ± east of Stephens City & 1 mi ± southwest of Double Tollgate. Adjacent & southside of Va Rte 277 Adjacent and west side of Va Rte 522 3. Total area of property:926.266 Ac. (Frederick County Land) 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map: 87 Tax parcel: 102 & 103 Tax ID # (21 Digit): 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 5. Property zoning and present use: R-5 (Vacant) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use:A-2 (Single Family & Vacant) & R-5. (Public Lake) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family, Townhouses Village Centers, School, Fire & Rescue and Future Development 8. Magisterial District: Opequon 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended XX • General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes_X_ No Scale Yes X_ No Legend Yes_X No Boundary Survey Yes X No Total Area Yes X No Topography Yes X No Project Title Yes X No Preparation and'Revision Date Yes No Applicant Name Yes —IC _ X No 2. Number of phases proposed? Nine (9) 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes XX No 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes No XX 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes XX No 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes XX No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes_XXNo Note:Separate Colored Plan—s have been submitted along with this application for environmental features 8. Describethe following environmental features: Total Area % Disturbed Area in Open Space Floodplains 0 0 0 Lakes and ponds _ 0 0 _ —0— Natural retention_ areas 0 0 0 Steep slopes (15% +) 222 43 78 Woodlands 856 193 270 0 • • 0-- 0 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street laycut Entrances Park_ng are=s Utilities (mains) Yes XNo Yes__X__No Yes No_X_ Yes X No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Yes_X No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes No N/A X If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? Ingle Family Detached Traditional (449) SF Detached Cluster (839) & Townhouses (1751 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes _X_No Acreage in each housing type Yes_X_No Acreage in streets and right of ways Yes _X No Total acreage Yes_X_No Number of d,;ellings of each type Yes_X No 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space? 355c' 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes X No — 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? Tennis Courts & Picnic Shelters in addition to Tot Lots recrired for Townhouse Development Areas, 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No_X • 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X_ Note: 70' R/W includes 25' Buffer each side w/Earthberms or Evergreen Landscaping or both. 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No X 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes X No 10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes No X_ Energy.Conservation Yes No X Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No Underground Utilities Yes NoX Street Design Yes No_ X_ 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? N/A 12. How will the bonus factors be used? N Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in. front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21-digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett Address: Rt.1;Box 87 White.Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0096A Name: Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk Address: Rt.1,Box 98 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-001-0000-0000-000BO Name: Randolph H. Cornwell •.Address: 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.##: 87000=A00-0000-0000-00980 • Name: John W. & Delphia E. Cornwell Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.##: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00990 Name: Isaac Gardner & Bertie Clark Address: Rt.1,Box 89 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01000 Name: Irvin G. & Lila M. Meyers Address: P.O. Box 54 Stephens City, Va 22655. Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01010 Name: Robert L. & Janie S. Sandy Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-01230 Name: Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter • Address: Rt. 1,Box 401-A Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01070 Name: J. David & Dirma V. Headley Address: c/o Ralph Gregory 606 Carter Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01050 Name: David A. Headley Address: Box 72 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A0070000-0000-0103A Name: Jeffrey E. Williams Address: Box 87 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00010 Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0010-0000-00110 Name: Mary Margaret Grady • Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0001-000A-00120 Name: Albert.M. & Terri L.'Grady Address: Box 442 Stephens City,,Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0011-0000-00200 Name: Norman N. & Constance.N. Tolken Address: 4712 Reservoir Road N.W. Wash. D.C. 20007 Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00060 Name: Oak Ridge Properties Address: P.O. Box 885 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273D Name: Bobby W. & Gladys E..Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-A Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.•#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273C Name: Lee E. Campbell Address: 2566 Chain'Bridge Rd Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va 22180 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273B Name: Loretta D. & Howard L. Bailey Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-B Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02720 Name: Tibow c/o Jeni Address: P.O..Box 2598 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02230 Name: Patrick C. & Lillian C. Madigan., Address: Rt. 1,Box 163 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0266A Name: Walter F. & Daisey M. Lewis Address: Rt.1,Box 272_ Stephens City, Va 22655 • Property I.D.#: Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Address: Property I.D.#: Name: Address: 0 Property I.D.#: Name: Address: Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02200 John Max Leight & Joann G. Lillian 5037 Massie St. Stephens City, Va 22 655 86000-A00-0000-0000-02180 Milton K. & Beatrice Apperson Rt.1,Box 93 White Post, Va 22663 87000-A00-0000-0000-00150 Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson Rt. 1,Box 155 Winchester, Va 22601 87000-A00-0000-0000-0016B Ross Giles Cooke & Robert L. Cooke & Mary Jane Cooper Rt. 2,Box 278 Stephens City, Va 22655 87000-A00-0000-0000-00960 `1 Cfl VIMONWEA= of `yIRCCI TIC Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1-800-252-7717 (V/TDD) (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) March 20, 1991 Mr. Robert W. Watkins Planning Director Dept. of Planning & Development County of Frederick P. 0. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 • Re: Preliminary Master Development Plan Wheatlands, Frederick County Dear Mr. Watkins: We have reviewed the revised Preliminary Master Site Plan for the proposed "Wheatlands" residential development surrounding Lake Frederick in Frederick County. The revisions to this plan have addressed some of the concerns raised in our November 9, 1989 letter to you. However, many important items of concern must be addressed to mitigate adverse impact of the proposed development on Lake Frederick: 1. Water Ouality and Aquatic Life in the Lake: The developer has used Dr. Grizzard's best case scenario to suggest a future mesotrophic (moderate nutrient level) condition. However, the plan shows less than 50% of the stormwater retention basin coverage suggested by Dr. Grizzard. No details have been provided on the plan for removal of nutrients from stormwater runoff with the exception of areas designated as swamp. As such, the plan appears to use a standard retention basin design unlike the prototype extended retention facilities that Dr. Grizzard's analysis was based on. The standard retention basins are not effective in removing nutrients. Our conclusion is that the proposed development, as currently designed, will result in higher, eutrophic • (nutrient rich) conditions than predicted by Dr. Grizzard. p���UWLg 2 2 ass► Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities L _J 0 • Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 20, 1991 Page 2 Butrophication can have positive and negative" impacts. However, the focus of our .concern is the uncontrolled introduction of nutrients from the proposed development into Lake Frederick. The expected results of higher levels of nutrients will be a decrease in water clarity, proliferation of rooted aquatic vegetation to levels that may inhibit recreational use, production of large quantities of filamentous algae and expansion of the anoxic (no oxygen) condition in the hypolimnion (deeper and colder layer of the Lake). The fishery impacts will be a reduction in available habitat, but increased fish production in the epilimnion (upper layer). This may result in improved fishing for largemouth bass, bluegill and possibly catfishbutwould probably eliminate available habitat for such species as walleye. Also, without necessary mitigation measures, the use of pesticides in the proposed residential development- will have a negative impact on the food chain in Lake Frederick. The proposed use of. lift stations in the wastewater collection system is a real concern. Lift stations can be chronic problems and operational failures or loss of power can result in eventual overflow of raw sewage into the Lake. In summary, the, proposed development will have a negative impact on water quality and aquatic life in the Lake. The additional future development in the watershed of Lake Frederick will multiply this adverse impact. As such, efforts well beyond Best Management Practices (B.M.P.) for stormwater management and erosion and sediment control should be required. The following mitigating features are suggested for incorporation into the master site plan design: A. The proposed development should comply with water quality improvement standards as outlined in Dr. Grizzard's report. _.. We share Dr. Grizzard's concerns regarding nutrient removal, and recommend that Fairfax County's standards noted in his. report.. be required for this development ( see Attachment A) . B. 750 of the land area draining into the Lake. should be channelled through extended retention facilities as defined in Dr. Grizzard's report. 9 LJ • 0 Mr. Robert March 20, Page 3 W. Watkins 1991 C.. Property covenants should require compliance with "typical wooded lot detail" shown on the plan. .We concur with Mr. James Madden's suggestion in this regard (item.#5) outlined in his March 13, 1991 letter to your office. D. The proposed lift stations should be of a class providing maximum protection from mechanical or electrical failures. E. Frederick County should insure strict compliance with the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation's Erosion and Sediment Control sugge.stions outlined in Attachment B. We would also like the opportunity to review and have input into the erosion control plan and work with the County to insure that it is fully implemented. F. Frederick County should insure strict compliance with it's open space requirement to help address the water quality of the Lake. Verification of the developer's calculations is 'needed to help answer many questions regarding what is included in the open space. G. The developer has proposed a 50-foot buffer zone on his property with no building or physical development. This is a very critical element of the overall mitigating effort to control run-off. In order to insure that restrictions on this buffer area are enforced, we desire that the developer grant us a conservation easement on his entire 50-foot.buffer. In any case, tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth,` and any disturbance of existing vegetation within this natural buffer should be prohibited through proper deed covenants as suggested by Mr. Madden. 2. :Flooding Easements: ...-This agency will continue to seek flooding easements along the Lake shoreline following elevation 628.5 (the top of the dam) to accommodate high water levels in the Lake due'to storms. Regardless of the results of our efforts, Frederick County should insure that these areas go on record as being prone to flooding during storm and should be set aside for no development. C� J Mr., Robert W. Watkins March 20, 1991 Page 4 3. Public Access to Lake: We recommend that five (5) public access areas, each. with a minimum of'eight (8) car parking spaces and a 4-foot wide and 4-inch thick (minimum) gravel walk to the Lake's shoreline for bank fishing purposes, should be provided. These areas should be clearly marked as public use areas. No boat landing fishing ier or boat dock can be constructed without Prior approval from this agency. 4. Fire Protection: Upon request, we would support installation of dry water hydrants on the developer's property to facilitate emergency use of lake water for fire fighting purposes. However, we cannot support establishment of additional lakeshore.acce, we fill fire tankers as proposed.,to 5. Vehicular and Utilit Crossing s: The plan shows a bridge over this agency's access road to accommodate an internal loop road within the development. Also, crossing of this agency's property would be required to accommodate the development's utilities. Necessary review and approval process for the crossings of agency -owned bproposed property has been .initiated. An agreement must be reached between this agency and the developer prior to any construction on the agency -owned property. 6. ,Impact on Dam: The County should require the developer 'to •provide a comprehensive report on the full impact of the increased stormwater runoff on the capacity of the existing dam.. If modifications to our dam or spillway are required as a result of increased runoff, the developer should bear the full cost of such modifications. Currently the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation is upgrading the dam's classification to Class I. Therefore, the developer's report should address the probable maximum flood (PMF) calculations required for a Class I Dam. 7. Boundary Review: There are virtually no corners set along the developer's property line around the Lake. 'In order to address encroachment of the a enc potential that the developer establish ned public property, we request markers} at a permanent monuments (property approximately 1000-foot intervals along his property line around the Lake. a • • Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 20, 1991 Page 5 8. Enforcement of ro osed miti ation measures: We are concerned about the maintenance and enforcement of the Mitigation measures during and after the construction. As stated by Mr. Madden, homeowner associations are not the best means for the enforcement of the covenants or for the maintenance of the stormwater management system. Therefore, the Count should make every effort to red Proposed miti anon remeasures into le all bindingand enforceable quirements. We think this is most critical to protect the subject public fishing resource. For example, the Possibility of County maintained stormwater management system funded through landowner/developer fees should be explored. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. We remain available to discuss/review Frederick County's.future comments and requirements related to this proposal. If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief, Lands and Engineering Division Attachments DVT/dc CC: James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Billy Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston Art Buehler, Director, VA. Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control Specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation -Staunton Bud Bristow, Director-DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director-DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief -Planning & Environmental Division PC Review - 2/20/91 REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #006-89 WMATLANDS Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational) 926.266 Acres LOCATION: 3.5 miles ± east of Stephens City and one mile + southwest of Double Tollgate; adjacent and south side of Va. Rt. 277;.adjacent and west side.of Va. Rt. 522. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon d PROPERTY ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational), land use; vacant ADJOINING ZONING & LAND USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas), land use; single family and vacant and zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational), land use; public lake • GPIN: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 and 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 PROPOSED USE & IMPROVEMENTS: 1760 single-family and 40 townhouse units, village centers, school site and future development REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See letter dated February 6, 1991. Fire Marshal: Fire lane requirements will be addressed on site plans or construction drawings. At various strategic points around the lake emergency fire lanes leading to the waters edge, 20' in width and with the capability of supporting a 35 ton piece of apparatus in all weather, will be necessary to facilitate immediate water rescue efforts. See memo attached. Frederick Co. Parks & Rec.: Recreational units need to be identified on the plan. Also, specifications for recreation equipment, shelters and tennis facilities should be submitted for review and approval. It appears that PMDP meets open • space requirements. PC Review - 2/20/91 Page -2- Wheatlands Revised PMDP Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to this proposal as long as public sewer is provided to serve all components of the projects. Regional Airport: See attached comments. Sanitation Authority: First review - 13 items - correct and resubmit. Inspections Department: This request for master development plan approval shall comply to Use Group "R" Residential for Single Family Dwellings and Townhouses, Section 309.0, of the BOCA National Building Code 111987". Use Group for village center, school and future development will be determined at time of plans review. Engineer: See December 17, 1990 letter attached. Planning and Zoning: • BACKGROUND This Wheatlands Master Development Plan application came before the Planning Commission on November 15, 1989 at which time the Commission tabled action on the application until January 3, 1990. The applicants later requested that consideration of the application be postponed beyond the January meeting. Subsequent to the applicants request for postponement, the Intergate Company withdrew as co -applicant in the proposal on May 25, 1990. On February 14, 1990 the Board of Supervisors adopted an amended Zoning Ordinance which contained among other things, revised regulations for the R-5 zoning district. On November 11, 1990 a partial application was received for a revised MDP. Comment sheets from required review agencies were received on January 17, 1990 completing the revised application. As the initial application for MDP approval was received prior to the adoption of the amended regulations, this revision to that application has been reviewed under the regulations in effect at the time of the initial submission. Unless otherwise indicated, references to R-5 regulations in the remainder of the staff report refer to the old R-5 • regulations. PC Review - 2/20/91 Page -3- • Wheatlands Revised PMDP DENSITY The proposed uses indicated on the MDP are consistent with the R-5 regulations. The maximum number of residential units permitted given the acreage of the parcels involved, minus the acreage included in the future development areas, school site, fire and rescue site, and waste water treatment site have been subtracted, (76 acres: in total) is 1,878. A maximum of 1,652 single family units and 245 townhouse units would be permitted under the regulations.. The MDP indicates a total of 1,463 units (a reduction of 337 units from that of .,the initial proposal) with 175 of these being townhouses, for a gross density of 1.7 units per acre. These numbers are also below the density limits of our revised R-5 regulations. OPEN SPACE A minimum of 35% of the gross acreage of the site is required as open space. This amounts to 324 acres for this site. open • ..:space indicated on the MDP is slightly below this at 318 acres. It is also unclear whether the acreage of. the sewage _treatment plant (estimated to be 10 acres) has been included as a part of the open space calculation. This discrepancy needs to be addressed. Sufficient assurances that open space shown within the future development areas will remain as such needs to be provided. COMMERCIAL AREAS The maximum acreage permitted for commercial uses is 12 acres per 1000 lot owners, or 17.5 acres. Commercial uses are to be located in the village centers and be of a nature relevant to neighborhood shopping needs. Areas intended as village centers should be labeled as such rather than "commercial". Any proposed commercial or industrial use of the areas designated as future'. development areas will require a rezoning. TRAFFIC The traffic impact study submitted projects 1,884 trips a day during the AM. peak hour and 3,219 trips during the PM. peak PC Review - 2120191 I Page -4- • Wheatlands Revised PMDP hour for the development as a whole. The report also indicated that with signalization and turn lanes at both the entrance on 277 and that on 340/522, the intersections will operate at least a level of service B. However, a level of service E is indicated during peak hours at the intersection of Rt. 636 and Rt. 277. The Virginia Department of Transportation had numerous questions and concerns regarding this report. The applicant has responded in writing to these concerns, it is anticipated that all concerns will be satisfactorily addressed. The interior road network has been revised to reduce the excessive length and number of cul-de-sacs and to eliminate stub cul-de-sacs. The plan should indicate an area along the northern boundary of the property to be dedicated for future widening of Route 277. The proposed improvements to Rt. 636, and the construction of entrances on Rt. 340/522 and Rt. 277 should be tied to the construction of a specific number of units rather than to a • phase of the development. WATER QUALITY The applicant has provided a report which projects the likely impacts of the development on the lake. The County's Engineer has reviewed the report and indicates in his letter of December 17, 1990 that he is satisfied with the report assuming the proposed BMP are carried out. A copy of the report and the revised MDP were also transmitted to the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for their review and comment. We have not received comments from DGIF to date, however in a conversation with the Richmond office on February 5, 1991 they indicated that they intended to provide comments and left the possibility open that we might have them prior to the February 20, 1991 meeting. The" comments received from DGIF on the initial proposal indicated a concern over the possible impacts of erosion and sedimentation on the lake both during and after construction. The Department expressed a desire to comment on the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan and Storm Water Management Plan • and to take part in monitoring the project for compliance. The department requested that flood easements and a buffer 0 PC Review 2/20/91 Page -5- • Wheatlands Revised PMDP around the lake be provided, and noted that a joint access road was not a possibility. A 50 foot buffer around the lake, in addition to that owned by the DGIF has been provided and the joint access has been eliminated. It is unknown whether the other concerns and comments will change in light of the revised proposal and the report on water quality. MISCELLANEOUS A written agreement with the Sanitation Authority regarding the future acceptance of the wastewater treatment plant should be provided prior to final MDP approval. When appropriate and warranted, the provision of buffers between single family and multifamily housing units should be considered. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (for 2/20/91) Table, until such time that • comments are received from the .Department of Game and Inland Fisheries on the revised application. Prior to any final approval, satisfactory comments will need to be received from the Virginia Department of Transportation, a formal written agreement between the applicant, the Sanitation Authority, and the County regarding the wastewater treatment facility will need to be provided, and all relevant review agency comments will need to be addressed. U • RAY D. PETHTEL COMMISSIONER • 0 COMMONWEALTH of VIRQ1NJA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, 22824 (703) 984-4133 February 6, 1991 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Wheatlands/ Lake Frederick Development Routes 277, 340, 522 & 636 Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties This is to acknowledge receipt of the above referenced project's revised preliminary master development plan dated February 4, 1991. All changes appear to have been made as discussed at our meeting of last Friday. We see no major design problems with this submittal and feel a safe and effective roadway network can be achieved through the ongoing design and review process. As you are aware, we will not be able to offer any additional comments on this proposal until the traffic impact study has been revised and resubmitted for further review. Should you have any questions concerning the above or if we -can be of further assistance, please give us a call. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer C�12. By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. RBC/rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. D. E. Ripley / Mr. R. W. Watkins FER - ? �' U LI ✓ I I Co 0 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA w a FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT • ® 21 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia 22601 1]1X Thomas W. Owens Douglas A. Kiracofe Director Fire Marshal M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission: County of Frederick VIA: Thomas W. Owens, Director Fire and Rescue Department FROM: Douglas A. Kiracofe, Fire Marsha,d` Fire and Rescue Department i/ SUBJECT: Wheatlands Master Development Plan DATE: February 7, 1991 ---------------------------------------------------------------- • On the submitted plan there is a note on fire hydrants that states (1) hydrant within 300' of single family homes and (2) hydrants within 400' of multifamily structures. This should be (2) hydrants within 300' of multifamily structures and (1) hydrant within 400' of single family structures per Chapter 10 Article 2-3-5.2. Referring to the fire stA ion site, it is not a good design to have a fire or rescue station located so close to a school. The morning and afternoon traffic, school bus activity, and children who live within walking distances of the school would create a difficult and unsafe situation for apparatus responding to an incident. The fire station site shown is two acres and it is felt by our staff as well as Stephens City Fire Company that three acres would be necessary to eventually put a full fire and rescue station in place. Purchasing necessary land for expansion at later dates becomes too costly at times for individual fire companies to grow with the demand for services so a full fire and rescue facility should be planned for early on in the process. Specific requirements for fire lanes, fire hydrants, etc. will be reviewed on site plan or construction drawings. DAK:jla cc: Stephens City Fire Company • File DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 ����� �� UNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGIN��� FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No. 102490537 Date Received 102490 Date Review Applicant Name G. W. Clifford & Assoc' Address P. O. Box 2104 | Winchester, Virginia 22601 � Project Name Wheatlands Phone No. 703-667-2139 Type of Application 1st Due Fire Co. 11 Election District Master Development Current Zoning R-5 1st Due Rescue Co. 11/12 Opequon RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler System X Residential Sprinkler System X Automatic Fire Alarm System X Other Recommend the use of sprinklers in all planned buildings. Emergency Vehicle Access; Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X ---' ---` ---` Fire Lanes Required; Yes X No Comments: Fire lane requirements will be addressed on site plans or construction drawings. Roadway/Aisleway Widths; Adequate Inadequate Not Identified X Special Hazards Noted; Yes X' No Comments: At various strategic points around the lake, emergency fire lanes, leading to the waters edge, 20' in width, with the capability of ����������������������������������_����������������_������� pporting a 35 ton piece of apparatus in all weather will be necessary to facilitate immediate water rescue efforts. -Continued- u, Hydrant Locati ; `Adequate Inadequate \ B"mes _{���-iection Location; --AF�roved Not Approved Additional Comments: See Attached. ' ` "= Review Time 3.75 hr. Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal 0 Not Identified X Not Identified X 0 � 1] 0 OF 0 REQUEST FOR MA TER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Winchester Regional Airport ATTN: Kenneth F. Wiegand, Executive Director Route 1, Box 208-A, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 662-2422 The Winchester Regional Airport is located on Route 645, off of Route 522 South, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 *AGENT-,-.. G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 `Aftn:Tom Price (703) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- • jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. Winchester Regional Airport Comments: Airport Signature & Date: :(NOTICE TO AIRPORT -',PLEASE TURN THIS FROM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. • Please consider the following comments when reviewing this Request for Master Development Plan: The Developer should be familiar with and be required to comply with the provisions of the Frederick County Airport Zoning District (AP-1) and Airport Support Area (ASA) described in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. The developer should also be familiar with the provisions and requirements of the following codes: Title 15.1 Code of Virginia, Section 489 (Purpose of Zoning Ordinances) and Section 491.02 (Airport Safety Zoning). Title 5.1-25.1 Code of Virginia (Permits Required for Erection of Certain structures.) As Winchester Regional Airport expands services and operations, noise associated with such expansion is very likely to increase. The Airport Support Area established by the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is designed to discourage residential development in the vicinity of the airport to preclude citizen concerns for noise created by aircraft • operating on, to and from Winchester Regional Airport. If the developer is planning residential development adjacent to the ASA or under a commonly used flight path used by aircraft outside the ASA as they arrive or depart the Airport, he should be encouraged to insulate all habitable structures for noise and be required to specifically address, in the property Covenants and Easements, existing airport related noise and the probability of increased noise as airport operations expand. I MW ,I I I J ! lip ENGINEERS . ARCHITECTS SCIENTISTS December 17, 1990 Kris Tierney, Assistant Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department 9 Court Square, P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA. 22601 Re: Wheatlands Water Quality Report 17555.017 Dear Kris, We received Dr. Grizzards response to our comments of his report regarding the impact the proposed development may have on the existing lake. His response adequately addresses our primary concerns regarding the lakes predicted water quality. It is apparent to us that BMP's should be required with this development in order to preserve the water quality. Even with an effective BMP program, additional nutrients will most likely enter the lake. This added nutrient level, according to Dr Grizzards report, will enlarge the life support system for a satisfactory fishery. I have no further questions regarding this report or the predicted water quality assessment of the lake provided BMP's are made a part of the proposed stormwater management plan. Sincerely, ONOHUE AASSO" ES INC. Paul A. Bernard, P.E. Project Manager PAB/j la file: r/f/AD8 7DEC V 18 !M ■ 11240 {triples Afill Rxul, Suite i00, hiirjar, l Ninia 22030 0 703.385.3566 ■ KU 703.3&5,8319 lu • REVISED WHEATLANDS PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION Opequon Magisterial District County of Frederick, Virginia. Prepared for Fred L.. Glaize,III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Virginia 22655 November 1990 by gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. FREDERICKSBURG - WINCHESTER � 0 • • APPLICATION AND CHECKLIST REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Frederick County Virginia Date: 9 November 1990 Application #: OWNERS NAME: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (Fred L. Glaize, III & James Bowman) (Please list the name of all owners or parties in interest) APPLICANT/AGENT: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 Phone Number: (703) 869-1800 DESIGNER/DESIGN COMPANY: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc.. In P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Phone Number: _(703) 667-2139 Contact Name: Tom Price or Chuck Maddox I • • • REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is in to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by'the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. 1. Development's name: Wheatlands 2. Location of property:3.5 mi ± east of Stephens City & 1 mi ± southwest of Double Tollgate Adjacent & southside of Va Rte 277 Adjacent and west side of Va Rte 522 3. Total area of property:926,266 Ac. (Frederick County Land) 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map: A Tax parcel: 102 & 103 Tax ID # (21 Digit): _ 87000-A00-0000-0000-01020 -87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 5. Property zoning and present use: R-5 (Vacant) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use:A-2 (Single Family & Vacant) & R-5- (Public Lake) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family, Townhouses, Village Centers,School,Fire & Rescue and Future Development 8. Magisterial District: Opequon 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended XX E General Information: 1. Have the following items been included? North arrow Yes_X_ No Scale Yes_X_ No Legend Yes X No Boundary Survey Yes X No Total Area Yes X No Topography Yes X_ No Project Title Yes_ No Preparation and Revision Date Yes X No Applicant Name Yes X No 2. Number of phases proposed? Nine (9) 3. Are the proposed phases shown on the Master Development Plan? Yes XX No 4. Are the uses of adjoining properties clearly designated? Yes No XX_ 5. Is an inset map provided showing the location of the project and all public roads within 2,000 feet. Yes XX_ No cs 6. Are all land uses clearly shown? Yes XX No 7. Are environmental features clearly shown? Yes XX_ No Note: Separate Colored Plans have been submitted along with this application for environmental features 8. Describe the following environmental features: Total Area % Disturbed Area in Open Space Floodplains 0 0 0 Lakes and ponds _ 0 0 _ 0 Natural retention areas 0 0 0 Steep slopes (15% +) 222 43 78 Woodlands 856 193 270 • is 9. Are the following shown on the master development plan? Street layout Yes X No Entrances Yes_X_No. Parking areas Yes No_X_ Utilities (mains) Yes_X No 10. Has a conceptual stormwater management plan been provided? Yes X No 11. Have all historical structures been identified? Yes No If the Master Development Plan includes any land zoned RP, (Residential Performance) or any residential uses, the following items should be completed. 1. What numbers and types of housing are proposed? Single Family Detached Traditional (449), SF Detached Cluster (839) & Townhouses (175) 2. Is a schedule provided describing each of the following in each phase: Open space acreage Yes_X No Acreage in -each housing type Yes_X_No Acreage in streets and. right''bf ways YeS_X NO Total acreage Yes_X_No Number of dwellings of each type Yes_X_No- 3. What percentage of the total site is to be placed in common open space? 5% 4. Are recreational facilities required? Yes_X No 5. What types of recreational facilities are proposed? Tennis Courts & Picnic Shelters in addition to Tot Lots required for Townhouse Development Areas. 6. Are separation buffers required? Yes No X 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X Note: 70' R/W includes 25' Buffer each side w/Earthberms or Evergreen Landscaping or both. 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No X_ 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes X No 10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes No Energy Conservation Yes No _X_ Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No X Underground Utilities Yes NoX Street Design Yes No _X 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? N/A 12. How will the bonus factors be used? N/A Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, tko the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21-digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett Address: Rt.1,Box 87 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0096A Name: Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk Address: Rt.1,Box 98 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-001-0000-0000-000BO Name: Randolph H. Cornwell Address: 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va 22655 • • A • Property I.D.#:. 87000-A00-0000-0000-00980 Name: John W.,& Delphia E. Cornwell Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-00990 Name: Isaac Gardner & Bertie Clark Address: Rt.1,Box 89 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-01000 Name: Irvin G. & Lila M. Meyers Address: P.O. Box 54 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-01010 Name: Robert L. & Janie S. Sandy Address: Rt._1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-01230 Name: Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter Address: Rt.,l,Box 401-A Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01070 Name: J. David & Dirma V. Headley Address: c/o Ralph Gregor.y.,� . .. 606 Carter Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D,#: 87000.-A00-0000-0000-01050 Name: David A. Headley Address: Box 72 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-0103A Name: Jeffrey E: Williams Address: Box 87 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00010 Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663' Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0010-0000-00110 Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0001-000A-00120 Name: Albert M. & Terri L. Grady Address: Box 442 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0011-0000-00200 Name: Norman N. & Constance N. Tolken Address: 4712 Reservoir Road N.W. Wash. D.C. 20007 Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00060 Name: Oak Ridge Properties Address: P.O. Box 885 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273D Name: Bobby W. & Gladys E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-A Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0273C Name: Lee E. Campbell Address:. 2566 Chain Bridge Rd Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va 22180 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0$00-0273B Name: Loretta D. & Howard L. Bailey Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-B Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02720 Name: Tibow c/o Jeni Address: P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02230 Name: Patrick C. & Lillian C. Madigan Address: Rt. 1,Box 163 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.f: 86000-A00-0000-0000-0266A Name: Walter F. & Daisey M. Lewis Address: Rt.1,Box 272 Stephens City, Va 22655 '_Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02200 • Name: John Max Leight"& Joann G. Lillian -Address. 5037 Massie St. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property•I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02180 Name: Milton K. & Beatrice Apperson Address: Rt.1,Box 93 White Post, Va 22663 ."Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00150 Name: Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson Address. Rt. 1,Box 155 Winchester, Va 22601" Property S.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-001613 Name: Ross Giles Cooke & Robert L. Cooke & Mary Jane Cooper Address: Rt. 2,Box.278" Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00960 • NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEATLANDS The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provide the following notations to demonstrate compliance with the lawful requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, .and for the further description of certain aspects of 'the development of the property. These notes shall be included on the face of the approved plan documents, .and submission of final MDPs for the development of the. subject, property shall be in substantial conformity with the approved preliminary plan, and these notes. 1. Mixture of housing types. The developer shall construct the mix of housing types shown on the legend set forth on the MDP, in the locations generally shown on the plan. 2. Transportation improvements. (a) All internal roads and connections to existing state roads as shown on the MDP, shall be constructed to state standards for inclusion in the State System of Highways, according to plans approved by Frederick County and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). (b) The developer shall provide a single entrance onto Route 340/522, as generally shown on the MDP; provided, however, that if approval can be obtained from the appropriate authorities for a second entrance onto Route 340/522 between the foregoing entrance and Double Tollgate, the developer may provide that second entrance upon approval of a revision to this MDP. (c) The developer shall construct an entrance to the property on Route 277, as generally shown on the MDP. (d) The developer shall prime and double seal that portion of State Route 636 from the point it adjoins the subject property, and connects with the internal loop road serving the subject property, to the present paved section thereof. This shall be done during the appropriate phase of the development hereof. 3. Street lights. Street lights will be provided within the development. 0 4. Provision of sewer and water service. 0 (a) The subject property shall be serviced by public sewer and water systems. (b) The developer shall cause to be constructed a wastewater treatment plant in the general location shown on the MDP, according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board. Upon completion and acceptance thereof, such facility shall be conveyed to the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority, for operation by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, in accordance with an agreement between the three parties for the purpose. (c) Public water shall be provided by means of an existing public water line. 5. Fire and rescue service. Upon the written demand of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, made at any time within twelve years from the date of platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to any appropriate public or private entity denominated by the Board, a site for the construction of a fire and/or rescue station. Any such dedication shall be expressly contingent upon the commencement of construction of a fire and/or rescue station within the aforesaid period, and title shall revert to the grantors in the event such construction has not commenced in accordance with the terms of the grant. 6. Open space reserved. (a) The developer shall retain not less than the required open space set forth in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, in the locations identified for mandated open space on the MDP. (b) The developer expressly reserves those areas shown on the plan as Future Development Areas, to be used as they may be hereafter the subject of an MDP, or as they may be properly zoned by Frederick County. These Areas have been used to calculate the open space required in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and no future use shall be made of them which is inconsistent with those requirements. These Areas are reserved for future development as may be permitted, and shall not be reserved for recreational or other public uses. 0 7. Preservation of water quality in Lake Frederick. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake for the purposes of operating or maintaining the wastewater treatment facility servicing the property._ (b) The development shall incorporate the use of Best Management Practices,' in the locations generally identified on the MDP, in accordance with and to implement the recommendations ,' contained in."An Assessment of Potential Development Impacts on the Water Quality of Wheatlands Lake," October 1990, prepared by ..,Thomas J. Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E. Such BMPs shall achieve the highest practicable coverage.of. non -point run-off, but.shall in no event exceed the reasonably practicable -level of 75% thereof. (c). Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMPs to be- incorporated into the project shall be assigned to an appropriate homeowner's association, with the power to levy assessments sufficient for that, and other lawful purposes, which may be assigned thereto.' (d)_ In order to enhance the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the Lake, a buffer zone of 50 feet beyond the legal boundaries thereof shall be established, and no building or other physical encroachment shall be permitted in that zone. The restrictions contained herein shall be incorporated in restrictive covenants applicable to the deeds to the properties which adjoin the"Lake boundary. 8. School site dedication. Within 60 days of the subdivision platting of the first phase of the MDP, the developer shall dedicate to the Frederick County School Board a.school site in the location identified on the MDP. Such dedication shall be expressly subject to a reverter clause to the general effect that unless construction of a school on the said site is commenced within twelve years from the date of such platting, the site shall reconvey to the grantors. 9. Community centers. The developer agrees to dedicate to a Homeowner's Association land for a community center serving the subject property, in the location shown on the MDP. Thissite shall be dedicated prior to initiation of development in the phase .of the development within which the site is located. 10. Phasing. (a) Development of the subject property shall be in accordance with a plan of phasing as shown on the MDP. The to to, __1 developer need not develop the property in the sequentially numbered order shown on the MDP. 0 (b) Not more than 15% of the approved number of dwelling units, attached, detached, or multi -family, may be constructed in any one year period after the date of final approval of the MDP. This number shall be cumulative from period to period. (c) The first phase of the wastewater treatment facility providing for approximately .25 million gallons per day of treatment capacity shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the property. The second phase thereof shall be constructed in accordance with approved plans at such time as the State Water Control Board directs, and said capacity is required. Such facility shall be operated in conformance with all applicable state regulations. (d) The public water lines required to service the development shall be constructed on an as -needed basis. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed during Phase 1 of the development of the subject property, and shall, until the entrance is constructed on Route 340/522, be the primary entrance to the site. Fred L. Glaize, III JASBO, Inc. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of 19_, do hereby certify that Fred L. Glaize, III, whose name is signed to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same in my jurisdiction aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of 1990. Notary Public 4 n U � -9 10 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF , to -wit: I, the undersigned Notary Public, in and for the state and county .aforesaid, whose commission expires on the day of 19_, do hereby certify that James L. Bowman - as. of JASBO, Inc., whose name is signed.to the foregoing, appeared before me and personally acknowledged the same.in my jurisdiction -aforesaid. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of , 1990. Notary Public November 12, 1990 5:47pm JHF32:mdpnotes ENGINEERS 11240 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ARCHITECTS 703-359-3566 SCIENTISTS Telefax 703-359-6670 To C_ L C.o U<� DATE fI JOB NO. , , of 7 ATTENTION/) RE: "A I KLt(J` c Cam. lC� `,`) _ WE ARE SENDING YOU X Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Pla711p ❑❑ Samples ❑ Specifications El Copy of letter ❑ Change order tJY COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 45'r Y—L C L Y'l a— ^ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 REMARKS ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY SIGNED: If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. 7126A �Kl REQUEST FOR REVISED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMENTS Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department ATTN: James Doran, Director P.O. Box 601, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (703) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo,Inc. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va 22655 (703) 869-1800 AGENT: G.W. Clifford & Assoc. P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va 22601 Attn:Tom Price (703)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Location: South side and Adjacent to Va State Route 277 & West side and ad- jacent to U.S. Route 340 in Double Tollgate Vicinity. Parks & Recreation Department Comments: Plan appears to meet open space and recreation unit requirements Parks S tjnature and Date: / 8/1/91 (NOT TO PARKS - PLEAS TURN 'PHIS FORM TO THE AGENT.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It(d your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your plans and/or application form. Frederick County Sanitation Authority Post Office Box 618 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 LIE 11 11 IN OF MUSOM 0� LI QL Phone 665-5690 A 49. 'aQX/a t r//&C"s TF4 Y4 z2olrol DATE � JOB NO. ATTENTION RE: WE ARE SENDING YOU Q/Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints */�Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION W THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: - ❑ For approval Approved as submitted ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED: PRODUCT 240.2 �Inc, Omtw. Mm 01471. If enclosures are not as noted, kindly 7f s at once. •ya creaaR a S , left°sha TY�;:. i COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 278 RAY D. PETHTEL EDINBURG, 22824 COMMISSIONER (703) 984-4133 February 6, 1991 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Assoc., Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Post Office Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN RESIDENT ENGINEER Ref: Wheatlands/ Lake Frederick Development Routes 277, 340, 522 & 636 Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties This is to acknowledge receipt of the above referenced project's revised preliminary master development plan dated February 4, 1991. All changes appear to have been made as discussed at our meeting of last Friday. We see no major design problems with this submittal and feel a safe and effective roadway network can be achieved through the ongoing design and review process. As you are aware, we. will not be able to offer any additional comments on this proposal until the traffic impact study has been revised and resubmitted for further review. Should you have any questions concerning the above or if we can be of further assistance, please give us a call. RBC/rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. D. E. Ripley Mr. R. W. Watkins Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Hwy. Permits & Subd. Spec. Sr. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY 7 Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X_ Note: 70' R/W includes 25' Buffer each side w/Earthberms or Evergreen Landscaping or both. 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No X 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes X No 10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes No_X Energy Conservation Yes No X_ Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No X Underground Utilities Yes No_X_ Street Design Yes No X 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? 12. How will the bonus factors be used? ,N/A Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21-digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: 1, Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett Address: Rt.1,Box 87 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.##: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0096A Name: Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk Address: Rt.1,Box 98 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.##: 87000-001-0000-0000-000BO Name: Randolph H. Cornwell R 1 (X go �aG3 Address: 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va 22655 0 i Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00980 Name: / John W. & Delphia E. Cornwell Address. `V/ Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00990 Name: l jlsaac Gardner & Bertie Clark Address: V / Rt.1,Box 89 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01000 Name: Arvin G. & Lila M. Meyers Address: \/ P.O. Box 54 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01010 Name: ert L. & Janie S. Sandy Address: `/ Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-01230 (,q-j3 Name: Boy an a e Ritter Address: Rt. 1 Bo O1 A W chester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01070 Name: J. David & Dirma V. Headley Address: LI c/o Ralph Gregory 606 Carter Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-01050 Name: Davi Headley Address: Box 72 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-0103A Name: Je re E. Williams Address: Box 87 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94000-A00-0000-0000-00010 Name: Mar argaret Grady Address:, t. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0010-0000-00110 e Name: Mar Margaret Grady Address : Rt . 1 WY itte PPoos_t Va 22 663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0001-000A-00120 ,I Name: A ert M. & Terri L. Grady Address: Box 42 'Stephens City, Va Property I.D.#: 94A0O-001-0011-0000-00200 22 655 Name: N m n N,` & on tame N. Tolken Address: 4712 Y�servoir Road N.W. Property I.D.#: 94000-A0-0000-0000-00060 Name: Oa icge Pro. erties Address: P . 0 �_ okI_8_a8 W ' chester, Property I.D.#: 86000-AOO-0009-0000-O273D Name: Bobb W. & Gladys E. Gib'son Wash. D.C. 20007 Va 22601 Address: �\� /t . 1, Box �27'A\ Stephens City, Va 22 655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-\D000-0000-O273C Name: Lem E. Campbell R. � 2?�'11'' Address: 2566 Chain Bridge Rd Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va 22180 Property I.D.#: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-O273B Name: Lo i tea D. & Howard L. Bailey Address: V�Zt. 1,Box 270-B Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02720 Name: Tibow-c/o Jeni Address: P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-02230 Name: Patrick--C. & Lillian C. Madigan Address: Rt. 1,Box 163 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-O266A Name: �RBox F. & Daisey M. Lewis Address: t.1272 Stephens City, Va 22655 L.� Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02200 Name: Jo Max Leight & Joann G. Lillian Address: 5037 Massie St. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-02180 Name: M' ton K. & Beatrice Apperson Address: Rt.1,Box 93 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000 0000-0000-00150 Name: Mo tie W. & Pearl E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 155 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A=0000-0000-0016B Name: Rogs Giles Cooke & Robert L. Cooke & Mary Jane Cooper Address: �Rt - 2,Box 278 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-A00-0000-0000-00960 �i t au-' COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 June 26, 1991 TO THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) THE APPLICATION OF: WHEATLANDS REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR: Single family townhouses, Village Centers, School and Future Development. This property, zoned R-5 (Residential, Recreational Community) and consisting of 926.266 acres, is located 3.5 miles east of Stephens City and one mile southwest of Double Tollgate, adjacent and south of Va. Route 277, adjacent and west of Va. Route 522, in the Opequon Magisterial District. This property is identified by GPIN 87-A-1020 and 87-A-1030. This revised preliminary master development plan will be considered by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of July 10, 1991 at 7:15 p.m., in the Board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak, may attend this meeting. Sincerely, 1 7 ` Kris C. Tierney Deputy Director KCT/slk THE COURTHOUSE COMMONS 9 N. Loudoun Street - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on Ir June 26, 1991 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 87 A 90 1: ORNWE:L..L , RANDOL..PH H . RT. I BOX Sa Fred L. Glaize, III, & Jasbo,Inc WHITE POST, VA. P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, Va. 22655 G. W. Clifford & Associates Attn: C. Maddox and/or T. Price P.O. Box 2104 Winchester, Va. 22601 1:37 A 96A CA T'L..E:T"T, RALPH L. RT. I BOX 87 WHITE POST, VA. :: 2663— H3'7 R APCZYK , HAROL D E. RT 4 1 BOX Va WHITE POST, VA. 22663-- Randolph H. Cornwell 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va. 22655 87 A TV f. ORNWE:L.L. , .JC3HN W . & DELP'•H I A ROUTE_ i WHITE: POST, VA. ;: 2663•-- STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 266:3-. G7 A 100 C UARK, ISAAC; GARDNER & PERTIE: R T' . I BOX 89 WHITE: POST, VA., 22663— 87 MEYERS, IRVIN G. A FA i O i LIL..A M. P. Q . 7E40X 154 ""HENS CITY, VA. 22c M5-. 1i36 BANDY, ROBERT L. & A 123 JANIE Ss R.T. 1 BOX ©.-i WHITE: POST, VA. 22 6sa1- 0 7 A 107 PST. 1 BOX 69-•B WHITE: POST, VA 22663-- J. David & Dirma V. Headley C/O Ral h Gregory 606 Carer DEive Winchester, Va. 22601 Kris/ C. T' e , Deputy D for Frederick County Dept. o lanning I, Debi D. Swimley , a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director, for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated June 26, 1991 has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this 26th day of June , 1991. My commission expires on September 30, 1993 NOTARY PUBLIC J. -X>AVx-x> & 1>%FiMA V� 7c4cm "?2 WHITE:' INUIT, VA. 2266Z3 .,)E::I:"I::'FU::Y E A X..'4OX 1:37 -XIAENS' VA. Mary'Margariet"Ord'' dy. Rt. White Post, Va. 22663 94A I I 1. 2 0 (--4kA X>Y, ALI-RERT M. & 'T*1:.:RR:1: L.. X-'I(:)X 442 VA. 226,"5,5 514 TOLKAN, NORMAN N 'RE'EMERVOIR Nw. WAEAlINGTON, n>ae> OAK RXX)G1" IN WX VA., WA its C41 AY)YGI 13TEF"FIEKNE; c,11-y., VA 2zm* ei Lee E.'C a ip bell l j 2566 Chain. Bridg'e Rd.. Apt. T-74 I Vienna, Va. 22180, LEE E. Ivy.. I. IFIOX 270 t-1 13TEEP"111i" ENFS (:.:r-(,y, VA� A 2-72 1--4AX1,,EY' I ORETTA D IVY*. A k3c)x .270 v .4 1Ei'T'ts:F'I'•11EE:N£EiO'ITY., VA., 2 1 216ET.5.... 1':I:X-.4(:)W (::/O JENNT FT) EX)x 21,59E.3 VA -Cie, MAI)% (;j^jN j. FIATRICK (3- 1-6"3 G'Y, TE ..: .) NS C11 VA- F -'Eek� :�ai6 w i s Wal :sey A L )Rt. 1, box 272 .-Stephens City; Va., 22655. John., Max -,L6ight Joann.G. Lillian 5.037 Massie St. Stephens City;.Va. 226155 Wheatlands 2 June 26, 1991 Milton K. & beatride Apper'son 'Rt. I -Box 93 White Post, Va.. 22633 A Aon-U6 W.& Peaki:'E. Gibson, I. Rt 'I Box 155 Winchester, Va. 22601 R6ss Giles Cooke Robert L-Cooke & Mary Jane Cooper Rt.-2, Box 278 Stephens City, Va. 2655 Dept,.,, bf,.Gaime''& ihiand"z A hi Fj_series Attn: Dinesh Tiwarl 4010 West Broad St.., Box. 111641 Richffiond, Va. ,2323 23230 b X 6 Sl�lq�LJ REVISED PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN CHECKLIST The following checklist is intended to assist the applicant in insuring that all required information is provided and to insure that all information is available to allow review by the County. This form must be completed by the applicant and submitted with the master development plan. All required items must be provided on the master development plan. Background Information: 1. Development's name: 2. Location of property:3.5 mi ± east of Stephens City & 1 mi + southwest of Double Tollgate. Adjacent & southside of Va Rte 277. Adjacent and west side of Va Rte 522 3. Total area of property:926.266 Ac. (Frederick County Land) 4. Property identification numbers: Tax map: 87 Tax parcel: 102 & 103 Tax ID # (21 Digit) : --87000-A00-0000-0000-01020- r7bb6646b61()2- 87000-A00-0000-0000-01030 f76bhbAb bb1U3 5. Property zoning and present use: R-5 (Vacant) 6. Adjoining property zoning and present use:A-2 (Single Family & Vacant) & R-5 (Public Lake) 7. Proposed Uses: Single Family, Townhouses, Village Centers School Fire & Rescue and Future Development 8. Magisterial District: Opequon 9. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended XX • 7. Are road efficiency buffers required? Yes No X Note: 70' R/W includes 25' Buffer each side w/Earthberms or Evergreen Landscaping or both. 8. Are landscaping or landscaped screens required? Yes No X 9. Are required buffers, screens, and landscaping described by the plan with profiles or examples? Yes—X No 10. Are any of the following bonus improvements proposed to be used? Recreational Facilities Yes No X Energy Conservation Yes No X Pedestrian or Bikeway System Yes No X Underground Utilities Yes NoX Street Design Yes No_ X 11. How many bonus factors have been earned? 12. How will the bonus factors be used? N/A Please list all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides, to the rear, and in front (across the street) of the property in question. Please list the name, address, and most importantly, the complete 21-digit property identification number. This information may be obtained from the Commissioner of Revenue's office. Name: Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett Address: Rt.1,Box 87 White Post, Va 22663 Property I . D . # : 87000-A00-0000-0000-0096A 67 bbbb A ,bb 6b Y&,4 Name: Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk Address: Rt.1,Box 98 White Post, Va 22663 Property I . D . # : 87000-001-0000-0000-00oso 7 bhbb l bJ� bb �3 Name: Randolph H. Cornwell Address: 4372 Lakeview Court Stephens City, Va 22655 6. Property I . D . # : 87000-A00-0000-0000-00980 17b bb b A /bbb 9 f Name: John W. & Delphia E. Cornwell Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-00990 17 4b6 h A 4b h �j Name: Isaac Gardner & Bertie Clark Address: Rt.1,Box 89 White Post, Va 22663 Property I . D . # : 87000-A00-0000-0000-01000 17 bhbb a bbb l 06 Name: Irvin G. & Lila M. Meyers Address: P.O. Box 54 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-Aoo-0000-0000-01010 $ 7 bhhb A b5b�o� Name: Robert L. & Janie S. Sandy Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 86000-A00-0000-0000-01230 Av bbbb Akbb)-23 Name: Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter Address: Rt. 1,Box 401-A Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-A0O-0000-0000-01070 37 bbbb k bbblO 7 Name: J. David & Dirma V. Headley Address: c/o Ralph Gregory 606 Carter Drive Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-01050 87 bbb b A b b b 10� Name: David A. Headley Address: Box 72 White Post, Va 22663 Property I . D . # : 87000-AOO-0000-0000-0103A 6� bbb-b A bbb I O3 A Name: Jeffrey E. Williams Address: Box 87 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 94000-AOO-0000-0000-00010 q4 bbb b b bbbb Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 94A00-001-0010-0000-00110 94Abbb I b I ibb II r Name: Mary Margaret Grady Address: Rt. 1 White Post, Va 22663 Property I .D . # : 94A00-001-0001-000A-00120 YA bbb 16 I bb I Name: Albert M. & Terri L. Grady Address: Box 442 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I .D . # : 94A0O-001-0011-0000-00200 9 Lf A Fjbb �, b b to Name: Norman N. & Constance N. Tolken Address: 4712 Reservoir Road N.W. Wash. D.C. 20007 Property I . D . # : 94000-AOO-0000-0000-00060 q b bbb p bb bb6 (p Name: Oak Ridge Properties Address: P.O. Box 885 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I.D.#: 86000-A0O-0000-0000-0273D 34666b A b66 a'73►0 Name: Bobby W. & Gladys E. Gibson Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-A Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-O273C 84 b bbs� A hbb a� 3 L Name: Lee E. Campbell Address: 2566 Chain Bridge Rd Apt. T-4 Vienna, Va 22180 Property I.D.#: 86000-Aoo-0000-0000-O273B 4CO bbbb A b bb;".3Q. Name: Loretta D. & Howard L. Bailey Address: Rt. 1,Box 270-B Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-Aoo-0000-0000-02720 At bbb a,7a Name: Tibow c/o Jeni Address: P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I . D . # : 86000-AOO-0000-0000-02230 Y4 Name: Patrick C. & Lillian C. Madigan Address: Rt. 1,Box 163 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 86000-AOO-0000-0000-O266A Name: Walter F. & Daisey M. Lewis Address: Rt.1,Box 272 Stephens City, Va 22655 a Property I . D . # : 86000-AOO-0000-0000-02200 q(P bbbb A bbb 2-b Name: John Max Leight & Joann G. Lillian Address: 5037 Massie St. Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I . D . # : 86000-AOO-0000-0000-02180 ?(p bbb b A hbb IT Name: Milton K. & Beatrice Apperson Address: Rt.1,Box 93 White Post, Va 22663 Property I.D.#: 87000-Aoo-0000-0000-00150 y07 bbbbA 6bbbl5' Name: Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson Address: Rt. l,Box 155 Winchester, Va 22601 Property I. D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-OO16B f 7 hhbb A A�3 b b /1 Name: Ross Giles Cooke & Robert L. Cooke & Mary Jane Cooper Address: Rt. 2,Box 278 Stephens City, Va 22655 Property I.D.#: 87000-AOO-0000-0000-00960 87b�6bb4 bhbb q(� C�