Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-00 Shenandoah (A major revision to the Wheatlands MDP) - Backfile (2)
i1 1 SHE-IANDOAH Active Adult Resort Gated Community "Age Restricted" /VN Ca u 1 r 1 �J Frederick County, Vireinia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Project Title: "Shenandoah" 2. Owner's Name: Fred L. Glaize, III and Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 Fred L. Glaize, III and James L. Bowman (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) 3. Applicant: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address c/o Charles E. Maddox, Jr. 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone (540) 667-2139 4. Design Company: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number (540) 667-2139 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Frederick County, Vireinia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: t3.5 miles east of Stephens City on south side of VA Route 277 and ± 1 mile south of Double Tollgate on west side of US Route 340 & 522 6. Total Acreage: 926.266 Acres (Frederick County) 7. Property Information: a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 87-A-102 & 103 b) Current Zoning: R-5 c) Present Use: Vacant d) Proposed Use: Residential e) Adjoining Property Information: See attachment Property Identification Property Uses North South East West f) Magisterial District: Opeauon 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended X I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete or to the submission of my master development plan applicatiotl.� �� Signature: Date: 2 1 Attachment 7e. IF 1 F1 1 1 1 1 Adjoining Property Information Property Identification Numbers Property Use North 86-A-218 Agricultural 87-A-15 Agricultural 87-A-16B Agricultural 87-A-95 Mobile Home Park 87-A-95B Vacant 87-A-96 Agricultural 87-A-96A Residential 87-A-97 Vacant 87-A-97A Vacant 87-A-98 Residential 87-A-99 Residential 87-A-100 Residential 87-A-101 Residential 27-A-12 Clarke Count Residential South 87-A-103B Commonwealth 93-A-77 Agricultural 94A-1-1-12 Vacant 94A-1-10-11 Vacant 94A-1-11-20 Vacant East 87-A-103A Residential 87-A-105 Residential 87-A-107 Residential 94-A-1 Residential 27-A-14 Clarke Count Residential 27-A-16 Clarke Count Vacant West 86-A-220 Residential 86-A-223 Agricultural 86-A-272 Residential 86-A-273 Residential 86-A-273B Residential 86-A-273C Agricultural 86-A-273D Agricultural 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Aoplication Package Required Information Checklist MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN The following information must be included on the master development plan. If the submitted master development plan is incomplete or is missing information, it will not be reviewed and will be returned to you for revisions. Administrative Information Yes No X X X X X X N/A X X X X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10. Name of proposed development. Name, address, and telephone number of owner. Name, address, and telephone number of developer. Name, address, and telephone number of designer. Signed certificate of surveyor, engineer or architect. Date plan prepared and date of revisions. A listing of all conditions placed on the site as a result of a conditional zoning approval. Rezoning file number should be cited. A space labeled "Approved by the Director of Planning and Development" for the approval Signature and date of approval. A space labeled "Approved by the County Admini- strator" for the approval signature and date of approval. Magisterial District. 11. Sheet size less than 42 inches. 3 1 Frederick County, Virainia Master Development Plan Application Package General Information rYes No X 1. Location Map (scale 1:2000). *X 2. Scale of the MDP is not to exceed 1:100. X 3. North Arrow. X 4. Legend describing all symbols. X 5. Surveyed boundaries of all lots and parcels. X 6. Acreage of all parcels included in the MDP. ' X 7. Topography contour lines at acceptable interval. X 8. A schedule of phases, boundary of phases, and order of development. X 9. Use, zoning, and property owner of all adjoining properties. X 10. Location of proposed uses (location, boundaries, arrangement). N/A 11. Location and treatment of historic structure and sites. Available 12. History of all land divisions in relation to this tract. X 13. Acreage, location and boundaries of environmental features: floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes, woodlands. X 14. Amount and percentage of disturbed and protected land in common open space. * Reduced scale approved by Planning Staff. 4 1 1 Ll Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan ADWication Package Residential Development Information Yes No X 1. Location and dimension of Residential Separation Buffers. 2. Acreage in common open space, in housing type, in road rights -of -way, and for the entire development (by Phase). X 3. Location and boundaries of housing types. Resi- dential Performance (RP) dimensional requirements should be indicated. X 4. Number of dwelling units (by type, phase, and in total. X 5. Location and configuration of required recreational facilities. Statement of required and type of facil- itties to be provided. Infrastructure Informaiton Yes No X 1. X 2. X 3. X 4. X 5. X 6. X 7. Location of adjoining streets and utilities. Location, arrangements, and right-of-way widths of roads and property access. Location and arrangement of street entrances, drive- ways, and parking areas. Location of entrances to the development from pub- lic streets. Type of road design (rural or urban). Use of inter -parcel connectors. Traffic impact analysis. To be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 i Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package X 8. Location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of facilities. X 9. Location and arrangement of electric and gas utilities. Other Design Information Yes No N/A 1. Location of Zoning District and Road Efficiency buffers, and examples specifying the screening to be provided. X 2. Plan for stormwater management. Location of stormwater facilities. X 3. Acreage of each type of environmental protection land. (Amount and percentage of disturbed and protected land in common open space.) Shown in a table format. X 4. Amount, boundaries, and location of common open space. (Indicate the percentage of the entire site to be placed in common open space.) X 5. Location of environmental protected areas to be in- cluded in common open space. 6 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 Frederick County, Vireinia Master Development Plan Application Package County Health Department Information Yes No X 1. Statements and locations pertaining to sewer and water availability. X 2. Statements and locations concerning any existing pre- or post -water treatment facilities. X 3. Statements and location of any planned private treatment facilities. 7 1 IFrederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package I� Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a ' watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2►,d floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street. 1 J 1 Name Address Property # John M. & Joann G. Leight 115 Massie Lane, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-218 Harvey O. Lewis, Rose E. Vuillermet, Margaret E. Palmer 1633 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-220 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-223 Loretta D. Bailey 1748 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-272 John Campbell 1895 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273 Lee E. Campbell 1787 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273B Bobby W. & Gladys E. Gibson 1883 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273C Oak Ridge Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 885, Winchester, VA 22604 86-A-273D Beatrice I. Apperson, Trustee 1702 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-15 Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson 155 Castlebridge Court, Winchester, VA 22602 87-A-16B Sandy's Mobile Court, Inc. 2044 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22633 87-A-95 Melvin R. & Ethyl L. Sandy P.O. Box 432, Stephens City, VA 22655 87-A-95B Giles R. Cooke, Robert L. Cooke, Mary J. Cooke 986 Clark Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 87-A-96 Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett 1954 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-96A Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk 1590 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-97 �l 1 I 1 I Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk 1590 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-97A 22663 Floyd L. & Shirley J. Lee 1908 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-98 22663 Carolyn C. Parker 113 W. Whitlock Avenue, Winchester, 87-A-99 VA 22601 Roger G. Clark 205 Moore Drive, Berryville, VA 22611 87-A-100 Gary A. Bolyard 1880 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-101 22663 David A. Headley 4490 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-103A 22663 Commonwealth of Virginia 4010 W. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 87-A-103B Commission of Game & Inland 23230 Fisheries J. David & Dirma V. Headley 4488 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-105 22663 Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter 4436 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-107 22663 Victor A. & Julia A. Tolkan 4712 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, 93-A-77 DC 20007 Jeffrey E. Williams P.O. Box 87, Stephens City, VA 22655 94-A-1 Mary M. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-1-12 Mary M. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-10-11 Albert M. & Terri L. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-11-20 Robert C. Benton 4000 Chipstead Court, Chester, VA 27-A-12 (Clarke County) 23831 John F. , Jr. & Lillian M. Davis 4100 Stonewall Jackson Highway, 27-A-14 (Clarke County) White Post, VA 22663 Fred L. Glaize, III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 888, Winchester, VA 22604 27-A-16 (Clarke County) I MASTER PLAN NOTES I 11 I L J IRevision L I ' DRAFT FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN ' SHENANDOAH The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided 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 tnotes. 1. Project Classification ' The developer agrees to include in its HOA Declaration and Restrictions a provision which age restricts the gated active adult portion of the site (everything except the Village Center and the CCRC sites) so that; "80% of the homes will have at least one prime resident who is 55 years of age or older. The other 20% of the homes will have one prime resident who is 45 years of age or older; No ' children raider the age of 19 may live in the community for more than 90 days a year." The HOA further must develop a system, that they are obligated to maintain, which enforces this age restriction. The enforcement system must be ' included in the declarations and restrictions that run with the land. ' 2. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling ' units (2.3 DU/Acre) using a mix of housing types as shown on the attached "PHASING PLAN" (Appendix "A") ' (b) The mix of housing types will vary due to market demand from Phase to Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval. An amended phasing plan shall be submitted for such unit modifications. 3. Transportation improvements. (a) The developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340, Rte 636 and Rte 277 generally as shown in the plan and required by approved VDOT ' Permit. (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and ' Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan during Phase 1 of the project. Revision 1.1 ' (c) The developer shall prime and double seal the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, of a e an the time of issuance of the 750 building permit. ' � r- br -10 4. Trails system. ' The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. 5. Streetlights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and, approved by the zoning administrator, will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. 6. Provision of water and sewer service. (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board and the FCSA. I(c) Public water will be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. I(d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transferred to the FCSA ownership. ' 7. Fire and Rescue Service. A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years ' renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either in the Village Center (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, twhich adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County but is offsite of Shenandoah. A one time gift of $20,000 is offered to provide assistance in the ' purchase of the alternative site. Revision 1.1 8. Library A library site in the Village Center to a maximum size of 1 acre is offered for a period of 5 years. The developer will provide the site and planning, should the County library decide to construct and operate such a facility. 9. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite wastewater treatment facility. (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 Lake Frederick. 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 sub watershed 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 will eventually assign this responsibility to a homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer. 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. (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 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 IRevision 1.1 ' DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water ' quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (HOA) and VDGIF at the time of recordation of a final plat for each residential section of the development. No building, tree cutting, clearing or ' disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation, or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit written approval of VDGIF. ' (� To provide and contain walking traffic along the lake, the developer shall p g g P build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting ' to fishing, boating, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGIF. Such trails shall be maintained by the developer and successor HOAs. Trails will clearly identify lines (public access limits). private property (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through buffer areas reforesting those areas with herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VDGIG satisfaction. ' (h) The developer will build three piers — one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches — to VDGIF specifications. ' (i) Flooding easements will be provided to VDG1F on a section by section basis as plats are recorded. 10. Access to Lake Frederick The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake for carry -ins (canoes, kayaks), as shown on the MDP. Each will have appropriate signage, parking and craft storage racks outside the conservation buffer, a walk path to lakeside in ' locations agreeable to VDGIF, and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. ' 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. Revision 1.1 12. School site. 1 '>Afnce school age children will not reside in this project, and the remote location of ' the property to the urban population centers of the County, no school site is proposed. ' 13. Recreation Facilities The developer will provide recreation in accord with the attached schedule ' (Appendix `B"). Each of these facilities will be constructed dudratified phase of developmentof the community with Mich it is associated, and each will be turned over to its community HOA for use and maintenance under terms ' explicit in all home sale contracts. 14. Phasing ' (a) Each phase is one year of development. Building permits not granted in ' any previous phases may be carried over so long as the cumulative total of authorized phases are not exceeded. ' (b) Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant, the entrance on US Rte 340/522, the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. (c) Public water and sewer lines will be extended into each phase on an as - needed basis. ' (d) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 636 shall be constructed not later than before the 750 unit building permit of the ' development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3, when it will be opened for public access. ' (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed not later than before the 1200 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction ' access until phase 6, when it will be opened for public access. (f) Disturbance and improvements in future phase areas will be required to ' implement this plan due to the need for grading, utilities, roadways, the substantial number of storm management ponds to protect water quality in Lake Frederick and the like. This work will be allowed upon plan ' approval by the County. Revision 1.1 15. Homeowners' Association (HOA). (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, (1) Operation of a community center and Tennis Center. (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 (vii) Maintenance of Roadway system (b) The HOA is empowered and required to project vegetative screening and open space trees, as well as all common area plantings, such as street trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the HOA, from time to time, to allow proper access by all emergency and service vehicles. = = M a M illy M M M M M Ili M M M = M 1111111110 11111110 APPENDIX "A" DENSITY AND PHASING DATA Frederick County, Virginia Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Village Center Totals Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 S. Family Small Lot 65' Wide Lot 59 104 155 136 75 64 593 55' Wide Lot 75 149 153 145 66 40 628 Duplex 65 100 112 106 42 34 459 TownHouse 0 70 70 70 0 0 210 Garden Apartments 36 39 45 36 44 40 240 Totals 235 462 535 493 227 178 2130 Area Summary (acres) Area in Lots Area in Roads Area Area in Open Space 175.75 173.43 191.90 190.31 83.18 76.43 35.00 926.00 44.42 67.67 79.22 70.93 39.31 37.37 338.92 33.63 18.06 17.11 20.44 6.84 6.00 102.08 97.82 87.82 95.68 99.06 37.14 32.48 15.00 465.00 AREA in FREDERICK COUNTY 926.266 acres ALLOWED DENSITY per R-5 ZONE(2.3lacre) 2130 50.2% APPENDIX "B" Recreation Unit Summary Frederick County, Virginia Value of Amenities - Dollars Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Remarks Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 Community Building Trout Pond Outdoor Pool Play Courts Hiker/Biker Trails Natural Trails Nature Center(Village) Boat Docks DGIF Facilities Golf School Phase Totals ••••1 . • ••• . • 11• •.RI M111111=11=1 IMMIMIS• County Requirements No of Dwellings No of Rec Units at 1 per 30 Value per Rec Unii Value reqd by Ordinance 235.0 462.0 535.0 493.0 227.0 178.0 7.8 15.4 17.8 16.4 7.6 5.9 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $125,280 1 $246,400 1 $285,333 1 $262,933 1 $121,067 1 $94,933 Constructed in 3 phases $4,765,000 $1,135, 946 VDOT COMMENTS AUG, F 00(TCEI 15 31 VDOT LCRAY RESIDENCY TEL 540 IJ 7249 P. 002 P CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., PE, VP G.W, Clifford & Associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. 0, BOX 300 LURAY, VA 22935 July 31, 2000 REF: Shenandoah Routes 277, 340, 522 Clarke, Warren, and Frederick Counties Dear Chuck, RANDY S, KISER RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (54D)7436666 FAX 16401743-7249 We've received your July 11, 2000 letter along with an amended master development plan for the referenced project. After discussing this project recently with Mr. Steve Melnikoff, Edinburg Residency will handle and coordinate the plan review for this extensive project. The basis for the approach is due to the fact a majority of the project lies within their Residency boundaries, and should make facilitation of the plan review/approval process more efficient for you and your client by having to deal with only one local office. We also believe this method will be more effective for us to deal with our District Office Sections. If you recall, this arrangement is similar to how the process was to be handled for the former Wheatlands Project. We of course will be coordinating closely with and providing our recommendations to Edinburg's Permit and Subdivision Office for inclusion into their own review comments. We plan to field review the Route 340/522 corridor and possible impacts sometime this week. You indicated in your letter the centerline of the entrance roadway would be staked. Has this been accomplished? if not please do so at your earliest opportunity. I understand a meeting will be setup once the master plan and transportation study has been reviewed. We look forward to participating and ask that you give us a call if you have any questions. RBC/msy cc; JA Copp Robert B. Childress Assistant Resident Engineer 08/24/2000 14:17 5406650493 G IAJ CLIFFOPD & ASSOC PAGE 02 C-C�1M/►'1C�i'S 0 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY P;KE JERRY A. COPP CHARLE5 D. NOTTINGHAM EOINBURG. VA 22824 RESIDENT ENGINEER C.f1Mf.1155��N1 R TEIE ISd019?�-� August 23, 2000 ' Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. C/0 G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: "Shenandoah"— Preliminary Master Development Plan Route 522/340 (Front Royal Pike) @ Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties Dear Chuck: A VDOT review by Luray and Edinburg Residencies has been completed on the preliminary plan dated 07/01/00 for the referenced project. Our comments follow and are illustrated in red on the attached plan and supplemental references. REFERENCES 1. U.S. Route 522/340 (Warren County) North Corridor Study by Clifford & Associates dated August, 1998: We recommend the traffic volumes and geometric recommendations for improvement to existing south bound lanes be given a weighted value consideration for impact by this proposed master development plan. A copy of "Findings" and 'Recommendations" of the study has been extracted and is attached as a quick reference for your use. 2. The traffic analysis as developed by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Mr. John Callow using a peak hour count and projecting to a daily volume may be inadequate. It may be more desirable to provide a 24 hour count on several weekdays. PR�LIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Destinations from termini access points (proposed entrances) should be provided. IWE KEEP VIRC31NIA MOVING I 03/24/2000 14:17 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD & ASSOC. PAGE 03 1- Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" - Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #2 requirements, additional ri right-of-way should be 2. To meet the geometric roadway9 dedicated for public road. a. Recommend a 50' wide right-of-way for portions of SR 636, Hudson Hollow Road, which fall withln proposed development. b. On the corridors containing Route 522/340 and Route 277 respectively, adequate right-of-way should be provided to cover geometric designs. 3. The proposed access and crossover for CCRC area on north end of Route 522 should be rerouted to internal access or access development via the next crossover to the south. If continued access is planned, this entrance should be included in the traffic analysis. 4. Need for signalization at major access points: -a. Route 277 and Route 636 intersection -- b. Route 277 at access entrance - C. Phasing and potential signal head additions/modifications at Route 522/340 and Route 277 intersection °d. Route 522/340 and main entrance — This location may need to be provided in the initial phasing or provision made by supplying a signalization agreement. 5. In the traffic analysis, reference is made to the proposed pavement structure as being prime and double seal. Based on raw traffic data, the surface should be asphalt concrete sufficient to accommodate projected volume of traffic. 4567'*N 6. Consideration of coordination between "Shenandoah" development and proposed CC9 preliminary VDOT plan (Project #0277-034-103, RW201, C501) currently being j prepared for Route 277 improvement between Route I-81 and Route 636, White Oak Road. 7. Warren County should be added to the title block. 8. All existing substandard crossovers should be upgraded, left and/or right turn lanes provided as appropriate for use and location. Of specific concern even at this concept stage, is the apparent main entrance access on Route 522/340 to "Shenandoah". a. Left turn lanes should be provided in both directions. The raw traffic volumes come close to 5-250' on Chart Figure C-1-1.1, 250' length of lane should be provided. The taper of 200' appears satisfactory. I 1 1 Fi IJ 1 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P,E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" - Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Paqe #3 b. Lane grade differential may be too large to acquire desirable 5% grade on crossover. The desirable algebraic difference in grade at crown lines is 4 or 5%. The designer should strive to achieve those desirable elements, primarily due to large volumes of traffic projected. c. Consider relocating farm entrance on east side of Route 522/34CI to align with proposed "Shenandoah" entrance and crossover. d. Please note the extremely poor "worse than the general" vertical alignment of Route 340/522 southbound lanes in the vicinity of the proposed main entrance, The stopping sight distance should be reviewed. Any necessary plan for relocation and/or reconstruction of vertical alignment should be developed under VDOT review to confirm adequacy of all sight distance concerns. e. All germane VDOT comments on geometrics of Entrance Development Plan dated (5/10/00 SHEN) are shown in red on the copy of plan being returned with this review. 9. The intersection at existing Route 522/340 with Route 277 should be considered In terms of adequacy to serve the high volumes of traffic generated by the proposed "Shenandoah" site. The potential need for dual left turn appears to be realistic considering the projected traffic volumes in the "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" (even with proposed "Shenandoah" volumes being included therein) would appear to suggest the need to consider dual left turn exiting Route 522/340 onto Route 277 west bound. Reference is given here to the several attachments to this review: • Copy of comments offered for VDOT by letter from Mr. R. B. Childress, ARE, Luray: The entire letter is being forwarded. As can be seen, the comments overlap and do address similar concerns of the Edinburg Residency. This mirrors the VDOT view of the major impacts generated by the "Shenandoah" development. • An excerpt page from "U.S, Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" showing "Findings" and "Recommendations". • A marked in red copy of Preliminary Master Development Plan dated 07/01/00. 9 A marked in red copy of "Shenandoah" Entrance Development Plan. p�/'_'4/''ppp 14: 1 / 54pbb5p3y:; (a l•J C;LIFFUNll � G-155U� I�AUt F75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #4 The master development plan should Identify the proposed phasing as nearly as possible to the development plan of action for construction. Please review all the above concerns expressed by each VDOT review unit and address each comment. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call the respective VDOT personnel. Sl�er4, } Barry J. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer BJS/ rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn: Mr. Guy Tudor Mr. Bob Childress, Attn: Mr. Rick Miller (w/enclosures & copvfor Clarke Co.) Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Kris Tierney 08/24/2000 14:24 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD R 41SSOC PAGE 02' 11 i� I I pi VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM LURAY RESIDENCY August 4, 2000 TO: J.A. Copp ATTN: S.A. Melnikoff FROM. Robert B. Childress (2.4, C , SUBJECT: Shenandoah Development Routes 277/340/522 Clarke. Frederick, & Warren Counties We've reviewed the Frei Iminary Master Plan and revised Traffic Impact Analysis for the subject project submitted with Mr. Chuck Maddox's July 11, 2000 letter (copy enclosed). L)ur Preliminary comments on this submittal follow. It should be noted the Clarke County Board of Supervisors have N-et to approve the. portion of the project lying within its boundaries. additionally, 6,.W. Clifford and Associates completed a study of the U.S. Route 340/ 522 North Corridor for the Warren County Board of Supervisors in August 1998. Some of the conclusions and rccommendations of this study directly relate to the types of improvements which will be recluii ed of this development. When mentioned below we will refer (o it as simple the Corridor Study, 1) Si;;nalization al ►he main entrance on Route 340/522 should be a requirement of the initial Land Use Permit. If not required based on initial project phasing then its installation should be covered under agreement. 2) The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates the development will generate 17,094 trips per day at build out in 2007. Can the surface this number seems somewhat Iow based on the project's size. 25 percent of the project's traffic will head east on Route 340 toward Waterloo and 5 percent south on Route 340/522 toward Front Royal. 25 percent equates to an additional 4,274 vehicles impacting these roadways. The Traffic Impact Analysis should be reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. We also suggest that current traffic counts be secured on all impacted roadways to ensure accuracy of the analysis. 3) Any access points into the development will need to meet our sight distance requirements and in keeping with the previous Corridor Study kept to a minimum. The access points for the commerciAl portions of the development on the south end of the project should be eliminated. :'gees" can be provided through the main access roadway. Also, the proposed access point on the north end of the project serving the multi family sections should be 1 08i24/21000 14:24 5406650493 G w CLIFFORD Q ASSOC PAGE 03 eliminated and :Iccessed internally. If this isn't possible it will need to be shifted southward to ;tlign with the existing median crossover serving the Frederick/Clarke County Refuse Collection Site. 4) There are currently 8 substandard median crossovers on Route 340/522 within the limits of the project. 'File crossovers serve mainly residential single family homes and farms on both the east and west side of the roadway. Only one has been improved with a northbound left turn lane. Aside from the crossover serving the aforementioned Refuse Collection Site all should be closed/removed. Any remaining should be upgraded, widened, and turn lanes added. 5) The existing southbound lanes through the project limits are the old original roadway prior to the corridor's four laning. These southbound lanes do not meet our current geometric deOgn guidelines. Tlie pavement width ranges from 20' 22' with 2' 6' shoulders. The vertical allgnownt is some of the worst on the corridor which results in poor sight distance. It Is extremely had within the southern end of the project. The designer proposes the main access to the project within this area. The resulting median crossover necessary for this entrance would l)c located in an area where there is a significant difference in elevation between the north and south bound lanes. The resulting grade would hamper nulintenance operations, be unsafe and may not meet our minimum requirements at this location. To compound these current design and safety deficiencies this ;project is proposed to add an additional 4,274 trips per day to the Route 340/522 corridor. The previous Corridor Stttdy's findings indicate this roadway will carry in access of 100,000 vehicles per day. This figure is h.tsed on build out of assumed zoned uses of warren Counties Land Use Map of properties along the corridor between I-66 and Route 661 just south of this development. The Corridor Study Roes further to recommend the roadway be reconstructed io provide 3-12' wide through lanes with a continuous 12' right turn lane ill both directions. To this end, we would recommend the existing southbound lanes of Route 340/522 within the limits of the development be reconstructed/widened to meet curz'ent vertu: 11 ,Ind horizontal alignment and provide 3-12'through lanes and 12' right turn lane. The improvements should include all necessary right of way, curb and gutter alking the frontage and any storm sewer upgrades. 6) Standard 5' concrete sidewalk should be considered along the entire frontage date to the proposed artd lvtential commercial development along the corridor. 7) We have uo ovcmill objections to the boulevard design of the proposed main access road. However, as previously mentioned its location causes us concern due to the difference in evaluation between he north and southbound lanes. The median crossover will need to include a southbound left turn lane. Exact dimensions of the entrance/crossover improvements will need to be determined after the Traffic Impact Analysis and eite plan has been reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. If possible the existing farm entrance can the' east side of the highway should be realigned with the crossover. 8) \Ve are currently getting feedback from the Clarke County Board of Supervisons to improve the Route ?77,"340 /5ZZ intersection. The Board recently asked for preliminary engineering nioncy at the Primary Planning and Scheduling meeting to fund a study/dc.slgn for future Improvements. As proposed, at least an additional 4,Z74 vehicles 1 08/24/2000 _1a:3a--- 5406650493 u w CLIFFOP,D Q 44SSOC PAGE ©a will impact this intersection daily. At a minimum a separate left turn lane should be provided by the developer on southbound Route 340 and eastbound Route 277. It appears the necessary right of way is available to accommodate these improvements. Th.. capacity of the existing }route 340/522 northbound lane should also be considered when the Traffic Impact Analysis is reviewed. Even with its recent extension with the 7-1 1 project we've witnessed stacking problems in the P.M. peak hour. This turn lane may need to be exiende;d and /or a dual left provided (which would compound problems westbound on Route 277). Any necessary signalization adjustments/improvements will need to be addressed to accommodate any intersection modifications. 9) While only a sinall portion of the project lies within Warren County, approval from their Board should be required also if required. The Preliminary Master Plan doesn't indicate Warren Countv in the title. As you're aware the plans submitted offer very little detail and our comments are focused primarilyon "big picture" issues. i1Mo1-C detailcd comments can be provided once Traffic Engineering recontmendatioiis on the Traffic Impact AwiNIsis are known and site plans are provided. We appreciate your office agrcc+ng to handle the review of this project and look forward to working with you in the future. We "ill kceh you apprised of Clarke County and Warren Counties position on this development. 1 RBC/msy Attachments cc: RA Miller 1P Diamond it 1 V 8/L4I LEVY V W CLIFFORD & HSSUIlC f AGE U11 1� Findings (F) and RecommendationsfR) (F1) U S Route 522/340 has an "old" lane which was para1lleled by a new lane more recently This old lane is substandard in terms of alignment, lane width, sight distance, and drainage as well as gene. -al construction dimensions It requires reconstruction and/or other improvements too extensive to be described in this report (RI) VDOT be requested to prepare P E. Study identifvin s eci is improvements required (F2) Coiiect )r roads need to be "free flowing" in the vicinity of intersections with U.S Route 5-721340 h,*ajor commercial entrances and street intersections should be set back about 300 ft frwn 'h US. Route 5221340 travel lane to facilitate 200 ft turn lanes with transitions. Frontage roues .slir„ it l i he discouraged (See appendix). (F3) Traffic generated by commercial and industrial development should be delivered to U S Route 572 at etticient and controlled intersections i RM Collector roads should be used to carry commercial and industrial traffic to safe interjection, identired as C through G complete with left and right turn lanes in all directit.rr llirect entrunce onto U.S. Route 5221 40 should be discouraged but, witen needed, the eninin; e • should provide inkrres.i and egress for multiple uses such as at property lines. Additional coll�'c, r,r r rd x L .,. 1 !. ► ► i ► I ! rtiuLj r.rjtiiir /i �/tii/r rV prlii'it[e SaJC an,"' i'Gltr'Enient aCCPSS ��/ internal inl�iiS�7iti� f/tiree..E .;iitri ti'. it the Ke//r. Toray, Inland, Success, and.Stephens Industrial parks. f11 Future traf c (Inows and movements on U.S Rniitte S'71/FAO will exceed the capacity of a 4 lane r11% t hiuhwaN (R4) hrorith, a sir lane roudivat• to Trundle ultimate traffic. (See gpical section tin sheet _'t f '). (F5) %tistihvnfncnt c,(S h 65X (Rockland Road) and S R 627 (Reliance Road) will create traffic contli�: (R ,� 1 R,,ali vi S. R. ON to intersect U.S. Route 522/340 to match centerline i►Iterjection will, ?. 6: 7 77fwill ullrnr- iije cf &risting Crooked Run Bridge, and allow diree't ac-ceN5 to hi,lr t 4r ..;:rr uoinnwrciul a we s eejw t;f US. Route 522/34U. (. � o,iu� a iilil`isctil)ii CrcatC truff'iC Coiuuct PC, iiitS (Rnj � s. G W-2 qwBr mi -�i 1 1 1 1 1 Aoo'-T: R/W t10 TURD! LAWES SC-R�lCS S�MMEF D A`l F ARM � 3 4B.1 HOMES OW WEST ..- ol 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J� lob o"s J� AN 1� C ' 14532 lee Rood, (l=*, Yrieio 20151 1679 TeL 701449.6700 80Q550.n11G fmc:7034496713 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 1 August 7, 2000 ' Mr. Ray Smith tarpame olfres President away, 1' " Dogwood Development R 07fre: ' 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive 9 Suite 925 rgnwReatE Reston, Virginia 20191 f 4roodbn* Dear Mr. Smith: ' The Edinburg office of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) had two b,„� questions about the study, "Revised Traffic impact Analysis of Shenandoah" by Callow swvrms Transportation Consulting in Association with Patton Harris Rust and Associates, pc dated noon s ' May 4, 2000. I answered the questions by telephone and it was requested that I also reply L duTe in writing and they would forward the letter and report to the Staunton office of VDOT for Wit" final review. This letter is that requested written response. ' 0 The first question was in regard to the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) shown on Figure 1 on Route 277 west of Route 340. VDOT's most recent daily count (1997) was about ' 4,000 trips higher than the ADT shown in the May 2000 report. The ADT shown in the report was derived from the peak period turning movement counts made in April 2000 by our firm. As has been done in other reports by us that have been reviewed by the VDOT Staunton District Office, the ADT is calculated by assuming that the PM peak hour is 10 percent of the daily volume. • The second question was with respect to the annual background growth rate of 5 percent used in the Shenandoah report. Callow Transportation conducted the first study for this property in 1990 when it was known as Wheatlands. The traffic count ' conducted in May 2000 was compared to the count made in 1990. The average compound annual growth over the 10-year period was determined to be 5 percent. Si erely hn F. Callow ice President pvr.naceu0000.\ioeoaJOWIU.a me,.daecpyaoc 1 FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD d 1 1 1 11 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Public Schools ' Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Public Schools Frederick County Public Schools Attn: School Superintendent 1415 Amherst St. ' 1415 Amherst St. Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-3888 ePlease fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with this sheet. ' Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates. Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request. - "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277, west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Frederick County Public Schools Comments: ii Ill 0 // irr>d-/h/j " S f't Cs///?C-'I-,f 1 u 1 18 FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY 1 F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Frederick County, Vireinia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority 315 Tasker Road Attn: Engineer Stephens City, VA P.O. Box 1877 (540) 868-1061 Winchester, VA 22604 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Sanitation Authority with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates. Inc Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277, west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Comment: See page 2 (attached). r �iiTy 1e).. es_Rgvwon a� �.iuST F 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Frederick County. Virginia Master Development Plant Application Package Page 2 Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Comment: 1) Frederick County Sanitation Authority will need approval from Clarke County to extend water and sewer service into their county. 2) I will need to see how you plan to extend the water line on SR636 and connect to our existing system. 3) Will the existing 8-inch water line be sufficient to supply the area served? 4) I have marked two locations I feel the water lines need to be looped to ensure better service. i� 1, Fi FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 1 540/665-5643 1-3AFAX: 540/678-0682 September 6, 2000 rMr. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Vice President ' Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: "Shenandoah" - Active Adult Resort Community - Master Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia IDear Chuck: The master development plan dated July 1, 2000, is approved with a few minor comments which may be implemented during the actual site plan design phase. ' Our main concern at this point in time is the number of BMPs that will be required for the project to satisfy the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Because of the number and complexity of the BMPs, we will require that the engineer of record perform inspections during construction and provide this office with a written certification that each facility meets the approved design. This requirement should be 1 conveyed to the developer who will be responsible for the cost of these services. We realize that the roman numerals shown on the development plan are not intended as phasing sections. However, it would be very helpful to provide a plan which does reflect the anticipated construction phasing considering the construction of the entrance roads is tied to the phasing. We intend to perform a more comprehensive review at the time of the subdivision design submittal. We look forward to receiving your design documents for the individual IBMP facilities. Sincerely, kP C. ' ty Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING STAFF Fl, 1] Co ti � 4w4, COUNTY of FREDERICK w d Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 17311 I August 24, 2000 C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice -President G.W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan Dear Chuck: Enclosed are my comments on the materials submitted in association with the Preliminary Master Development Plan for the proposed Shenandoah project. I have reviewed the various sheets submitted as part of the MDP, as well as the associated notes, and my comments are separate accordingly. In general, you will find that there are a number bits of detailed information that are required by Ordinance that have not been provided. These include specifics on the types and numbers of units to be constructed, details on the type of recreational facilities to be provided and phasing of the project. In addition, there are a number of details that will need to be worked out regarding such things as access to (and use of) Lake Frederick, the extent and location of environmental features present and the degree of proposed disturbance. If you would like to discuss any of the comments or issues raised, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, 1 Kris C. Tierney, AICP Director Icc: Dogwood Development Group IC •,Kris';2000\lettemshendoahI wpd I 1 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Review Comments 8/22/2000 The Shenandoah Project proposes 2,130 dwellings on 926 acres for a residential density of 2.3 units per acre which is well within the maximum permitted density of the R-5 zone. The R-5 zone pen -nits ' developments which are age -restricted subject to appropriate deed restrictions or other legal documents being provided which insure that the development will in fact be age -restricted. This ' documentation will need to be provided prior to final approval of a Master Development Plan (MDP). Please note that for our purposes the MDP should be limited to the land area within Frederick 1 County. The Preliminary Master Development Plan (PMDP) which has been submitted fails to provide a number of required bits of information. The required information which is lacking from the plan submitted is listed below. 1) The Plan must indicate the proposed number of units of each housing type which are proposed in each phase of the development and in the total development, as well as the approximate location of the various housing types. In addition, the acreage in common open space, roads, streets or right-of-ways by phase and for the entire development should be provided. Experience indicates that the most efficient way to convey this information is to produce a table listing each phase and the various numbers, units, acreage, percentages, etc. per phase. ' 2) A certified boundary survey of the entire property indicating all dimensions in feet is required. 3) Intervals of the topography should be indicated. For the sake of legibility, topography should not be shown on each sheet, but rather limited to the page indicating the location of steep slopes. 4) In addition to the information provided in the title block, the names of the owners, contract owners and firms preparing the plan should be clearly identified. The age -restricted nature of the development should also be indicated. 5) The use and ownership of adjoining properties should be indicated on the plan. 6) In addition to the location steep slopes and woodland, the location of wetlands should be provided. 7) The sheet depicting the location of woodlands and the areas to be disturbed is flawed. This sheet needs to be redraw to clearly indicate the location of existing woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and those areas that will be disturbed. It appears -1- i [ j I that more than 25 percent of the existing woodlands are to be disturbed, therefore, a waiver will need to be requested from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. Staff notes that the approved Wheatlands MDP called for reforestation of the area between the public fishing area and the proposed community center and the granting of a 1 conservation easement on this acreage to the DGIF. 8) The location of environmental protection land that is to be included in common open space ' should be shown and the acreage and percentage of open space made up of these features should be given. 9) Additional information on the type, number and scale ofrecreational facilities to be provided is needed. The location and configuration ofrecreational facilities should also be indicated on ' the plan. Ultimately, the County Parks and Recreation Department will need to determine the adequacy of the proposed facilities. ' It should be noted that, if single family small lot housing is proposed within the development, additional recreational facilities must be provided in accordance with section 165-64.A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. It should be similarly noted that, within the R-5 zone, recreational facilities are to be provided with each phase in proportion to the fraction of the total dwelling units in each phase. I Information will need to be provided which demonstrates how this requirement is to be met. 10) Although there are three street cross-section details among the information provided, the plan ' fails to indicate which roads within the development are to be of which type. The labeling of the road types should be consistent with the R-5 zoning. Roads should be either Greenways, Neighborhood Collectors, or Local streets. Staff has concerns regarding the depiction of numerous utilities within the rights -of -way of the proposed streets. All indications to this point have been that, although the development would have private streets, the construction of the streets would be such that they could be turned over to the VDOT should that become necessary. VDOT standards would not permit utility lines to be run under the centerline of the pavement. 11) Information on stormwater management facilities should be indicated on the plan. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County's Public Works Department. 12) No buffers or screening are depicted on the MDP. Buffers must either be provided in ' accordance with County requirements, or a waiver must be sought. 13) The network of trails depicted does not appear to provide access to every use, structure or recreational facility as required. It appears this might be remedied by providing a few -2- 1 Iadditional linkages between certain subdivision streets and the trail network which is depicted. 14) Staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will wish to see a detailed Generalized Development Plan (as provided for under R-5 zoning) which indicates the type of uses, ,r access, and circulation patterns proposed for the Village Center. ' Comments on: Final Notes to Master Development Plan - Shenandoah The following comments pertain to the notes submitted along with the MDP for the proposed Shenandoah Development 1) Mixture of Housing Types a) Describing the housing to be built as "a mix of housing types allowed in the R-5 zone" is inadequate. Please see item #1 above under PMDP comments. (b) This comment is unacceptable. The MDP must specify the number and type of units in each phase. Future variation in the numbers or types of units may require a revision to an approved MDP. ' (c) This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. 2) Transportation Improvements ' (a) No problem. (b) The note should clearly state at what point in the project the relocation of the VDGIF ' entrance will take place. (c) The improvements to Route 636 should be linked to the construction of a specified number of dwelling units rather than approval of a phase of the development. 3) Trail System The trail system described does not meet the requirement of Section 165-77.M of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. (See comment #13 above.) 4) Streetlights IWhile the design of streetlights may be selected by the developer, they must be approved by -3- 1 1 1 1 1 ' 6, 1 1 1 1 1 s, i 1 1 1 1 the Zoning Administrator. Provision of water and sewer service (a) No problem. (b) In addition to State Water Control Board, the plans for the waste water treatment facility will also need to be approved by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. In addition, arrangements acceptable to the Authority will need to be made for turning all sewer and water facilities (including treatment facilities, lift stations, and water storage facilities) over to the Authority following satisfactory completion of their construction. (c) Same as (b) above. Fire and Rescue In order to be effective, the details concerning the amount and location of this acreage will need to be resolved and noted on the MDP prior to approval. Preliminary indications from the Emergency Services Director are that the proposed location for a fire and rescue facility is undesirable. It is also appears clear that the offer of land for a library (given the limited three-year duration of the offer) is of little value given that a branch library is currently under construction on Tasker Road which is intended to serve the needs of the southeastern area of the County for the foreseeable future. Staff notes that the three-year duration of this offer from the time the MDP is approved falls far short of the "12 years from the date of platting of the first phase of the development" offered by the previous plan. Open Space This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality (a) No problem. (b) The language will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works and the VDGIF. (c) The proposed method of maintenance of BMP's will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works. The reference to Section 16 -4- should be removed as the notes contain no such number. (d) No problem. (e) Staff believes that the interests of protecting water quality and maintaining tree cover would be better served if the conservation easement is granted to the VDGIF (as currently stipulated on the Wheatlands MDP) as opposed to the home owners ' association as is proposed. (f) As with (e) above, the assurance that trails will be constructed with the approval of ' VDGIF is far better insured if the DGIF holds an easement on this acreage rather than a homeowners association. (g) All woodland areas (as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) proposed ' for clearing must be indicated as disturbed on the MDP and counted toward the total percentage of disturbed woodlands. ' (h) Any improvements which are intended to count toward fulfillment of required recreation facilities will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Parks and Recreation. The completion of such facilities will need to be covered by performance guarantees prior to platting of relevant sections of the development. ' (i) Why would the flood easements not be conveyed on, and with, the recordation of approved plats? 9) Access to the Lake It is anticipated that any access to be provided to Lake Frederick would need to be public. 10) Provision of adequate monumentation ' No problem. 11) School Site Staff anticipates that given the approved MDP for Wheatlands includes the offer of a school site, the failure of the Shenandoah proposal to carry forward with this offer will no doubt generate discussion. 12) Recreational Facilities The statement "substantial recreational facilities" is inadequate. Detailed information on exactly what type of facilities including the number, square footage, cost estimates, etc. along with specifics on what facilities will be provided at what point in the development of the project must be provided. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the ' County Parks and Recreation Department. ' 13) Phasing (a) This statement indicates that there will be six phases, whereas, the MDP submitted ' identifies eight phases, which is correct? The exact number of units per phase must be identified on the MDP. Significant alterations to these numbers subsequent to ' Board of Supervisor approval may result in the need to formally revise the approved MDP. (b) These improvements will need to be built or bonded prior to plat approval. (c) No problem. ' (d) It would be preferable to link construction ofthese improvements to a specific number of units rather than to a general phase of development. At a minimum they should be ' tied to the approval of a particular phase. (e) Same as (d) above. ' (f) This comment should be eliminated. Prior to any infrastructure improvements, grading, or other construction activity commencing within any given area, land disturbance and other pertinent permits are required per normal County procedures. More importantly, density within phases is determined by an approved MDP; the swapping of units between phases subsequent to MDP approval is not permitted. 14) Homeowner's Association ' (a) This section again contains a reference to the nonexistent #16 within the notes. A reference to maintenance of the all roads would be appropriate here. 1 (b) There is little apparent value of the statement, particularly given that it is inconsistent with other statements such as note 8.(g), which indicates the developer intents to clear areas solely for the purpose of providing views of the lake. Limits of woodland disturbance must be depicted on the MDP. ' Staff notes the absence of restrictions contained in the approved Wheatlands MDP which prohibited the cutting trees over a six-inch caliper other than for placement of a home, driveway or utilities, placed a limit of 30% disturbance on those lots which adjoin the lake, 1 and had building lot approval subject to HOA with the stated goal of minimizing site disturbance. in I FREDERICK COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION 0 H J !r� 1 Frederick County, Viminia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Department of Parks and Recreation 2nd Floor 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601 Phone Number: (40) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments: Plan appears to meet the intent of the Open Space and Recreational Unit Requirements. However, more detailed information is needed Ty Tis department to complete a tinai review ot open space an recreationa amenities. ------------------- 1 15 F� VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES F 7 I IFrederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Mail to: Hand deliver to: ' Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Virginia Department of Game Attn: Residential Engineer Attn: Residential Engineer P.O. Box 996 P.O. Box 996 ' Verona, VA 24482 Verona, VA 24482 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. ' Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox ' 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" ' Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA 1 Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Comments: The Department has had several meetings with Dogwood lie;,@1QPMQnt and is rurrentlV wnrkino on n mPmornn tim of understanding on managing the lake and surrounding land. We have developed a cordial working relationship and they have Feen receptive to addressing the concerns we riave rai bTe i tici t-1-4-e s e—uT but we -se efre—f e j a -Pre m w r e s e v} n g VA.. Dept of Game: & hd d Pisilzeries use Daly . . DatereceiveEi' .z Rev�ewNumber 3 4 5�'Iease cycle one) Date xevte ct.; :; � =-- Revtston_ inquired - Signatureand Date .. :. � . : . 1 2- 7 11 CLARKE COUNTY 7 1 I ISep 08 00 04:45p Hobby Levi 5409554002 H CLARKE COUNTY S Sepicniber 2000 C. F. ;Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President G. W. Clifford & Associates 2OO North Camcron Street Winchester, VA 22601 CLARIKE, , tt _, f 1./ !PGtNIA Ne Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Amended Master Development Plan for "Shenandoah" (formerly "Wheatlands"). I believe that there are potentially three major impacts oil Clarke County: 1. I mcrgcncy Services, 2. Traffic, and 3. Visual Character. Rased on current circumslanceS. Clarke County would be responsible for meeting the emergency service needs for 190 +/- age restricted residences and a 150-bed/unit nursing;/assisted living Facility (CCRC), The County and volunteer's have been Providing cincr-ency services, to age re.sLi-ictei residences, assisted living, and nursing facilities in Berryville. This experience show's that these use. generate a higher than average per capita demand fur services. The Boyce Fire Company clue, not have the stall to respond Io any increase in service calls, The nearest Clarke County rescue squad to Shenandoah is in Berryville, 12 miles away, Emergency services for 951/1fi of Shenandoah will he Provided by Frederick County. The current mutual aid agreement has Frederick County providing rescue services to the 522 corridor. I-lowever, this agreement was not drafted to address this proposed intensity of use. I believe the most efficient and competent level of emergency services for the Shenandoah residents living in Clarke would be provided by Frederick County. This will require a sub%tantially revised mutual aid agreement. Representatives of your project and Frederick and Clarke Counties should meet and discuss this issue further 1 have heen provided preliminary comments from VDOT's F;dinburg and Luray Residencies rccarding this project. They do not accept the anticipated degree; of trip reduction of the Silenanduoh project when compared to the Wheatlands project. They also have identified major design issues regarding the Shenandoah project entrance, the commercial cemer entrances, and the CCRC entrance off of Stoncwall Jackson Highway, Route 522. In addition, they bclicvc that Stonewall Jackson Highway's multiple -crossovers, archaic design of the south hound lines, and inadequate turning lanes at its intersection with Lord Fairfax Highway preclude it ITom safely accommodating*, the additional traffic generated by this project. The formal VDOT comments are not expected until mid-Octobcr. A-iin, representatives ol' your project, VDOT, and Clarke should meet to discuss this issue. However. detailed discussions may not be possible until the formal VD01' comments have been submitted. 102 N. Church Si. I;crrvvillc, Virginia 22611 (540) 955-5132 tnX (541)) 955-4002 ISep 08 00 04:45p Bobby Levi 5409554002 p.2 Clifford & Associates ' 8 September 2000 Pace Two ' The land east of Shenandoah, acrnss Stonewall Jackson Highway, is in the County'. Agricultural Open -Space Conservation Zoning District. The County Comprehensive Plan intends this area to remain agricultural. The visual impact of this dcvclopment (particularly its commercial, multi- 1 family, and nursing hone/assisted living facility) on the agricultural land will be significant. The agricultural land, with the blue Ridge behind it, is in the view shed of the Shenandoah project. Conversely, the character and appearance of Shenandoah affects the agricultural land Lind whether it remains attractive for agricultural use,,. Commercial parking kits and multi -story structure,, on the west -side of Stonewall Jackson Highway will not contribute to the agricultural character of the land on the cast -side of the IIighway. I recommend that the commercial parking areas be entirely within Frederick County, with adjacent Clarke County land used for landscape buffers and attractively designed stormwater management facilities. Multi -family structure. should .set back from Stonewall Jackson Highway a distance equal to at least two times the height al'the structure with a landscaped buffer located in the Net back area. The single-family residential areas should also have a landscape buffer from Stonewall Jackson Highway. Please contact me if you would like to discuss these comments further. ' Jiakdes Johnston Planning Administrator 1 I WARREN COUNTY n I COUNTY OF WARREN L County Administrator's Office Warren County Government Center 220 North Commerce Avenue, Suite 100 Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Phone: (540) 6364600 Douglas P. Stanley FAX: (540) 636-6066 County Administrator August 23, 2000 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Chuck Maddox G.W. Clifford Associates 200 North Cameron Street CHAIRMAN Stuart L. Rudacille Winchester, Virginia 22604 Suuth Rjvtr District RE: "Shenandoah"- Active Adult Resort Community Amended Master Development Plan - Frederick and Clarke Counties Dear Mr. Maddox: VICE-CHAIRMAN I am writing concerning your letter dated Julv 11, 2000 requesting B. K. Haynes, Jr. comments on applications for the "Shenandoah" development around Lake North River District Frederick. The property is located off of Route 340/522, just to the north and west of the Warren and Frederick Countv lines. Since the extent of the development lies outside of Warren County, most of my questions/comments are directed toward the traffic impacts on Brack H. Bentley Route 340/522. Please accept the following questions/comments: Happy Creek District • Warren Countv has recently conducted a transportation plan for its portion of Route 340/522. This study was incorporated in the Front Royal Area Transportation Plan and its elements have been included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the plan is to utilize collector roads to handle local traffic and John E. Vance Fork � reduce the need for unnecessary curb cuts and traffic signals. I Di„-Ct would recommend that traffic for the proposed commercial center be handled by the proposed main entrance on Route 340/522. This would reduce the need for a potential traffic signal for the commercial development? Benjamin H. Weddle . This section of Route 340/522(southbound) is the older section of Shenandoah District the highway. Are there any plans to address the vertical curve issues with this section of the roadway as part of the development. • In order to maintain continuity of development along the ..,.. corridor, I would encourage the requirement of at least a 100' building setback from Route 340/522. IJ li • Due to concerns over outdoor lighting and protection of the night sky, Warren County has adopted stringent outdoor lighting standards. We would strongly recommend that all outdoor lighting fixtures over 50 watts be fully shielded (cut-off fixture). • The assumption is made that the proposed wastewater treatment facility will meet or exceed all Virginia Department of Health and Department of Environmental Quality standards. Will there be any negative impact on Crooked Run? Thank you for the opportunity to review this request. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact me. 1 DPS Sincerely, V Douglas P. StanleyYATCP, County Administrator/ Planning Director cc: Brett Haynes, Vice -Chairman, Warren County Board of Supervisors LI I 'J FREDERICK COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL I 1 1 1 IFrederick County, Vir inia Master Development Plan Application Packa e ' Reauest for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal ' Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederic County Fire Marshal I"Floor Attn: Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. ' 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6350 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. ' Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Fire Marshal's Comments: I 14 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS IControl No.MD00-0004 Date Received 7/12/2000 Date Reviewed 9/8/2000 Applicant G.W.Clifford & Assoc. Address 200 N.Cameron Street Winchester, Va. 22601 Project Name Shenandoah Phone No.540-667-2139 Type of ApplicationMaster Development Current Zoning R-5 I 1st Due Fire Co. 11 1st Due Rescue Co. 11 Election DistrictOpequon Tax I.D. No. RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler SystemXX Residential Sprinkler SystemXX Automatic Fire Alarm SystemXX Other REQUIREMENTS Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate XX Not Identified 1 Fire Lanes Required Yes XX No Comments: Local Streets- a 30 ft.right of way w/trees on both sides is not conducive to Fire Department ingress & egress. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate Inadequate XX Not Identified Special Hazards Noted Yes XX No Comments : Stormwater & flood considerations at primary roadway below dam. Municipal water supply adequate for demand on total development? Inadequate Not Hydrant Locations Adequate Identified XX _ Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX rAdditional Comments Attached? Yes XX No Plan Approval Recommended? Yes No XX Sign ature�y��- � TitleNs t V��,��� 1 1 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA ' FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.MD00-0004 Date Received 7/12/2000 Date Reviewed 9/8/2000 Applicant G.W.Clifford & Assoc. Address 200 N.Cameron Street Winchester, Va. 22601 ' Project Name Shenandoah Phone No.540-667-2139 Type of ApplicationMaster Development Current Zoning R-5 ' 1st Due Fire Co. 11 1st Due Rescue Co. 11 Election DistrictOpequon Additional Comments: Where the Trail System and roadways intersect, access for emergency vehicles is necessary. Additional access points may be necessary in areas where ' distance and housing lots preclude vehicle access to trails. Fire & Rescue Service- The suggested site within the Village Center is not an acceptable location to serve the Citizens of Frederick County. The site originally approved in the "Wheatlands" MDP adjoining Rt. 277 would better serve our needs. As well, the time frame that has been offered for the site is not adequate. We request this be extended to 10 years. Access between the residential area and assisted living/retirement area Ifor emergency vehicles is also necessary. Signature Title�c 1 7 U i I� �i ' FREDERICK COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTIONS i i� Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Inspections Department Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Inspections Department 4 Floor Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent St. 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Inspections Department with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Frederick County Inspections Department use only: No cormlents required at this time -Shall caTmnt at the time of subdivision 11 12 P� WAIVER REQUEST I 1 L gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality 2 October 2000 Mr. Kris Tierney, Director Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 ' RE: "Shenandoah" Ordinance Waiver Request IDear Kris, Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A. Mislowsh•. P.E. David J. Saunders, P.F.. Directors: P. Duane Brown. L.S. William L. Wright Michael A. Hammer Thomas W. Price ' Thank you for our meeting last Wednesday, 27 September. To assist in review by the Commission, we are pleased to submit this letter as a summary of those items identified as requiring a formal waiver by the County. in accord with the zoning ordinance as has been recently revised. Waiver Pursuant to 165.77(R) Waivers allowing minor disturbance of wetlands and flood plains, primarily for roads and trails, as shown on MDP, as required to construct the system of approximately 27 storm ponds and facilities which are created to protect the water quality in Lake Frederick, and allowing the disturbance of 60% of the ' woodlands identified by the MDP. The ordinance allows 25%. This clearing is required in order to cluster the housing units and roads on ground remote from the edge of the lake as shown on the MDP. Additional clearing is also required in order to install the substantial stormwater management facilities necessary to ' protect water quality on Lake Frederick. The plan is offered to replace trees along residential streets on 50' centers, on greenways where view lines are not required as designated on the MDP and at least 3 on each single family lot. A waiver is also requested allowing the disturbance of 5.28% of the current 5.68 ac. Of wetlands. ' Waiver 2- 165-37 (Buffers and Screens) and 165-77(H) A wavier is requested of all interior residential screening between uses and of all road efficiency buffers for this age restricted community. Buffers and screens, where required, are specifically shown on the tapproved MDP. Waiver 3 — 165-77(M) A waiver is requested to allow streets without conventional sidewalks, subject to an approved trail system. as shown on the approved MDP. t 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliffgmnsinc.com Alember American C'onsnlling Engiiieers Council gilbert w, clifford and associates, inc Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Thank you for your processing this request as a part of our Master Plan approval process by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & associate . c. C. E. Maddox, , Vice President CEM/kf cc: Mr. Ray Smith Mr. Mark Helmer Mr. David Cobey 1 n RECEIVE[ s E P 112000 DEPT, OF PLANNINGIDEVELGPMENT co Cf/p rr?�r.�o� /L r�+E� Svgb1Ullit d Si A&I Cb ��T / T�r4N=�i'of�y�7c�` SJ�Di��S�s�l ZiAI•f F+iLD LuRA•/ A/�^�✓A _ "T 940T!G P/LciC�F11 IiICL-� Cc./Tic (rliLL ✓'�£C� Jam! •7/ �%c-l•te1L.�- r*'j l� /� A� /�/ M PE.,An3,.1 I..S,r •�� v "t s S �.� E.E. � �^.fC vn.F'C; �-� � .�e.r ,Q�,L �%1E V ro.rl cc Qa'1� C O•-�C--films `' — �. i.-, . Cry+ 1C /c-'�� tom. �'� � a2 l�t/` /JAIL-n-AT1v(L �c . �i(- c cS _tO Cr��L <<^ 1�— t✓ �c.�1i Lj l Ajo -r3 ��c n�Q.� eilL rrl•--w�� �r,� 56t'% to �ae�fi� GG,�Sr s(" CY S 'W C( i FjSrn/f Pc sue/ . � i %1,21e. Ma 1�EK )01- Nt�, -4-z�J* r i rv1 f : l �C icJ ! [ L P'?c) .4- �.cSj �L AcF,c�ry C1c�•.1Cf_ntiS A, nC7-0OAJ ,b "If)DZAr,� i c' oP y -'Jr 1JeC r¢PPrio 6!f 7'-t�1 �J�i>�JT,� S,y,F��'' 3 �-�rti9P�!`iel 1a mo ✓E S�N/4� ICA P�-ra)p 001-17AI i -lb /-.— e"D4 I F rAc i 7 Co hoot) °K sbp I-c> 06 gilbert w. difford & associates, iu INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality 12 March 2001 Mr. Gary DuBrueler Frederick County Emergency Services Director 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Shenandoah Dear Gary, Board of Directors: President: 'rhom„s J. trToole, Rl:_ Vice Presidents: Charles L. Maddox. Jr.. P.G. Earl R. Sutherland, l'.i:. Ronald A. Mislowske, P.1?. Dj%i i J. Saunders, l'.i:. Directors: William L. Wright Michael A. I lammer Thomas W.Pnce Thank you for our phone conversation on Friday. Attached are the Final Notes that accompany the Master Development Plan. I have noted the specific section which refers to our agreement on the new fire and safety site as well as access for your equipment. We would appreciate your letter indicating agreement with these notes prior to the Planning stag agenda going to the Board next week. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Evan Wyatt, Planning Director ViiECEIVED MAR 15 2001 DEPT, OF PLkNNINGIDEVELOPMENT 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwclifTwmnsinc.com A4emher American (7onsulfing Engineers (7minal � i Revision 3.0 DRAFT FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHENANDOAH The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of' this Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided 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. Project Classification The developer agrees to include in its HOA Declaration and Restrictions a provision which age restricts the gated active adult portion of the site (everything except the Village Center and the CCRC sites) so that, "80% of the homes will have at least one prime resident who is 55 years of age or older. The other 20% of the homes will have one prime resident who is 45 years of age or older. No children under the age of 19 may live in the community for more than 90 days a year." The HOA further must develop a system, that they are obligated to maintain, which enforces this age restriction. The enforcement system must be included in the declarations and restrictions that run with the land. 2. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling units (2.3 D11/Acre) using a mix of housing types as shown on the attached "PI IASING PLAN" (Appendix "A") (b) The mix of housing types will vary due to market demand tom Phase; to Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval. An amended phasing plan shall be submitted for such unit modifications. 3. Transportation improvements. (a) T'he developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340. Rte 636 and Rt-e 277 generally as shown in the plan and required by approved VDoT Permit. (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan during; Phase 1 of the project. * ' Revision 3.0 (c) The developer shall pave with bituminous concrete the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, not later than the time of issuance of the 750 building; permit. 4. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. 5. Streetlights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and. approved by the zoning administt-ator, will be located at intersections and at the ends ofcul de sacs. 6. Provision of water and sewer service. (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWI'I') in the general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board and the FCSA. (c) Public water will be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. (d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transtbrred to the FCSA ownership. 7. Fire and Rescue Service. A fire and rescue site is oMred for a period of 5 years with 5 more years renewable if satistactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either an approximate 2 acre site in the Village Center (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County. The alternate site must be offsite to Shenandoah. A one time gift of $20.000 is of%red to provide assistance in the purchase of the selected site. should an alternate site be chosen. The Homeowners association shall maintain all internal street systems, including the cutting of tree canopy. to allow access to the largest fire and rescue equipment and vehicles at all times. Revision 3.0 s. Library A library site in the Village Center to a maximum size of 1 acre is offered for a period of 5 years. The developer will provide the site and planning, should the County library decide to construct and operate such a tacility. 9. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite wastewater treatment tacility. (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. Griz7ard. Ph.D.. P.E. "file BMPs constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve coverage of 75% of the area of the property which drains into Lake Frederick. 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 ofthe wet or dry pond type, or other approved BMP structures as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering of' any sub watershed within the property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling Urban Runofl: 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 "Iligh" with regard to the overall removal capacity, as shown in Figure 2.4 of' the albresaid Manual. (c) Responsibility for the continuing maintenance of the BMI's to be incorporated into the project shall be assigned to the developer, provided that the developer will eventually assign this responsibility to a homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer. Maintenance required hereunder shall include routine and non -routine maintenance as recommended in the atoresaid Manual, as necessary to achieve the intended purposes of the BMPs. (d) Water quality tests in Lake Frederick to determine BMP eti'ectiveness 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 homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility fi r funding such testing shall be transfi rred to the said association. The results of" such testinu shall be provided forthwith to Frederick County. to Revision 3.0 DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (110A) and VDGIF at the time of recordation of a final plat for each residential section of the development. No building, tree cutting. clearing or disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation. or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit written approval of VDGIF. (1) To provide and contain walking tralTic along the lake, the developer shall build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting to fishing, boating, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGll:. Such trails shall be maintained by the developer and successor 11OAs. Trails will clearly identify private property lines (public access limits). (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through bulrer areas reloresting those areas with herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VD(;K; satisfaction: (h) The developer will build three piers - one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches - to VDGIF specifications. (i) Flooding easements will be provided to VD(;IF on a section by section basis as plats are recorded. 10. Access to Lake Frederick The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake liar carry -ins (canoes. kayaks), as shown on the MDP. Each will have appropriate signage. parking and crall storage racks outside the conservation bullcr, a walk path to lakeside in locations agreeable to VDGIi , and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. 11. Provision of adequate monumentation. The: De%'cloper 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 ofall boundary lines. Revision 3.0 12. School site. Since school age children will not reside in this project, and the remote location of the property to the urban population centers of the County, no school site is proposed. 13. Recreation Facilities The developer will provide recreation in accord with the attached schedule (Appendix -13"). Each of these facilities will be constructed during the identified phase of development of the community with which it is associated, and each will be turned over to its community HOA for use and maintenance under terms explicit in all home sale contracts. 14. Phasing (a) Each phase is one year of development. Building permits not granted in any previous phases may be carried over so long as the cumulative total of authorized phases are not exceeded. (b) Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant, the entrance on US Rte 340/522. the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. (c) Public water and sewer lines will be extended into each phase on an as - needed basis. _ (d) The entrance to the subject property ITom State Route 636 shall he: constructed not later than before the 750 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3, when it will be opened for public access. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed not later than before the 1200 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 6, when it will be opened for public access. (1) Disturbance and improvements in future phase areas will be required to implement this plan due to the need for grading, utilities, roadways, the substantial number of storm management ponds to protect water quality in Lake Frederick and the like. This work will he allowed upon plan approval by the County. Revision 3.0 15. Homeowners' Association (HOA). (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, (i) Operation of community center and Tennis Center. (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 (vii) Maintenance of Roadway system (b) The HOA is empowered and required to project vegetative screening and open space trees, as well as all common area plantings. such as street trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the I IOA, from time to time, to allow proper access by all emergency and service vehicles. 16. Village Center The developer agrees to submit a Master Development Plan , in accord with Frederick County Ordinance requirements, for approval prior to beginning construction on the facilities planned for the Village Center. Prepared by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries P. O. Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 Exempt from recordation taxes imposed by §58.1-807 of the Code of Virginia by virtue of §58.1-811E of said Code, and exempt from payment of any Clerk's fee by virtue of §17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 22nd day of March, 2001, by and between THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES, (the "Department"), and Dogwood Development Group LLC, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, (the "Company"), and JasBo, Inc., a Virginia corporation, and Fred L. Glaize, III, ("JasBo and Glaize"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Department and the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries (the "Board"), pursuant to the provisions of §29.1-100, et seq. of the Code of Virginia, have the mission to manage Virginia's wildlife and inland fish to maintain optimum populations of all species to serve the needs of the Commonwealth; to provide opportunity for all to enjoy wildlife, inland fish, boating, and related outdoor recreation; and to promote safety for persons and property in connection with boating, hunting, and fishing; and WHEREAS, the Board owns a public fishing lake in Frederick County known as Lake Frederick ("Lake Frederick"), a fifty -foot horizontal width strip of land surrounding the water line of Lake Frederick (the "State Buffer"), and an additional parcel of land which contains the dam, a public parking, area, a landing area and boat ramp, and a public fishing area (the "Landing Area") all of which are depicted, along with other relevant information, on Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Company is the contract purchaser from JasBo and Glaize of land _15_ surrounding the Board's Lake Frederick land which the Company desires to develop into a residential community referred to as the Shenandoah development and which is shown on Attachment A (the Property). Jasbo and Glaize enter this Agreement for reasons set forth in Paragraph 29 below; and WHEREAS, the Company plans to establish a Homeowners Association with a membership of all lot owners in 'the Shenandoah development; and WHEREAS, Lake Frederick is a valuable amenity,to the citizens of Virginia, and will be a valuable amenity to those who will live in the Shenandoah development; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Company wish to work together to accomplish their goals and to protect Lake Frederick; and WHEREAS, the Company and the Department realize that the process of development, and the permanent increase in impervious areas which will result, must be carefully managed to avoid causing water quality and siltation problems in Lake Frederick; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Company wish to cooperate and coordinate with each other to protect the water quality, scenic beauty and natural amenities of Lake Frederick and its surrounding area as the Shenandoah development is built and thereafter; and WHEREAS, the Board owns a Public Access Road with a 50-foot right-of-way (the "Public Access Road") connecting U.S. Route 522/340 to the Landing Area; and WHEREAS, the Company desires to. acquire the Department's Public Access Road in exchange for a new public access road with a 50-foot (minimum) right-of-way the ("New Public Access Road") connecting U.S. Route 522/340 to the Landing Area and other -16- consideration; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the Department, subject to ratification by the Board, and the Company hereby agree as follows: 1. Lake Protection and Water Quality Management: Prior to beginning construction of the New Public Access Road, the Company shall provide the Department with a survey of Lake Frederick's current depth, and a calculation of the historic annual average rate of siltation accumulation. The Department and the Company agree promptly to develop a water quality management plan to control water quality impacts to Lake Frederick resulting from the development of Shenandoah. This water quality management plan will be developed and agreed upon by the aforementioned parties before start of the construction of the New Public Access Road and will address the following in connection with the Shenandoah Development: A. Erosion and sediment control plan B. Stormwater management plan to include nutrient traps C. Mitigation of silt build-up in the lake beyond the normal rate of siltation D. Monthly monitoring and reporting to the Department levels of fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, temperature profile, turbidity, secci disk readings, and pH, and, twice yearly, a report on levels of chlorophyll -A. An additional monitoring report shall be made within three days of any Major Storm Event and delivered promptly to the Department thereafter. For purposes of this Agreement, Major Storm Event shall mean two inches or more of rainfall within the water shed of Lake Frederick which occurs in any 24-hour period. Water quality monitoring and reporting to the Department by the Company will cease six months after all areas of land disturbance have been stabilized. -17- E. Dredging. If, as a result of construction activity by the Company, the average depth of Lake Frederick decreases more than one foot, i or if mud banks appear in the Lake, the Department may determine that dredging is necessary. If the Department determines dredging is necessary, it shall notify the Company of that determination and the parties shall enter an agreement which shall include an obligation upon the company to undertake the dredging project, at its cost, and a definition of the scope, means and methods of the dredging project. The Department shall make the Landing Area and its portion of the New Public, Access Road available for use in the dredging project. The Company's dredging obligation hereunder will cease six months after all areas of land disturbance have been stabilized. 2. Conservation Easement Area: The Company will convey an open -space easement'to the Board over a Conservation Easement Area which shall be an area of land extending 50 feet from the Board's property line, except no such easement shall be imposed at or around the dam at the south end of the lake where Department ownership exceeds 100 feet. The Company will provide the Department with an exhibit, in recordable form, to delineate the Conservation Easement Area. In addition, the Department's Regional Fisheries Manager may designate certain points (not to exceed a total of 15) at the outer boundary of the Conservation Easement Area where survey markers are to be placed. The Company shall promptly locate those points and shall install survey pins to memorialize those points. 3. Floodway Easements: The Company will provide the Department with floodway easements (a) to provide for rising water in the lake to elevation 629, based on USC&GS datum. the elevation one foot over the PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) level and (b)'to prevent development downstream of the Lake Frederick Dam in the area owned by the Company which would be at risk in the event of a dam failure. except for the ,improvements shown on Attachment A. The Company agrees that it will not build habitable y structures within the floodway easement area. The Company will provide the Department with an exhibit in recordable form to delineate the floodway easement. 4. Hardwood Conversion Corridors: The Department agrees to allow the selective removal of evergreen trees from the State Buffer, and from the Conservation Easement Area, provided such work is pursuant to a plan approved by the Department before the work begins, such work is done with minimal soil disturbance within 100 feet of Lake Frederick, and no earth disturbing vehicles are allowed within such area. Specific locations of the hardwood conversion corridors and selection of the type of trees to be planted will be determined in the field by representatives of both parties and will be depicted on plans that must be approved and signed by both the Department and the Company. The Shenandoah Homeowners Association ("HOA") and the purchasers of lots which adjoin the Conservation Easement Area will be furnished a copy of the Department's publication entitled Shoreline Management Obiectives for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Department -Owned Lakes, included in this Agreement as Attachment 5. Land Exchange: The Board and the Company will enter into a contract to effect the following exchange of land: A. The Board will convey the Public Access Road to the Company, and the Company will convey the New Public Access Road, each as shown on Attachment A, to the Board. The New Public Access Road will intersect U.S. Route 5221340 1 For purposes of this Agreement any decrease in the depth of Lake Frederick shall be calculated as the decrease from the yearly average rate of siltation accumulation -19- at a location as shown on Attachment A and will extend to the Landing Area. B. The land exchange will meet the following criteria: (1) All land exchanges will be subject to approval of the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, pursuant to §29.1-103 of the Code of Virginia, and the Governor, pursuant to §2.1-504.2 of the Code of Virginia. (2) Land conveyed to the Department will be of equal or greater value than the land conveyed to the Company. (3) The Company will construct the New Public Access Road to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Subdivision Street Requirements, so it will be eligible for inclusion in the VDOT Secondary Road System and for maintenance by VDOT. (4) The Company, will secure all necessary approvals, including approval from VDOT to include the New Public Access Road in the VDOT Secondary Road System. (5) The Company will pay for the construction of the New Public Access Road, its acceptance into the Secondary Road System, and for costs incurred by the Department associated with the land exchange. (6) The Company will install ' underground sewer, water, electric and telephone utilities to serve the Landing Area according to the plans and specifications approved by the Department. The location of such utilities within the right-of-way of the New Public Access Road will be approved by VDOT. These utilities will be installed at no cost to the Department. 6. Property Enhancements and Improvements: The Department and the Company agree that the Company will construct, according to plans and locations 20 approved by the Department, the following improvements, most of which will be on Board property or on the Conservation Easement Area: A. DGIF Public Parking Area: The Company will increase the size of the existing public parking area as shown on Attachment A and according to plans approved by the Department. The Department will provide design specifications and will approve final plans for parking area improvements. Improvements will be at no cost to the Department. B. Restrooms and Concessions: The Company will construct public restrooms and a concession facility on the Landing Area in the location generally as shown on Attachment A. The Company will design for approval by the Department the public restrooms and concession facilities containing not more than a total of 1,000 square feet of floor area. The Department will remove the existing concession building. The Company shall provide utility service to the concession area. C. Trails and Access Facilities: The Company will construct the following trails and access facilities: (1) Woodland and lakeside trails (2) Wetland and nature trails from the Village Center down and into the wetlands on property owned by both parties along Crooked Run. These nature trails will be open to the public and will be accessible from the Department's parking area. (3) Boardwalks (4) Footbridges (5) Public fishing pier (1) (6) Boat access sites with courtesy piers (2) The foregoing facilities shall be constructed to meet the Department standards. The parties agree that the public shall have the right -of -access to and use of such of the foregoing facilities as are located on or* within the Department's property and the -21- Conservation Easement Area, and those trails, boardwalks and foot paths shown on Attachment A and located between the Village Center, Crooked Run and the Department Parking Area. In addition, the Department, its employees, invitees, and assigns (AKA the public) shall have unrestricted access to trails, boardwalks, and footpaths located on or within the Department's property and the Conservation Easement Area that can be accessed by watercraft. The Regional Fisheries Manager will approve the exact location I f these facilities on behalf of the Department. 7. Requirements, Approval of Plans, Approval of Location: All improvements will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and local requirements and regulations and according to Department specifications. Before authorizing any construction on the Department's property, or the Conservation Easement Area, the Company shall submit its plans, drawings, proposed materials, and methods of construction to the Department for approval by its Office of Capital Programs (OCP). The Department will inspect construction work for compliance with Department and state standards and requirements and such inspection shall be by the OCP. The exact location of the public improvements will be mutually determined in the field by representatives of both parties and will be depicted on plans that are approved and signed by both OCP and the Company. 8. Operating Agreement: The Company and the Department shall negotiate in good faith to enter an annual agreement to provide for the operation of the concession and to provide year-round restrooms availability and year-round trash removal service, seasonal boat rental service and such other services as to which the parties may agree. This Agreement shall require operation of the foregoing facilities in accordance with the -22- ,\ .. , Department standards and requirements. This Agreement further shall require no payment of rent or fees to the Department and shall be subject to termination by either party upon a ninety -day prior written notice. 9. Maintenance of Department's Public Facilities: The Department and the Company recognize the Company's need to assure that all properties within the Shenandoah development, including those owned or controlled by the Department, shall be maintained in a high -quality, pleasing manner consistent with the Shenandoah residential development. To address that concern, the Company and the Department shall enter a Maintenance Agreement by which the Company shall have the right, at its expense, for the term of the Maintenance Agreement and to the extent that the parties shall agree, to maintain specifically designated areas which may include the landing area, the Department's public parking area, the trails, boardwalks, foot bridges, public fishing piers, and boat access sites, courtesy piers and wetland trails. The Maintenance Agreement shall address areas where it shall be permitted to cut weeds and brush, as well as maintenance of the access road and parking lot surfaces, including parking barriers and bollards, maintenance of drainage ditches, maintaining and cleaning out stormwater and sedimentation basins and traps as needed, mowing the grass at established public access points, collection and removal of trash and garbage, removal of debris and other routine maintenance necessary for safe public use and enjoyment of Lake Frederick and the development of such maintenance agreement shall be based upon the objectives already established in the Department's Shoreline Management Obiectives for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Department -Owned Lakes, included in this Agreement as Attachment B. This right to maintain the Department's public facilities -23- pursuant to the Maintenance Agreement shall exist notwithstanding a failure of the parties to enter an Operation Agreement as provided in Section 8 above. A separate agreement by the parties shall be required with respect to maintenance of the restrooms and concession as provided in paragraph 8 above. 10. Costs: The Company will pay all the costs of carrying out the provisions of this Agreement except that the Department will pay its own legal costs and the salaries of its employees. 11. Time Line: The parties will accomplish the performance of their obligations under this Agreement according to the following schedule: Current -depth survey of Lake Frederick Prior to construction of the New Public Access Road Maintenance Agreement Water Quality Management Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, in phases associated with construction Stormwater Management Plan Conveyance of open -space easement for Conservation Easement Area Conveyance of open -space easement for floodway area under elevation 629 of each phase of the above dam and `open -space easement for PMF floodway area below dam, with plat in recordable form Approve land exchange contract Complete land exchange Prior to April, 2002 Prior to construction of the New Public Access Road Prior to commencement of construction of each phase of the Shenandoah development Prior to commencement of construction of the Shenandoah development Prior to or concurrent with land exchange Prior to or concurrent with land exchange June 30, 2001 Upon completion of the New Public Access Road ready for approval by -24- N Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department Complete construction of New Public Access Road, prior to acceptance into VDOT Secondary Road Install utility lines Resurface existing Department Old Public Parking Area Restrooms and Concession, New Public Parking Area Before closing the Public Access Road Before completion of new concession facility Before closing the Public Access Road Before 500 homes have been sold Trails and Access Facilities Before beginning the sale .of lots in the next phase of the Shenandoah development 12. Coordination of Access During Construction and Prior to Completion of Land Exchange: Prior to closing on the exchange of land, Company shall construct the New Public Access Road and shall make access practically available by the public to the Landing Area while construction is ongoing. During construction of Company's project and until completion of the Land Exchange, the Company shall have the right to cross the Public Access Road as necessary to construct the internal roadway system and as necessary to tie in the New Public Access Road to the Landing Area. The Company shall not use the Public Access Road as the access for construction of the Shenandoah development. 13. Homeowners Association: The Company will establish a homeowners association (the "Homeowners Association") which will consist of all property owners in the Shenandoah development and which will have the power to assess dues and assessments which, if unpaid, will become a lien on the real estate of the nonpaying homeowner. The _25_ a Department will allow the Company to transfer the Company's maintenance rights and obligations to the Homeowners Association provided the Department determines that the Homeowners Association has the capability to carry out the provision of the Company's maintenance rights and obligations. 14. Public Access to Lake Frederick: Public vehicular access to Lake Frederick and parking will be ,through the Landing Area. Public access to public improvements to be located in the Lake, on the State Buffer or on the Conservation Easement Area will be pedestrian from trails or by water. The general public and the Shenandoah residents will have the right to use these improvements. The Department will post at the Landing Area public -use regulations for the use of these public areas. No ,public access will be allowed into the private Shenandoah community. The Company will post the landside boundary of the Conservation Easement.Area to prevent public access into the private Shenandoah community. 15. Future Capital Improvements: Capital improvement projects planned by the Department for Lake Frederick after completing the initial construction contemplated by this Agreement will be carried out by the Department at its sole expense. 16. Department Consents and Approvals: -The Department hereby delegates to the Department's Regional Fisheries Manager the authority to provide the Consents and Approvals on behalf of the Department as provided in this Agreement, unless such Consents and Approvals are specified in this Agreement to be made by individuals other than the Regional Fisheries Manager. In recognition of the phased development of the Shenandoah development and the need to coordinate and to provide Consents and Approvals on a timely basis, the Department agrees that its Consents and Approvals shall -26- not be withheld, delayed or conditioned without good reason and, further, that any request to the Regional Fisheries Manager for Consents and Approvals by the Regional Fisheries Manager shall be deemed to have been given if no response is made to such request ,. within thirty days from the date such request is received by the Regional Fisheries Manager. The Department acknowledges that time is of the essence. It will make every reasonable effort to obtain and deliver timely approvals on all matters pertaining to this Agreement, including those requiring external consensus. 17. Indemnification: The Company agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Board, the Department, their agents, officers and employees, from and against any and all damage, claim,' liability or loss, including reasonable attorneys' and other fees, arising out of the Company's performance under this Agreement. 18. Entire Agreement: This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no oral or parol agreements existing between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof which are not expressly set forth and covered hereby. 19. Headings: The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not in any way affect the -meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 20. Interpretation: Whenever the context hereof shall so require, the singular shall include the plural, the neuter gender shall include the male and female genders, and vice versa. 21. Notices: Any notice required or permitted for the purposes of this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or when mailed by certified -27- mail in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party to whom such ' S notice is given, at the address for such party set forth hereunder, or such other address as the party may provide to the other in writing prior to the giving of such notice: If to the Company: Manager Dogwood Development Group, LLC 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 925 Reston, VA 20191 President Shenandoah Homeowners Association If to the Department: Real Property Manager Department of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Regional Fisheries Manager Department of Game & Inland Fisheries P. O. Box 996 Verona, VA 24482 22. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same agreement. 23. Additional Acts:` Except as otherwise provided herein, in addition to the acts or deeds recited herein and contemplated to be performed, executed and/or delivered by either party, the parties hereto agree to perform, execute and/or deliver or cause to be performed, executed and/or delivered any and such further acts, deeds and assurances that either party may reasonably require to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. Included, by way of illustration and not limitation, shall be the Department's obligation to consent to rezoning of the Public Access Road in conjunction with the Company's application currently pending before Clarke County, as well as grant of _28_ drainage, grading and construction easements necessary for construction of each phase of the Company's stormwater detention facilities. 24. Severability: In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 25. Bindinq Agreement: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. ' 26. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 27. Assignment: The Company shall be permitted to assign this Agreement in whole or in part to any Purchaser and to the Homeowners Association referred to in paragraph 13 provided, however, that (i) the Assignee expressly assumes all obligations of the Seller hereunder; and (ii) the Department provides its consent to the Assignment, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 28. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for twenty (20) years until March 21, 2021. It shall thereafter continue from year to year until either party gives a 180-day notice of termination, which termination shall not take effect sooner than 180 days after such notice is given. 29. JasBo and Glaize will hold a Deed of Trust on the Property after the Company purchases the Property. If they regain control of the Property pursuant to the -49- r Deed of Trust or otherwise, they agree to carry out this Agreement and, should they again sell the Property, to require their purchaser to agree to carry it out. They further acknowledge and consent to the terms of the Agreement and confirm that they will provide such releases, consents or other approvals as may be required to effect the provisions of this Agreement. -30- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed or caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized officers as of the date first above written. THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001 by William L. Woodfin, Jr., Director of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. . Notary Public My commission expires: Dogwood Development Group, LLC Manager STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF to -wit: ' The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001 by , of Dogwood Development Group, LLC. My commission expires: Notary Public -31- JasBo, Inc. President STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2001 by - of JaSBO, Inc. Notary Public My commission expires: Fred L. Glaize, III STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001 by Fred L. Glaize, III. Notary Public My commission expires: Office of the Attorney General Approved as to form: Senior Assistant Attorney General -32- SHORELINE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES' DEPARTMENT -OWNED or CONTROLLED LAKES I. INTRODUCTION A. Mission of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries To manage Virginia's wildlife and inland fish to maintain optimum populations of all species to serve the needs of the Commonwealth; to provide opportunity for all to enjoy wildlife, inland fish, boating and related outdoor recreation; to promote safety for persons and property in connection with boating, hunting and fishing. B. - General The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) owns the public land surrounding lakes. While the land surrounding VDGIF lakes is often referred to as "buffer zones" it remains in the fee ownership of the Department and may not be utilized for exclusive private purposes. Ownership of adjacent land does not convey any rights to the use of adioining public land that the public does not have. Shorelines are allocated for public recreational use and as such, may be developed in the future for recreational trails that are open to the public or to meet wildlife management objectives. C. Background Since the 1930s, the Department has controlled the operations of certain public fishing lakes. With an increase in unauthorized private use of land that is part of the lake property, a need to establish policy and guidelines is realized. Among common problems that jeopardize the integrity of shoreline natural areas are grazing, pier construction, lawn/garden development, open/cut shorelines, and water withdrawals (to name a few). The Department's goal is to provide public awareness of the need to protect shorelines through the establishment of a management plan and through positive public,information. II. BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY A. Background The Shoreline Management Plan establishes policy and furnishes guidelines in the following areas 1. protection and conservation of desirable environmental characteristics of public lakes; Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -33 2. effective management of shoreline and lake resources; 3. types of private uses and activities that may be permitted on public land; 4. restoration of shoreline where degradation has occurred because of illegal and unauthorized activities; and 5. clarification pertaining to legal actions and remedies for encroachment and trespass. B. Future Rules, Regulations, Legislation and Policies. The objectives identified in this plan incorporate any future legislation, regulations, operating memoranda., state and federal laws and regulations, or policies pertinent to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. C. Authority 1. "Authority is under § 18.2-140 of the Code of Virginia, entitled Destruction of trees, shrubs, etc. as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person to pick, pull, pull up, tear, tear up, dig, dig up, cut, break, injure, burn, or destroy, in whole or in part, any tree, shrub, vine, plant, flower, or turf found, growing or being upon the land of another, or upon any land reserved set aside, or maintained by the Commonwealth as a public park, or as a refuge or sanctuary for wild animals, birds or fish without having previously obtained the permission in writing of such other or his agent or of the superintendent or custodian of such park, refuge or sanctuary so to do, unless the same be done under the personal direction of such owner, his agent, tenant or lessee or superintendent or custodian of such park, refuge or sanctuary. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; provided, however, that the approval of the owner, his agent, tenant or lessee, or the superintendent or custodian of such park or sanctuary afterwards given in writing or in open court shall be a bar to further prosecution or suit." 2. "§ 18.2-119 Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person. whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -34- pursuant to §§16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278 2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to §20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136." 3. "§ 18.2-137 Injuring, etc., any property, monument, etc. A. If any person unlawfully destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal any property, real or personal, not his own, or breaks down, destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal, any monument or memorial for war veterans described in § 15.2-1812, any monument erected for the purpose of marking the site of any engagement fought during the War between the States, or for the purpose of designating the boundaries of any city, town, tract of land, or any tree marked for that purpose, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; provided that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss the charge if the locality or organization responsible for maintaining the injured property, monument, or memorial tiles a written affidavit with the court stating it has received full payment for the injury. B. If any person intentionally causes such injury, he shall be guilty of (i) a Class 1 misdemeanor if the value of or damage to the property, memorial or monument is less than $1,000 or (ii) a Class 6 felony if the value of or damage to the property, memorial or monument is $1,000 or more. The amount of loss caused by the destruction, defacing, damage or removal of such property, memorial or monument may be established by proof of the fair market cost of repair or fair market replacement value. Upon conviction, the court may order that the defendant pay restitution." III. OBJECTIVES The water quality of the lakes is suitable for propagation of desirable species of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic life, as well as other compatible uses. The combined effects of shoreline alterations by adjacent property owners modifies aesthetic (or visual) quality, destroys habitat and may cause declines in fish and wildlife populations. Management is necessary to prevent shorelines from being developed for lawns, gardens, and recreation areas. Shoreline management provides an opportunity for shoreline protection, which in turn protect the watershed, insuring highest water quality. A. Manage and protect environmental integrity of shorelines 1. Activities that cause any type of degradation to shorelines or that influence the integrity of shorelines in any way are not allowed. 2. Earthwork and related activities -on adjacent private lands are to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -35- 4 B. Establish and maintain acceptable fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic quality, and natural environmental conditions as follows: 1. Maintain and or enhance natural shoreline vegetation by prohibiting alterations. 2. Historically altered Department property may be restored at the discretion of VDGIF. C. Promote the safe and healthful use of the lake and shoreline for recreational purposes by all constituents in conjunction with VDGIF policy. Access to Department property shall be afforded to all citizens in accordance with applicable VDGIF policy. D. Establish guidance related to the preparation of access to the water edge, the vegetation and revegetation in cases of trespass and degradation, and clarify acceptable activities of adjacent landowners: 1.. Planting on public property is not allowed unless there is a plan approved by DGIF. 2. Footpaths are allowed across Department property for access to the edge of the water. The path may not exceed five feet (5') in width and must be routed to minimize effects on vegetation. Footpaths cannot be utilized as roadways by motorized and/or off -road vehicles. All footpaths on Department property, regardless of who constructed them, are open to public use. "No Trespassing" signs may not be posted on VDGIF property. 3. Mowing of the footpaths aforementioned in item 2 is allowed according to the standards set forth. 4. Herbicide use is not. allowed on state property. 5. Burning is not allowed on state property. 6. Placement of riprap or other materials for any purpose and the construction of retaining walls are not allowed. 7. Individual private piers are not allowed. 8. Except for documented forest management, tree or brush cutting on state property is absolutely prohibited without prior written authorization. 9. Furnishings and equipment are not permitted and shall not be placed or affixed to the property surrounding the lakes. Such furnishings and equipment include but are not limited to the following: satellite dishes, grills or barbecue pits, flag poles, picnic tables, etc. 10. Dumping and or storage of brush, rock piles, trash or garbage of any type are not permitted. Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -36- E. Establish an understanding of VDGIF's expectations for reforestation, regeneration or revegetation in areas where private development has occurred. 1. Adjacent private landowners shall be notified of the availability of this management plan through any one or all of the following means: local or county offices, direct distribution, news releases, or public information bulletins. 2. Areas of disturbed shoreline that are under the ownership of VDGIF shall be mitigated by the landowner at their sole expense to meet with the objectives of this plan. Adjacent private landowners shall receive written notice of any violations, and VDGIF shall provide in writing an appropriate approach for reforestation, regeneration or revegetation, as the case may be. F. Clarify shoreline boundaries of Department -owned lakes. 1 Boundaries of Department -owned lakes are specified in each of the deeds in the local records, and this boundary delineation defines the property line in relation to the adjacent landowners: 2. VDGIF boundary witness trees are marked only with blazes. The blazes arc painted yellow. Bands painted completely around the tree are not used. A blaze is made by cutting off a vertical strip of outside bark 6" to 8" long and 2" to 4" wide. The size of the blaze varies depending upon the size of the tree. Refer to Exhibit A for more detailed information and illustrations. G. Clarify status of existing "authorized" uses - grandfathering 1. Facilities .and activities that have once been authorized specifically in writing by VDGIF, but now would not -be authorized, are grandfathered. 2. Authorizations of this type are not transferrable when property is transferred or conveyed. 3. VDGIF reserves the right to rcvegetate, regenerate, or reforest all grandfathered activities. IV. ACCESS TO LADS A. Adjacent Landowners 1. Adjacent landowners are only authorized to make minor alterations to vegetation around habitable structures to establish a footpath no wider than five (5') for purposes of accessing the lake. Sections of the footpath that lie on VDGIF shoreline property are open to public use (refer to Section III.D.2. Footpaths). Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -37- R0 2. Alteration to all other existing surrounding vegetation including plantings, underbrushing and mowing, etc. is not allowed. B. Public Access- Public use of the lakes is permitted according to established regulations. Any activities other than public recreational activities or pedestrian access may be considered an encroachment of degradation of public property and is punishable under current Virginia Law (Class I Misdemeanor, and Section 18.2-137). V. DEFINITIONS A. Encroachment — a building, a part of a building, or an obstruction that physically intrudes upon, overlaps, or trespasses upon the property of another.' B. High Water Mark — the mark made by the highest level the water reaches C. Grandfathered — an action to exempt or make allowance for an activity already in progress before such activity became forbidden or illegal. D. Trespass — unlawful entry or possession of property. 2 E. Underbrushing - selective cutting and continued control of woodland understory vegetation (weeds, vines, briars, etc.) and thinning of tree saplings. F. Vegetation — plant, plant life or growth VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE SHORELINE A. General - The land area surrounding the VDGIF public lakes varies in dimension. Where the boundaries run with the contours of the shoreline, the Department's ownership may range upward to 60 feet from the water's edge. It is important for adjoining landowners to verify their property boundaries in connection with the state's ownership. Portions of these lands are located within flood plains and arc allocated for wildlife management and recreation. Recreational use excludes sailing, swimming; the rules for individual lakes can be found in the current issue of the VDGIF Public Fishing Lakes Guide fdr lakes owned by the VDGIF. VII. LIST OF APPLICABLE LAKES 1. Bark Camp 2. Keokee 3. Rural Retreat 'Dictionary of Real Estate Terms, Barron's -2 Dictionary of Real Estate Terms, Barron's Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -38- 4. Willis Robertson 5. Frederick 6. Shenandoah 7. Burton 8. Nelson 9. Pete's Pond 10. Briery Creek 11. Brunswick 12. Conner 13. Gordon 14. Nottoway 15. Albemarle 16. Fluvanna Ruritan 17. Lower/Upper Powhatan 18. Brittle 19. Burke 20. Curtis 21.Orange 22. Chandlers 23. Gardy's Mill 24. Airfield 25. Game Refuge Lake Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -39- -40- EXHIBIT A, Pg. I Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -41- EXHIBIT A, Pg. 2 Exhibit A Example to Illustrate Boundary Line Markings I t Witness trees are painted (with color) to delineate the boundary line. Where trees are not available, a similarly marked post is used along with department signs bearing the department logo. Surveys by a licensed survey may be necessary to determine exact line locations. Types and meanings of markings are illustrated below: WrIVE 6 TREE Poll CORNER Zbme bows an vein" ••I I 89"Wndwas Wits backa.Lbaa.0 did., tirtaer. dN...f.l.a.ad tb. mewr. \ HAItDs C tsd FRONT SIDE IN LIIt1E Ti4ES tb. tam. is t5. ahetis.0 w.lte�,.ita. aac as tb.us& AbUmi.a..l.da.wdwbwWs. ML a a.e--e - ldlame tb.t the bad rrllm p oomm thnuA tbo ta.. rtrr. T.* ban" we Pah&Ud On tb. ft.. W" balm hd.s istb.dhWd=grow ilem 7lrb.eda.np.ters.daapd doWe a Cthe be*.MUmtib loatb.••�4ae• di li. th "Whi.d.l1Y f 1b. wow wenuma .. �..1��..�'!�.!(1.to tu. la.....+ eee aw b.lndmyHim tbwaWy Shuftaft on VW&lid. tb. bwndmF UM 000- e �e Refer to Chapter 13 for more information on boundary marking. Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development -42- rreparea oy me Department of Game and Inland Fisheries P. O. Box 11104 Richmond. VA 23230 Exempt from recordation taxes Imposed by §58.1-807 of the Code of Virginia by virtue of §58.1-811 E of said Code, and exempt from payment of any Clerk's fee by virtue of §17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated July 19th, 2001, by and between THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES, (the "Department"), and Dogwood Development Group LLC, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, (the "Company"), and JasBo, Inc., a Virginia corporation, and Fred L. Glaize, III, ("JasBo and Glaize"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Department and the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries (the "Board"), pursuant to the provisions of §29.1-100, et seq. of the Code of Virginia, have the mission to manage Virginia's wildlife and inland fish to maintain optimum populations of all species to serve the needs of the Commonwealth; to provide opportunity for all to enjoy wildlife, inland fish, boating, and related outdoor recreation; and to promote safety for persons and property in connection with boating, hunting, and fishing; and WHEREAS, the Board owns a public fishing lake in Frederick County known as Lake Frederick ("Lake Frederick"), a fifty -foot horizontal width strip of land surrounding the water line of Lake Frederick (the °State Buffer"), and an additional parcel of land which contains the dam, a public parking area, a landing area and boat ramp, and a public fishing area (the "Landing Area") all of which are depicted; along with other relevant information, on Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Company is the contract purchaser from JasBo and Glaize of land surrounding the Board's Lake Frederick land which the Company desires to develop into 1 a-esidential community referred to as the Shenandoah development and which is shown on Attachment A (the Property). Jasbo and Glaize enter this Agreement for reasons set forth in Paragraph 29 below; and WHEREAS, the Company plans to establish a Homeowners Association with a membership of all lot owners in the Shenandoah development; and WHEREAS, Lake Frederick is a valuable amenity to the citizens of Virginia, and will be a valuable amenity to those who will live in the Shenandoah development; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Company wish to work together to accomplish their goals and to protect Lake Frederick; and WHEREAS, the Company and the Department realize that the process of development, and the permanent increase in impervious areas which will result, must be carefully managed to avoid causing water quality and siltation problems in Lake Frederick; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Company wish to cooperate and coordinate with each other to protect the water quality, scenic beauty and natural amenities of Lake Frederick and its surrounding area as the Shenandoah development is built and thereafter; and WHEREAS, the Board owns a Public Access Road with a 50-foot right-of-way (the "Public Access Road") connecting U.S. Route 522/340 to the Landing Area; and WHEREAS, the Company desires to acquire the Department's Public Access Road in exchange for a new public access road with a 50-foot (minimum) right-of-way the ("New Public Access Road") connecting U.S. Route 522/340 to the Landing Area and other consideration; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the Department, `A subject to rattrIcation uy the tioara, ana the company hereby agree as follows: 1. Lake Protection and Water Quality Management: Prior to beginning construction of the New Public Access Road, the Company shall provide the Department with a survey of Lake Frederick's current depth, and a calculation of the historic annual average rate of siltation accumulation. The Department and the Company agree promptly to develop a water quality management plan to control water quality impacts to Lake Frederick resulting from the development of Shenandoah. This water quality management plan will be developed and agreed upon by the aforementioned parties before start of the construction of the New Public Access Road and will address the following in connection with the Shenandoah Development: A. Erosion and sediment control plan B. Stormwater management plan to include nutrient traps C. Mitigation of silt build-up in the lake beyond the normal rate of siltation D. Monthly monitoring and reporting to the Department levels of fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, temperature profile, turbidity, secci disk readings, and pH, and, twice yearly, a report on levels of chlorophyll -A. An additional monitoring report shall be made within three days of any Major Storm Event and delivered promptly to the Department thereafter. For purposes of this Agreement, Major Storm Event shall mean two inches or more of rainfall within the water shed of Lake Frederick which occurs in any 24-hour period. Water quality monitoring and reporting to the Department by the Company will cease six months after all areas of land disturbance have been stabilized. 3 E. Dredging. If, as a result of construction activity by the Company, the average depth of Lake Frederick decreases more than one foot,t or if mud banks appear in the Lake, the Department may determine that dredging is necessary. If the Department determines dredging is necessary, it shall notify the Company of that determination and the parties shall enter an agreement which shall include an obligation upon the company to undertake the dredging project, at its cost, and a definition of the scope, means and methods of the dredging project. The Department shall make the Landing Area and its portion of the New Public Access Road available for use in the dredging project. The Company's dredging obligation hereunder will cease six months after all areas of land disturbance have been stabilized. 2. Conservation Easement Area: The Company will convey an open -space easement to the Board over a Conservation Easement Area which shall be an area of land extending 50 feet from the Board's property line, except no such easement shall be imposed at or around the dam at the south end of the lake where Department ownership exceeds 100 feet. The Company will provide the Department with an exhibit, in recordable form, to delineate the Conservation Easement Area. In addition, the Department's Regional Fisheries Manager may designate certain points (not to exceed a total of 15) at the outer boundary of the Conservation Easement Area where survey markers are to be placed. The Company shall promptly locate those points and shall install survey pins to memorialize those points. 3. Floodway Easements: The Company will provide the Department with floodway easements (a) to provide for rising water in the lake to elevation 629, based on USC&GS datum, the elevation one foot over the PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) level and (b) to prevent development downstream of the Lake Frederick Dam in the area owned by the Company which would be at risk in the event of a dam failure, except for the 1 For purposes of this Agreement, any decrease in the depth of Lake Frederick shall be calculated 4 improvements shown on Attachment A. The Company agrees that it will not build habitable ` sttuctures within the floodway easement area. The Company will provide the Department with an exhibit in recordable form to delineate the floodway easement. 4. Hardwood Conversion Corridors: The Department agrees to allow the selective removal of evergreen trees from the State Buffer, and from the Conservation Easement Area, provided such work is pursuant to a plan approved by the Department before the work begins, such work is done with minimal soil disturbance within 100 feet of Lake Frederick, and no earth disturbing vehicles are allowed within such area. Specific locations of the hardwood conversion corridors and selection of the type of trees to be planted will be determined in the field by representatives of both parties and will be depicted on plans that must be approved and signed by both the Department and the Company. The Shenandoah Homeowners Association ("HOA") and the purchasers of lots which adjoin the Conservation Easement Area will be furnished a copy of the Department's publication entitled Shoreline Management Objectives for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Department -Owned Lakes, included In this Agreement as Attachment A 5. Land Exchange: The Board and the Company will enter into a contract to effect the following exchange of land after receiving the approval of the United States Department of the Interior, if necessary, for conversion of land developed with funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act: A. The Board will convey the existing Department Public Access Road to the Company, and the Company will convey the New Public Access Road, each as shown on Exhibit A-1, to the Board. The New Department Public Access Road will intersect a New Public Road To Be Owned and Maintained by VDOT (Lake Frederick Drive) at the traffic circle shown on Exhibit A-1 and will extend to the Landing Area. as the decrease from the yearly average rate of siltation accumulation. 5 S. The land exchange will meet the following criteria: (1) All land exchanges will be subject to approval of the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, r pursuant to §29.1-103 of the Code of Virginia, and the Governor, pursuant to §2.1-504.2 of the Code of Virginia. (2) Land conveyed to the Department will be of equal or greater value than the land conveyed to the Company. (3) The Company will construct the New Public Access Road to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Subdivision Street Requirements, so it will be eligible for inclusion in the VDOT Secondary Road System and for maintenance by VDOT. (4) The Company will secure all necessary approvals, including approval from VDOT to include the New Public Access Road in the VDOT Secondary Road System. (5) The Company will pay for the construction of the New Public Access Road, its acceptance into the Secondary Road System, and for costs incurred by the Department associated with the land exchange. (6) The Company will install underground sewer, water, electric and telephone utilities to serve the Landing Area according to the plans and specifications approved by the Department. The location of such utilities within the right-of-way of the New Public Access Road will be approved by VDOT. These utilities will be installed at no cost to the Department. 6. Property Enhancements and Improvements: The Department and the Company agree that the Company will construct, according to plans and locations approved by the Department, the following improvements, most of which will be on Board property or on the Conservation Easement Area: 0 A. DGtF Public Parking Area: The Company will increase the size of the existing public parking area as shown on Attachment A ' r and according -to plans approved by the Department. The Department will provide design specifications and will approve final plans for parking area improvements. Improvements will be at no cost to the Department. B. Restrooms and Concessions: The Company will construct public restrooms and a concession facility on the Landing Area in the location generally as shown on Attachment A. The Company will design for approval by the Department the public restrooms and concession facilities containing not more than a total of 1,000 square feet of floor area. The Department will remove the existing concession building. The Company shall provide utility service to the concession area. C. Trails and Access Facilities: The Company will construct the following trails and access facilities: (1) Woodland and lakeside trails (2) Wetland and nature traits from the Village Center down and into the wetlands on property owned by both parties along Crooked Run. These nature trails will be open to the public and will be accessible from the Department's parking area. (3) Boardwalks (4) Footbridges (5) Public fishing pier (1) (6) Boat access sites with courtesy piers (2) The foregoing facilities shall be constructed to meet the Department standards. The parties agree that the public shall have the right -of -access to and use of such of the foregoing facilities as are located on or within the Department's property and the Conservation Easement Area, and those trails, boardwalks and foot paths shown on Attachment A and located between the Village Center, Crooked Run and the Department Parking Area. In addition, the Department, its employees, invitees, and assigns (AKA the 7 public) shall have unrestricted access to trails, boardwalks, and footpaths located on or ` Within the Department's property and the Conservation Easement Area that can be accessed by watercraft. The Regional Fisheries Manager will approve the exact location of these facilities on behalf of the Department. 7. Reguirements. Approval of Plans, Approval of Location: All improvements will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and local requirements and regulations and according to Department specifications. Before authorizing any construction on the Department's property, or the Conservation Easement Area, the Company shall submit its plans, drawings, proposed materials, and methods of construction to the Department for approval by its Office of Capital Programs (OCP). The Department will inspect construction work for compliance with Department and state standards and requirements and such inspection shall be by the OCP. The exact location of the public improvements will be mutually determined in the field by representatives of both parties and will be depicted on plans that are approved and signed by both OCP and the Company. 8. Operating Agreement: The Company and the Department shall negotiate in good faith to enter an annual agreement to provide for the operation of the concession and to provide year-round restrooms availability and year-round trash removal service, seasonal boat rental service and such other services as to which the parties may agree. This Agreement shall require operation of the foregoing facilities in accordance with the Department standards and requirements. This Agreement further shall require no payment of rent or fees to the Department and shall be subject to termination by either party upon a ninety -day prior written notice. 9. Maintenance of Department's Public Facilities: The Department and the ;, Company 'recognize the Company's need to assure that all properties within the Shenandoah development, including those owned or controlled by the Department, shall j be maintained in a high -quality, pleasing manner consistent with the Shenandoah residential development. To address that concern, the Company and the Department shall enter a Maintenance Agreement by which the Company shall have the right, at its expense, for the term of the Maintenance Agreement and to the extent that the parties shall agree, to maintain specifically designated areas which may include the landing area, the Department's public parking area, the trails, boardwalks, foot bridges, public fishing piers, and boat access sites, courtesy piers and wetland trails. The Maintenance Agreement shall address areas where it shall be permitted to cut weeds and brush, as well as maintenance of the access road and parking lot surfaces, including parking barriers and bollards, maintenance of drainage ditches, maintaining and cleaning out stormwater and sedimentation basins and traps as needed, mowing the grass at established public access points, collection and removal of trash and garbage, removal of debris and other routine maintenance necessary for safe public use and enjoyment of Lake Frederick and the development of such maintenance agreement shall be based upon the objectives already established in the Department's Shoreline Management Objectives for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Deoartment-Owned Lakes, included in this Agreement as Attachment B. This right to maintain the Department's public facilities pursuant to the Maintenance Agreement shall exist notwithstanding a failure of the parties to enter an Operation Agreement as provided in Section 8 above. A separate agreement by the parties shall be required with respect to maintenance of the restrooms and concession as provided in paragraph 8 above. 10. Costs: The Company will pay all the costs of carrying out the provisions of 9 this Agreement except that the Department will pay its own legal costs and the salaries of { its employees. 11. Time Line: The parties will accomplish the performance of their obligations under this Agreement according to the following schedule: Current -depth survey of Lake Frederick Maintenance Agreement Water Quality Management Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, in phases associated with construction Stormwater Management Plan Conveyance of open -space easement for Conservation Easement Area Prior to construction of the New Public Access Road Prior to April, 2002 Prior to construction of the New Public Access Road Prior to commencement of construction of each phase of the Shenandoah development Prior to commencement of construction of the Shenandoah development Prior to or concurrent with land exchange Conveyance of open -space easement for Prior to or concurrent with land floodway area under elevation 629 of each exchange phase of the above dam and open -space easement for PMF floodway area below dam, with plat in recordable form Approve land exchange contract Complete land exchange Complete construction of New Public Access Road, prior to acceptance into VDOT Secondary Road Install utility lines Resurface existing Department Old Public Parking Area 10 October 31, 2001 Upon completion of the New Public Access Road ready for approval by Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department Before closing the Public Access Road Before completion of new concession facility Before closing the Public Access Road Restrooms and Concession, New Before 500 homes have been sold t Public Parking Area Trails and Access Facilities Before beginning the sale of lots in the next phase of the Shenandoah development 12. Coordination of Access During Construction and Prior to Completion of Land Exchange: Prior to closing on the exchange of land, Company shall construct the New Public Access Road and shall make access practically available by the public to the Landing Area while construction is ongoing. During construction of Company s project and until completion of the Land Exchange, the Company shall have the right to cross the Public Access Road as necessary to construct the intemal roadway system and as necessary to tie in the New Public Access Road to the Landing Area. The Company shall not use the Public Access Road as the access for construction of the Shenandoah development. 13. Homeowners Association: The Company will establish a homeowners association (the "Homeowners Association") which will consist of all property owners in the Shenandoah development and which will have the power to assess dues and assessments which, if unpaid, will become a lien on the real estate of the nonpaying homeowner. The Department will allow the Company to transfer the Company's maintenance rights and obligations to the Homeowners Association provided the Department determines that the Homeowners Association has the. capability to carry out the provision of the Company's maintenance rights and obligations. 14. Public Access to Lake Frederick: Public vehicular access to Lake Frederick and parking will be through the Landing Area. Public access to public improvements to be located in the Lake, on the State Buffer or on the Conservation 11 Easement Area will be pedestrian from trails or by water. The general pumic ana the Shenandoah residents will have the right to use these improvements. The Department will post at the Landing Area public -use regulations for the use of these public areas. No public access will be allowed into the private Shenandoah community. The Company will post the landside boundary of the Conservation Easement Area to prevent public access into the private Shenandoah community. 15. Future Capital Improvements: Capital improvement projects planned by the Department for Lake Frederick after completing the initial construction contemplated by this Agreement will be carried out by the Department at its sole expense. 16. Department Consents and Approvals: The Department hereby delegates to the Department's Regional Fisheries Manager the authority to provide the Consents and Approvals on behalf of the Department as provided in this Agreement, unless such Consents and Approvals are specified in this Agreement to be made by individuals other than the Regional Fisheries Manager. In recognition of the phased development of the Shenandoah development and the need to coordinate and to provide Consents and Approvals on a timely basis, the Department agrees that its Consents and Approvals shall not be withheld, delayed or conditioned without good reason and, further, that any request to the Regional Fisheries Manager for Consents and Approvals by the Regional Fisheries Manager shall be deemed to have been given if no response is made to such request within thirty days from the date such request is received by the Regional Fisheries Manager. The Department acknowledges that time is of the essence. It will make every reasonable effort to obtain and deliver timely approvals on all matters pertaining to this Agreement, including those requiring external consensus. 17. Bond: The Company agrees to furnish the Department a bond in the 12 amount of $1,000,000, satisfactory to Uepartment approval guaranteeing performance oT the terms of this Agreement, such Bond to expire when the Board determines that all terns of this Agreement have been met. 18. Indemnification: The Company agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Board, the Department, their agents, officers and employees, from and against any and all damage, claim, liability or loss, including reasonable attorneys' and other fees, arising out of the Company's performance under this Agreement. 19. Entire Agreement: - -This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no oral or parol agreements existing between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof which are not expressly set forth and covered hereby. 20. Headings: The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 21. Interpretation: Whenever the context hereof shall so require, the singular shall include the plural, the neuter gender shall include the male and female genders, and vice versa. 22. Notices: Any notice required or permitted for the purposes of this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or when mailed by certified mail in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party to whom such notice is given, at the address for such party set forth hereunder, or such other address as the party may provide to the other in writing prior to the giving of such notice: If to the Company: Manager 13 Dogwood Development Group, LLG 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 925 Reston, VA 20191 President Shenandoah Homeowners Association If to the Department: Real Property Manager Department of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Regional Fisheries Manager Department of Game & inland Fisheries P. O. Box 996 Verona, VA 24482 22. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same agreement. 23. Additional Acts: Except as otherwise provided herein, in addition to the acts or deeds recited herein and contemplated to be performed, executed and/or delivered by either party, the parties hereto agree to perform, execute and/or deliver or cause to be performed, executed and/or delivered any and such further acts, deeds and assurances that either party may reasonably require to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. Included, by way of illustration and not limitation, shall be the Department's obligation to consent to rezoning of the Public Access Road in conjunction with the Company's application currently pending before Clarke County, as well as grant of drainage, grading and construcdon'easements necessary for construction of each phase of the Company's stormwater detention facilities. 24. Severability: In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any 14 respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceabiliity shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such Invalid, Illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 25. Binding Agreement: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 26. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 27. Assignment: The Company shall be permitted to assign this Agreement in whole or in part to any Purchaser and to the Homeowners Association referred to in paragraph 13 provided, however, that (1) the Assignee expressly assumes all obligations of the Seiler hereunder, and (ii) the Department provides its consent to the Assignment, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 28. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for twenty (20) years until July 31, 2021. It shall thereafter continue from year to year until either party gives a 180-day notice of termination, which termination shall not take effect sooner than 180 days after such notice is given. 29. JasBo and Giaize will hold a Deed of Trust on the Property after the Company purchases the Property. If they regain control of the Property pursuant to the Deed of -Trust or otherwise, they agree to carry out this Agreement and, should they again sell the Property, to require their purchaser to agree to carry it out. They further acknowledge and consent to the terms of the Agreement and confirm that they will provide such releases, consents or other approvals as may be required to effect the provisions of this Agreement. is IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed or caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized officers as of the date first above written. THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES Director COMMONWEALTH Pf V GINIA CITY/COUNTY OF ; -to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this a,6_ day of , 2001 by William L. Woodfin, Jr., Director of the Virginia Department of Grame Ad Iniand Fisheries. Notary Public My commission expires. _ 'PvQ3 Dogwood Development Group, LLC anager / /�' STATE OF V 1� In 7-ti-LN-9.2 CITY/GGui�Y C� 'nr ✓. , to -wit The foregoing instruwlLqt was acknowledged before rt N , 2001 by , of Dogwood Development Grou C. My commission expires: 1Q_1 31 O¢- JasBo, Inc. 16 this _� day of Pr ' ent STATE OF Virginia, at large CITY/0099W OF Winchester to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5th day of September , 2001 by James L. Bowman President Of JasBo, Inc. tary P is My commission expires: 12/31/04 Fred L. Glaize, III /".ems <-� 9 G_ C C t Z. , � STATE OF VIRGINTA, .AT LARGE CITY/COWNW OF Winchester to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5th day of September , 2001 by Fred L. Glaize, II 0 ;?)-/1 j1,14W_ otary blic My commission expires: 12/31/04 Office of the Attorney General Approved as to form: Senior Assistant Attorney General 17 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES' L. DEPARTMENT -OWNED or CONTROLLED LAKES I. DITRODUCTION A. Mission of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries To manage Virginia's wildlife and inland fish to maintain optimum populations of all species to serve the needs of the Commonwealth; to provide opportunity for all to enjoy_' wildlife, inland fish, boating and related outdoor recreation; to promote safety for persons. and property in connection with boating, humting and fishing. i = The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) owns the public land surrounding lakes. While the land surrounding VDGIF lakes is often referred to as utilized for exclusive private purposes. Ownership of adiacent land does not cane any Ap-bts to the use of adjoining public land that the public does not have. — 7— management obiectives. C. Background Since the 1930s, the Department has controlled the operations of certain public fishing F lakes. With an increase in unauthorized private use of land that is part of the lake =- property, a need to establish policy and guidelines is realized. Among common prd_blens that jeopardize the integrity of shoreline natural areas are grazing, pier constructionx lawn/garden development, open/cut shorelines, and water withdrawals (to name a few). The Department's goal is to provide public awareness of the need to protect shorelines through the establishment of a management plan and through positive public information. U. BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY A. Background The Shoreline Management Plan establishes policy and furnishes guidelines in the following areas 1. protection and conservation of desirable environmental characteristics of public lakes; Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development S ' 2. effective management of shoreline and lake resources; 3. types of private uses and activities that may be permitted on public land; 4. restoration of shoreline where degradation has occurred because of illegal and unauthorized activities; and. S. clarification pertaining to legal actions and remedies for encroachment and trespass. B. Future Rules, Regulations, Legislation and Policies. The objectives identified in this plan incorporate any future legislation, regulations, operating memoranda, state and federal laws and regulations, or policies pertinent to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. C. Authority 1. "Authority is under §18.2-140 of the Code of Virginia, entitled Destruction of trees, shrubs, etc. as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person to pick, pull, pull up, tear, tear up, dig, dig up, cut, break, injure, burn, or destroy, in whole or in part, any tree, shrub, vine, plant, flower, or turf found, growing or being upon the land of another, or upon any land reserved set aside, or maintained by the Commonwealth as a public park, or as a refuge or sanctuary for wild animals, birds or fish without having previously obtained the permission in writing of such other or his agent or of the superintendent or custodian of such park, refuge or sanctuary so to do, unless the same be done under the personal direction of such owner, his agent, tenant or lessee or superintendent or custodian of such park, refuge or sanctuary. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; provided, however, that the approval of the owner, his agent, tenant or lessee, or the superintendent or custodian of such park or sanctuary afterwards given in writing or in open court shall be a bar to further prosecution or suit." 2. "§ 18.2-119 Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties If any personvithout authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4,16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, .16.1-278.15; 16.1-279.1,19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to §20.103. and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136." 3. "§ 18.2-137 Injuring, etc., any property, monument, etc. A. If any person unlawfully destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal any property, real or personal, not his own, or breaks down, destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal, any monument or memorial for war veterans described in § 15.2-1812, any monument erected for the purpose of marking the site of any engagement fought during the War between the States, or for the purpose of designating the boundaries of any city, town, tract of land, or any tree marked for that purpose, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, provided that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss the charge if the locality or organization responsible for maintaining the injured property, monument, or memorial files a written affidavit with the court stating it has received full payment for the injury. B. If any person intentionally causes such injury, he shall be guilty of (i) a Class 1 misdemeanor if the value of or damage to the property, memorial or monument is less than $1,000 or (ii) a Class 6 felony if the value of or damage to the property, memorial or monument is $1,000 or more. The amount of loss caused by the destruction, defacing, damage or removal of such property, memorial or monument may be established by proof of the fair market cost of repair or fair market replacement value. Upon conviction, the court may order that the defendant pay restitution." M. OBJECTIVES The water quality of the lakes is suitable for propagation of desirable species of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic life, as well as other compatible uses. The combined effects of shoreline alterations by adjacent property owners modifies aesthetic (or visual) quality, destroys habitat and may cause declines in fish and wildlife populations. Management is necessary to prevent shorelines from being developed for lawns, gardens, and recreation areas. Shoreline management provides an opportunity for shoreline protection, which in turn protect the watershed, insuring highest water quality. A. Manage and protect environmental integrity of shorelines 1. Activities that cause any type of degradation to shorelines or that influence the integrity of shorelines in any way are not allowed. 2. Earthwork and related activities on adjacent private lands are to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DG1F/Dogwood Development B. Establish and maintain acceptable fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic quality, and natural environmental conditions as follows: 1. Maintain and or enhance natural shoreline vegetation by prohibiting alterations. 2. Historically altered Department property may be restored at the discretion of VDGIF. C. Promote the safe and. healthful use of the Iake and shoreline for recreational purposes by all constituents in conjunction with VDGIF policy. Access to Department property shall be afforded to all citizens in accordance with applicable VDGIF policy. D. Establish guidance related to the preparation of access to the water's edge, the vegetation and revegetation in cases of trespass and degradation, and clarify acceptable activities of adjacent landowners: 1. Planting on public property is not allowed unless there is a plan approved by DGIF. 2. Footpaths are allowed across Department property for access to the edge of the water. The path may not exceed five feet (Y) in width and must be routed to minimize effects on vegetation. Footpaths cannot be utilized as roadways by motorized and/or off -road vehicles. All footpaths on Department property, regardless of who constructed them, are open to public use. "No Trespassing" signs may not be posted on VDGIF property. 3. Mowing of the footpaths aforementioned in item 2 is allowed according to the standards set forth. 4. Herbicide use is not allowed on state property. 5. Burning is not allowed on state property. 6. Placement of riprap or other materials for any purpose and the construction of retaining walls are not allowed. 7. Individual private piers are not allowed. S. Except for documented forest management, tree or brush cutting on state property is absolutely prohibited without prior written authorization. 9. Furnishings and equipment are not permitted and shall not be placed or affixed to the property surrounding the lakes. Such furnishings and equipment include but are not limited to the following: satellite dishes, grills or barbecue pits, flag poles, picnic tables, etc. 10. Dumping and or storage of brush, rock piles, trash or garbage of any type are not permitted. Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGiF/Dogwood Development ' E. ' Establish an understanding of VDGIF's expectations for reforestation, regeneration or revegetation in areas where private development has occurred. 1. Adjacent private landowners shall be notified of the availability of this management plan through any one or all of the following means: local or county offices, direct distribution, news releases, or public information bulletins. 2. Areas of disturbed shoreline that are under the ownership of VDGIF shall be mitigated by the landowner at their sole expense to meet with the objectives of this plan. Adjacent private landowners shall receive written notice of any violations, and VDGIF shall provide in writing an appropriate approach for reforestation, regeneration or revegetation, as the case may be. F. Clarify shoreline boundaries of Department -owned lakes. 1. Boundaries of Depart rent -owned lakes are specified in each of the deeds in the local records, and this boundary delineation defines the property line in relation to the adjacent landowners. 2. VDGIF boundary witness trees are marked only with blazes. The blazes are painted yellow. Bands painted completely around the tree are not used. A blaze is made by cutting off a vertical strip of outside bark 6" to S" long and 2" to 4" wide. The size of the blaze varies depending upon the size of the tree. Refer to Exhibit A for more detailed information and illustrations. G. Clarify status of existing "authorized" uses - grandfathering 1. Facilities and activities that have once been authorized specifically in writing by VDGIF, but now would not be authorized, are grandfathered. 2. Authorizations of this type are not transferrable when property is transferred or conveyed. 3. VDGIF reserves the right to revegetate, regenerate, or reforest all grandfathered activities. . IV. ACCESS TO LAKES A. Adjacent Landowners 1. Adjacent landowners are only authorized to make minor alterations to vegetation around habitable structures to establish a footpath no wider than five (5') for purposes of accessing the lake. Sections of the footpath that lie on VDGIF shoreline property are open to public use (refer to Section HI.D.2. Footpaths). Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development 2. Alteration to all other existing surrounding vegetation including plantings, underbrushing and mowing, etc. is not allowed. B. Public Access - Public use of the lakes is permitted according to established regulations. Any activities other than public recreational activities or pedestrian access may be considered an encroachment of degradation of public property and is punishable under current Virginia Law (Class I Misdemeanor, and Section 19.2-137). V. DEFINITIONS A. Encroachment — a building, a part of a building, or an obstruction that physically intrudes upon, overlaps, or trespasses upon the property of another.' B. High Water Mark — the mark made by the highest level the water reaches C. Grandfathered — an action to exempt or make allowance for an activity already in progress before such activity became forbidden or illegal. D. Trespass — unlawful entry or possession of property. 2 E. Underbrushing — selective cutting and continued control of woodland understory vegetation (weeds, vines, briars, etc.) and thinning of tree saplings. F. Vegetation — plant, plant life or growth VL DESCRIPTION OF THE SHORELINE A. General - The land area surrounding the VDGIF public lakes varies in dimension. Where the boundaries run with the contours of the shoreline, the Department's ownership may range upward to 60 feet from the water's edge. It is important for adjoining landowners to verify their property boundaries in connection with the state's ownership. Portions of these lands are located within flood plains and are allocated for wildlife management and recreation. Recreational use excludes sailing, swimming; the rules for individual lakes can be found in the current issue of the VDGIF Public Fishing Lakes Guide for lakes owned by the VDGIF. VIL LIST OF APPLICABLE LAKES 1. Bark Camp 2. Keokee 3. Rural Retreat 'Dictionary of Real Estate Terms, Barron's ' Dictionary of Real Estate Terms, Barron's Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development ' 4. ' Willis Robertson 5. Frederick 6. Shenandoah 7. Burton 8. Nelson 9. Pete's Pond 10. Briery Creek 11. Brunswick 12. Conner 13. Gordon 14. Nortoway 15. Albemarle 16. Fluvanna Ruritan 17. Lower/Upper Powhatan 18. Brittle 19. Burke 20. Curtis 21.Orange 22. Chandlers 23. Gardy's Mill 24. Airfield 25. Game Refuge Lake Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGiF/Dogwood Development x c EXHIBIT A, Pg. I Attachment 8 Memorandum of Agreement DG1FIDogwood Development EXHIBIT A, Pg. Z Exhibit A. Example to illu strait Boundary Line Markings I Witness trees are painted (with color) to delineate the boundary line. Where trees are not available, a similarly marked post is used along with department signs bearing the department logo. Surveys by a licensed survey may be necessary to determine exact line locations. Types and meanings of markings are illustrated below. WIIT%Ef9 %7= FOR CORNER 'itiw brig MP�/�l ba�aris v IM boi trios Vroas AbiwYJw�W BANDS � 0 m 1 VRON' am IMM 22M Tomb=" 006 dd fb�bobldr dYMe(�aattrUoowith o brtiait lsoibbod. Woboisd.a.i6N0slMLPoWe6 Mobs. ♦ UMY=Weiwtlrboi- 0— rrl<iop IdWWW Wr tlu bwd0VX" P— QIWAvb asp AiYs Lu m "TrVIB" O HM T" body am PdoMA smog two wM\ brly blot tot'8�rlw�elodtlrUes ZboMdoowsrM�drd 1boftu sedw "@mw *"IbW MW Mrrs bay• dkU0=VbMW8Udo6/WUo. Tbr wwo wwn t4 o I ' pIPMe% K@W dMb db Yw wrs dwbmmdmwUmmdwvudrU uasmowbkba&fv beumdO rUMMU& rn w O s� . Refer to Chapter 13 for more information on boundary marking. e FA a. e Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIFIDogwood Development EXHIBIT A —1 REAL PROPERTY EXCHANGE AGREEMENT Mom 1 � it. Sri, of t � and hi4a,! Awi�rea •r- 1 •, N tt r NEW VWtf ROAD ' • & BUFFER — IW Aces tt � t t 1 NEW PUBLIC ROAD 70 BE OWNED at MAINTAHM BY YDOT t t A V. ROYT 1221NO LAKE' E=7KG WW ROAD 70 —BE VACA IED — 1.93" Acres I' EXHIBI T A -1 REAL PROPERTY EXCHANGE AGREEMENT MOM t � vad r►,rw:e ��'ierirs t NEW VDQF ROAD ; 81lFFER — 200 Aria t t, NEW PUBLIC ROAD TO BE QWW & UAWAM BY MOT I 1 .y r IMF .r: L:-•a _—•::sue ._,.-:t «..» ._�.� .. E07ING WW ROAD 10 —K VACA W — L93" A" U + .r W._ +r w. _.ww ._ .....w ..rr .rr __w.w•_r • .-.... w_- .r...._r_.�.-.Y COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 - FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Director RE: Shenandoah Master Development Plan DATE: March 21, 2001 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved the referenced plan during the October 25, 2000 meeting. This approval was conditioned upon the applicant addressing four points of concern raised by the Board. These conditions included the review of an executed agreement between the Department of Games and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) and the developer; the resolution of the location of a future fire and rescue station; the resolution of issues associated with a future library facility; and the provision of a narrative on the final master development plan which would require the developer to present a plan for the layout of the proposed Village Center prior to any development activity in that area of the project. Attached is information provided by the applicant which is intended to address these four points. This information includes a summary letter to the Department of Planning and Development dated March 21, 2001; a draft copy of the final notes to the Shenandoah Master Development Plan; a review agency comment from the Fire and Rescue Department dated March 21, 2001; and a copy of the proposed Memorandum of Agreement between DGIF and the project developer. C:\MyFiles\ShenandoahMDPConditionalAppmvalInfonmation-BOSMemo.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 11 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality 21 March 2001 Board of Dimetors: Mr. Evan Wyatt, Director President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street vke Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R sutherland, P.E. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Ronald A Mslowsky, RE, David J. Saunders, P.E. RE: Shenandoah Master Development Plan Dimctora: WWiamL. Wright Mchael A Hammer Thomas W. Price Dear Evan, Thank you for including us on the agenda for the March 25 h Board of Supervisors meeting. At the time of approval of the preliminary master plan by the Board, the Board asked for four issues to be resolved prior to staff signature on the final master development plan for Shenandoah. As you know, in the past several months we have clarified and resolved the issues that were of concern to the Board. I will touch on each issue in this letter and attach information in support of each resolution. The Board of Supervisors were concerned about the ability to see a master plan of the Village Center prior to implementation. We understand this concern and agree by note on the master plan that a complete master development plan submission will be made when the Village Center layout is decided in accordance with Frederick County standards and regulations. This master plan will be the subject of public hearings including Planning Commission and Board actions. The request for a library to locate in the Village Center has been eliminated from the general notes on the approved master development plan. The owner would like a complete town center including the type of uses that would ordinarily be included in a town such as a library. He was unaware of the County's initiative to build the Bowman Library when he made that offer. He undefstands that currently there is no interest for another branch library so he has eliminated that request from the final notes. This issue may come up again at the time of the master plan for the Village Center where a public or private library may be included depending on demand at that time. We have had numerous meetings with emergency services personnel in Frederick and other counties since the approval of the preliminary master development plan. We have resolved the issue to the degree it can be resolved at this juncture by general note number 7 which is attached for your reading. A letter from Mr. Gary DuBrueler, Emergency Services Director, which indicates satisfaction from his department will be sent to you by separate mail. RECEIVED 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 MAR 2 1 2 D (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council DEPT, OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT 3 t + gilbert w. Clifford and associates, inc Page 2 Attached is a final approved draft of the Agreement between the State of Virginia, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the developer regarding issues involved with the lake and areas around the lake. This agreement has been approved by the State Attorney General and the Director of Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Signatures are being acquired at this writing and a signed agreement will be available at the Board meeting on March 25th. We trust this adequately removes the concerns of the Board and that the Board will grant the staff the ability to sign the final master development plan at their meeting next week. If you or the Board has any questions or comments in the interim please do no not hesitate to call me direct. Sincerely, gilbert w. cliiford & associates, inc. C.E. ydg;;: ., P.E., Vice President CEMW Enclosure cc: Mr. Ray Smith, Dogwood Development Mr. B. J. Tisinger Mr. John Riley -4- ' Revision 3.0 DRAFT FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHENANDOAH The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided 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. Project Classification The developer agrees to include in its HOA Declaration and Restrictions a provision which age restricts the gated active adult portion of the site (everything except the Village Center and the CCRC sites) so that; "80% of the homes will have at least one prime resident who is 55 years of age or older. The other 20% of the homes will have one prime resident who is 45 years of age or older. No children under the age of 19 may live in the community for more than 90 days a year." The HOA further must develop a system, that they are obligated to maintain, which enforces this age restriction. The enforcement system must be included in the declarations and restrictions that run with the land. 2. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling units (2.3 DU/Acre) using a mix of housing types as shown on the attached "PHASING PLAN" (Appendix "A") (b) The mix of housing types will vary due to market demand from Phase to Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval. An amended phasing plan shall be submitted for such unit modifications 3. Transportation improvements. (a) The developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340, Rte 636 and Rte 277 generally as shown in the plan and required by approved VDOT Permit. (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan during Phase 1 of the project. -5- � t a • Revision 3.0 (c) The developer shall pave with bituminous concrete the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, not later than the time of issuance of the 750 building permit. 4. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. 5. Streetlights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and, approved by the zoning administrator, will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. 6. Provision of water and sewer service. (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the <,,eneral location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board and the FCSA. (c) Public water will be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be atTordcd by an onsitc water storage tank. (d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transferred to the FCSA ownership. 7. Fire and Rescue Service. A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either an approximate 2 acre site in the Village Center (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County. The alternate site must be offsite to Shenandoah. A one time: gift of S20,000 is offered to either acquire the site or build a building on the site. The County shall acquire the site within 5 years of this MDP approval. The developer shall pay the S20,000 at the time of site acquisition. The I lomeowners association shall maintain all internal street systems, including the cutting of tree: canopy, to allow access to the largest fire and rescue equipment and %ehicles at all times. -6- - Revision i o 8. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite wastewater treatment facility. (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 BM1's constructed for the project shall be designed so as to achieve: coverage of 75% of the area of the property which drains into Lake Frederick. 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, or other approved BMP structures as may be determined appropriate upon final engineering: of anv sub watershed within the property, and each shall be constructed in accordance with the manual entitled "Controlling Urban Runotf A Practical Manual for Designing Urban BMi's," 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 "I ligh" 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 will eventually assign this responsibility to a homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may he determined by Frederick Countv and the developer. Maintenance required hereunder shall include routine and non -routine maintenance as recommended in the aforesaid Manual, as necessary to achieve the intended purposes ofthe BMPs. (d) Water duality 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 ofGame and Inland Fisheries. Such testing sha11 be at the developer's expense, until such time as homeowners' association shall have been created, when the responsibility ('r funding: such testing shall be transferred to the said association. The results ot'such testing shall be provided tbrthwith to Frederick County, to DGIF. to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. -7- Revision 3.0 (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (HOA) and VDGIF at the time of recordation of a final plat for each residential section of the development. No building, tree cutting, clearing or disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation, or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit %%Titten approval of VDGIF. (f) To provide and contain walking traffic along the lake, the developer shall build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting to fishing, boating*, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF Lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGIF. Such trails shall be maintained by the developer and successor HOAs. Trails will clearly identify private property lines (public accesslimits). (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through buffer areas reforesting those areas with herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VDGIG satisfaction. (h) The developer will build three piers -- one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches — to VDGIF specifications. (1) Flooding easements will be provided to VDGIF on a section by section basis as plats are recorded. 9. Access to Lake Frederick The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake for cam -ins (canoes, kavaks), as shown on the MDl . Each will have appropriate signag,e, parking and cralt storage racks outside the conservation buficr, a walk path to lakcside in locations agreeable to VDGIF, and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. 10. Provision of adequate monumentation. The Developer shall provide permanent monumentation at approximately 1000 I'm intervals around the perimeter of the Lake, for purposes of surveying and mapping the same, and to assist in the correct location ofall boundary lines. 11. School site. Since school age children will not reside in this project, and the remote location of' the property to the urban population centers off the County, no school site; is proposed. -8- � 1% r Revision , 0 12. Recreation Facilities The developer will provide recreation in accord with the attached schedule (Appendix " B"). Each of these facilities will be constructed during the identified phase of development of the community with which it is associated, and each will be turned over to its community HOA for use and maintenance under terms explicit in all home sale contracts. 13. Phasing (a) Each phase is one near of development. 'I3uilding permits not granted in any previous phases may be carried over so long as the cumulative total of authorized phases are not exceeded. (b) Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant. the entrance on US Rte 340/522, the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. (c) Public water and sewer lines will be extended into each phase on an as needed basis. (d) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 636 shall be constructed not later than before the 750 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3, when it will be opened for public access. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed not later than before the 1200 unit building; permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized fir construction access until phase 6, when it will be opened fir public access. (i) Disturbance and improvements in future phase areas will be required to implement this plan due to the need for grading, utilities, roadways, the substantial number of storm management ponds to protect water quality in Lake Frederick and the like. This work will be allowed upon plan approval by the County. 1.1. Homeowners' Association (1I0A). (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, (i ) Operation ofa community_ center and Tennis Center. (ii ) Maintenance of common areas. -9- 0 AN. # 4 J Revision 3.0 (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities, subject to the provisions of § 16 hereof. (iv) Maintenance of trails. I (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas (vii) Maintenance of Roadway system (b) The HOA is empowered and required to project vegetative screening and open space trees, as well as all common area plantings, such as street trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the HOA, from time to time, to allow proper'access by all emergency and service vehicles. 15. Village Center The developer agrees to submit a Master Development Plan, in accordance with Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requirements, for approval prior to implementation. This Master Development Plan will be in addition to the Master Plan for which these notes apply for the overall project. This will insure a public process including votes by the Planning Commission and Board occur prior to implementation. -10- COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Gary A. DuBrueler Dennis D. Limburg Director Fire Marshal MEMORANDUM TO: Evan Wyatt, Director Planning Department FROM: Gary A. DuBrueler, Director Fire & Rescue Department SUBJECT: Shenandoah DATE: March 21, 2001 This memorandum is to inform you that Fire and Rescue concerns and comments regarding the master development plan for Shenandoah have been addressed as outlined in the plan. (See attachment) Any further issues will be addressed at the site plan phase. • If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. GAD/jIc Attachment: as stated cc: Mr. Chuck Maddox, G.W. Clifford & Assoc. File' RECEIVED - MAR 21 2001 DEPT, OF PLANNItODEVELOPMENT Director (540) 665-5618 _11_ • Fire Marshal (540) 665-6350 Fax (5400 678-4739 Mar 21 01 10:16a .. 4s ' R C.W. Clifford & assoc. 540-665-0493 p.2 Revision 3.0 (c) The developer shall pave with bituminous concrete the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, not later than the time of issuance of the 750 building permit. 4. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and traps within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plam Location and design of trails withal I W of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. 5. Streedights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and, approved by the zoning administrator, will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. 6. Provision of water and sewer service. (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia. State Water Control Board and the FCSA (c) Public water wilt be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. (d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transferred to the FCSA ownership. 7. Fire and Rescue Service. A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either an approximate 2 acre site in the Village Center (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County. The alternate site must be offske to Shenandoah A one time gift of $20,000 is offered to either acquire the site or build a building on the site. The County shall acquire the site within 5 years of this MDP approval. The developer shall pay the $20,000 at the time of site acquisition. The Homeowners association shall maintain all internal street systems, including the cutting of tree canopy, to allow access to the largest fire and rescue equipment and vehicles at all times. -12- COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA James S. Gilmore, III Governor Department o. f Game and Inland Fisheries John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources March 19, 2001 Mr. Ray Smith, Manager Dogwood Development Group, LLC 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 925 Reston,VA 20191 RE: Memorandum of Agreement Lake Frederick William L. Woodfuy Jr. Director Dear Ray: Enclosed please find two (2) originals of the Memorandum of Agreement pertaining to the proposed development around Lake Frederick. Please sign where indicated and circulate for the other appropriate signatures. All signatures must be notarized. Once all the required signatures have been obtained, please return for final execution by the DGIF Director. We will need 2 copies of the final version of Attachment A affixed to the agreement. Please let me know if you have any questions. Yours very truly, J e W. Powell eal Property Specialist Enclosures (2) cc: James C. Adams, Director of Capital Programs Mitzi Mason Lee, Real Property Manager Larry Mohn, Region 4 Fisheries Manager 4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHIIIOND, VA 23230-1104 (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 -13- k COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 December 27, 2007 Patrick Sowers Patton Farris Rust & Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: VDGIF Ownership of Open Space at Shenandoah Dear Patrick: I am in receipt of your letter dated December 21, 2007 regarding the ownership of open space adjacent to and surrounding Lake Frederick. It would appear that the developer of Shenandoah is interested in transferring ownership of the required 50-foot buffer, identified on the Shenandoah Master Development Plan, to the Virginia Department of Games and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). So long as the Shenandoah Development continues to provide for the construction and maintenance of the master -planned trail network around the lake, as well as any other amenities master -planned for placement within the buffer area, the County would not oppose the transfer of ownership of the buffer to the VDGIF. This transfer does place additional ownership responsibilities on the VDGIF, but that does not appear to significantly impact the ability to implement the approved Shenandoah Master Development Plan. In terms of master development plan's approval of a total of 2,130 units, the transfer of the 50- foot buffer area to VDGIF will not affect the previously approved 2,130 unit cap. Please cont4ct me with any questions. Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director ERL/bad Attached: Letter from PHR&A dated December 21, 2007 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PHRr� CORPORATE: Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Bridgewater Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 D EC 2 1 1 December 21, 2007 Mr. Eric Lawrence Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: VDGIF Ownership of Open Space at Shenandoah Dear Eric: There is the opportunity for portions of the open space area at the age restricted Shenandoah community to be owned by the Virginia Department of Games and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). VDGIF's ownership of open space areas at Shenandoah would promote the preservation of important buffer areas adjacent to Lake Frederick - Prior to transfer of ownership of any of the open space area at Shenandoah, I wanted to verify that VDGIF's ownership of any property at Shenandoah would still allow my client or any future developer of the Shenandoah community the ability to construct 2,130 dwelling units as currently approved by the County. Would you please provide written correspondence indicating if development of the planned 2,130 units would still be possible should VDGIF assume ownership of any portion of the open space area. If VDGIF's ownership of open space is acceptable to the County, we would commit to providing you with written verification of all land transfers between the developer and VDGIF to provide you and your staff the ability to track any changes in ownership of open space at Shenandoah. Thank you for your time and please feel free to call me with any questions that you may have. Sincerely, Patto 's Rust &Associates Patrick R. Sowers APR 14 = Dogwood Development Group LLC 1897 Preston White Drive, Suite 105 Reston, VA 20191 703-716-1032, FAX 703-620-6328 e-mail; rsmithQdogwooddg.com April 13, 2006 Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator Frederick County Virginia 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Final note #7 for the Master Development Plan Shenandoah Dear Mr. Riley, The Master Development Plan for Shenandoah #06-00 was approved on May 2, 2001. In that approval, in note # 7, a fire and rescue site of two acres was offered in the Village Center for 5 years with 5 years renewable, or the county could elect to purchase a site "offsite to Shenandoah" within 5 years of the MDP approval. In the later case, we were required to pay $20,000 toward the acquisition of the new site instead of giving the County the 2 acres. We are about at the expiration of the first 5 year period, and although construction has started on the residential portion of the site, we are not yet ready to start the Village Center. I recently talked to Gary DuBrueler, Director of Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department, and he said that he did not think the County wanted a site in our Village Center because it faced Rt. 522 rather than Rt. 277. I asked him if we should extend, for another 5 years, the offer of a 2 acre site in our Village Center as required by Note 7, or if he would rather us pay a $20,0000 payment now toward the purchase of an offsite parcel on Rt. 277. He said that he would prefer the payment. In light of Mr. DuBrueler's preference, I am enclosing a check for $20,000 made out to the County to satisfy Note #7. Assuming that this is acceptable to you, could you please send me a letter stating that the County has received the payment and the Note 7 has been satisfied. Thank you. Dogwood Development Group LLC Ray F. Smith, Jr., President Cc. ,Gary DuBrueler, Eric Lawrence !' Elliot Totah Karen Flynn From: Sweitzer, Barry <BSweitzer@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> To: G. W. Clifford & Associates (E-mail) <gwcliff@mnsinc.com> Cc: Melnikoff, Steve <SMelnikoff@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; Childress, Robert <RChildress@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; Sweitzer, Barry <BSweitzer@VDOT.STATE.VA.US> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 3:07 PM Subject: Shenandoah Development Commonwealth of Virginia — Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency 14031 Old Valley Pike, Edinburg, VA 22824 March 8, 2001 Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: Shenandoah Development Route '40/522 Cd Route 277 Frederick, Warren and Clarke Counties Dear Ron: We have received the three day traffic counts on Route 340/522 at the referenced project. The Staunton Office copfirmed by telephone this date that the data as submitted with NBf_ defaultat the 39 hour is acceptable for review. As soon as we have received review comments from Staunton, we will forward VDO"I' comments to your office. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer VDOT Edinburg Residency --- Permit & Subdivision 14031 Old Vallev Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5631 i (540) 984-5607 (tar) �,B,UI gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. 201) N. Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 340-66 7-2139 Fax. 540-663-0493 e-mail: „nvclif rmnsinc.com To: Virginia Dep; 14031 Old V of Tran Pike Edinburg*. VA 22824 1 We are sending you Hand Delivered aShop Drawings Copy of Letter a Attached Change Order aPrints Plats LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Present Date Job No. 4/ 18/0 I attention: Steve Melnikoff Re: Shenandoah 0 Under Separate via 0 Samples 0 Plans the following items Specifications Other Copies Date Description 1 3/22/01 Traffic Impact Analysis 1 3/1/01 Lettet fronl Edinburg, VDOT RE: Plan forwarded to District Officc 1 3/8/01 Letter from Edinburg VDOT RE: Traffic Count Data Arc Transmitted 0 For Approval aFor Your Use F7 As Requested F7For Review or Comment For (aids Due a Approved/Submitted Approved/As Noted Return/ColTections 2001 Resubmit for ;\pproval Submit for Distribution Retunied Corrected Ili -lilts 0 Loan Print/Return 0 Retunl/with Signatures Remarks Attached is the final traffic study for Shenandoah revised in accordance with previous comments from VDOT. The traffic data contained in these studies was previously forwarded to VDOT the first week of March. 2001. Please direct any questions regarding this study to Mr. John Callow. PI IR&A or the writer. This is to corifinn our meeting at the VDOT Edinburg Residency at 9:00 a.m.. Wednesday. April 25. 2001 to discuss agency comments. Copy To: Bob Childress. VDOT. Lurav Signed Kelly Downs. VDOT. Staunton Eric Iawrence. Fred. Co. Planninc C. E. Maddox. Jr.. P.F... VP COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 308 CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM LURAY, VA 22835 COMMISSIONER October 29, 2001 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Chuck: RANDY S. KISER RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 743-6585 FAX (540) 743-7249 REF: Shenandoah Development Route's 277, 340/522 Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties This is to acknowledge receipt of your revised plans entitled "Shenandoah- U.S. Route 522/340 Improvements & Lake Frederick Drive" dated October 17, 2001 for the referenced project. The plans as they relate to proposed improvements to the U.S. Route 340/522 corridor and construction of the portion of Lake Frederick Drive within Clarke County appear satisfactory and are approved. Our approval of this plan does not include the portion of Lake Frederick Drive within Frederick County. Approval of that portion of the roadway will need to be coordinated through VDOT- s Edinburg Residency Office. Please advise the developer accordingly. We offer the following comments: Due to the significance of this project and the fact it lies within 3 different counties and 2 VDOT Residencies we strongly encourage that a preconstruction conference be held by the engineer and/or developer with the attendance of the contractor, various County agencies and VDOT be conducted prior to initiation of work. We suggest that this meeting be conducted after approval from the Edinburg Residency is secured. Materials used and method of construction shall apply to current observed VDOT Road & Bridge Specifications applicable during construction of this development. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Page 2 of 4 Our review and comments are general in nature. Should conditions in the field exist such that additional measures are warranted, such measures shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Department prior to the inclusion of Lake Frederick Drive into the Secondary Road System or completion of any VDOT Land Use Permits and release of surety bonds. Attached is a copy of the minimum requirements and information needed prior to acceptance of subdivision streets into the Secondary System. This is the responsibility of the developer. Close coordination by the developer will be necessary between Clarke and Frederick Counties since portions of Lake Frederick Drive lies within both jurisdictions. The portion which lies within Clarke County will need to be added to our system before or concurrently with the portion within Frederick County to ensure continuity of the Secondary System. • All drainage is to be carried within the right of way in ditch lines or gutters along the street to a pipe or drainage easement. The contractor shall notify VDOT when work is to begin or cease for any undetermined length of time. VDOT will also require 48 hours notice for inspections. The appropriate land use permits shall be obtained before any work is performed on the State's right of way. The permit(s) is issued by this office and will require a minimum processing fee, surety bond coverage, and the salary & expenses of a State assigned Inspector. The inspector assigned may be a State employee or consultant. Once satisfactory application has been made, a permit will normally take approximately thirty days to process and issue. We will require eight (8) complete sets of the site plans, once you receive approval from the Edinburg Residency, for permit issuance and inspection. Additionally, survey plats detailing right of way and easement dedications will need to be prepared, review/approved by the Department, and recorded prior to issuance of any permits. • If mailboxes are to be placed along the roadway, a minimum of 4' shall be between the edge of pavement and the front of the mailbox. Access to existing mailboxes along Route 340/522 are to be maintained during construction. • Any entrances constructed from Route 340/522 or Lake Frederick Drive shall meet VDOT minimum standards. This is the developer's responsibility. • Any signs to be installed will be in accordance with attachments. • All utilities and/or storm sewer placed within the proposed right of way of Lake Frederick Drive or Route 340/522 right of way shall be backfilled completely with C.R. Type 21-B Stone. This will greatly reduce the possibility of any pavement - Page 3 of 4 settlement. Open cut repair of the north bound lanes of Route 340/522 shall be in accordance with our current land use permit requirements. A 2" plant mix overlay of the north bound lanes may be required after construction if the patching techniques are unacceptable. • The Department will not be responsible for maintenance and/or liabilities associated with the onsite storm water management facility. We are absolved from this responsibility through existing comprehensive storm water management agreements with both Clarke and Frederick Counties. • VDOT's maintenance responsibilities for the proposed storm sewer system within the Route 340/522 right of way at approximately station 26+70 which ties into the stormwater management outfall system will include and end at structure #8. • We appreciate the level of detail you've provided on the Route 340/522 Traffic Control and Temporary Detour Plan. With the amount of traffic currently on the roadway and proposed construction, the proper installation and maintenance of this plan will be critical. The exact limits of the detour will need to be determined to ensure the best possible level of safety and sight distance at time of installation. While the base maximum speed limit will be 35 mph through the detour, a lower speed limit may be required through the curves. This lower speed limit shall be determined on site. Special care will need to be given to maintaining access to private properties during the life of the temporary detour. • If the developer chooses to construct the south bound shoulder south of Lake Frederick Drive to a higher pavement standard as you've indicated in your September 13, 2001 letter (Item #3) after this approval, you will need to submit revised plans for our review and approval prior to implementation. • We understand the developer wishes the Department to design and install the required traffic signal at the Route 340/522 and Lake Frederick Drive Intersection. Therefore, please provide us with a copy of your electronic file of these approved roadway design plans as soon as possible so that we can begin our design. • As communicated to you earlier, due to the historical significance of this area we strongly suggest that you have researched all cultural, historical, and environmental resources and obtain any necessary permits prior to construction. Our approval of these plans should be with the understanding the proposed improvements shown are for access to the first phases to the development only. We've communicated to you and your client earlier our concerns for the ultimate impacts the development will have on the entire Route 340/522 corridor, and intersection with 277. Future development of the residential and/or commercial phases of the project may require additional improvements. Page 4 of 4 Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to call our office at (540) 743-6585. RBC/msy Enclosure cc: W.B. Coburn, Jr. J.A. Copp S.A. Melnikoff A.R. Boyce Doug Stanley Chuck Johnston Evan Wyatt G.C. Tudor J.B. Diamond File Sincerely, Robert B. Childress Assistant Resident Engineer tcIVD NOV X 1 2001 --T nG of aniniinirmGVGi no�r�� r�4 "MMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG, VA 22824 COMMISSIONER August 23, 2000 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan Route 522/340 (Front Royal Pike) @ Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties Dear Chuck: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(540)984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 A VDOT review by Luray and Edinburg Residencies has been completed on the preliminary plan dated 07/01/00 for the referenced project. Our comments follow and are illustrated in red on the attached plan and supplemental references. REFERENCES 1. U.S. Route 522/340 (Warren County) North Corridor Study by Clifford & Associates dated August, 1998: We recommend the traffic volumes and geometric recommendations for improvement to existing south bound lanes be given a weighted value consideration for impact by this proposed master development plan. A copy of "Findings" and "Recommendations" of the study has been extracted and is attached as a quick reference for your use. 2. The traffic analysis as developed by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Mr. John Callow using a peak hour count and projecting to a daily volume may be inadequate. It may be more desirable to provide a 24 hour count on several weekdays. PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Destinations from termini access points (proposed entrances) should be provided. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #2 2. To meet the geometric roadway requirements, additional right-of-way should be dedicated for public road. a. Recommend a 50' wide right-of-way for portions of SR 636, Hudson Hollow Road, which fall within proposed development. b. On the corridors containing Route 522/340 and Route 277 respectively, adequate right-of-way should be provided to cover geometric designs. 3. The proposed access and crossover for CCRC area on north end of Route 522 should be rerouted to internal access or access development via the next crossover to the south. If continued access is planned, this entrance should be included in the traffic analysis. 4. Need for signalization at major access points: a. Route 277 and Route 636 intersection b. Route 277 at access entrance c. Phasing and potential signal head additions/modifications at Route 522/340 and Route 277 intersection d. Route 522/340 and main entrance — This location may need to be provided in the initial phasing or provision made by supplying a signalization agreement. 5. In the traffic analysis, reference is made to the proposed pavement structure as being prime and double seal. Based on raw traffic data, the surface should be asphalt concrete sufficient to accommodate projected volume of traffic. 6. Consideration of coordination between "Shenandoah" development and proposed preliminary VDOT plan (Project #0277-034-103, RW201, C501) currently being prepared for Route 277 improvement, -between Route I-81 and Route 636, White Oak Road. 7. Warren County should be added to the title block. 8. All existing substandard crossovers should be upgraded, left and/or right turn lanes provided as appropriate for use and location. Of specific concern even at this concept stage, is the apparent main entrance access on Route 522/340 to "Shenandoah". a. Left turn lanes should be provided in both directions. The raw traffic volumes come close to S=250' on Chart Figure C-1-1.1, 250' length of lane should be provided. The taper of 200' appears satisfactory. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #3 b. Lane grade differential may be too large to acquire desirable 5% grade on crossover. The desirable algebraic difference in grade at crown lines is 4 or 5%. The designer should strive to achieve those desirable elements, primarily due to large volumes of traffic projected. c. Consider relocating farm entrance on east side of Route 522/340 to align with proposed "Shenandoah" entrance and crossover. d. Please note the extremely poor "worse than the general" vertical alignment of Route 340/522 southbound lanes in the vicinity of the proposed main entrance. The stopping sight distance should be reviewed. Any necessary plan for relocation and/or reconstruction of vertical alignment should be developed under VDOT review to confirm adequacy of all sight distance concerns. e. All germane VDOT comments on geometrics of Entrance Development Plan dated (5/10/00 SHEN) are shown in red on the copy of plan being returned with this review. 9. The intersection at existing Route 522/340 with Route 277 should be considered in terms of adequacy to serve the high volumes of traffic generated by the proposed "Shenandoah" site. The potential need for dual left turn appears to be realistic considering the projected traffic volumes in the "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" (even with proposed "Shenandoah" volumes being included therein) would appear to suggest the need to consider dual left turn exiting Route 522/340 onto Route 277 west bound. Reference is given here to the several attachments to this review: • Copy of comments offered for VDOT by letter from Mr. R. B. Childress, ARE, Luray: The entire letter is being forwarded. As can be seen, the comments overlap and do address similar concerns of the Edinburg Residency. This mirrors the VDOT view of the major impacts generated by the "Shenandoah" development. • An excerpt page from "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" showing "Findings" and "Recommendations". • A marked in red copy of Preliminary Master Development Plan dated 07/01/00. • A marked in red copy of "Shenandoah" Entrance Development Plan. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #4 The master development plan should identify the proposed phasing as nearly as possible to the development plan of action for construction. Please review all the above concerns expressed by each VDOT review unit and address each comment. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call the respective VDOT personnel. �74 Barry J. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer BJS/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn: Mr. Guy Tudor Mr. Bob Childress, Attn: Mr. Rick Miller (W enclosures & copy for Clarke Co) Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Kris Tierney RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2000 DEPT, OF PLANNNGIDEVELOPMENT COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA James S. Gilmore, III Governor Department of Game and Inland Fisheries �,�, UHam L. Woodfm, Jr. John Paul Woodley, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources Director November 1, 2000 By Facsimile to (540) 665-6395 Original will be mailed Mr. Kris Tierney Planning Director Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Dogwood Development Group LLC Proposed Shenandoah Development at Lake Frederick Dear Mr. Tierney: The Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) is negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Dogwood Development Group LLC outlining conditions and cooperative actions for the development of the proposed Shenandoah project as it affects Lake Frederick. The MOU is being developed consistent with the Master Development Plan as approved by the Frederick County Planning Commission and in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations. The MOU also will be subject to any required state approvals. Yours very truly, ?James C. Adamsapital Programs Director cc: Ray Smith, Dogwood Development Group LLC Larry Mohn, Region 4 Fisheries Manager N O V 0 3 2000 DEPT, OF PLANM NG�DEVELOPMENT 4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. BOX 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104 (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 11/29/U4 RUN 13:UJ PAN It"i KZU tJZb VUUWUUL VhVhLUY%bjV1 UXr 4JUUZ 11/20/2004 00:32 FAX 30129- S1 _ 11/29/04 NON 12:07 FAX 703 $20 0395 THE OXBRIDGE 0 1J DUGNUUD UK rilb. war Q002W..- Dogwood Development Group LLC 1927 Preston White Drive, spite los Reston, VA, 20191 703-716-103X FAX 703-GM2540 Ms. Holly Eve Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 410 West Brad Street„ Richmond, VA 23230 -ter .-.� t 7M7-7-.. _ 1 I* - We entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with you dated J* 19, 2001 with respect to our Shenandoah Project that surrounds your Lake Frederick in Frederick County, Virginia. We have recently sold the najority ofthe property including all the land that surrounds your lake and both the existing road in and the proposed road in to Oxbridge Development at Shenandoah, LC (Oxbridge). They are at 600 Jeff== Plaza, Suite S50, Rockville, MD. 20852. Phone number — 301-294-4150, FAX 301-294-4151, e-mail- Oxbridge has agreed to assume all responsibilities under the agreement. At the time that the land was sold, the note was paid off to Jasbo and Fred 4laise M Inc, so they no longer have any interest in the property. Dogwood's subsidiary, Wheatland, LLC, continues to own the Village Center land to the left of the new enu%nce road (32 acres), and 23 axes on Rt. 522 these parcels have been subdivided from the rest of the land. We respectfully request, as permitted in our agreement with you, brunt you assign this Memorandum of understanding to Oxbridge. Dogwood Development Group LLC Ray F. Smith, Jr. Manager Oxbridge DevelopnAm at Shenandoah, LC Elliot Torah, Ifinager I . � ! ,, �\- - I',+ I l •/`�t'���_:��������'`i�=.�£%'�''ii��i��\��� "•��+1 � aj � � ''I�yiri- _.. :f;i t. •V/ ,`'', "�/f r11i - `: ♦` '�.\ ♦♦♦, ,_ i/ri/i�s�.'Si fl t+ IIt tS I/!� 1 1_q 'r \i i• r.'t' " ! !m � ' -_ - i,!• - .o� _`//,/I,,.-_.,.,.t. 1 , + /t�,,rt; ; . �.-�' , + \� ' ur 1 I,1,i�. r r u! Ni/ i '/ r! , _ - pa,^ ♦ _ , .-_- �1 1 / , ; ` �:� 1+\ \ -'/Ni/ „' i' .�• �/il tM \ gii,• •F � o t r !W 1 r �.. , .\ .��. ': ,,\\\t+�ie.`i/,//�. �'f: "`' IIND1�ltYlll , 4l f f � � _♦\ !I/ , , Y I,rii !N! / ,' /i fl Itl /` J�bi •s. _- �• `t\I, \\`\\+�,' \ti\`, \ • ` ':jo N\ t4i:;�4/ ri'�._ 1 • \11t ! ItA `_ ( i I - _ t / �i /) 11 I /'"'3 ' _ 1` \ 1 ,11 ''�=3 , ',' '_ i . , , • r 1 \ It // g1141 1 / r _ / ! , . / 4.�•t! 1 It +�'11 � t ♦ r . I , , I/1 1 +111 tli'_�" ��I!%! r`. �r „/i�l 1111h a \ 1 I, _ \ �/ 1 �i I/jr•,/ hr / I��r-_ t , 1 1 1, `1a1 1 lam` ` ,\ 1 1 t l ! • r . , t ♦ \ ( , , ' • , , - ! i, /. , /1i w \ A l � \ 4 / , r�)/ , \ \ Mh 1 , ♦1 1 I t -- .. i i i ♦ `.±`c . �i `r(f,�iii6jW'g11,.w al\a /r �= __" qY '�'� t (/t �i7r - ,•in��`; \``� `�``a -`; t �� \ ----- -`, ro ��y ��'' ;^'_ .'r •.-' _ \ s + 111 � \ , \}{/.{��(t�1rp .� � - , i � I I ,,' , 14 7, 17i, �/� 1 !1 7 �.` 1 1 , N - 7! t - ♦ N \ , ♦ ♦ ,` � 1� ��:-_ O -�� __ " " A7 ""i `I ` -_ � � ! �„ � � 1 1 •q tt�ti!'//'',�'ii ♦ a r 'T , � ^•�', \ +It ` a a , 1 >< ':�� `�` __-'- _ `\ 1, '� _�� � \ I t �` � ..J! i ' �l`• �sls�lliMllljb,��l�rtj� /'1 ' .` �/ /, - �`\�a ,r,,� a �, �:.ee .`IEsY',.+,a�, \a . `^r `� t it �3 A M` : i► `'Lv' -.�`` ` `-- _ :� ": �`\` 1\. ` 1`-' ,/. I� �i\�hN�\; t�1t ��yt ih�• _.�y ;+,;y` ii' - a ` ``� � '' t 1 t ��s: a:�a pll\ �I t � /� _ _ '_��?"� , !♦� '- `�. � ^:-`� '/ / r f 1lI11t `11,1l,+✓' � �;N11,ptf � �./ ' / 1 ,. a l} a I i / r.�i /'' r ~J •'� t i,� a 1 C -- - 'Mcs..-._� 1\` `• \`� �����--� „_� !// Init,p� 1-.-Sop"�Iti tj uts �• __...- _+'�.k:,;`\ 1 .`•• /, J,1,I„ ,l// , `�1_ , 7 , �'6 ., _ 1 1\ • I Ir liS: \• ��, ,1"- ...:,\I \•`• _ . \ \ \' \.� i ';%:l tl : Ss�'�� 1♦:�� Itu, r ..// r r 1 � lu' 1.1 ., .. r`�� ` \ 1 t 1t �__ = r— 1 \ `\ ♦\ , \'�` \ \♦ 1 ( r ! 1 \ .' / , ..'� 1i� 1 11111 1 f // / \ '/ ,' / i ��f I �/j i l0 tC :a., .,, _� ,,.`.,. , \',t \, ,; 11a`•`►\\I►;t` _ :_..- ��_\q\l\\ .. to , \ ` `. �/ f t ,a�Y 1 \\N\ ,\ / ,' ` `: � , 1 t J' �. Ht ,♦, /i r t , `� 'r. `„'- �: -'+'\`�i,tt :\ ',�`�'\ t ♦ f ,♦�`a�.j �iiii: �/\ \$11� ` t ! �/ ! t 1 �1 \+ r ^� ^ i 1 ` 1 i \ , Ijr�tl�Ir1 a Y 1 �J -•• ' ,\,l llll` 1♦\ / i ..;rLi � ./ 1 j . ``♦� Ill't /,iii � f 4 d\,t \ 1 � l ! ,II/ !1 \\ �_ �• _ , / 1 1 /I 1 \ "P \ �'♦ . 1`+t1\+`� ` „Il! \ •, ! \� 1\11 \,'/i/, 1 1 t11 \\'t t,11 I/it It 1 � 4 s._ -t1`t r _ � � , , 411•./��1�„r Afi• i'r `: \'._ \,1+�,`:.\Ivy; , \ • '\ ``` � j "'-�i ltt `\_iII�/ice, .-' r Il ♦ � \ 1`Ihtrlf/, r ��r • 1 , -� . t'' �^ .. j� _ � t1llr,Mttu� C.�, ,; `i♦ \\�q♦1, .`,^ ` ♦ . ..✓ •. �, / 1 ` I, I t 'iii ♦ ,�! 1¢I 111 /tI ice_ ��+ /, _ 1 . ` ^`` N`IP,.\IdNlt`, . _^�,` `, \1: J/ `'��j�t � ���t1t i . /,'/II Ij1 U1 y �i /,� ,/�'-__ �r y• 1 11 t t\\ %/i 1 ":_� � ' ``>, � ♦`�` `\it i�il`+�`',�'_ `��`, \ `\' \ ,!"tll `„Rt, �i , / 11 hl //r,/I I,r �-_ � .. 1 J, 1 4. I-_ �-�. _ a I [ �' `\ , ` r 1 I` a .. 1 +{ tl a r/ • ' tl it _ P,. R'l`�\\ 1 1;,` \,` ._: `C�i♦ `�•1-_`. • ,, 1 \ \, \_ �•U ` �1 � � �� _� �1�\,J� 1 p 11 ,t�/ ! t (/1 /� ��' ��- I •t / ,�+,`' 7� � i-� t, 'i /. � \�.� � 1' �`� __/ 1 � � \,♦yes-• 1 h' i / ,�. 1 ♦ % � (/ 1 . \ , \_ , ♦� � \ �..___. III 1 / ♦ ♦`. a Z` '♦��^ :.\� � ` a � ' ' '•'. 1 , , `�+. ,♦ , �r /1 �/„/ ...` , 1' 11 1. yl _t 1 l a\ 1 � \It : , •' : 1♦ I O. a . � . \„` ♦ _\', , . - . 1 \.__; 1w�\ d !1 Itlf\ . \ ,1 \ �\' \,ICI ,f/ \\ 1/11• W S �`\ ` `,\ 1 , t . ! \ }, 1 `♦`��at ` • µ t ` 1 t l lttl , / - \ ` a 1 of \`N♦ 1,`\'♦ \'a I'�' ' i / 1 `'♦♦` S1 � I l NY �^\ i' I ) -1 .} , i +l�lj � , r`,\ ```• It / 1i . " \` �� `att`. ` \ ``.♦. i �' r \� 1^".�'} t ' , r! I ! t �tt ►t t 1 71, ,/ 1 ' \` \ `� ��`�+ `v2\� �♦` ```, `1 - . , i � ! 1 � ,`� t' I \`` �'.•.��` � t .,i f \ \! i C , •- " „� 1 r. � ���' 1 1 / Ill C \ 11�`a• a`Z'.. ` 1 i t 1 1 , I . r • .___ i 1 ! 1 1`♦ `� \, 1 1 +\ \\ �`. I ``, j '� J ♦\` 1 1♦ 1 , I /! •`'♦ ` t. t• `•�', \ ♦ , , / ,! , ♦,` a ,,, /1 1 ll , !/ r, \, ..\` 11 \ \ 1 ` \ '. � ., ..\�, ;' jl •-r'I_ J/rr t rt ls,1 . ,.. t\ C C t BURR P. HARRISON 1904-1973 WILLIAM A. JOHNSTON H. R. BENHAM III BILLY 1. TISINGER IAN R. D. WILLIAMS CHARLES S. MCCANDUSH 194E-2001 BRUCE E. DOW ING TRAVIS IOSEPH TISINGER STEPHEN L. PETTLER. IR. BEAU BASSLER HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OMCE SOX $09 WINCHESTER., VIRGINIA 22604 September 5, 2001 STREET ADDRESS: 21 S. LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER. VIRGINIA 22601 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 540 667.1266 FAX NO. 540-667.1312 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. James C. Adams Capital Programs Director Commonwealth of Virginia SEP Department of Game and Inland Fisheries N RECEIVED 4010 West Broad Street co VA Game Richmond, VA 23230-1104 pBpartmert ��; Re: Memorandum of Agreement for Lake Frederick/ Dogwood Development Group, L.L.C. 41z-,dkA-uA1j M� P Dear Mr. Adams: As per the request of Mr. Ray Smith, Manager of Dogwood Development Group, L.L.C., enclosed please find one fully executed copy of the above referenced Memorandum. BJT.jdw Enclosure cc: Mr.' Ray Smith, Manager Dogwood Development Group, L.L.C. 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 925 Reston, VA 20191 Prepared by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries P. O. Box 11104 Richmond. VA 23230 Exempt from recordation taxes Imposed by JR.1-807 of the Code of Virginia by virtue of IN.1-811 E of said Code, and exempt from payment of any Clerk's fee by virtue of J17.1-288 of the Code of Virginia. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated July 19th, 2001, by and between THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES, (the "Department"), and Dogwood Development Group LLC, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, (the "Company"), and JasBo, Inc., a Virginia corporation, and Fred L. Glare, III, ("JasBo and Glaize"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Department and the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries (the "Board"), pursuant to the provisions of §29.1-100, et seq. of the Code of Virginia, have the mission to manage Virginia's wildlife and inland fish to maintain optimum populations of all species to serve the needs of the Commonwealth; to provide opportunity for all to enjoy wildlife, inland fish, boating, and related outdoor recreation; and to promote safety for persons and property in connection with boating, hunting, and fishing; and WHEREAS, the Board owns a public fishing lake in Frederick County known as Lake Frederick ("Lake Frederick"), a fifty -foot horizontal width strip of land surrounding the water line of Lake Frederick (the "State Buffer"), and an additional parcel of land which contains the dam, a public parking area, a landing area and boat ramp, and a public fishing area (the "Landing Area") all of which are depicted, along with other relevant information, on Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Company is the contract purchaser from JasBo and Glaize of land surrounding the Board's Lake Frederick land which the Company desires to develop into a residential community referred to as the Shenandoah development and which is shown on Attachment A (the Property). Jasbo and Glaize enter this Agreement for reasons set forth in Paragraph 29 below; and WHEREAS, the Company plans to establish a Homeowners Association with a membership of all lot owners in the Shenandoah development; and WHEREAS, Lake Frederick is a valuable amenity to the citizens of Virginia, and will be a valuable amenity to those who will live in the Shenandoah development; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Company wish to work together to accomplish their goals and to protect Lake Frederick; and WHEREAS, the Company and the Department realize that the process of development, and the permanent increase in impervious areas which will result, must be carefully managed to avoid causing water quality and siltation problems in Lake Frederick; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Company wish to cooperate and coordinate with each other to protect the water quality, scenic beauty and natural amenities of Lake Frederick and its surrounding area as the Shenandoah development is built and thereafter, and WHEREAS, the Board owns a Public Access Road with a 50 foot right-of-way (the "Public Access Road") connecting U.S. Route 522/340 to the Landing Area; and WHEREAS, the Company desires to acquire the Department's Public Access Road in exchange for a new public access road with a 50-foot (minimum) right-of-way the ("New Public Access Road") connecting U.S. Route 522/340 to the Landing Area and other consideration; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the Department, 2 subject to ratification by the Board, and the Company hereby agree as follows: 1. Lake Protection and Water Quality Mammon ment: Prior to beginning construction of the New Public Access Road, the Company shall provide the Department with a survey of Lake Frederick's current depth, and a calculation of the historic annual average rate of siltation accumulation. The Department and the Company agree promptly to develop a water quality management plan to control water quality impacts to Lake Frederick resulting from the development of Shenandoah. This water quality management plan will be developed and agreed upon by the aforementioned parties before start of the construction of the New Public Access Road and will address the following in connection with the Shenandoah Development: A. Erosion and sediment control plan B. Stormwater management plan to include nutrient traps C. Mitigation of silt build-up in the lake beyond the normal rate of siltation D. Monthly monitoring and reporting to the Department levels of fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, temperature profile, turbidity, secci disk readings, and pH, and, twice yearly, a report on levels of chlorophyll -A. An additional monitoring report shall be made within three days of any Major Storm Event and delivered promptly to the Department thereafter. For purposes of this Agreement, Major Storm Event shall mean two inches or more of rainfall within the water shed of Lake Frederick which occurs in any 24-hour period. Water quality monitoring and reporting to the Department by the Company will cease six months after all areas of land disturbance have been stabilized. 3 E. Dredging. If, as a result of construction activity by the Company, the average depth of Lake Frederick decreases more than one foot,, or if mud banks appear in the Lake, the Department may determine that dredging is necessary. If the Department determines dredging is necessary, it shall notify the Company of that determination and the parties shall enter an agreement which shall include an obligation upon the company to undertake the dredging project, at its cost, and a definition of the scope, means and methods of the dredging project. The Department shall make the Landing Area and its portion of the New Public Access Road available for use in the dredging project. The Company's dredging obligation hereunder will cease six months after all areas of land disturbance have been stabilized. 2. Conservation Easement Area: The Company will convey an open -space easement to the Board over a Conservation Easement Area which shall be an area of land extending 50 feet from the Board's property line, except no such easement shall be imposed at or around the dam at the south end of the lake where Department ownership exceeds 100 feet. The Company will provide the Department with an exhibit, in recordable form, to delineate the Conservation Easement Area. In addition, the Department's Regional Fisheries Manager may designate certain points (not to exceed a total of 15) at the outer boundary of the Conservation Easement Area where survey markers are to be placed. The Company shall promptly locate those points and shall install survey pins to memorialize those points. 3. Floodwav Easements: The Company will provide the Department with floodway easements (a) to provide for rising water in the lake to elevation 629, based on USUGS datum, the elevation one foot over the PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) level and (b) to prevent development downstream of the Lake Frederick Dam in the area owned by the Company which would be at risk in the event of a dam failure, except for the 1 For purposes of this Agreement, any decrease in the depth of Lake Frederick shall be calculated 4 improvements shown on Attachment A. The Company agrees that it will not build habitable structures within the floodway easement area. The Company will provide the Department with an exhibit in recordable form to delineate the floodway easement. 4. H I�r wood Conversion Corridors: The Department agrees to allow the selective removal of evergreen trees from the State Buffer, and from the Conservation Easement Area, provided such work is pursuant to a plan approved by the Department before the work begins, such work is done with minimal soil disturbance within 100 feet of Lake Frederick, and no earth disturbing vehicles are allowed within such area. Specific locations of the hardwood conversion corridors and selection of the type of trees to be planted will be determined in the field by representatives of both parties and will be depicted on plans that must be approved and signed by both the Department and the Company. The Shenandoah Homeowners Association (°HOK) and the purchasers of lots which adjoin the Conservation Easement Area will be furnished a copy of the Departments publication entitled Shoreline Management Obiectives for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Department -Owned Lakes, included in this Agreement as Attachment B. 3. end Exchansre: The Board and the Company will enter into a contract to effect the following exchange of land after receiving the approval of the United States Department of the Interior, if necessary, for conversion of land developed with funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act: A. The Board will convey the existing Department Public Access Road to the Company, and the Company will convey the New Public Access Road, each as shown on Exhibit A-1, to the Board. The New Department Public Access Road will intersect a New Public Road To Be Owned and Maintained by VDOT (Lake Frederick Drive) at the traffic circle shown on Exhibit A 1 and will extend to the Landing Area. as the decrease from the yearly average rate of siltation accumulation. 5 B. The land exchange will meet the following criteria: (1) All land exchanges will be subject to approval of the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, pursuant to §29.1-103 of the Code of Virginia, and the Governor, pursuant to §2.1-504.2 of the Code of Virginia. (2) Land conveyed to the Department will be of equal or greater value than the land conveyed to the Company. (3) The Company will construct the New Public Access Road to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Subdivision Street Requirements, so it will be eligible for inclusion in the VDOT Secondary Road System and for maintenance by VDOT. (4) The Company will secure all necessary approvals, including approval from VDOT to include the New Public Access Road in the VDOT Secondary Road System. (5) The Company will pay for the construction of the New Public Access Road, its acceptance into the Secondary Road System, and for costs incurred by the Department associated with the land exchange. (6) The Company will install underground sewer, water, electric and telephone utilities to serve the Landing Area according to the plans and specifications approved by the Department. The location of such utilities within the right-of-way of the New Public Access Road will be approved by VDOT. These utilities will be installed at no cost to the Department. 6. Property Enhancements and Improvements: The Department and the Company agree that the Company will construct, according to plans and locations approved by the Department, the following improvements, most of which will be on Board property or on the Conservation Easement Area: !� A. DGIF Public Parking Area: The Company will increase the size of the existing public parking area as shown on Attachment A and according to plans approved by the Department. The Department will provide design specifications and will approve final plans for parking area improvements. Improvements will be at no cost to the Department. B. Restrooms and Concessions: The Company will construct public restrooms and a concession facility on the Landing Area in the location generally as shown on Attachment A. The Company will design for approval by the Department the public restrooms and concession facilities containing not more than a total of 1,000 square feet of floor area. The Department will remove the existing concession building. The Company shall provide utility service to the concession area. C. Trails and Access Facilities: The Company will construct the following trails and access facilities: (1) Woodland and lakeside trails (2) Wetland and nature trails from the Village Center down and into the wetlands on property owned by both parties along Crooked Run. These nature trails will be open to the public and will be accessible from the Department's parking area. (3) Boardwalks (4) Footbridges (5) Public fishing pier (1) (6) Boat access sites with courtesy piers (2) The forgoing facilities shall be constructed to meet the Department standards. The parties agree that the public shall have the right -of -access to and use of such of the foregoing facilities as are located on or within the Department's property and the Conservation Easement Area, and those trails, boardwalks and foot paths shown on Attachment A and located between the Village Center, Crooked Run and the Department Parking Area. In addition, the Department, its employees, invitees, and assigns (AKA the 7 public) shall have unrestricted access to trails, boardwalks, and footpaths located on or within the Department's property and the Conservation Easement Area that can be accessed by watercraft. The Regional Fisheries Manager will approve the exact location of these facilities on behalf of the Department. 7. Reauirements, Approval of Plans, Approval of Location: All improvements will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and local requirements and regulations and according to Department specifications. Before authorizing any construction on the Department's property, or the Conservation Easement Area, the Company shall submit its plans, drawings, proposed materials, and methods of construction to the Department for approval by its Office of Capital Programs (OCP). The Department will inspect construction work for compliance with Department and state standards and requirements and such inspection shall be by the OCP. The exact location of the public improvements will be mutually determined in the field by representatives of both parties and will be depicted on plans that are approved and signed by both OCP and the Company. S. Operatina Agreement: The Company and the Department shall negotiate in good faith to enter an annual agreement to provide for the operation of the concession and to provide year-round restrooms availability and year-round trash removal service, seasonal boat rental service and such other services as to which the parties may agree. This Agreement shall require operation of the foregoing facilities in accordance with the Department standards and requirements. This Agreement further shall require no payment of rent or fees to the Department and shall be subject to termination by either party upon a ninety -day prior written notice. 9. Maintenance of Department's Public Facilities: The Department and the 8 Company recognize the Company's need to assure that all properties within the Shenandoah development, including those owned or controlled by the Department, shall be maintained in a high -quality, pleasing manner consistent with the Shenandoah residential development. To address that concern, the Company and the Department shall enter a Maintenance Agreement by which the Company shall have the right, at its expense, for the term of the Maintenance Agreement and to the extent that the parties shall agree, to maintain specifically designated areas which may include the landing area, the Department's public parking area, the trails, boardwalks, foot bridges, public fishing piers, and boat access sites, courtesy piers and wetland trails. The Maintenance Agreement shall address areas where it shall be permitted to cut weeds and brush, as well as maintenance of the access road and parking lot surfaces, including parking barriers and bollards, maintenance of drainage ditches, maintaining and cleaning out stormwater and sedimentation basins and traps as needed, mowing the grass at established public access points, collection and removal of trash and garbage, removal of debris and other routine maintenance necessary for safe public use and enjoyment of Lake Frederick and the development of such maintenance agreement shall be based upon the objectives already established in the Department's Shoreline Management Objectives for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Department -Owned Lakes, included in this Agreement as Attachment B. This right to maintain the Department's public facilities pursuant to the Maintenance Agreement shall exist notwithstanding a failure of the parties to enter an Operation Agreement as provided in Section 8 above. A separate agreement by the parties shall be required with respect to maintenance of the restrooms and concession as provided in paragraph 8 above. 10. Costs: The Company will pay all the costs of carrying out the provisions of this Agreement except that the Department will pay its own legal costs and the salaries of its employees. 11. Time Une: The parties will accomplish the performance of their obligations under this Agreement according to the following schedule: Current -depth survey of Lake Frederick Maintenance Agreement Water Quality Management Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, in phases associated with construction Stormwater Management Plan Conveyance of open -space easement for Conservation Easement Area Prior to construction of the New Public Access Road Prior to April, 2002 Prior to construction of the New Public Access Road Prior to commencement of construction of each phase of the Shenandoah development Prior to commencement of construction of the Shenandoah development Prior to or concurrent with land exchange Conveyance of open space easement for Prior to or concurrent with land floodway area under elevation 629 of each exchange phase of the above dam and open -space easement for PMF floodway area below dam, with plat in recordable form Approve land exchange contract Complete land exchange Complete construction of New Public Access Road, prior to acceptance into VDOT Secondary Road Install utility lines Resurface existing Department Old Public Parking Area 10 October 31, 2001 Upon completion of the New Public Access Road ready for approval by Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department Before closing the Public Access Road Before completion of new concession facility Before closing the Public Access Road Restrooms and Concession, New Public Parking Area Trails and Access Facilities Before 500 homes have been sold Before beginning the sale of lots in the next phase of the Shenandoah development ageor ., . 7. Min . . r i . . . . Y . . of Land Exchange: Prior to closing on the exchange of land, Company shall construct the New Public Access Road and shall make access practically available by the public to the Landing Area while construction is ongoing. During construction of Company's project and until completion of the Land Exchange, the Company shall have the right to cross the Public Access Road as necessary to construct the internal roadway system and as necessary to tie in the New Public Access Road to the Landing Area. The Company shall not use the Public Access Road as the access for construction of the Shenandoah development. 13. Homeowners Association: The Company will establish a homeowners association (the "Homeowners Association") which will consist of all property owners in the Shenandoah development and which will have the power to assess dues and assessments which, if unpaid, will become a lien on the real estate of the nonpaying homeowner. The Department will allow the Company to transfer the Company's maintenance rights and obligations to the Homeowners Association provided the Department determines that the Homeowners Association has the capability to carry out the provision of the Company's maintenance rights and obligations. 14. Public Access to Lake Frederick: Public vehicular access to Lake Frederick and parking will be through the Landing Area. Public access to public improvements to be located in the Lake, on the State Buffer or on the Conservation 11 Easement Area will be pedestrian from trails or by water. The general public and the Shenandoah residents will have the right to use these improvements. The Department will post at the Landing Area public -use regulations for the use of these public areas. No public access will be allowed into the private Shenandoah community. The Company will post the landside boundary of the Conservation Easement Area to prevent public access into the private Shenandoah community. 15. Future Capital Improvements: Capital improvement projects planned by the Department for Lake Frederick after completing the initial construction contemplated by this Agreement will be carried out by the Department at its sole expense. 16. Department Consents and Aporovals: The Department hereby delegates to the Departments Regional Fisheries Manager the authority to provide the Consents and Approvals on behalf of the Department as provided in this Agreement, unless such Consents and Approvals are specified in this Agreement to be made by individuals other than the Regional Fisheries Manager. In recognition of the phased development of the Shenandoah development and the need to coordinate and to provide Consents and Approvals on a timely basis, the Department agrees that its Consents and Approvals shall not be withheld, delayed or conditioned without good reason and, further, that any request to the Regional Fisheries Manager for Consents and Approvals by the Regional Fisheries Manager shall be deemed to have been given if no response is made to such request within thirty days from the date such request is received by the Regional Fisheries Manager. The Department acknowledges that time is of the essence. It will make every reasonable effort to obtain and deliver timely approvals on all matters pertaining to this Agreement, including those requiring external consensus. 17. Bond: The Company agrees to furnish the Department a bond in the 12 amount of $1,000,000, satisfactory to Department approval guaranteeing performance of the terms of this Agreement, such Bond to expire when the Board determines that all terms of this Agreement have been met. 18. demnificadon: The Company agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Board, the Department, their agents, officers and employees, from and against any and all damage, claim, liability or loss, including reasonable attorneys' and other fees, arising out of the Company's performance under this Agreement. 19. Entire Agreement: This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no oral or parol agreements existing between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof which are not expressly set forth and covered hereby. 20. Headinas: The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 21. Interpretation: Whenever the context hereof shall so require, the singular shall include the plural, the neuter gender shall include the male and female genders, and vice versa. 22. Notices: Any notice required or permitted for the purposes of this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or when mailed by certified mail in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party to whom such notice is given, at the address for such party set forth hereunder, or such other address as the party may provide to the other in writing prior to the giving of such notice: If to the Company: Manager 13 Dogwood Development Group, LLC 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 925 Reston, VA 20191 President Shenandoah Homeowners Association If to the Department: Real Property Manager Department of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Regional Fisheries Manager Department of Game & Inland Fisheries P. O. Box 996 Verona, VA 24482 22. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same agreement. 23. Additional Acts: Except as otherwise provided herein, in addition to the acts or deeds recited herein and contemplated to be performed, executed and/or delivered by either party, the parties hereto agree to perform, execute and/or deliver or cause to be performed, executed and/or delivered any and such further acts, deeds and assurances that either party may reasonably require to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. Included, by way of illustration and not limitation, shall be the Department's obligation to consent to rezoning of the Public Access Road in conjunction with the Company's application currently pending before Clarke County, as well as grant of drainage, grading and construction easements necessary for construction of each phase of the Company's stormwater detention facilities. 24. Severability: In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any 14 respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 25. Sipdina Agreement: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 26. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. __ 27. Assignment: The Company shall be permitted to assign this Agreement in whole or in part to any Purchaser and to the Homeowners Association referred to in paragraph 13 provided, however, that (i) the Assignee expressly assumes all obligations of the Seller hereunder; and (ii) the Department provides its consent to the Assignment, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 28. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for twenty (20) years until July 31, 2021. It shall thereafter continue from year to year until either party gives a 180-day notice of termination, which termination shall not take effect sooner than 180 days after such notice is given. 29. JasBo and Glaize will hold a Deed of Trust on the Property after the Company purchases the Property. If they regain control of the Property pursuant to the Deed of Trust or otherwise, they agree to carry out this Agreement and, should they again sell the Property, to require their purchaser to agree to carry it out. They further acknowledge and consent to the terms of the Agreement and confirm that they will provide such releases, consents or other approvals as may be required to effect the provisions of this Agreement. 15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed or caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized officers as of the date first above written. THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES Director COMMONWEALTH 95F VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF `, to -wit: i The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ;_ day of _, 2001 by William L. Woodfin, Jr., Director of the Virginia Department of me Ad Inland Fisheries. Notary Public My commission expires. ,3 t a 3 Dogwood Development Group, LLC anager nn'' STATE OF I�t► i P+ pkcM CITY/6A6JNTY9 jj LrXkjake , to -wit: The foregoing instru t was acknowledged before rr 2001 by , of Dogwood Development Grou C. My commission expires:ki�.. O¢ JasBo, Inc. 16 this day of P . ent STATE OF Virginia, at large CITY/009M OF Winchester , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5th day of September , 2001 by James L. Bowman President Of JasBo, Inc. tary P is My commission expires: 12/31/04 Fred L. Glaize, III STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE CITYAN09W OF Winchester , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5th day of September , 2001 by Fred L. Glaize, 11 otary blic My commission expires: 12/31/04 Office of the Attomey General Approved as to form: Senior Assistant Attorney General 17 come from the Wireless Grant Fund 10 DB and no additional County funds are needed. Upon motion made by Supervisor Smith, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: It Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye , Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR ENDORSEMENT OF A RESOLUTION TO DESIGNATE PORTIONS OF ROUTE 600 AS A VIRGINIA BYWAY. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF COORDINATION WITH THE DESIGNATION OF ROADS IN SHENANDOAH COUNTY -APPROVED Planner II Amy Lohr presented this request to the Board. There was no public input. Upon motion made by Supervisor Douglas, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the above request was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Nay Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye OTHER PLANNING ITEMS: PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-00 OF SHENANDOAH - APPROVED WITH CONDITION , Planning Director Kris Tierney presented this request to the Board advising that staff and planning commission recommended unanimous approval of the master plan and the three requested waivers: the environmental features waiver, the waiver of internal residential separation buffers, and a waiver of the road efficiency buffer requirement, and with the stipulation that all of the reviewing agencies' comments are satisfactorily addressed. Director Tierney further explained that 2,130 units were planned and there would be a total of 926 combined acres. The plan is for a build out at a minimum of six years with gated and private Minute Book Number 27 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 11/08/00 108 r - r 0. roads. Supervisor Smith questioned Fire & Rescue's comment on this being totally unacceptable, and the fact if the fire station would be built off site, with a one time offer of $20,000 being made toward this construction. Chuck Maddox with G. W. Clifford Associates appeared before the Board and by way of a map explained what is scheduled to be built and when. Chairman Shickle stated that it was his understanding that if this plan receives Board approval at this meeting, this will be the last time this plan would be seen by the Board. Mr. Tierney replied that was correct. Chairman Shickle stated that, he felt, with a project of this magnitude the Board should see these three waivers, in place, before final 'signature is supplied. He further stated that he does not want to hold up project; however, he feels the Board should know the outcome of the following issues: 1.) Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 3.) Fire & Rescue 4.) Library Site 7.) Village Center Supervisor Reyes advised that he is opposed to #5 - Environmental Features, as he feels 60% is too much and that it should remain at 25%. Supervisor Orndoff questioned the need for a library when there was one as close as Lakeside. Mr. Tierney replied that they felt like they would like to have their own. County Administrator Riley stated that he would work with Fire & Rescue if that was the Boards desire. Chairman Shickle replied that he felt that would be good. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, Preliminary Master Development Plan #06-00 of Shenandoah was approved as amended by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Minute Book Number 27 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 11/08/00 Sidney A. Reyes - Nay MEMORANDUM AND RESOLUTION (#019-00) RE: STAR FORT MANAGEMENT AND INTERPRETATION PLAN - APPROVED Planner II Amy Lohr presented this information to the Board. '; Chairman Shickle asked what the county's on going roll is in this plan. Mr. Tierney explained that staff has not played a roll in this, and this plan does not commit Frederick County to anything. Upon motion made by Supervisor Reyes, seconded by Supervisor Sager, the following resolution was approved: WHEREAS, Frederick County is richly endowed with numerous and significant historic sites including remnants of the Civil War -era fortification known today as Star Fort; and WHEREAS, Star Fort, being constructed in 1862 by the Confederate 4`' Alabama regiment, first served as a component of t1Ie military defense for the Confederacy and was later used by the Union Army, who expanded the fortification and changed its name from Fort Alabama to Star Fort; and WHEREAS, the preservation and interpretation of this site and the story it offers are a valuable resources to the residents of Frederick County and the Shenandoah Valley; and WHEREAS, the Star Fort Management and Interpretation Plan shall serve as a planning resource for the future protection, management, and execution of this important site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, endorses the Star Fort Management and Interpretation Plan. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye PERSONNEL COMMITTEE The Personnel Committee met on Thursday, October 26, 2000, with the following members present: Margaret B. Douglas, Chairman; Sidney A. Reyes, Vice -Chairman; Philip C.G. Farley, Verne E. Collins, John R. Riley, Jr., and Ann K. Kelican. Robin Damico was absent. 1. Request to Amend Leave Accrual Rates: - Approved The Committee reviewed a request from the Personnel Director to amend the County's leave accrual rates to conform to those recently approved by Governor Gilmore. This amendment would not effect the County's monetary liability inasmuch as the cash out remains at a maximum 336 hours. The Committee recommends approval of this request. (See Attachment "A") 2. Request from Parks and Recreation Director for Reclassifications:- Approved Minute Book Number 27 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 11/08/00 ' J1 Ff LC k 3 ARRANGE MEETING Upon motion made by Supervisor Omdoff, seconded by Supervisor Smith, Administrator Riley will proceed to set up a meeting between certain members of the FCVCC , board members and county staff to work out the public hearing format for the above rezoning request. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Aye PLANNING COMMISSION BUSINESS: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF SHENANDOAH - CONDITIONS APPROVED AS NOTED AT BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2000 Planning Director Evan Wyatt presented this request to the board, wherein he reminded them that at the Board meeting of October 25, 2000, they approved this master development plan conditioned upon the applicant addressing four points of concern that were raised by the board at that time. These four conditions were as follows: 1. Review of an executed agreement between the Department of Games and Inland Fisheries(DGIF) and the developer. 2. The resolution of the location of a future. fire and rescue station. 3. The resolution of issues associated with a future library facility. 4. The provision of a narrative on the final master development plan which would require the developer to present a plan for the layout of the proposed Village Center prior to any development activity in the area of the project. Director Wyatt advised the board that the applicants response has been provided to them within their agenda. Chairman Shickle inquired about the contamination of the lake, and whose responsibility this is, should this become a problem. Administrator Riley explained that since the lake is state property, that is who would need to be contacted. Chuck Maddox, with G.W. Clifford Associates, appeared before the board to respond to any questions they might have. Minute Book Number 27 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/28/01 21,. Director Wyatt explained that the contamination in the area is coming from Sandy's Mobile Home Park. Mr. Larry Mohn, Regulation Director with the State, appeared before the board at which time he advised the board that the regulation authority in this matter is DEQ, Department of Environmental Quality. Administrator Riley advised that staff would contact DEQ to find out what they are doing about the contamination in this area. Upon motion made by Supervisor Sager, seconded by Supervisor Smith, the conditions, as outlined by representatives of Shenandoah Master Development, were approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle - Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. - Aye W. Harrington Smith, Jr. - Aye Robert M. Sager - Aye Margaret B. Douglas - Aye Sidney A. Reyes - Nay ROAD RESOLUTION - PROSPERITY DRIVE - APPROVED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA TOWN OF STEPHENS CITY FREDERICK COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION RESOLUTION (# 032-01)- APPROVED WHEREAS, the Stephens City/Frederick,County Little League Park is owned and is to be developed by the Town of Stephens City as a recreational facility serving the residents of Stephens City/Frederick County and adjoining localities; and WHEREAS, the facility is in need of adequate access; and WHEREAS, the procedure governing the allocation of recreational access funds as set forth in Section 33.1-223 of the Code of Virginia requires joint action'by the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Commonwealth Transportation Board; and WHEREAS, a statement of policy agreed upon between the said Director and Board approves the use of such funds for the construction of access roads to publicly owned recreational areas or historical sites; and WHEREAS, it appears to the Board of Supervisors and Town Council that all requirements of the law have been met to permit the Director of the Department of Conservation and Recreation to designate the Stephens City/Frederick County Little League Park as a public recreational facility and further permit the Commonwealth Transportation Board to provide funds for access to this public recreation area in accordance with Section 33.1-223 of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the right of way of the proposed access road is provided by the County of Frederick at not cost to the Recreational Access Fund; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors/Town Council acknowledges that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 33.1-223 of the Code of Virginia, this road shall be designated a "Virginia Byway" and recommends the Commonwealth Transportation Board, in cooperation with the Minute Book Number 27 Board of Supervisors Meeting of 03/28/01 1 PC REVIEW DATE: 10-18-00 BOS REVIEW DATE: 11-08-00 (tentative date) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-00 "SHENANDOAH" (A Major Revision to the Approved Wheatlands MDP) LOCATION: The property is located on the south side of Route 277, approximately 3.5 miles east of Stephens City, and approximately one mile south of the intersection of Routes 277, 340 and 522. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 87-A-102 and 103 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) District Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) and MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) Use: agricultural, residential, mobile home park and vacant South: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Use: agricultural, residential and vacant East: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Use: residential and vacant West: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) Use: agricultural, residential and vacant PROPOSED USE: Age -Restricted Residential Recreational Community REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Note: all review agency comments are contained in their entirety within the enclosed booklet titled; Shenandoah - Active Adult Resort Gated Community "Age Restricted" MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah Page 2 November 1, 2000 Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letter from Barry Sweitzer, Transportation Roadway Engineer at VDOT, to G. W. Clifford & Associates dated 8/23/00 and Inter -Office Memorandum from Robert Childress to J.A.Copp dated 8/4/00. Sanitation Authority: Recommend approval as noted: 1. Frederick County Sanitation Authority will need approval from Clarke County to extend water and sewer service into their county. 2. I will need to see how you plan to extend the water line on SR636 and connect to our existing system. 3. Will the existing eight -inch water line be sufficient to supply the area served? 4. I have marked two locations where I feel the water lines need to be looped to ensure better service. Parks and Recreation: Plan appears to meet the intent of the Open Space and Recreational Unit Requirements. However, more detailed information is needed by this department to complete a final review of the open space and recreational amenities. (Staff note: Since the date of this comment, the requested information has been provided to the Parks and Recreation Department.) Fire Marshal: See attached comment sheet dated 9/8/2000. County Engineer: See letter from Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. to C.E. Maddox dated 9/6/00. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries: The Department has had several meetings with Dogwood Development and is currently working on a memorandum of understanding on managing the lake and surrounding land. We have developed a cordial working relationship and they have been receptive to addressing the concerns we have raised. Several issues remain to be resolved but we see no major problem with resolving these issues. Clarke County: See letter from Charles Johnston, Planning Administrator to C. E. Maddox dated 9/8/00. Warren County: See letter from Douglas P. Stanley, AICP, County Administrator/Planning Director to C. E. Maddox dated 8/23/00. MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah Page 3 November 1, 2000 Planning Department: History: The property comprising this site was rezoned from A2 (Agricultural) to R-5 in October of 1975. A Master Development Plan for a project titled "Wheatlands" containing a total of 1,463 dwelling units was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on July 10, 1991. Proiect Scope: The project currently proposed is situated on two parcels which total 926 acres. The proposal calls for the construction of 2,130 units or 2.3 units per acre which is equivalent to the maximum permitted density in the R-5 zone. Construction would be phased over a minimum of six years. The development will be an age -restricted, gated community with private roads as provided for in the recently approved amendments to the R-5 zone and as stated within the notes that have been submitted for inclusion on the Plan. Proposed recreational amenities include a community center, outdoor pool, walking and/or biking trails and other facilities, the total value of which far exceeds County requirements. In addition to the residential component, the proposal also includes a significant commercial area or village center. The R-5 ordinance permits up to 6% of the gross acreage of the development (approximately 55 acres in the case of the Shenandoah project) to be devoted to commercial uses. Issues: 1. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries There are a number of features of the proposed development that will have an impact on VDGIF property and will, therefore, require their approval. Proposals for relocating the State's entrance, private versus public access points to the lake, the conveyance of proposed easements and removal of trees on State-owned or controlled property, and a schedule for water quality testing are examples of such issues. Prior to final approval of the proposed development, an executed memorandum of understanding or some other form of binding arrangement between the developer and the VDGIF which addresses all of the relevant points contained within the proposed plan design and notes will need to be provided and included by reference on the Plan. 2) Transportation The traffic analysis provided by the applicant and reviewed by VDOT indicates that the proposed development would generate approximately 40% fewer average daily trips than would be anticipated by the currently -approved Wheatlands plan, or roughly 17,000 trips per MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah Page 4 November 1, 2000 day versus 30,000 under the Wheatlands plan. VDOT has questioned the degree of this projected reduction. With or without a reduction in the number of trips generated, there are a number of issues to be addressed. The property has frontage on State Routes 277, 522/340 and 636. Planned entrances onto each route would be constructed in conjunction with various phases of the development. The primary entrance would be the relocated VGIF's entrance to Lake Frederick which would is proposed to be constructed as part of Phase 1. The Plan notes indicate Route 636 would be resurfaced with prime and double seal from the applicant's property line to the presently paved section prior to the issuance of the 750' building permit. VDOT comments indicate that the resurfacing should be asphalt concrete. The Plan notes should be amended accordingly. The VDOT comments call for the elimination and/or relocation of a number of crossovers and entrances along Routes 522/340, some of which could be accommodated by rerouting traffic within the project to other proposed entrances. In particular, concern has been expressed by VDOT, as well as Warren County, regarding the direct access from the commercial area to Route 522/340. VDOT also has noted concern over the entrance to the assisted living facilities located at the northern end of the 522/340 frontage within Clarke County. These comments should be addressed through modifications to the entrance designs and locations, as well as through appropriate notes on the plan which link the various road improvements to specific stages of the development. A number of the proposed road names are unacceptable based on County standards that restrict the duplication of existing road names. Prior to approval of the Final MDP, all road names will need to be re -submitted for review and approval. 3) Fire and Rescue The MDP notes contain an offer of a Fire and Rescue facility site which is proposed to be donated. The applicant states their desire to have the facility constructed within their proposed "village center," however, the Fire Marshal comments state that "The suggested site within the village center is not an acceptable location to serve the citizens of Frederick County. " The proposed plan note states that the offer is good for a period of five years and can be extended for an additional five years "if satisfactory progress is being made on site development." The offer goes on to state that the site must be in the village center or in an off -site area that "adequately serves Shenandoah." If an off -site location is chosen, a one- time offer of $20,000 is also included. While the staff does not question the applicant's sincerity in making this offer, we feel that as currently worded, the offer is too vague to be effectively enforced. How large is the site MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah Page 5 November 1, 2000 being offered? Does the five-year clock start at the time of MDP approval? Who is to select the site and how is the selection to be made? As for the five-year extension on the offer, who determines if "satisfactory progress" is being made? How, when and to whom would the $20,000 contribution be made? Some resolution of these issues will be necessary prior to final approval of the MDP. 4) Library Site In addition to a fire and rescue site, the applicant is also offering up to one acre of land for a period of five years as a location for a County Library. The note also states that the developer will provide the "site and planning should the County library decide to construct and operate a facility." As with the offer of a fire and rescue station site, staff feels that while the offer is well -intended, the wording is much too vague to be effective. In order to be effective, a specific site should be identified and made available upon the request of the Board of Supervisors. To do otherwise invites confusion and disagreement in the future as to what was intended by the offer. 5) Environmental Features Along with the request for MDP approval and as permitted by Section 165-77 R of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is requesting waivers to the disturbance limits of a number of environmental features. The waivers requested areas follows: A waiver to disturb three -tenths of an acre of the existing 5.68 acres of wetlands or roughly 5%. The area to be disturbed would be for a road crossing south of the dam. Without a waiver, no disturbance of wetlands is permitted. A waiver to disturb an unspecified amount of floodplain. The location and extent of floodplain existing within the site has not been provided. Logically, this information needs to be provided prior to approval of a waiver request. A waiver to disturb 60% of the woodlands as opposed to the customary 25% limit. The applicant will be required to provide two-inch caliber shade trees at 50' intervals along all streets, as well as provide a minimum of 20 landscape plantings, at least 1 /4 of which are trees with a minimum two-inch caliper, for each "single family small lot" (as defined by the County Zoning Ordinance) platted. 6) Other Waivers Requested MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah Page 6 November 1, 2000 In addition to the waiver for disturbance of environmental features, the applicant is also requesting a waiver of internal residential separation buffers. The Zoning Ordinance normally requires residential separation buffers between single-family and multi -family housing types. A waiver of the road efficiency buffer requirement is also being requested. Section 77.H of the R-5 Zoning District regulations provides for a waiver of these requirements. 7) Village Center The applicants are proposing a fairly significant "village center" which will likely contain a variety of commercial uses. The R-5 Ordinance gives the Planning Commission the authority to require the submission of a generalized development plan depicting the type and location of uses, access and circulation pattern within the identified village center. The Commission should determine whether this is something they wish to require. If so, it would be appropriate to place a note on the MDP which indicates that a plan will be provided for the Commission's review prior to the issuance of permits for development within the village center. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 10/18/00 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed Shenandoah project falls within the permitted density limits of the R-5 zone and the proposed amenities exceed ordinance requirements. Although a number of waivers have been requested, the Ordinance makes provisions for each. The Commission will need to determine whether the requests are warranted. The majority of identified transportation improvements, such as the need for signalization and turn lanes, are commonly addressed prior to subdivision approval. The Commission should make their desires known regarding the issue of relocation or removal of the specified entrances. The Commission will also need to make a determination as to whether they are comfortable with the current projections for trip generation. While there is a desire for clarification regarding the offer of fire and rescue and library sites, staff feels it should be noted that this is an application for MDP approval and not a rezoning. There are other issues which remain unresolved, perhaps the most notable being the need to secure a formal agreement with the VDGIF which addresses the identified concerns, however, staff feels confident that the remaining issues can be satisfactorily resolved prior to final approval of the Master Development Plan. MDP #06-00 of Shenandoah Page 7 November 2, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION FOR THE 10/18/00 MEETING: Six citizens, the majority of whom live on Hudson Hollow Road (Rt. 636), came before the Commission to speak about the proposed master plan. Their concerns primarily centered on the poor condition of Route 636 and anticipated safety concerns with the increased traffic. Also of concern were the environmental impacts associated with wetlands disturbance, tree removal, and the installation of sewage pumps. In addition, concern was raised that too many waivers were being requested and the density of development was too great. One citizen spoke in favor of the plan, stating that a retirement facility with recreational amenities was very much needed in this area. Other support of the master plan was presented in a letter dated October 18, 2000 from the director and ecologist at Blandy Experimental Farm, Virginia's State Arboretum. In response to the citizens' concerns about Route 636, the applicant made a commitment to stipulate in their plan that Route 636 will have a bituminous concrete surface in lieu of prime and double seal and would also pursue every possibility to provide an alternative access for emergency vehicles. Members of the Commission were concerned about the wetlands disturbance and believed the developer should be responsible for acquiring all the necessary permits to meet the Clean Water Act requirements for the disturbance of wetlands. There was discussion regarding various issues related to sites for a fire and rescue facility and library. The Planning Commission believed that this issue would ultimately need to involve a mutual aid agreement between Frederick, Clarke, and Warren Counties. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the master plan and the three requested waivers: the environmental features waiver, the waiver of internal residential separation buffers, and a waiver of the road efficiency buffer requirement, and with the stipulation that all of the reviewing agencies' comments are satisfactorily addressed. (Note: The following commissioners were absent from the meeting: Mr. John Marker, Mr. Gene Fisher, and Mr. S. Blaine Wilson.) O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\MDP's\shenandoahmdp.wpd COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Valley Regional Office W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Secretary of Natural Resources Mailing address. P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801-9519 Telephone(540)574-7800 Fax(540)574-7878 www.deq.statexaus July 3, 2003 Mr. John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator Frederick County 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Riley: f 71- ,9 71 ". .�� �- RECEIVED �> 2.003 cTyµ Jul ..a ffederick County '`, `: " pdministsator' dtFice ,� 4. By Robert G. Burnley Director R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. Valley Regional Director RE: Notification of a Proposed State Water Control Board Enforcement Action, Sandy's Mobile Court, Inc. A recent amendment to the Code of Virginia requires us to provide localities with individual notice of any proposed enforcement action taken by the State Water Control Board. Pursuant to this new law, Va. Code' 62.1-44.15:4(E), I have enclosed a copy of the public notice for a proposed Consent Special Order being issued to the Sandy's Mobile Court, Inc. The notice summarizes the name of the alleged violator; the facts of the alleged violation; and the name of a contact person at the Department of Environmental Quality who is knowledgeable about the facts of the alleged violation. The notice is being mailed today to the Winchester Star and to the Virginia Register. The public comment period will run for 30 days from publication of the public notice. Under the State Water Control Law, any person who violates any provision of the law or regulations may be held liable for civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each violation. The State Water Control Board is authorized to pursue either administrative or legal remedies, including injunctive relief, to abate violations of the law and regulations. If you have any questions about the proposed Order, please contact me at (540) 574 cc: VRO Enforcement file Smc fly, _ J Jp_ v 9 2003 S eve Hetrick : Enforcement Specialist Sr. r` —N- �T ...,_., RGS tIi Jp .RMS..r SAS. W-0.�:: f�dF DATE%6 ORIGINAL: FILE d.CA PUBLIC NOTICE STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD ENFORCEMENT ACTION PROPOSED CONSENT SPECIAL ORDER SANDY'S MOBILE COURT, INC. The State Water Control Board proposes to enter into a consent special order with the Sandy's Mobile Court, Inc. to resolve violations of the State Water Control Law and regulations at the Sandy's wastewater treatment plant in Frederick County, Virginia. The Facility discharges to an unnamed tributary to Crooked Run in the Shenandoah River subbasin, Potomac River basin. In May 2001 the Facility began to experience difficulty complying with the Permit's effluent limitations for ammonia. The Facility has experienced chronic ammonia effluent limitation violations since that time. The proposed consent special order settles outstanding Notices of Violation and incorporates a schedule of compliance to ensure consistent compliance with all the Permit requirements. The Board will receive written comments relating to the proposed Consent Special Order for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to Steven W. Hetrick, Department of Environmental Quality, Post Office Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801, and should refer to the Consent Special Order. Comments may also be submitted via electronic mail to swhetrick@deq.state.va.us. In order to be considered, electronic comments must be received prior to the close of the comment period and must include the name, address, and telephone number of the person making the comment. The proposed Order may be examined at the Department of Environmental Quality, Valley Regional Office, 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801. A copy of the Order may be obtained in person or by mail from this office. t COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 August 7, 2001 Bates Lea Farm, LLC. Attn: Christopher Bates 4581 Stonewall Jackson Highway White Post, VA 22663 RE: Jeffrey E. Williams Rezoning Application #03-01 Dear Mr. Bates: The purpose of this letter is to respond to your inquiry regarding the referenced rezoning application. The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #03-01 during their April 11, 2001 meeting with proffers submitted by the applicant. The proffers that were approved as a part of this rezoning application are unique to this property and are binding regardless of ownership. The proffer statement advises that the existing single family use shall be permanently abandoned; however, a date for the abandonment of this structure is not provided. It is the opinion of the County Attorney that the existing single family use shall be permanently abandoned when this tract of land is developed in substantial conformance with the Shenandoah Master Development Plan which was approved by Frederick County on May 2, 2001. Frederick County will enforce this condition of the proffer statement during the permitting process for any development which occurs on this tract of land. Please contact me if I may answer any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt, Al Planning Director EAW attachment cc: Lawrence R. Ambrogi, County Attorney John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator Jeffrey E. Williams U:\Evan\Common\Correspondence\Chris[opherBatesLetterAugust7,200I—Rezoning#03-01Proffenwpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 SITES LEA fMM, HO. 4581 STONEWAI.i, JACKSON HWY White Post, VA 22663 Phone 1-540-869-7820 Fax 1-M-869-8038 August 02, 2001 Mr. Evan Wyatt Planning Director Frederick County 10 7 N Kent Street Winchester, Va 22601. Dear Mr. Wyatt: The rezoning application of Jeffrey E. Williams (property id 94-a-1) was approved about 90 days ago.. The proffer included in this application was "that the existing single family use shall be permanently abandoned" When does this proffer take effect? Is there a statutory time limit for execution of a proffer? How will the county enforce this proffer? 9her Bates RECEIVED AUG p 6 200, DEPT OFPLAMING/DEVELOPMENT i 5 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION The Honorable H. Russell Potts, Jr. Senate of Virginia 14 N. Braddock Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Senator Potts and Delegate Sherwood: COUNTY of FREDERICK Kris C. Tierney Assistant County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: ktiemey@co.frederick.va.us June 29, 2001 The Honorable Beverly J.Sherwood Virginia House of Delegates P. O. Box 2014 Winchester, VA 22604 As you may be aware, the proposed mixed use development project to be constructed around Lake Frederick in southeastern Frederick County referred to as "Shenandoah" was approved by the Frederick County Board.of Supervisors on October 25, 2000. The approval was conditioned upon the developer (Dogwood Development Group, Inc.) entering an agreement with the State Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) regarding the maintenance of the lake and surrounding public spaces. At some point a proposal was surfaced that the ownership of the lake itself might be turned over to the developer and in turn the developer would provide open space to the state in the northern Virginia area. As you might imagine, the board of supervisors is adamantly opposed to the loss of this public lake to the citizens of the county and the surrounding jurisdictions. For this reason, the board has adopted the enclosed resolution supporting the continued state ownership of Lake Frederick and the continued involvement of the State Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) in the Shenandoah project. The DGIF will be holding a public hearing on July 19th to consider approval of a Memorandum of Agreement between the Department and the Dogwood Development Group concerning the treatment of, and access to, Lake Frederick and the surrounding property to be developed by Dogwood. C:\Clt\2001 CoMCACor\MisLet\62901 PottsSlrcmoodDogwoo(Lwpd JUL - 2 2001 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 nr !)i nnrn, wr, ,v,:, OpMENT The Honorable H. Russell Potts, Jr. The Honorable Beverly J. Sherwood June 29, 2001 Page 2 We would very much appreciate any support you and your office might be able to provide in this effort. With kindest regards, I am Very truly yours, Kris C. Tierney Assistant County Administrator Enclosure: as stated cc: Board of Supervisors John R. Riley, Jr. Jane W. Powell -&ftMv*meat° CAC162001 Cor\ACACor\MisLet\62901 PottsSherwoodDogwood.wpd C:\at\2001 CoMCACorIMisLed62901 PomSherwoodDogwood. wpd BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the land comprising the Dogwood Development Group's proposed project, known as "Shenandoah," to be situated around Lake Frederick in southeastern Frederick County, was zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on October 22, 1975; and WHEREAS, the Shenandoah project constitutes a significant redesign of the former Wheatlands project which received Master Development Plan approval on July 10, 1991; and WHEREAS, the anticipated impacts of the proposed Shenandoah project to Frederick County and the Commonwealth, both economically and environmentally, are anticipated to be far more desirable than those of the previously approved Wheatlands proposal; and WHEREAS, a Preliminary Master Development Plan for the Shenandoah project was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on October 25, 2000, contingent of certain conditions, one of which was the execution of an agreement between the Dogwood Development Group and the State Department of Game and inland Fisheries; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Frederick County does hereby express its strong support for the continued state ownership of Lake Frederick and the ongoing involvement of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in the Shenandoah project; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Frederick County supports the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement as drafted March 22, 2001. Passed this 13`" day of June, 2001, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Robert M. Sager Resolution No.: 049-01 Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Aye Aye Sidney A. Reyes Aye Aye Margaret B. Douglas Aye A COPY TESTS: Jo ley, Jr., Cler Bo of Supervisors May-10-01 11:21A P.O1 UTIS tM FAIN, UL Phan 1-540-869.7820 FAK 1.540-969-14018 TO: Evan A. Wyatt. Director - Planning and Development FROM: Chris bate RE; Shcnandoah Master Development Plan 45R t JYu cW311 Ackwo IIWN Whrtc KQ, VA 22661 Mar I I , 2001 The Frederick County Board of Supervisors heard this plan on October 25, 2000 and required the applicant to address several items prior to approval One of these items was to have an executed agreement with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Although there was no executed agreement furnished, the applicant presented evtdenec that there was some hope that the agreement you forwarded to the Board would be accepted and signed by the Npunment The Board of Supervisors gave approval of the master plan on that basis When the proposed apeement was presented to the Board of Directors of the Department last week it was neither accepted nor executed. A public hearing was scheduled on the matter for lute 19, 2001. The Board of Directors (in executive session) appears to have given instructions to their representative that will drastically alter the substance of any agreement that may finally be approved by that Board. Since the Board of Supervisors clearly wanted an executed agreement prior to Master Plan approval it is apparent that the "approval" action of March 28 must be revoked. I request that }ou inmate the appropriate action to get this before the Board of Supervisors at the next meeting In the meantime , t further request that any permit that may have been issued under this "approval' be suspended. Re: Lake Frederick Subject: Re: Lake Frederick Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 16:02:31 -0400 From: Eric Lawrence <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> Organization: Frederick County Planning Department To: Gina & Randy Forrester <ginaf@visuallink.com> CC: John Riley <jriley@co.frederick.va.us> Hello. In reviewing the Shenandoah master development plan file, and the Board minutes from their March 28, 2001 meeting, it does not appear that the MDP requires another review by the Board of Supervisors. I will provide you (via US Mail) copies of the Board minutes and the staff memorandum for the meeting outlining the 4 issues of concern. Please let me know should you have additional questions. -Eric Gina & Randy Forrester wrote: Hi Eric, Today's article about Lake Frederick brought up a question or two .... As I recall, when the BOS gave approval to the master plan, they did so on the condition that they review the agreement with VDGIF prior to final approval. The developer presented an unsigned document that the BOS basically said would do, however; that agreement was never executed and in fact was rewritten (the bond requirement) and executed finally in Sept. Therefore, the conditional approval of the master plan has never been finally removed and must again be brought before the BOS to remove the "condition" part before they can move ahead. My question to you is what now? How should we schedule this to come back before the Board in light of pending work at the project? - Thanks, Gina Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, CZA Deputy Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540.665.5651 540.665.6395 fax elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us 1 of 1 5/6/2002 10:48 AM Take Frederick Subject: Lake Frederick Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 00:51:51 -0400 From: "Gina & Randy Forrester" <ginaf@visuallink.com> To: "Eric Lawrence" <elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us> Hi Eric, Today's article about Lake Frederick brought up a question or two .... As I recall, when the BOS gave approval to the master plan, they did so on the condition that they review the agreement with VDGIF prior to final approval. The developer presented an unsigned document that the BOS basically said would do, however; that agreement was never executed and in fact was rewritten (the bond requirement) and executed finally in Sept. Therefore, the conditional approval of the master plan has never been finally removed and must again be brought before the BOS to remove the "condition" part before they can move ahead. My question to you is what now? How should we schedule this to come back before the Board in light of pending work at the project? - Thanks, Gina 1 of 1 5/6/2002 10:47 AM COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: jriley@co.frederick.va.us June 14, 2001 Ms. Jane W. Powell Real Property Specialist Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street P.O. Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 Dear Ms. Powell: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors, meeting in regular session on June 13, 2001, unanimously approved the enclosed resolution that supports the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; the Dogwood Development Group LLC; JasBo, Inc.; and Fred L. Glaize regarding the ownership of, treatment of, and access to Lake Frederick. During discussion of this matter, the Board also expressed their strong desire to be notified should it ever be determined that the state would no longer maintain ownership of Lake Frederick. The purpose of such notification being that the county would be given an opportunity to consider taking over ownership. Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Enclosures: as stated cc w/enclosures: Planning Department Sincerely, John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator RECEIVED 0418 2001 aEPT, OF r1ANNINGi���''c�uPMEN� 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 e n � •BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the land comprising the Dogwood Development Group's proposed project, known as "Shenandoah," to be situated around Lake Frederick in southeastern Frederick County, was zoned R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on October 22, 1975; and WHEREAS, the Shenandoah project constitutes a significant redesign of the former Wheatlands project which received Master Development Plan approval on July 10, 1991; and WHEREAS, the anticipated impacts of the proposed Shenandoah project to Frederick County and the Commonwealth, both economically and environmentally, are anticipated to be far more desirable than those of the previously approved Wheatlands proposal; and WHEREAS, a Preliminary Master Development Plan for the Shenandoah project was approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors on October 25, 2000, contingent of certain conditions, one of which was the execution of an agreement between the Dogwood Development Group and the State Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Frederick County does hereby express its strong support for the continued state ownership of Lake Frederick and the ongoing involvement of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in the Shenandoah project; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Frederick County supports the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement as drafted March 22, 2001. Passed this 13th day. of June, 2001, by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Robert M. Sager Resolution No.: 049-01 Aye Charles W. Orndoff, Sr. Aye Sidney A. Reyes Aye Margaret B. Douglas A COPY TESTE: John"fey, ey, Jr., Cler Boarff of Supervisors Aye Aye Aye N Prepared by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries P. O. Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 Exempt from recordation taxes imposed by §58.1-807 of the Code of Virginia by virtue of §58.1-811E of said Code, and exempt from payment of any Clerk's fee by virtue of §17.1-266 of the Code of Virginia. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this 22nd day of March, 2001, by and between THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES, (the "Department"), and Dogwood Development Group LLC, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, (the "Company"), and JasBo, Inc., a Virginia corporation, and Fred L. Glaize, 111, ("JasBo and Glaize"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Department and the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries (the "Board"), pursuant to the provisions of §29.1-100, et seq. of the Code of Virginia, have the mission to manage Virginia's wildlife and inland fish to maintain optimum populations of all species to serve the needs of the Commonwealth; to provide opportunity for all to enjoy wildlife, inland fish, boating, and related outdoor recreation; and to promote safety for persons and property in connection with boating, hunting, and fishing; and WHEREAS, the Board owns a public fishing lake in Frederick County known as Lake Frederick ("Lake Frederick"), a fifty -foot horizontal width strip of land surrounding the water line of Lake Frederick (the "State Buffer"), and an additional parcel of land which contains the dam, a public parking area, a landing area and boat ramp, and a public fishing area (the "Landing Area") all of which are depicted, along with other relevant information, on Attachment A; and WHEREAS, the Company.is the contract purchaser from JasBo and Glaize of land 1 surrounding the Board's Lake Frederick land which the Company desires to develop into a residential community referred to as the Shenandoah development and which is shown on Attachment A (the Property). Jasbo and Glaize enter this Agreement for reasons set forth in Paragraph 29 below; and WHEREAS, the Company plans to establish a Homeowners Association with a membership of all lot owners in the Shenandoah development; and WHEREAS, Lake Frederick is a valuable amenity to the citizens of Virginia, and will be a valuable amenity to those who will live in the Shenandoah development; and WHEREAS, the Department and the Company wish to work together to accomplish their goals and to protect Lake Frederick; and WHEREAS, the Company and the Department realize that the process of development, and the permanent increase in impervious areas which will result, must be carefully managed to avoid causing water quality and siltation problems in Lake Frederick; and . WHEREAS, the Department and the Company wish to cooperate and coordinate with each other to protect the water quality, scenic beauty and natural amenities of Lake Frederick and its surrounding area as the Shenandoah development is built and thereafter; and WHEREAS, the Board owns a Public Access Road with a 50 foot right-of-way (the "Public Access Road") connecting U.S. Route 5221340 to the Landing Area; and WHEREAS, the Company desires to acquire the Department's Public Access Road in exchange for a new public access road with a 50-foot (minimum) right-of-way the ("New Public Access Road") connecting U.S. Route 522/340 to the Landing Area and other 2 consideration; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing, the Department, subject.to ratification by the Board, and the Company hereby agree as follows: 1. Lake Protection and Water Quality Management: Prior to beginning construction of the New Public Access Road, the Company shall provide. the Department with a survey of Lake Frederick's current depth, and a calculation of the historic annual average rate of siltation accumulation. The Department and the Company agree promptly to develop a water quality management plan to control water quality impacts to Lake Frederick resulting from the development of Shenandoah. This water quality management plan will be developed and agreed upon by the aforementioned parties before start of the construction of the New Public Access Road and will address the following in connection with the Shenandoah Development: A. Erosion and sediment control plan B. Stormwater management plan to include nutrient traps C. Mitigation of silt build-up in the lake beyond the normal rate of siltation D. Monthly monitoring and reporting to the Department levels of fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, temperature profile, turbidity, secci disk readings, and pH, and, twice yearly, a report on levels of chlorophyll -A. An additional monitoring report shall be made within three days of any Major Storm Event and delivered promptly to the Department thereafter. For purposes of this Agreement, Major Storm Event shall mean two inches or more of rainfall within the water shed of Lake Frederick which occurs in any 24-hour period. Water quality monitoring and reporting to the Department by the Company will cease six months after all areas of land disturbance have been stabilized. 3 E. Dredging. If, as a result of construction activity by the Company, the average depth of Lake Frederick decreases more than one foot,i or if mud banks appear in the Lake, the Department may determine that dredging is necessary. If the Department determines dredging is necessary, it shall notify the Company of that determination and the parties shall enter an agreement which shall include an obligation upon the company to undertake the dredging project, at its cost, and a definition of the scope, means and methods of the dredging project. The Department shall make the Landing Area and its portion of the New Public Access Road available for use in the dredging project. The Company's dredging obligation hereunder will cease six months after all areas of land disturbance have been stabilized. 2. Conservation Easement Area: The Company will convey an open -space easement to the Board over a Conservation Easement Area which shall be an area of land extending 50 feet from the Board's property line, except no such easement shall be imposed at or around the dam at the south end of the lake where Department ownership exceeds 100 feet. The Company will provide the Department with an exhibit, in recordable form, to delineate the Conservation Easement Area. In addition, the Department's Regional Fisheries Manager may designate certain points (not to exceed a total of 15) at the outer boundary of the Conservation Easement Area where survey markers are to be placed. The Company shall promptly locate those points and shall install survey pins to memorialize those points. 3. Floodway Easements: The Company will provide the Department with floodway easements (a) to provide for rising water in the lake to elevation 629, based on USUGS datum, the elevation one foot over the PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) level and (b) to prevent development downstream of the Lake Frederick Dam in the area owned by 1 For purposes of this Agreement, any decrease in the depth of Lake Frederick shall be calculated 4 the Company which would be at risk in the event of a dam failure, except for the improvements shown on Attachment A. The Company agrees that it will not build habitable structures within the floodway easement area. The Company will provide the Department with an exhibit in recordable form to delineate the floodway easement. 4. Hardwood Conversion Corridors: The Department agrees to allow the selective removal of evergreen trees from the State Buffer, and from the Conservation Easement Area, provided such work is pursuant to a plan approved by the Department before the work begins, such work is done with minimal soil disturbance within 100 feet of Lake Frederick, and no earth disturbing vehicles are allowed within such area. Specific locations of the hardwood conversion corridors and selection of the type of trees to be planted will be determined in the field by representatives of both parties and will be depicted on plans that must be approved and signed by both the Department and the Company. The Shenandoah Homeowners Association ("HOA") and the purchasers of lots which adjoin the Conservation Easement Area will be furnished a copy of the Department's publication entitled Shoreline Management Objectives for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Department -Owned Lakes, included in this Agreement as Attachment A 5. Land Exchange: The Board and the Company will enter into a contract to effect the following exchange of land: A. The Board will convey the Public Access Road to the Company, and the Company will convey the New Public Access Road, each as shown on Attachment A, to the Board. The New Public Access Road will intersect U.S. Route 522/340 as the decrease from the yearly average rate of siltation accumulation. 5 at a location as shown on Attachment A and will extend to the Landing Area. B. The land exchange will meet the following criteria: (1) All land exchanges will be subject to approval of the Board of Game and Inland Fisheries, pursuant to §29.1-103 of the Code of Virginia, and the Governor, pursuant to §2.1-504.2 of the Code of Virginia. (2) Land conveyed to the Department will be of equal or greater value than the land conveyed to the Company. (3) The Company will construct the New Public Access Road to Virginia Department . of Transportation (VDOT) Subdivision Street Requirements, so it will be eligible for inclusion in the VDOT Secondary Road System and for maintenance by VDOT. (4) The Company will secure . all necessary approvals, including approval from VDOT to include the New Public Access Road in the VDOT Secondary Road System. (5) The Company will pay for the construction of the New Public Access Road, its acceptance into the Secondary Road System, and for costs incurred by the Department associated with the land exchange. (6) The Company will install underground sewer, water, electric and telephone utilities to serve the Landing Area according to the plans and specifications approved by the Department. The location of such utilities within the right-of-way of the New Public Access Road will be approved by VDOT. These utilities will be installed at no cost to the Department. 6. Property Enhancements and Improvements: The Department and the Company agree that the Company will construct, according to plans and locations 0 approved by the Department, the following improvements, most of which will be on Board property or on the Conservation Easement Area: A. DGIF Public Parking Area: The Company will increase the size of the existing public parking area as shown on Attachment A and according to plans approved by the Department. The Department will provide design specifications and will approve final plans for parking area improvements. Improvements will be at no cost to the Department. B. Restrooms and Concessions: The Company will construct public restrooms and a concession facility on the Landing Area in the location generally as shown on Attachment A. The Company will design for approval by the Department the public restrooms and concession facilities containing not more than a total of 1,000 square feet of floor area. The Department will remove the existing concession building. The Company shall provide utility service to the concession area. C. Trails and Access Facilities: The Company will construct the following trails and access facilities: (1) Woodland 'and lakeside trails (2). Wetland and nature trails from the Village Center down and into the wetlands on property owned by both parties along Crooked Run. These, nature trails will be open to the public and will be accessible from the Department's parking area. (3) Boardwalks (4) Footbridges (5) Public fishing pier (1) (6) Boat access sites with courtesy piers (2) The foregoing facilities shall be constructed to meet the Department standards. The parties agree that the public shall have the right -of -access to and use of such of the foregoing facilities as are located on or within the Department's, property and the 7 Conservation Easement Area, and those trails, boardwalks and foot paths shown on Attachment A and located between the Village Center, Crooked Run and the Department Parking Area. In addition, the Department, its employees, invitees, and assigns (AKA the public) shall have unrestricted access to trails, boardwalks, and footpaths located on or within the Department's property and the Conservation Easement Area that can be accessed by watercraft. The Regional Fisheries Manager will approve the exact location of these facilities on behalf of the Department. 7. Requirements. Approval of Plans. Approval of Location: All improvements will be constructed and operated in accordance with state and local requirements and regulations and according to Department specifications. Before authorizing any construction on the Department's property, or the Conservation Easement Area, the Company shall submit its plans, drawings, proposed materials, and methods of construction to the Department for approval by its Office of Capital Programs (OCP). The Department will inspect construction work for compliance with Department and state standards and requirements and such inspection shall be by the OCP. The exact location of the public improvements will be mutually determined in the field by representatives of both parties and will be depicted on plans that are approved and signed by both OCP and the Company., 8. Operating Agreement: The Company and the Department shall negotiate in good faith to enter an annual agreement to provide for the operation of the concession and to provide year-round restrooms availability and year-round trash removal service, seasonal boat rental service and such other services as to which the parties may agree. This Agreement shall require operation of the foregoing facilities in accordance with the Department standards and requirements. This Agreement further shall require no payment of rent or fees to the Department and shall be subject to termination by either party upon a ninety -day prior written notice. 9. Maintenance of Department's Public Facilities: The Department and the Company recognize the Company's need to assure that all properties within the Shenandoah development, including those owned or controlled by the Department, shall be maintained in a high -quality, pleasing manner consistent with the Shenandoah residential development. To address that concern, the Company and the Department shall enter a Maintenance Agreement by which the Company shall have the right, at its expense, for the term of the Maintenance Agreement and to the extent that the parties shall agree, to maintain specifically designated areas which may include the landing area, the Department's public parking area, the trails, boardwalks, foot bridges, public fishing piers, and boat access sites, courtesy piers and wetland trails. The Maintenance Agreement shall address areas where it shall be permitted to cut weeds and brush, as well as maintenance of the access road and parking lot surfaces, including parking barriers and bollards, maintenance of drainage ditches, maintaining and cleaning out stormwater and sedimentation basins and traps as needed, mowing the grass at established public access points, collection and removal of trash and garbage, removal of debris and other routine maintenance necessary for safe public use and enjoyment of Lake Frederick and the development of such maintenance agreement shall be based upon the objectives already established in the Department's Shoreline Management Objectives for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries' Department -Owned Lakes, included in this Agreement as Attachment B. This right to maintain the Department's public facilities N pursuant to the Maintenance Agreement shall exist notwithstanding a failure of the parties to enter an Operation Agreement as provided in Section 8 above. A separate agreement by the parties shall be required with respect to maintenance of the restrooms and concession as provided in paragraph 8 above. 10. Costs: The Company will pay all the costs of carrying out the provisions of this Agreement except that the Department will pay its own legal costs and the salaries of its employees. 11. Time Line: The parties will accomplish the performance of their obligations under this Agreement according to the following schedule: Current -depth survey of Lake Frederick Maintenance Agreement Water Quality Management Plan Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, in phases associated with construction Stormwater Management Plan Conveyance of open -space easement for Conservation Easement Area Prior to construction of the New Public Access Road Prior to April, 2002 Prior to construction of the New Public Access Road Prior to commencement of construction of each phase of the Shenandoah development Prior to commencement of construction of the Shenandoah development Prior to or concurrent with land exchange Conveyance of open -space easement for Prior to or concurrent with land floodway area under elevation 629 of each exchange phase of the above dam and open -space easement for PMF floodway area below dam, with plat in recordable form Approve land exchange contract Complete land exchange 10 June 30, 2001 Upon completion of the New Public Access Road ready for approval by Complete construction of New Public Access Road, prior to acceptance into VDOT Secondary Road Install utility lines Resurface existing Department Old Public Parking Area Restrooms and Concession, New Public Parking Area Trails and Access Facilities i Virginia Department of Transportation and the Department Before closing the Public Access Road Before completion of new concession facility Before closing the Public Access Road Before 500 homes have been sold Before beginning the sale of lots in the next phase of the Shenandoah development 12. Coordination of Access During Construction and Prior to Completion of Land Exchange: Prior to closing on the exchange of land, Company shall construct the New Public Access Road and shall make access practically available by the public to the Landing Area while construction is ongoing. During construction of Company's project and until completion of the Land Exchange, the Company shall have the right to cross the Public Access Road as necessary to construct the internal roadway . system and as necessary to tie in the New Public Access Road to the Landing Area. The Company shall not use the Public Access Road as the access for construction of the Shenandoah development. . 13. Homeowners Association: The Company will establish a homeowners association (the "Homeowners Association") which will consist of all property owners in the Shenandoah development and which will have the power to assess dues and assessments which, if unpaid, will become a lien on the real estate of the nonpaying homeowner. The 11 s Department will allow the Company to transfer the Company's maintenance rights and obligations to the Homeowners Association provided the Department determines that the Homeowners Association has the capability to carry out the provision of the Company's maintenance rights and obligations. 14. Public Access to Lake Frederick: Public vehicular access to Lake Frederick and parking will be through the Landing Area. Public access to public improvements to be located in the Lake, on the State Buffer or on the Conservation Easement Area will be pedestrian from trails or by water. The general public and the Shenandoah residents will have the right to use these improvements. The Department will post at the Landing Area public -use regulations for the use of these public areas. No public access will be allowed into the private Shenandoah community. The Company will post the landside boundary of the Conservation Easement Area to prevent public access into the private Shenandoah community. 15. Future Capital Improvements: Capital improvement projects planned by the Department for Lake Frederick after completing the initial construction contemplated by this Agreement will be carried out by the Department at its sole expense. 16. Department Consents and Approvals: The Department hereby delegates to the Department's Regional Fisheries Manager the authority to provide the Consents and Approvals on behalf of the Department as provided in this Agreement, unless such Consents and Approvals are specified in this Agreement to be made by individuals other than the Regional Fisheries Manager. In recognition of the phased development of the Shenandoah development and the need to coordinate and to provide Consents and Approvals on a timely basis, the Department agrees that its Consents and Approvals shall 12 not be withheld, delayed or conditioned without good reason and, further, that any request to the Regional Fisheries Manager for Consents and Approvals by the Regional Fisheries Manager shall be deemed to have been given if no response is made to such request within thirty days from the date such request is received by the Regional Fisheries Manager. The Department acknowledges that time is of the essence. It will make every reasonable effort to obtain and deliver timely approvals on all matters pertaining to this Agreement, including those requiring external consensus. 17. Indemnification: The Company agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Board, the Department, their agents, officers and employees, from and against any and all damage, claim, liability or loss, including reasonable attorneys' and other fees, arising out of the Company's performance under this Agreement. 18. Entire Agreement: This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the parties relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no oral or parol agreements existing between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof which are not expressly set forth and covered hereby. 19. Headings: The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 20. Interpretation: Whenever the context hereof shall so require, the singular shall include the plural, the neuter gender shall include the male and female genders, and vice versa. 21. Notices: Any notice required or permitted for the purposes of this Agreement shall be deemed given when personally delivered or when mailed by certified 13 mail in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the party to whom such notice is given, at the address for such party set forth hereunder, or such other address as the party may provide to the other in writing prior to the giving of such notice: If to the Company: Manager Dogwood Development Group, LLC 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 925 Reston, VA 20191 President Shenandoah Homeowners Association If to the Department: Real Property Manager Department of Game & Inland Fisheries 4010 West Broad Street Richmond, VA 23230 Regional Fisheries Manager Department of Game & Inland Fisheries P. O. Box 996 Verona, VA 24482 22. Counterparts: This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same agreement. 23. Additional Acts: Except as otherwise provided herein, in addition to the acts or deeds recited herein and contemplated to be performed, executed and/or delivered by either party, the parties hereto agree to perform, execute and/or deliver or cause to be performed, executed and/or delivered any and such further acts, deeds and assurances that either party may reasonably require to consummate the transaction contemplated hereby. Included, by way of illustration and not limitation, shall be the Department's obligation to consent to rezoning of the Public Access Road in conjunction with the Company's application currently pending, before Clarke County, as well as grant of 14 drainage, grading and constructio. . easements necessary for construction of each phase of the Company's stormwater detention facilities. 24. Severability: In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. 25. Binding Agreement: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and assigns. 26. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 27. Assignment: The Company shall be permitted to assign this Agreement in whole or in part to any Purchaser and to the Homeowners_ Association referred to in paragraph 13 provided; however, that (i) the Assignee expressly assumes all obligations of the Seller hereunder; and (ii) the Department provides its consent to the Assignment, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. 28. Term: The term of this Agreement shall be for twenty (20) years until March 21, 2021. It shall thereafter continue from year to year until either party gives a 180-day notice of termination, which termination shall not take effect sooner than 180 days after such notice is given. 29. JasBo and Glaize will hold a Deed of Trust on the Property after the Company purchases the Property. If they regain control of the Property pursuant to the 15 heed of Trust or otherwise, they agree to carry out this Agreement and, should they again sell the Property, to require their purchaser to agree to carry it out. They further acknowledge and consent to the terms of the Agreement and confirm that they will provide such releases, consents or other approvals as may be required to effect the provisions of this Agreement. 16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed or caused this Agreement to be executed by their authorized officers as of the date first above written. THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES Director COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA CITY/COUNTY OF , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2001 by William L. Woodfin, Jr., Director of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Notary Public My commission expires: Dogwood Development Group, LLC Manager STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day. of 2001 by , of Dogwood Development Group, LLC. Notary Public My commission expires: 17 JasBo, Inc. President STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF , to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this , 2001 by JasBo, Inc. Notary Public My commission expires: Fred L. Glaize, III STATE OF CITY/COUNTY OF to -wit: day of of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2001 by Fred L. Glaize, III. Notary Public My commission expires: Office of the Attorney General Approved as to form: Senior Assistant Attorney General 18 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES FOR THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES' DEPARTMENT -OWNED or CONTROLLED LAKES I. INTRODUCTION A. Mission of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries To manage Virginia's wildlife and inland fish to maintain optimum populations of all species to serve the needs of the Commonwealth; to provide opportunity for all to enjoy wildlife, inland. fish, boating and related outdoor recreation; to promote safety for persons and property in connection with boating, hunting and fishing. B. General The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) owns the public land surrounding lakes. While the land surrounding VDGIF lakes is often referred to as "buffer zones" it remains in the fee ownership of the Department and may not be utilized for exclusive private purposes. Ownership of adjacent land does not convey any rights to the use of adjoining public land that the public does not have. Shorelines are allocated for public recreational use and as such, may be developed in the future for recreational. trails that are open to the public or to meet wildlife management objectives. C. Background Since the 1930s, the Department has controlled the operations of certain public fishing lakes. With an increase in unauthorized private use of land that is part of the lake property, a need to establish policy and guidelines is realized. Among common problems that jeopardize the integrity of shoreline natural areas are grazing, pier construction, lawn/garden development, open/cut shorelines, and water withdrawals (to name a few). The Department's goal is to provide public awareness of the need to protect shorelines through the establishment of a management plan and through positive public information. H. BACKGROUND AND AUTHORITY A. Background The Shoreline Management Plan establishes policy and furnishes guidelines in the following areas 1. protection and conservation of desirable environmental characteristics of public lakes; Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development 2. effective management of shoreline and lake resources; 3. types of private uses and activities that may be permitted on public land; 4. restoration of shoreline where degradation has occurred because of illegal and unauthorized activities; and 5. clarification pertaining to legal actions and remedies for encroachment and trespass. B. Future Rules, Regulations, Legislation and Policies. The objectives identified in this plan incorporate any future legislation, regulations, operating memoranda, state and federal laws and regulations, or policies pertinent to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. C. Authority 1. "Authority is under §18.2-140 of the Code of Virginia, entitled Destruction of trees, shrubs, etc. as follows: It shall be unlawful for any person to pick, pull, pull up, tear, tear up, dig, dig up, cut, break, injure, bum, or destroy, in whole or in part, any tree, shrub, vine, plant, flower, or turf found, growing or being upon the land of another, or upon any land reserved set aside, or maintained by the Commonwealth as a public park, or as a refuge or sanctuary for wild animals, birds or fish without having previously obtained the permission in writing of such other or his agent or of the superintendent or custodian of such park, refuge or sanctuary so to do, unless the same be done under the personal direction of such owner, his agent, tenant or lessee or superintendent or custodian of such park, refuge or sanctuary. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; provided, however, that the approval of the owner, his agent, tenant or lessee, or the superintendent or custodian of such park or sanctuary afterwards given in writing or in open court shall be a bar to further prosecution or suit." 2. "§ 18.2-119 Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued Attachment 8 Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development pursuant to §§16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to §20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136." 3. "§ 18.2-137 Injuring, etc., any property, monument, etc. A. If any person unlawfully destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal any property, real or personal, not his own, or breaks down, destroys, defaces, damages or removes without the intent to steal, any monument or memorial for war veterans described in § 15.2-1812, any monument erected for the purpose of marking the site of any engagement fought during the War between the States, or for the purpose of designating the boundaries of any city, town, tract of land, or any tree marked for that purpose, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor; provided that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss the charge if the locality or organization responsible for maintaining the injured property, monument, or memorial files a written affidavit with the court stating it has received full payment for the injury. B. If any person intentionally causes such injury, he shall be guilty of (i) a Class 1 misdemeanor if the value of or damage to the property, memorial or monument is less than $1,000 or (ii) a Class 6 felony if the value of or damage to the property, memorial or monument is $1,000 or more. The amount of loss caused by the destruction, defacing, damage or removal of such property, memorial or monument may be established by proof of the fair market cost of repair or fair market replacement value. Upon conviction, the court may order that the defendant pay restitution." III. OBJECTIVES The water quality of the lakes is suitable for propagation of desirable species of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic life, as well as other compatible uses. The combined effects of shoreline alterations by adjacent property owners modifies aesthetic (or visual) quality, destroys habitat and may cause declines in fish and wildlife populations. Management is necessary to prevent shorelines from being developed for lawns, gardens, and recreation areas. Shoreline management provides an opportunity for shoreline protection, which in turn protect the watershed, insuring highest water quality. A. Manage and protect environmental integrity of shorelines 1. Activities that cause any type of degradation to shorelines or that influence the integrity of shorelines in any way are not allowed. 2. Earthwork and related activities on adjacent private lands are to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development B. Establish and maintain acceptable fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic quality, and natural environmental conditions as follows: 1. Maintain and or enhance natural shoreline vegetation by prohibiting alterations. 2. Historically altered Department property may be restored at the discretion of VDGIF. C. Promote the safe and healthful use of the lake and shoreline for recreational purposes by all constituents in conjunction with VDGIF policy. Access to Department property shall be afforded to all citizens in accordance with applicable VDGIF policy. D. Establish guidance related to the preparation of access to the water's edge, the vegetation and revegetation in cases of trespass and degradation, and clarify acceptable activities of adjacent landowners: 1. Planting on public property is not allowed unless there is a plan approved by DGIF. 2. Footpaths are allowed across Department property for access to the edge of the water. The path may not exceed five feet (5') in width and must be routed to minimize effects on vegetation. Footpaths cannot be utilized as roadways by motorized and/or off -road vehicles. All footpaths on Department property, regardless of who constructed them, are open to public use. "No Trespassing" signs may not be posted on VDGIF property. 3. Mowing of the footpaths aforementioned in item 2 is allowed according to the standards set forth. 4. Herbicide use is not allowed on state property. 5. Burning is not allowed on state property. 6. Placement of riprap or other materials for any purpose and the construction of retaining walls are not allowed. 7. Individual private piers are not allowed. 8. Except for documented forest management, tree or brush cutting on state property is absolutely prohibited without prior written authorization. 9. Furnishings and equipment are not permitted and shall not be placed or affixed to the property surrounding the lakes. Such furnishings and equipment include but are not limited to the following: satellite dishes, grills or barbecue pits, flag poles, picnic tables, etc. 10. Dumping and or storage of brush, rock piles, trash or garbage of any type are not permitted. Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development E. Establish an understanding of VDGIF's expectations for reforestation, regeneration or revegetation in areas where private development has occurred. 1. Adjacent private landowners shall be notified of the availability of this management plan through any one or all of the following means: local or county offices, direct distribution, news releases, or public information bulletins. 2. Areas of disturbed shoreline that are under the ownership of VDGIF shall be mitigated by the landowner at their sole expense to meet with the objectives of this plan. Adjacent private landowners shall receive written notice of any violations, and VDGIF shall provide in writing an appropriate approach for reforestation, regeneration or revegetation, as the case may be. F. Clarify shoreline boundaries of Department -owned lakes. 1. Boundaries of Department -owned lakes are specified in each of the deeds in the local records, and this boundary delineation defines the property line in relation to the adjacent landowners. 2. VDGIF boundary witness trees are marked only with blazes. The blazes are painted yellow. Bands painted completely around the tree are not used. A blaze is made by cutting off a vertical strip of outside bark 6" to 8" long and 2" to 4" wide. The size of the blaze varies depending upon the size of the tree. Refer to Exhibit A for more detailed information and illustrations. G. Clarify status of existing "authorized" uses - grandfathering 1. Facilities and activities that have once been authorized specifically in writing by VDGIF, but now would not be authorized, are grandfathered. 2. Authorizations of this type are not transferrable when property is transferred or conveyed. 3. VDGIF reserves the right to revegetate, regenerate, or reforest all grandfathered activities. IV. ACCESS TO LAKES A. Adjacent Landowners 1. Adjacent landowners are only authorized to make minor alterations to vegetation around habitable structures to establish a footpath no wider than five (5') for purposes of accessing the lake. Sections of the footpath that lie on VDGIF shoreline property are open to public use (refer to Section III.D.2. Footpaths). Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development 2. Alteration to all other existing surrounding vegetation including plantings, underbrushing and mowing, etc. is not allowed. B. Public Access - Public use of the lakes is permitted according to established regulations. Any activities other than public recreational activities or pedestrian access may be considered an encroachment of degradation of public property and is punishable under current Virginia Law (Class I Misdemeanor, and Section 18.2-137). V. DEFINITIONS A. Encroachment — a building, a part of a building, or an obstruction that physically intrudes upon, overlaps, or trespasses upon the property of another.I B. High Water Mark — the mark made by the highest level the water reaches C. Grandfathered — an action to exempt or make allowance for an activity already in progress before such activity became forbidden or illegal. D. Trespass — unlawful entry or possession of property. 2 E. Underbrushing — selective cutting and continued control of woodland understory vegetation (weeds, vines, briars, etc.) and thinning of tree saplings. F. Vegetation — plant, plant life or growth VI. DESCUMON OF THE SHORELINE A. General - The land area surrounding the VDGIF public lakes varies in dimension. Where the boundaries run with the contours of the shoreline, the Department's ownership.may range upward to 60 feet from the water's edge. It is important for adjoining landowners to verify their property boundaries in connection with the state's ownership. Portions of these lands are located within flood plains and are allocated for wildlife management and recreation. Recreational use excludes sailing, swimming; the rules for individual lakes can be found in the current issue of the VDGIF Public Fishing Lakes Guide for lakes owned by the VDGIF. VII. - LIST OF APPLICABLE LAKES 1. Bark Camp 2. Keokee 3. Rural Retreat 'Dictionary of Real Estate Terns, Barron's t Dictionary of Real Estate Terms, Barron's Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development 4. Willis Robertson 5. Frederick 6. Shenandoah 7. Burton 8. Nelson 9. Pete's Pond 10. Briery Creek 11. Brunswick 12. Conner 13. Gordon 14. Nottoway 15. Albemarle 16. Fluvanna Ruritan 17. Lower/Upper Powhatan 18. Brittle 19. Burke 20. Curtis 21.Orange 22. Chandlers 23. Gardy's Mill 24. Airfield 25. Game Refuge Lake Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development EXHIBIT A, Pg. 1 Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development EXHIBIT A, Pg. 2 Exhibit A. Example to Illustrate Boundary Line Markings I Witness trees are painted (with color) to delineate the boundary line. Where trees are not available, a similarly marked post is used along with department signs bearing the department logo. Surveys by a licensed survey may be necessary to determine exact line locationypes and meanings of markings are illustrated below: !— WrIMM TREE FOR CORNER Tbn o boucle am ataud aopleto r aaeaed to a with hack=w0= V Gw bead t duc A* *mew. A Mum to Jw&W .vpwdm.Ws wWet h4h &due \l COIAPLWM S 0 o tom' va \ • � o o may. FRONT SIDE nw Lnv$ TREE Rrwreo& om h am s•ledd a& orpo to da...r the free bi dw ahad7«a atheuue, with a badt of h1 emb bted. Z.. Aaod. d.ec «.w.fay.ed d. tha.a. Ar1w is me" aho.a dw roue& rm" aa--go lmdIsMe that fro boudwy uae pww rah 7�YNaoa 71Ya FRONT SIDE L1Qm 1V1TNE88 TREE Tie book we pabited as the urea vWh hods tadad is w a4adbo of dw Un& 7W ►osdo aea pdmd awwmd the aidow of the be*. ee dud taut may be own 6a atetauee wbes waLU" the Sue. Ibmw tear am owmear en e..ommont ppeeV. Kees the 044 b oao am set era bemdewr SM tha! —W UMAr& a mwbfah doe the bvmA sr 7hm ts" SIDE Refer to Chapter 13 for more information on boundary marking. e 7 e Attachment B Memorandum of Agreement DGIF/Dogwood Development MEMORANDUM COUNTY of FREDERICK Kris C. Tierney Assistant County Administrator 540/665-5666 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: ktiemey@co.frederick.va.us TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County Administrator RE: Shenandoah - Resolution of Support for Memorandum of Agreement DATE: June 6, 2001 The attached resolution expresses the board of supervisors support for the continued state ownership of Lake Frederick and the continued involvement of the State Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (DGIF) in the Shenandoah project. The DGIF will be holding a public hearing on July 191h to consider approval of a Memorandum of Agreement between the Department and the Dogwood Development Group concerning the treatment of, and access to, Lake Frederick and the surrounding property to be developed by Dogwood (a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement is attached for your information). Staff will be attending the hearing and can, if the board chooses, forward the resolution to the DGIF Board for their consideration. Please let me know if I can answer any questions. Attachments: as stated cc: Planning Department CAW IND0 WS\TEMP\b=henresmmt.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Z] FILE Corr N? May 2, 2001 Mr. Charles Maddox G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-00 FOR "SHENANDOAH" Dear Chuck: The Final Master Development Plan for "Shenandoah" was administratively approved on May 2, 2001. This project includes the development of a 926-acre age -restricted community, resulting in 2,130 residential units within Frederick County. Prior to development of the proposed Village Center, a master development plan for this center must be submitted and approved by the County. Additionally, no subdivision plats for the Shenandoah project will be approved until the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) agreement is executed, and the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) Luray Residency grants approval for the project's entrance onto Front Royal Pike (RT 522N). Attached are four copies of the approved Final Master Development Plan. These copies are for your and your clients records. Please contact me with any questions regarding this approval. ric wrence, AICP Deputy Director ERL cc: Robert Sager, Opequon District Supervisor Dogwood Development OAVA&mdas l �ftsle�.a19M.MDP3...pd AP WdA- _ or 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality 2 October 2000 Mr. Kris Tierney, Director Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: "Shenandoah" MDP Revised "Final Notes" and Application Dear Kris, Thank you for our meeting last Wednesday. RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2000 DEPT, OF PLANNINGIDEVELOPMENT L.=1rT -� President: Thus J. O'Toole, P.E. Vim Presldmb: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: P. Duane Brown, L.S. William L. Wright Michael A. Hammer Thomas W. Price I am attaching several revised documents to this letter which we trust are in keeping with the agreements and instructions of that meeting. You will also find a separate letter which summarizes our requested waivers for Commission and Board action. To summarize for your review is the following: A) Master Development Plan 1) Sheet 3 of 10 was not revised but will be as soon as the road name issues can be resolved. We understand that this does not have to be completed prior to Planning Commission review of this document. 2) Sheet 4 of 10 is the phasing plan which delineates adjacent property owners and modifies the "data" section, pursuant to our talks. This "data" is also presented as Appendix "A" in the final notes. 3) Sheet 6 of 10 is the revised "Steep Slope" plan. We trust this version is much easier to follow. 4) Sheet 8 of 10 is the "Woodlands and Wetlands" plan. This clarifies the woodlands disturbance and adds the wetlands delineation information requested. B) "Final Notes to Master Development Plan" 1) We have added a new paragraph 1 to include the governing definition for our "Active Adult Age Restricted Resort Community." We have also added a statement specifying the intent of our deeds, covenants, and HOA bylaws to restrict school age children from permanent residence in this development. 2) We have filled in the blanks as requested. 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gweliff@mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council a gil.,� w. clifford and associates, inc Page 2 3) We revised paragraph 7 "Fire and Rescue Service" to read as follows: "A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either in the VillageCenter (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County but is offsite of Shenandoah. A one time gift of $20,000 is offered to provide assistance in the purchase of the alternative site. 4) We have added a paragraph 7 as follows: "A library site in the Village Center to a maximum size of 1 acre is offered for a period of 5 years. The developer will provide the site and planning, should the County library decide to construct and operate such a facility." 5) Paragraph 9 (e) and 9 (i) are revised to provide for granting of respective easements at the time plats are recorded on a section by section basis. 6) Paragraph 14 (a) is revised to say "each phase is one year of development. Building permits not granted in any previous phases may be carried over so long as the cumulative total of authorized phases are not exceeded." 7) Paragraph 14 (d) specifies that the Route 636 entrance is to be in place prior to the issuance of the 750 building permit and 14 (e) states that the Route 277 entrance be installed prior to the 1200 building permit. 8) Paragraph 14 (f) is revised to read "disturbance and improvements in future phase areas will be required to implement this plan due to the need for grading, utilities, roadways, the substantial number of storm management ponds to protect water quality in Lake Frederick and the like. This work will be allowed upon plan approval by the County." 9) Paragraph 15 (b) has been changed to read "the HOA is empowered and required to project vegetative screening and open space trees, as well as all common area plantings, such as street trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the HOA, from time to time, to allow proper access by all emergency and service vehicles. We trust these changes meet your approval. After your review please let me know if all is o.k. and we will insert the changes in the earlier submitted booklets prior to your distribution prior to the October 18 Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Ray Smith Mr. Mark Helmer Mr. David Cobey Revision 1.1 RECEIVED DRAFT OCT ° 2 Z000 FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN GF1i111jl SHENANDOAH �, The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided 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. Project Classification The developer agrees to include in its HOA Declaration and Restrictions a provision which age restricts the gated active adult portion of the site (everything except the Village Center and the CCRC sites) so that; "80% of the homes will have at least one prime resident who is 55 years of age or older. The other 20% of the homes will have one prime resident who is 45 years of age or older. No children under the age of 19 may live in the community for more than 90 days a year." The HOA further must develop a system, that they are obligated to maintain, which enforces this age restriction. The enforcement system must be included in the declarations and restrictions that run with the land. 2. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling units (2.3 DU/Acre) using a mix of housing types as shown on the attached "PHASING PLAN" (Appendix "A") (b) The mix of housing types will wary due to market demand from Phase to Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval. An amended phasing plan shall be submitted for such unit modifications. 3. Transportation improvements. (a) The developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340, Rte 636 and Rte 277 generally as shown in the plan and required by approved VDOT Permit. (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan during Phase 1 of the project. Revision 1.1 (c) The developer shall prime and double seal the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, not later than the time of issuance of the 750 building permit. 4. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. 5. Streetlights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and, approved by the zoning administrator, will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. 6. Provision of water and sewer service. (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board and the FCSA. (c) Public water will be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. (d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transferred to the FCSA ownership. 7. Fire and Rescue Service. A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either in the Village Center (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County but is of -site of Shenandoah. A one time gift of $20,000 is offered to provide assistance in the purchase of the alternative site. Revision 1.1 & Library A library site in the Village Center to a maximum size of 1 acre is offered for a period of 5 years. The developer will provide the site and planning, should the County library decide to construct and operate such a facility. 9. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite wastewater treatment facility. (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 Lake Frederick. 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 sub watershed 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 will eventually assign this responsibility to a homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer. 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. (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 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 Revision 1.1 DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (HOA) and VDGIF at the time of recordation of a final plat for each residential section of the development. No building, tree cutting, clearing or disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation, or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit written approval of VDGIF. (f) To provide and contain walking traffic along the lake, the developer shall build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting to fishing, boating, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGIF. Such trails shall be maintained by the developer and successor HOAs. Trails will clearly identify private property lines (public access limits). (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through buffer areas reforesting those areas with herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VDGIG satisfaction. (h) The developer will build three piers — one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches — to VDGIF specifications. (i) Flooding easements will be provided to VDGIF on a section by section basis as plats are recorded. 10. Access to Lake Frederick The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake for carry -ins (canoes, kayaks), as shown on the MDP. Each will have appropriate signage, parking and craft storage racks outside the conservation buffer, a walk path to lakeside in locations agreeable to VDGIF, and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. 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. Revision 1.1 12. School site. Since school age children will not reside in this project, and the remote location of the property to the urban population centers of the County, no school site is proposed. 13. Recreation Facilities The developer will provide recreation in accord with the attached schedule (Appendix `B" ). Each of these facilities will be constructed during the identified phase of development of the community with which it is associated, and each will be turned over to its community HOA for use and maintenance under terms explicit in all home sale contracts. 14. Phasing (a) Each phase is one year of development. Building permits not granted in any previous phases may be carved over so long as the cumulative total of authorized phases are not exceeded. (b) Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant, the entrance on US Rte 340/522, the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. (c) Public water and sewer lines will be extended into each phase on an as - needed basis. (d) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 636 shall be constructed not later than before the 750 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3, when it will be opened for public access. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed not later than before the 1200 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 6, when it will be opened for public access. (f) Disturbance and improvements in future phase areas will be required to implement this plan due to the need for grading, utilities, roadways, the substantial number of storm management ponds to protect water quality in Lake Frederick and the like. This work will be allowed upon plan approval by the County. Revision 1.1 15. Homeowners' Association (HOA). (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, (i) Operation of a community center and Tennis Center. (ii) Maintenance of common areas. (iii) Maintenance of Best Management Practices Facilities, subject to the provisions of §lb hereof. (iv) Maintenance of trails. (v) Maintenance of street lights. (vi) Maintenance of the recreation areas (W) Maintenance of Roadway system (b) The HOA is empowered and required to project vegetative screening and open space trees, as well as all common area plantings, such as street trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the HOA, from time to time, to allow proper access by all emergency and service vehicles. APPENDIX "A" DENSITY AND PHASING DATA Frederick County, Virginia Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Village Center Totals Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 S. Family Small Lot 65' Wide Lot 59 104 155 136 75 64 593 55' Wide Lot 75 149 153 145 66 40 628 Duplex 65 100 112 106 42 34 459 TownHouse 0 70 70 70 0 0 210 Garden Apartments 36 39 45 36 44 40 240 Totals 235 462 635 493 227 178 2130 Area Summary (acres) Area in Lots Area in Roads Area Area in Open Space 175.75 173.43 191.90 190.31 83.18 76.43 35.00 926.00 44.42 67.67 79.22 70.93 39.31 37.37 338.92 33.63 18.06 17.11 20.44 6.84 6.00 102.08 97.82 87.82 95.68 99.06 37.14 32.48 15.00 465.00 AREA in FREDERICK COUNTY 926.266 acres ALLOWED DENSITY per R-5 ZONE(2.3/acre) 2130 50.2% APPENDIX "B" Recreation Unit Summary Fredrick County, Virginia Type Community Building Trout Pond Outdoor Pool Play Courts Hiker/Biker Trails Natural Trails Nature Center(Village) Boat Docks DGIF Facilities Golf School Phase Totals County Requirements No of Dwellings No of Rec Units at 1 per 30 Value per Rec Unii Value reqd by Ordinance Phase 1 Value of Amenities - Dollars Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase 2 3 4 5 6 ,,, , ,„ , ,„ ,T, ,,, ■�„, Morro Me Wn ,„ ?"Me , ,,,MEM , r, 235.0 462.0 535.0 493.0 227.0 178.0 7.8 15.4 17.8 16.4 7.6 5.9 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $125,2801 $246,4001 $285,3331 $262,9331 $121,0671 $94,933 Remarks Constructed in 3 phases $1,135,946 Shenandoah MDP Notes for September 17 meeting 9/22/00 RECEIVED S E P 2 6 2000 DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT The following list is not necessarily all inclusive, but attempts to be thorough in identifying issues yet to be resolved. `The application is not signed I have 2 sets of Plan notes, one that I received with the application submission on 9/ 11. This version is dated 7/10/00 and is included in the booklet that has been provided for circulation to the Planing Commission and the Board. I received the second version on 9/1 S this one is dated 9/14/00 (the #'s on this version are out of sync). Right of the bat the P.C. is getting information which is not current. This creates a great deal of confusion which the P.C. has historically reacted negatively to. I do not see where the issue of children within the development is addressed within the materials submitted. This is a critical issues with the County. Some notation on the MDP should be included, preferable proposed covenants and deed restrictions would be submitted and referred to. Woodlands - With the information submitted I can not dispute the numbers submitted regarding the proposed disturbance, however, I can't verify or explain them either. The map shows three classifications: 1) existing woodlands, 2) existing woodlands delineation and 3) woodlands to remain undisturbed. I don't know the difference between "existing woodlands" and "existing woodlands delineation". There are also areas indicated as areas to remain undisturbed which fall on both sides of the line which is supposed to denote the limits of the woodland area. If the line is the limit, how can there be remaining woodlands on both sides of it? I had raised these issues in a meeting with Tom weeks ago and again in my formal comments. I had assumed that this would be addressed in the formal submission, however there has been no change to the plan. The note refers to areas to be cleared for views with the approval of DGIF, but the plan shows no indication of where these areas are or there extent. DGEF - The only comment I have from DGIF is dated 9/7/00 and says that they have been meeting with you and you are working on a memorandum of understanding ...several issues remain to be resolved. I don't know what those issues are or how they might effect the design and/or layout of the MDP or the notes on the plan. The issues may be minor or they may be major, I have no way of knowing. The Planing Commission is going to want more information. Are they O.K. with the entrance arrangement, public access to the lake, what form will the agreement take and should it be included or at least referenced in the MDP notes? You really need to be able to present at least a draft of this agreement. Why woudn't the proposed easements be granted to DGIF on the subdivision plats? The notes still indicate- days of recordation iFire and Rescue - The offer of a fire and rescue and library site for years is quit vague. How large is the site, how will it's location be determined? My understanding is that the Fire Marshal still opposes the proposed location within the village center. Some agreement has to be reached in order for the MDP to be approved. At this point I remain uncertain how we will resolve this issue. Wetlands - The plan still makes no reference to wetlands? It is my understanding that some wetlands do exist below the dam. 'V Steep slopes -Like the woodlands I can neither confirm nor dispute your numbers. You still show no interval on the contours. This also needs to be submitted at a large scale so that it's legible. Timing of improvements - While you have reworded the notes so that certain improvements can be linked to a number of units, the numbers have been left blank. Adjoining ownership and use - While you provide a list of adjoining property identification numbers and the corresponding use of the property, none of the plan sheets indicates where these properties are located. oad plan - Most of the road names submitted have been rejected. All road names will need to be reviewed and approved prior to FMDP approval. The road profiles should be labeled to reflect the road types described in the amended R-5 ordinance. Phasing - The Phasing you have indicated seems unusual. This is more a matter of curiosity which you can probably easily explain. The table indicating #'s of units per phase is a bit confusing. What is the meaning of "models"?" Please indicate one of the hons!T�2described in the R-5 zone rather than "condominiums". Lot widths don't need to be i I don't understand your note # 5, "Phasing" (a) on the 9/14/00 version of the notes. (f) under this same heading should be eliminated as it provides no useful information. gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality memorandum To: Kris Tierney, Planning Director From: Chuck Maddox Re: Shenandoah MDP Date: September 25, 2000 Thank you for your "Notes" (I assume its for the October 17 meeting). N • We will sign the application, this was an oversight. RECEIVED S E P 2 6 2000 DEPT, OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT • The second set of plan notes (dated 9/14/00) addresses your staff comments. The notes included in the booklets were the same on which your notes were based and were dated 7/10/00. After our Wednesday 9/27/00 meeting I will make any additional changes desired and substitute the newer set. We will agree on the date that will be used on Wednesday. • We will discuss how to document the age restrictions. Although it would be premature to submit a complete set of covenants and deed restrictions; notes identifying the age restriction process should be able to show that the project adheres to the newly adopted R-5 ordinance requirements. • The woodlands display map is being revised to simplify the review and verify the numbers. I will have a large scale map clearly showing the disturbed areas classified by Wetlands Study and Solutions, Inc. (WSSI). "Eastern White Pine," "White Oak," "Virginia Pine" and `Black Locust" are considered woodlands for this analysis. Areas of open fields or "Eastern Red Cedar" are not counted as woodlands. Clearing required for "views" will be considered by the plan. • The negotiations with DGIF are proceeding well. It is not possible to conclude this agreement prior to the need for Master Plan approval. We do not believe that substantial changes from the plan presented will not be necessary. The flood easements can be granted at any reasonable time aRer the subject agreement is drafted and approved. • The Fire and Rescue issue will be a major topic of discussion on Wednesday. • Wetlands as identified by WSSI are shown on a plan we will bring with us on Wednesday. The portion disturbed, which require waiver, will be delineated. • We are simplifying the steep slopes map per your request and will have the revised copy with us on Wednesday. 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council gh.,ert w. Clifford and associates, inc Page 2 • We will fill in the blanks in the phasing plan and add the locations of the adjacent owners. • We are coordinating the road names direct with Mr. Marcus Lemasters. I trust this can be "in progress" when we send out Commission packets. The names are very important to the owner's plan for neighborhood identification and marketing and since a large number were rejected, this may take a little while. • We will explain the phasing plan at our meeting. cc: Ray Smith "Shenandoah" Review Conunen "Shenandoah" Master Development Plan Agmay Review Conu nent Sun nn=T I 1-Sep-00 VDOT Review Authority Per Ltr of 7-31-00, Edinburg Residency has the lead Consider Me 522/340 Warren Co Ultimate RCNV and lane planning will consider this study Study by GWC&A F%IhVs. Tie was a maximum build out study and was Meant to represent a "worst case" scenario. Plans For phase ionprovement of existing roadways will be sized to hardie "Shenandoah" Prep imps and existing traffic vow with reasonable growth additions. Traffic analysis peak hour to daily To be diwaased with VDOT. As a footnote to all discussions volume translation? of traffic generation, " Shenandoah " produces, according to CaBawtransportation study and based on ITE, roughly 40% less daily and peak hour traffic than does the current standing approval of 'Wheatlands". Provide Termini destinations To be discaas;ed with VDOT Provide 50' ROW for rte 636 OK(withindevelopment) Provide "adequate" ROW on OK(widmdevelopment) Rtes 522/340 and 277 Access point for CCRC Internal aoees is not planned since this facility will "Stand Alone" and cut through tragic must be discouraged to protect gated community. Entrance point will be studied and agreed with VDOT. CCRC traffic will be included its study. Sigra ization It is not bdeved that warrants exist with build-oi levels of traffic to justify Stoplights, due to frank at Shenandoah, at rtes 636,277 or the CCRC.SJvsiw doah will produce traffic at the main Me 340 entrance that will justify a light, possibly in phase one. Impact at Rte 277/340 rots will be assessed based on Clarke Co rezoning impact and proffers offered if justified. Pavement Prime and seal. was being considered for rte 636 only. All other surhices to be Bitun sous Concrete. Coordinate with Rte 277-c901 plans This intermKdon is remote from the site, located at the White Oak Campground, hft of Rte 636 and 277. We will G.W.Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Conn nen, Warren County added to We review this situation for current and fixture conditions for discitssioris of trimpact. We do not believe Noah has responsi - - for upgrade measures, since less traffic is generated than the approved wheatlands plan. About 20,000sf is in Warren and no' is plarused. It will be added to title on VDOT request. Substandard Crossovers We would IfIre to close all of these that are possible and will work with VDOT, Clarke Co and neighbors . If ok to dose we will pay for the work to obscure pavement. Main Entrance on Rte 340/522. Signi%t adkistment and construction is required to provide Mft section to VDOT standards. We will f"hWm plans withh VDOT upon PADP approval. Intersection at rte 277 & rte 340 This intersection is offsite to Shenandoah. If traffic generated by the SO ac.Clarke rezoning justifys changes to the degree impacts are created, a proffer is possible.. We think it is important to also look at ultimate traffic flows in light of cat fair major road projects plarmed by Frederick County. The Rte 37 connection with Rte 522 is possible well witham the design life of "Shenandoah". Tasker Rd and the proposed Airport Road bridge to Winchester are others that will have and effect on northbound Rte 340 left turn traffic . 0 - -. Phasing Plan Requested A Six Phase (One phase per Year is provided on 1VDP) Eliminate South Commercial Entry's Plans will design right in /right out commercial ergs South of the access road to meet state entrance standards. It is agreed that further crossovers are not possible. Provide 5' Sidewalk along Frontage We do not intend to do this , but trail systems internal to site wM be provided. The improvements on Rte 340/522 will be consistent with Rural design Standards except Curb and Gutter at entraps (CG-7). There wuf be no space for a sidewalk. Frederick County School Board Define Small Number of Students This project is to be" Age Restricted" as provided for in the Fair Hotmug Act of State and Federal Law. As such, school age chndren cannot have permanent residence and are not eligible to attend school in Frederick County. Some dionission of allowing non age restricted housing above the shops in the commercial zone has been held with the P>anriixug Commission, but, currently the R-5 does not allow it. This may be a topic later , which will G.W.Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment involve the School Board in any changes that are requested. Enforcement of Age Restrictions The HCA will enforce the restrictions using a Deed Condition that requires Legal reviews and Sign -Offs at each closing. This will be covered in detail by the Covenants, bylaws and Deed documents that are a part Subdivision Approval. Frederick County Sanitation Huth Approved as noted Clarke County Approval Any customers in Clarke Co will be retail, customers of Authority and this requires Clarke approval. Clarke officials have told us this is not a problem and will be clarified during that County's approval process. Plan to connect to Rte 636 Current planning calls for using the 8" connection avail. onsite, in phase 1 and part of 2. A 12" main connection at Rte 277 is "hooped In" by the end of 2, beginning of 3. A elev water tank is built in the phase 4 or S period. A bop along Rte 636 is not planned but provision to extend this service will be a made. Frosting 8" Line sufficient Yes pursuant to above Additional Looping The requested lines are being hydraulically modeled and will be dam. Also rights for a bop around the North of the lake are being discussed with VDGIF Public Works Engineer of Record Certification Regtiitrement noted and Approved of BMPS Phasing A Phasing Plan reflecting current planning and showing a six year build out is attached to the latest submission Dept of Planning and Development Project Summary is needed A Table is Attached to latest submission. Boundary Survey The survey is attached to latest submission Topography The topo is shown on the Pivasing Plan. The steep slope plan is plotted at a sufficient scale to allow your verifiattion and is attached. Project Owners ,Engineers etc A title Page has been add er plan Not aflactred. Adjoining Owners r and ownership have been indicated. Q6,M? 3 G.W.Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Conn nea etlatids W }�+�,. Erivironmerita]ly Protected lands Shown Recreational Units -4d4srt Cow* o, The pla med currently submitted calls for 61 % disturbance of identified woodlands. Meson is by providing . native variety street trees at W centers on all local streets and mom gseenways, the requirement to plant 3 trees and numerous shrubs for housing and the W buffer easemerut to be granted to VDW and HOA. The variances to do this are hereby requested . r7 „_ i ,_1 eriVirmaltertad lands are to be protected to the greatest extent passible but those that must be disturbed will be shown on the MDP and waivers requested. The owners are consolidating the list of Rec unit equivalents by phase for review by Parks and Rec. The majority of the amenities will happen in Phase 1 , due to the type of project, and the value promises to substantially exceed the has beenreviewled by the FCSA and has their preliminary approval subject to plans. The nature of the project requires compact utility corridors and this is achieved by this design. Other utilities have also been consulted. 1 Since these arePrivate streets the normal preference of VDOT to live utl7itie' s out of their right A wags doe -_Dot apply. It should be noted that there are numerous areas in the Stage of Virgnm where utilities such as sewers are located wi lm paved areas, inchid ng manhole structures. We will discuss your concern with VDOT prior to public meetings. Stormwater Management See comments by Public Works Buffers and Screens We are adana for elimination of any internal road of gelx, biers. Since these are no eesignated major Collectors and a shBetscape is master planned as shown hxcbding setbacks, hulker/biker trails and plantings. Buffers between uses are elimirtat-ed- ;ZM as between types of residential uses . These uses are Master Ph Tied to ooexist together as indicated on the Plan. Waiver of these buffers were discussed in the Ordamnae Ran phase and the right to waive these in an Active Adult Gated Community were provided to the Commission and Board. We are hereby requesting this G.W.Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Conanen waiver. A 100' buffer is being provided along Rte822/340 and the SO• Buffer is provided around the Lake boundary. A natural tree buffer wiff exist along they outside of most gree may roads as h dicated in the MAP. Trail Network Q I The A/E design team wf meet with staff to rectify issues relented to tract access to facEfies. Commercial VMage Plan Notes on Master Plan 7-7 Access to Lake An agreement with DGIF is being negotiated. There is intent to provide common area access to the Lake for J use by homeowners only. The only access for the general 7� pubic will be the improved fadifies at the Dam. Dogwood is going to provide a new parking area, public water and sewer and new ertrzinve road under the agreement. School Site We believe the best use of lands within this site to be for Age Restricted housing and amenties, which produce a net income in excess tax revenue of costs to the County. This income w>Zl allow purchase of lands more suitable and oonvennierrthq located. Another reason is school age children are not generated here and this area is remote hom those areas of Frederick County that do produce. chnidren Flood Easements The VDGIF wants to insure no buflding below the flood elevation of the lake. The coniftmcdon of trails , docks and other amenities are exceptions to this "no build" easement Parks and Recreation Plan appears to meet intent but more information is needed ODGIF Clarke County See Appendix "B" 'l�J �:•11 :� Jt�=jfaGit! It.� i���Clt�.lt! i. %S 4pddlt. 5 G.W.Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment Emergency Services We are working for a mutual agreement to assist Frederick and Clarke , and , perhaps warren, in meeting Fire and Emergency services needs in the area. Meetings are in progress to discuss these issues Tramc See VDOT comments and answers. Formal VDOT comments customary for MAP purposes have been received and are attached Buffers A buffer wM be proposed together with screening, berms , and vegetation. These items are to be disused and specified as a part of the use permits and zoning in Clarke Comity Warren County . �• 100' Buffer A buffer wM be proposed to Clarke County as a part of the rezortuug and use permit procedure. The definition of this buffer will be generated then. It will visually protect both the dwellings within and the travelling public. Further definition on the amount of dedication for US rte 340 is required before we provide our suggested definition to Clarke Night Lighting We wM discuss the use of "Cut-off fixtures".Lighting control is very important to our concept also. Wastewater Plant The facility will meet State and Federal standards for resulting water quality. There is always an effect on water qualky due to bated water discharges. The purpose for the standards is to produce resulting water gtia6ty in an acceptable condition. Frederick Co Fire Marshall of way not conducive to Fire access Meetings wifft Emergency services are in progress to clarity the now raised. One point of agreement is the need to control street tree growth so as to prevent conflict with ladder truck access. Also, onstreet parking on 30' roadways not allowed by covenant. The dam will reduce the intensity of flooding, since it acts as a substantial flood control device due to storage 6 G.W.Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment VD(Yr mVubftnsfor iti class of r Water supply adequacy Design of water piping to meet fire requirements for the class of bLaldirgs involved. Ortsite , elevated storage is provided at the point where needed to maintam hydraulic ��� � performannce. Use of trail system for access is being discussed Fire and rescue site and 3 year fern the Rte 277 corridor over VM&ge site proposed. limit Discussions ongoing regarding site and time frame of offer Frederick Co Inspections No comment at this time 7 G.W.Clifford and Associates, Inc APPENDIX "A" DENSITY AND PHASING DATA Frederick County, Virginia ase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Type <a5 1 2 3 4 5 6 S. Family Small Lot 7 65' Wide Lot 7 52 104 155 136 75 64 ?, 55' Wide Lot 7 68 149 153 145 66 40 Duplex 6 59 100 112 106 42 34 TomHouse 0 0 70 70 70 0 0 dt3mtlniurr� 6 30 39 45 36 44 40 _. rw" — <!!s 26 209 462 535 493 227 178 Area Summary Area in Lots Area in Roads Area Area in Open Space Phase Area Totals AREA In FREDERICK COl ALLOWED DENSITY per R-5 ZONE(2.3/acre) 2130 Totals 593 628 459 210 240 2130 APPENDIX "B" Recreation Unit Summary Frederick County, Virginia Type Community Building Trout Pond Outdoor Pool Play Courts Hiker/Biker Trails Natural Trails Nature Center(Village) Boat Docks DGIF Facilities Golf School Phase Totals County Requirements No of Dwellings No of Rec Units at 1 per 30 Value per Rec Unil Value reqd by Ordinance Phase 1 Value of Amenities - Dollars Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase 2 3 4 5 6 or"Wro Me •.igl .... �.. ... .. ... ..e 235.0 462.0 535.0 493.0 227.0 178.0 7.8 15.4 17.8 16.4 7.6 5.9 ?16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 :125,280 $246,400 $285,333 $262,933 $121,067 $94,933 Remarks Constructed in 3 phases $4,765,000 $1,135,946 16 Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Review Comments 8/22/2000 The Shenandoah Project proposes 2,130 dwellings on 926 acres for a residential density of 2.3 units per acre which is well within the maximum permitted density of the R-5 zone. The R-5 zone permits developments which are age -restricted subject to appropriate deed restrictions or other legal documents being provided which insure that the development will in fact be age -restricted. This documentation will need to be provided prior to final approval of a Master Development Plan (MDP). Please note that for our purposes the MDP should be limited to the land area within Frederick County. The Preliminary Master Development Plan (PMDP) which has been submitted fails to provide a number of required bits of information. The required information which is lacking from the plan submitted is listed below. © The Plan must indicate the proposed number of units of each housing type which are proposed in each phase of the development and in the total development, as well as the approximate location of the various housing types. In addition, the acreage in common open space, roads. sheets or right -of --ways by phase and for the entire development should be provided. Experience indicates that the most efficient way to convey this infor�a ion is to produce a table listing each phase and the various numbers, units, acreage, percentages, etc. per phase. 2) A certified boundary survey of the entire property indicating all dimensions in feet is required. © Intervals of the topography should be indicated. For the sake of legibility, topography should not be shown on each sheet, but rather limited to the page indicating the location of steep slopes. 4) In addition to the information provided in the title block, the names of the owners, contract owners and firms preparing the plan should be clearly identified. The age -restricted nature o£the development should also be indicated. 5) The use and ownership of adjoining properties should be indicated on the a plan. -afta. 6) In addition to the location steep slopes and woodland, the location of wetlands should be provided. se It 7) The sheet depicting the location of woodlands and the areas to be disturbed is flawed. This sheet needs to be redraw to clearly indicate the location of existing woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and those areas that will be disturbed. It appears that more than 25 percent of the existing woodlands are to be disturbed, therefore, a waiver will need to be requested from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. Staff notes that the approved Wheatlands MDP called for reforestation of the area between the public fishing area and the proposed community center and the granting of a conservation easement on this acreage to the DGIF. 8) The location of environmental protection land that is to be included n open space should e shown and the acreage and percentage of open space made up of these features 9) Additional information on the type, number and scale of recreational facilities to be provided is needed. The location and configuration of recreational facilities should also be indicated on the plan. Ultimately, e County Par s and Recreation Department will need to determine t efi a ec� qu cy of the proposed facilities. It should be noted that, if single family small lot housing is proposed within the development, additional recreational facilities must be provided in accordance with section 165-64.A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. It should be similarly noted that, within the R-5 zone, recreational facilities are to be provided with each phase in proportion to the fraction of the total dwelling units in each phase. Information will need to be provided which demonstrates how this requirement is to be met. 10) Although there are three street cross-section details among the information provided, the plan fails to indicate which roads within the development are to be of which type. The labeling of the road types should be consistent with the R-5 zoning. Roads should be either Greenways, Neighborhood Collectors, or Local streets. Staff has concerns regarding the depiction of numerous utilities within the rights -of -way of the proposed streets. All indications to this point have been that, although the development would have private streets, the construction of the streets would be such that they could be turned over to the VDOT should that become necessary. VDOT standards would not permit utility lines to be run under the centerline of the pavement. 11) Information on stormwater management facilities should be indicated on the plan. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County's Public Works Department. 12) No buffers or screening are depicted on the MDP. Buffers must either be provided in -2- accordance with County requirements, or a waiver must be sought. 13) The network of trails depicted does not appear to provide access to every use, structure or recreational facility as required. It appears this might be remedied by providing a few additional linkages between certain subdivision streets and the trail network which is depicted. 14) Staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will wish to see a detailed Generalized Q) ` --X Development P1an.(as provided for under R-5 zoning) which indicates the f uses, �d access, and circulation patterns proposed for the Village Center. Comments on: Final Notes to Master Development Plan - Shenandoah The following comments pertain to the notes submitted along with the MDP for the proposed Shenandoah Development 1) Mixture of Housing Types a) Describing the housing to be built as "a mix of housing types allowed in the R-5 zone" is inadequate. Please see item #1 above under PMDP comments. (b) This comment is unacceptable. The MDP must specify the number and type of units in each phase. Future variation in the numbers or types of units may require a revision to an approved MDP. (c) This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. 2) Transportation Improvements (a) No problem. (b) The note should clearly state at what point in the project the relocation of the VDGIF entrance will take place. (c) The improvements to Route 636 should be linked to the construction of a specified C7ru'm-Ter of dwelling —un:i40rather than approval of a phase of the development. 3) Trail System The trail system described does not meet the requirement of Section 165-77.M of the -3- Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. (See comment #13 above.) **"'4 4) Streetlights While the design of streetlights may be selected by the developer, they must be approved by the Zoning Administrator. 5) Provision of water and sewer service (a) No problem. (b) In addition to State Water Control Board, the plans for the waste water treatment facility will also need to be approved by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. In addition, arrangements acceptable to the Authority will need to be made for turning all sewer and water facilities (including treatment facilities, lift stations, and water storage facilities) over to the Authority following satisfactory completion of their construction. (c) Same as (b) above. 5 Fire and Rescue In order to be effective, the details concerning the amount and location of this acreage will need to be resolved and noted on the MDP prior to approval. Preliminary indications from the Emergency Services Director are that the proposed location for a fire and rescue facility is undesirable. It is also appears clear that the offer of land for a library (given the limited three-year duration of the offer) is of little value given that a branch library is currently under construction on Tasker Road which is intended to serve the needs of the southeastern area of the County for the foreseeable future. Staff notes that the three-year duration of this offer from the time the MDP is approved falls far short of the "12 years from the date of platting of the first phase of the development" offered by the previous plan. 7) Open Space This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. 8) Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality (a) No problem. -4- �' ?' (b) The language will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works and the VDGIF. c fThe proposed method of maintenance of BMW's will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works. The reference to Section 16 should be removed as the notes contain no such number. (d) No problem. �J (e) Staff believes that the interests of protecting water quality and maintaining tree cover would be better served if the conservation easement is granted to the VDGIF (as currently stipulated on the Wheatlands MDP) as opposed to the home owners association as is proposed. (f) As with (e) above, the assurance that trails will be constructed with the approval of VDGIF is far better insured if the DGIF holds an easement on this acreage rather than a homeowners association. 0 All woodland areas (as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) proposed for clearing must be indicated as disturbed on the MDP and counted toward the total percentage of disturbed woodlands. (h) Any improvements which are intended to count toward fulfillment of required recreation facilities will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Parks and Recreation. The completion of such facilities will need to be covered by performance guarantees prior to platting of relevant sections of the development. (i Why would the flood easements not be conveyed on, and with, the recordation of approved plats?') , q 7 ..J" 9) Access to the Lake It is anticipated that any access to be provided to Lake Frederick would need to be public. 10) Provision of adequate monumentation ;Con No problem. 11) School Site Staff anticipates that given the approved MDP for Wheatlands includes the offer of a school site, the failure of the Shenandoah proposal to carry forward with this offer will no doubt generate discussion. -5- 12) Recreational Facilities The statement "substantial recreational facilities" is inadequate. Detailed information on exactly what type of facilities including the number, square footage, cost estimates, etc. along with specifics on what facilities will be provided at what point in the development of the project must be provided. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Parks and Recreation Department. 13) Phasing (a) This statement indicates that there will be six phases, whereas, the MDP submitted i identifies eight phases, which is correct? The exact number of units per phase must GO4 be identified on the MDP. Significant alterations to these numbers subsequent to Board of Supervisor approval may result in the need to formally revise the approved MDP. (b) These improvements will need to be built or bonded prior to plat approval. (c) No problem. 4 no (d) It would be preferable to link construction of these improvements to a specific number of units rather than to a general phase of development. At a minimum they should be tied to the approval of a particular phase. 0\0 _-(e) Same as (d) above. (f) This comment should be eliminated. Prior to any infrastructure improvements, grading, or other construction activity commencing within any given area, land disturbance and other pertinent permits are required per normal County procedures. More importantly, density within phases is determined by an approved MDP; the swapping of units between phases subsequent to MDP approval is not permitted. 14) Homeowner's Association '---'S(a) This section again contains a reference to the nonexistent #16 within the notes. A reference to maintenance of the all roads would be appropriate here. (b) There is little apparent value of the statement, particularly given that it is inconsistent with other statements such as note 8.(g), which indicates the developer intents to clear areas solely for the purpose of providing views of the lake. Limits of woodland disturbance must be depicted on the MDP. IRE Staff notes the absence of restrictions contained in the approved Wheatlands MDP which prohibited the cutting trees over a six-inch caliper other than for placement of a home, driveway or utilities, placed a limit of 30% disturbance on those lots which adjoin the lake, and had building lot approval subject to HOA with the stated goal of minimizing site disturbance. -7- I APPENDIX "A" DENSITY AND PHASING DATA Frederick County, Virginia Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Village Center Totals Type Models 1 2 3 4 5 6 S. Family Small Lot 65' Wide Lot 7 52 104 155 136 75 64 593 55' Wide Lot 7 68 149 153 145 66 40 628 Duplex 6 59 100 112 106 42 34 459 TownHouse 0 0 70 70 70 0 0 210 Condominium 6 30 39 45 36 44 40 240 Totals 26 209 462 535 493 227 178 2130 Area Summary (acres) Area in Lots Area in Roads Area Area in Open Space 175.75 173.43 191.90 190.31 83.18 76.43 35.00 926.00 44.42 67.67 79.22 70.93 39.31 37.37 338.92 33.63 18.06 17.11 20.44 6.84 6.00 102.08 97.82 87.82 95.68 99.06 37.14 32.48 15.00 465.00 AREA In FREDERICK COUNTY 926.266 acres ALLOWED DENSITY per R-6 ZONE(2.3tacre) 2130 50.2% COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY OLD VALLEY CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM 14031 EDINBURG, VA 2824E JERRY A. COPP COMMISSIONER October 25 2001 RESIDENT ENGINEER / TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540)984.5607 Mr. Evan Wyatt Ref: Improvements to Rt. 636 Frederick County Planning Fr: 1.07 miles south of Rt. 277 107 North Kent Street To: 1.57 miles south of Rt. 277 Winchester, VA 22601 Hudson Hollow Road Dear Evan: When we met about the Shenandoah Development, we discussed the cost to obtain right of way, move utilities, and pave Rt. 636 between the present end of the hardsurface and the proposed entrance to the Shenandoah Development. We have estimated the cost to be as listed below: Preliminary Engineering= $42,000.00 Right of Way & Utilities= $125,000.00 Construction= $350,000.00 Total $517,000.00 All these costs are in today's dollars; therefore, in each year we would have to add an inflation factor of approximately 5 percent. We are basically looking at the worse case scenario in that plans would have to be drawn, public hearings held, and the right of way would either have to be obtained through purchase or condemnation in order to accommodate these improvements. Zf in fact the right of way is donated and it could be done as a no plan project, then a lot of the preliminary engineering and right of way costs would not have to be borne. Please let me know if you desire further information. Sincerely, 19 'Resident rry A. Copp Engineer JAC/ch cc: Steve Melnikoff, Homer Cofffman, Ben Lineberry, Dwight Hawkins 'IECEIVED OCT2 92001 _, n� DI ah(NnnirrnF)rFI nOAA, WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING )� 6jid �;m ale COUNTY of FREDERICK Department, of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/665-6395 September 7, 2001 Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 RE: Shenandoah Development - Hudson Hollow Road Improvements Dear Steve: I have had an opportunity to review the information in the letter from Mr. Michael J. Giguere to Mr. Byron Coburn and Mr. Robert Childress dated July 9, 2001. Your office forwarded this information to Mr. Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator on August 24, 2001 and requested a comment reflecting Frederick County's position regarding this issue. Frederick County approved a Master Development Plan for the "Shenandoah" development on May 2, 2001. Sheet 11 ofthis approved plan provides General Notes for various improvements associated with the "Shenandoah" development. Transportation Improvements General Note 3(a) requires the developer to provide a specific access point onto Hudson Hollow Road (Route 636), and General Note 3(c) requires the developer to pave Hudson Hollow Road from the "Shenandoah" development to the north to tie into the existing paved section prior to the issuance of the 75CO building permit. The transportation improvement commitments, as well as all other development improvement commitments, were discussed during the master development plan public process. Several citizens along Hudson Hollow Road were involved in this process and understand the transportation improvements to reflect the notes as described above. Therefore, any modification to the transportation improvements for Hudson Hollow Road will require the developer to resubmit the master development plan for approval by the Board of Supervisors through an additional public process. Frederick County would also request an opinion from the VDOT Resident Engineer regarding the ability to pave -in -place along this section of Hudson Hollow Road prior to the consideration of modifications to this master development plan. I hope this information is beneficial to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, Evan A. Wyatt, P Planning Director 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG, VA 22824 COMMISSIONER August 24, 2001 Mr. Kris Tierney, Asst. Co. Administrator County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Ref: Shenandoah Development Route 636 Frederick County Dear Mr. Tierney: 4 N � .P N V1 v JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(540)984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 Attached is a copy of a letter dated 07/09/01 to Mr. Byron Coburn, Assistant District Engineer, from Mr. Michael J. Giguere, representing the developer of the referenced development. This letter summaries the general discussion points of a June 19, 2001 meeting between VDOT and the developer, including several agreed upon concessions. I would like to bring your attention to one discussion point that needs the County's input prior to VDOT concurrence. Please refer to the next to the last paragraph on Page 3 regarding Route 636. J( Kindly review this statement and let us know the County's position. We may need to meet on this. SAM/rf Attachment xc: Mr. Byron Coburn Mr. Michael J. Giguere Mr. Chuck Maddox Sincerely, Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING HUU. -UJ U1 �rn►I 1L-JL ruvt LUIVII 1%LOIULIrv1 11JL,u1V I1u /61J 1 . UV i. McGuireWoods LLP 1750 Ty. -inns Boulevard Suite 1$00 McLean, VA 22102-4215 Phone; 703.712.5000 Fax: 703.712.5050 www.mcgui rewoods, corn Michael 1. Ciguere Direct 703.712.5471 July 9, 2001 McGU(REWOODS Mr. Byron Coburn Assistant District Engineer Commonwealth of Virginia Staunton District Rt. 11 Bypass, -Commerce Road Staunton, VA 24401 and to Mr. Robert B. Childress Assistant Resident Engineer Luray District Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Transportation P. O. Box 308 Mechanics St., West of Rt. 340 Luray, Virginia 22835 Re: Shenandoah Development Routes 277, 340/522 Clarke, Frederick and Warren Counties Gentlemen: RECEIVED LURAY RESIDENCY r,.� JUL 1 N ?POI A.R.E. 1%mjg4&gr me P.S.I. ii.l. 01rect Fax c.A, l RX VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Again, on behalf of Dogwood Development, the developer of the "Shenandoah" mixed use project in Clarke, Frederick and Warren Counties, I would like to thank you for taking time to meet with Ray Smith, President of Dogwood, and the Dogwood consultants and me on June 19, 2001, to discuss the necessary transportation improvements that Dogwood and VDOT have agreed on for Shenandoah. As background, I think it is important to again re -state for the record the following key facts: A. Shenandoah is a mixed use development whose major components will be an active adult community with few children and a reduced traffic impact. Shenandoah was previously known as Wheatlands. Ray Smith's revised development plan for this property, now known as Shenandoah, has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County. The Frederick County approval will allow for the potential development of 2130 "active adult" homes; a continuing care retirement community and some limited retail. The traffic studies submitted as part of the Shenandoah development plan approval with Frederick County shows 305.com 12.5227 AUU. -UJ U1 rill) 14-JJ VLUv1 LVIVil nbaiuLirvi 1LU1U4u /YJ /LYJ , uuu Mr. Byron Coburn Mr. Robert B. Childress July 9, 2001 Page 2 we have reduced projected traffic volumes by approximately forty percent (40%), e.g. Wheatlands had projected traffic at build out in excess of 30,000 vpd, while Shenandoah has projected traffic of just slightly less than 18,000 vpd; B. While the property owned by Dogwood Development includes land in Clarke County, no land development has been approved in Clarke County. Dogwood recognizes that when it submits for zoning approval in Clarke County that VDOT may be suggesting other traffic improvements over and above those agreed to at our June 19, 2001 meeting and also listed in this letter. Dogwood also recognizes that any Clarke County rezoning will likely result in VDOT requesting the dedication of right of way, at no cost to VDOT, along the Clarke County property frontage on Route 340/522; C. While no development has been approved for Clarke County, both VDOT and Frederick County have coordinated with Clarice County to confirm Clarke County has no objection to VDOT issuing an entrance permit to allow the Shenandoah projects main southern entrance ("Lake Frederick Drive") to access Route 340/522 through a small portion of Clarke County; D. The total buildout of Shenandoah will not exceed 2,130 in Frederick County. Our development plans are to build approximately 250 units per year, which means this is a ten or more year project, depending on the economy. Although zoning has been approved, we have not yet received any building permits and do not anticipate beginning development until the fall of this year with the first houses occupied in late 2002 or early in the year 2003_ Listed below is our written understanding of the agreements reached at our June 19, 2001 meeting. It is our understanding that this letter, once accepted by VDOT, supercedes VDOT's letter of the same subject dated May 25, 2001 and signed by Mr. Childress. The May 25, 20D1 letter, because of some language confusion, is hereby rescinded as evidenced by VDOT's authorized representatives' signatures below. For the purpose of this letter, the Shenandoah Phase I improvements are considered by the Department to be those associated with the Lake Frederick Drive entrance and associated construction along Route 3401522 adjacent to Shenandoah's southern most property frontage_ VDOT has agreed that it will immediately issue a Land Use Permit for this work at Shenandoah, subject to the completion of the following conditions: i 1. Shenandoah's site plan entitled "Shenandoah-U.S. Route 340/522 Improvements & Lake Frederick Drive" are approved by VDOT. 2. Normal permit fees are paid, and Surety Bonds posted. Shenandoah recognizes and agrees that the permit will also require the reimbursement of VDOT costs associated with a field inspector. 3. A right-of-way dedication to VDOT will be made by Shenandoah across the entire Phase I of the Property frontage to accommodate an ultimate 6 lane urban designed roadway. This dedication will allow one additional though lane and all required turn lanes. The right-of- way dedication limits shall meet VDOT standards. As noted above, when Dogwood asks for a rezoning of the Clarke County property, it will be prepared to respond at that time to additional euu u%) ui oral) Mr. Byron Coburn f Mr. Robert B_ Childress July 9, 2001 Page 3 PUVI UVAni huoluuIYVI ILJLJ,Vly Ilu I,7j VDOT requests for right-of-way dedications. In preparing our designs for the Phase improvements, it was agreed that Dogwood's engineers would follow the standards listed below: (a) All Phase I improvements may be a rural design with a ten foot (10') shoulder, ditch section, etc. in accordance with VDOT's current geometric design standards. However, once beyond the limits of the side ditch, the remaining right-of-way dedication area will be graded to within 6"± of the final 3-lane width (per half section) urban ultimate design (only one (1) new through lane and required turn lanes at the Shenandoah entrance on Route 522/340) _ (b) All utilities at the Lake Frederick entrance areas and/or within the right-of- way dedication areas of Phase I will be relocated to accommodate the ultimate 3-1ane urban section (3 lanes per half section) — one new through lane and turn lanes at the entrance). (c) All work would be completed under a Land Use Permit after the site plan approval referenced in paragraph 1, above. (d) Any roadway improvements in the area of the intersection of Lake Frederick Drive to Route 340/522 will include the removal/upgrading/modifications of the median crossover. As I think you know, we have received preliminary plan agreement with VDOT (Edinburgh residency) on our proposed Route 277 improvements. It is our understanding that VDOT will approve a final plan providing those agreed to improvements are included. Our final plan will be submitted when we reach that phase of development, which will be in the next three or four years_ We will properly permit and bond those proposed Route 277 improvements when we file a site plan for the Shenandoah development with frontage on Route 277. Finally, with regard to Route 636, and subject to VDOT approval, we will agree to pave the existing gravel section from the Shenandoah project boundary to the existing paved section of Route 636 to the north. Once VDOT has issued a Land Use Permit for all the Phase I improvements, Dogwood is also willing, if desired by VDOT, to meet with Frederick County representatives to determine if, instead of paving the existing gravel portion of Route 636 to the north, that VDOT's, the public's and Frederick County's interests would be better served by having Dogwood escrow with VDOT or Frederick County, the estimated costs of paving and allow VDOT and Frederick County to maintain Route 636 in its present condition and for emergency access only until such time as Route 636 can be made a VDOT project and properly widened to remove vertical and horizontal alignment problems. Again, we thank everyone for their cooperation and assistance. If these terms are acceptable, please signify by signing below and atu me in the enclosed self addressed stamped envelope. � V ry t rs, Michael J. Giguere 1 . U v 7 tim uj ui jrnt) is.UU Mr. Byron Coburn Mr. Robert B. Childress July 9, 2001 Page 4 MJG/ppf v vvi uVnnl 1\uo j Liu v, I " U I U7V 1'7V 1117" The terms of this letter are SEEN, AGREED AND ACCEPTED: and the VDOT letter dated May 25, 2001 is hereby rescinded. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Randy S. Kiser, Resident Engineer; or Robert B. Childress, Assistant Resident Engineer Date: cc: Byron Coburn, Assistant District Engineer, Staunton District, VDOT Randy S. Kiser, Resident Engineer, Luray District VDOT Ray F. Smith, Jr., Dogwood Development, Inc. Mark Helmer, Dogwood Development, Inc. J. A. Copp, VDOT S. A. Melinikoff, VDOT, Transportation Engineer, Edinburgh Residency Walter Kauffman, Assistant Resident Engineer, Luray District VDOT Richard D_ Harrison, Transportation Consultant C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., G.W. Clifford &. Associates, Inc. John Callow, Patton Harris Rust & Associates MREA166345.1 APPLICATION PLATS/DEED/ a f 4 E o MY a 9 11 g`l k IL !` -- I . l i 410,f ®milli ` _@itffi� m SKETCH WALKS & SECTION TRAILS E MNMi 4' SIDEWALKS B,C,D,F UWMM B• HIKER -BIKER TRAIL G 2 - 6' HIKER -BIKER ZONES 1 iN� WALKING TRAILS rSHENANDOAH ADULTACTIVE •COMMUNITIES P FREDERICK AND CLARKE COUNTIES, CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MARCH 9, 2000 1"=300' DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUPDAVID COBEYw • . ASSOCIATES RESTON VA 22091I w22601 I ►000 I'oor .�. SHENANDOAH • FITTING THE SITE ACTIVE ADULT AND PRIMARY HOME COMMUNITIES FREDERICK AND CLARKE COUNTIES, VIRGINIA CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MARCH 9,2000 1"=300, DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP DAVID COBEY DESIGN G W CLIFFORD ASSCICIATES 11800 SUNRISE VALLEY DR • 178 SALT POND RD • 200 NORTII CAMEAON Sl RESTON VA 22091 CUSHING ME 04563 WINCHESTER VA 22601 SKETCH STREET SECTION TYPE 6 A qo= ENTRANCES I ®� Al MAIN STREET ®� B PARKWAY • PRIMARY C PARKWAY • HOME D - PARKWAY • COMMUNITY E,El LOCAL STREETS E PARKWAY • ACTIVE G COLLECTOR • ADULT H r LOCAL STREET • COMMUNITY P sf P�f SHENANDOAH • STREETS ACTIVE ADULT AND PRIMARY HOME COMMUNITIES FREDERICK AND CLARKE COUNTIES, VIRGINIA CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN MARCH 9, 2000 1"=300' DOGWOOD DEVELOPMENT GROUP DAVID COREY DESIGN G W CLIFFORD ASSOCIATES 11 800 SUNRISE VALLEY DR • 178 SALT POND RD • 200 NORTH CAMEtON ST RESTON VA 22091 CUSHING ME 04563 WINCH6TEi VA 22601 PLATS/DEED/ OTHER VICINITY INFORMATION @4! 20/ 2001 14: 52 5,"6650493 -G W CLIFFORD & ASSOC or PAGE 02 24-Apr-01 Marcus Lemasters, Mapping and Graphics Coordinator Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Va 22601 Re: Shenandoah Final,Master Plan (Road Names) Per our cmwersations and letters, please And below all final road names of the above referenced project. - - Lake Freoerick Drive *Flowering Dogwood Court j- Rachel Carson Drive D . Walleye Lane Switchgrass Court • Channel Cat Court • Birds Foot Court • Largemouth Bass Court • Coneflower Lane • Box Turtle Lane • Coreopsis Lane +ram • Bergamot Court • Cottontail Lane • Ironweed Lane • Painted T►idle Lane Yellow Birch Court . Cloak Lana, • Mid -indigo Court • Comma Co un • Oatgrass Lane • Nymph Laim ' bittersweet Lane • Swallow Tail Court • Clethers Lane . Harvester :-ane • Rudbeckla Court • Checker Spot Lane • Spicebush Drive • Skipper Lane Cabbage White44ee9.9 Mistfiowercourt ' Carya Court i S�ggerX Leopold Lane • ilex Court • Hairstreak _ane • Gelds Court • Fritlilery Court • Kuril Lane . Emperor Lane • Mallard Court • Viceroy Court • Merin Lane Ala Satyre aged- SVFiix • Heron Court •af�ti='� • Baltimore Oriole Drive • Choke Cherry Court • Barred 00 Court • Hombeam Court ' Wax Wing Court • Vibemum Court • Nuthatch Court • Shadbush +;ourt • Wren Lane • Sourwood Court - Phoebe Court • Hawthom -Court • Titmouse Court • Huckleberry Court • Flycatcher Court Please give me tail ipfu have any questions. Tha ou i� Thomas Price GW Cliffora b Associates. Inc 667-2139 "R©r' (S Fa �z •Sapsucker Lane *Grebe Drive • Osprey Lane • Merganser Court • Kingfisher Court • Bunting Court • Bald Eagle Drive -)-Ruffed Grouse Court . Crapple Court • Comus Lane • Arrowwood Court • Mallow Court Joe Pye Court • ouercus Drive . Carolina Hemlock Court • .Wintergreen Court • Acer Lane Rhodedendrum Lane • Grossbeak Court • Sharp -Shinned Court Towhee Drive oy- 24-d . � �QEJIor�S� ��RevEA + - p-bvra.a To or-Pre#r►4- Lrsr- - 1�E*r rE?s - 6oN 1��rcT'itrb �A� S ri4r€' � urh�sF� 77�R�etG t/ �Csr�S ATTN: Tom Price 722-3520 TO: Tom Price FROM: Eric Lawrence RE: Shenandoah MDP; Waivers DATE: April 25, 2001 On November 8, 2000, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, following the recommendation of the Planning Commission, granted the applicant of the Shenandoah Master Development Plan the following: 1. Environmental Protection. As permitted by § 165-77.R, a waiver of the required prohibition of wetlands disturbance. 2. Environmental Protection. As permitted by § 165-77.R, a variation for woodlands disturbance, enabling disturbance of up to 60 percent of the property's woodlands. 3. Buffers and Screening. As permitted by § 165-77.H, a waiver of the interior residential screening and road efficiency buffer requirements in age -restricted communities. HP OfficeJet Personal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner Last Fax Date Time Identification Apr 25 9:26am Sent 96650493 Result: OK - black and white fax OK color - color fax Fax History Report for Frederick County Planning 665-6395 Apr 25 2001 9:27am Duration Pages Result 0:23 1 OK w W DATE: July 17, 2000 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA E STREET NAME COMMENTS SUBDIVISION COMMENTS STAFF MEMBER: Marcus Lemasters, Mapping and Graphics Manager SUBDIVISION: Shenandoah COMMENTS: 1. Change roadway name with suffix of "Road" to "Drive". 2. Change roadway names with suffix of "Crescent" to "Circle". 3. The following road names have been approved and added to the Frederick County system as "Paper Streets". When the Subdivision goes into effect and structure numbers assigned, names will become recognized street names. Cottontail Drive Swallowtail Circle Hornbeam Circle Shadbush Circle Mallard Circle Nuthatch Circle Purple Martin Circle Kingfisher Court Painted Turtle Drive Checkerspot Drive Yellow Birch Court Spicebush Drive Kestril Lane Phoebe Court Merganser Court 4. The following names are usable for road names: Bald Eagle Sourwood Fly Catcher Fringetree Box Turtle Lane Emperor Lane Hawthorn Court Mistflower Circle Heron Court Wren Drive Osprey Lane Cabbage White Memo Continued..... Shenandoah Road Name Request Comment/Review (cont.) Page 2 5. The following names have been denied: Lake Frederick Drive Bass Court White -tail Lane Beaver Court Morning Cloak Road Red Admiral Road Virginia Pine Court Tulip Poplar Lane Black Oak Court Dogwood Crescent Chestnut Oak Court Sweet Birch Lane Beech Crescent Paw Paw Crescent Mountain Laurel Lane Cardinal Flower Court Robin Crescent Warbler Court Raven Court Blue Jay Street Meadowlark Court Warbler Waterlily Shenandoah Drive Pike Lane Red Fox Road Woodchuck Crescent Monarch Lane Victory Crescent White Oak Drive Walnut court White Ash Lane Persimmon Lane Hickory Court Black Gum Road Red Bud Lane Cherry Road Aster Crescent Mountain Mist Court Mockingbird Court Hummingbird Lane Morning Dove Lane Blackbird Crescent Tanager Sunflower Blue Gill Lane Sunfish Court Raccoon Road Bull Frog Lane Buckeye Crescent Red Cedar Court Scarlet Oak Crescent White Ash Court Green Ash Court Hemlock Court Holly Court Bear Oak Lane Mulberry Crescent Winterberry Road May Apple Crescent Chickadee Lane Oriole Court Bobwhite Court Cardinal Lane Wood Duck Court Sundrop Yellow Wood Frederick County Planning and Development, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5651 gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners — Water Quality 17 July 2000 Mr. Evan Wyatt Frederick County Planning 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: "Shenandoah" Dear Evan, Attached are the road names that we would like to use on our project. Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: P. Duane Brown, L.S. William L. Wright Michael A. Hammer Thomas W. Price We would appreciate the County checking for duplicates and advising if these are alright to use. Thank you for your help. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. ord s sociates,s, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Ray Smith, Dogwood Development Group . 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwchff@mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council "Shenandoah" Road Names 1. Lake Frederick Drive 2. Shenandoah Drive 3. Blue Gill Lane 4. Bass Court 5. Pike Lane 6. Sunfish Court 7. White -Tail Lane 8. Red Fox Road 9. Cottontail Road 10. Raccoon Road 11. Beaver Court 12. Woodchuck Crescent 13. Painted Turtle Road 14. Box Turtle Lane 15. Bull Frog Lane 16. Swallowtail Crescent 17. Morning Cloak Road 18. Checkerspot Road 19. Monarch Lane 20. Buckeye Crescent 21. Red Admiral Road 22. Emperor Lane 22A. Victory Crescent 23. Red Cedar Court 24. Virginia Pine Court 25. White Oak Drive 25A. Hornbeam Crescent 26. Scarlet Oak Crescent 27. Tulip Poplar Lane 28. Walnut Court 29. White Ash Court 30. Black Oak Crescent 31. White Ash Lane 32. Green Ash Court 32A. Dogwood Crescent 33. Persimmon Lane 33A. Hemlock Court 34. Chestnut Oak Court 35. Hickory Court 36. Holly Court 37. Sweet Birch Lane 37A. Yellow Birch Court 38. Black Gum Road 39. Bear Oak Lane 40. Beech Crescent 41. Red Bud Lane 42. Hawthorn Court 43. Mulberry Crescent 44. Paw Paw Crescent 45. Shadbush Crescent 46. Spicebush Drive 47. Cherry Road 48. Winterbery Road 49. Mountain Laurel Lane 50. Aster Crescent 51. Mistflower Crescent 52. May Apple Crescent 53. Cardinal Flower Court 54. Mountain Mist Court 55. Mallard Crescent 55A. Kestril Lane 56. Chickadee Lane 57. Heron Court 58. Robin Crescent 59. Mockingbird Court 60. Oriole Court 61. Warbler Court 62. Hummingbird Lane 63. Nuthatch Crescent 64. Phoebe Court 64A. Wren Road 65. Bobwhite Court 66. Raven Court 67. Morning Dove Lane 68. Cardinal Lane 69. Blue Jay Street 70. Purple Martin Crescent 71. Blackbird Court 72. Merganser Court 73. Osprey Lane 74. Bluebird Crescent 75. Wood Duck Court 76. Meadowlark Court 77. Kingfisher Court Extra Birds Bald Eagle Warbler Tanager Fly Catcher Extra Flowers Sundrop Goldenrod Waterlilly Sunflower Extra Trees Cabbage White Sourwood Fringetree Yellow Wood FILE COPY N? August 24, 2000 C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice -President G.W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan -Dear Chuck: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 Enclosed are my comments on the materials submitted in association with the Preliminary Master Development Plan for the proposed Shenandoah project. I have reviewed the various sheets submitted as part of the MDP, as well as the associated notes, and my comments are separate accordingly. In general, you will find that there are a number bits of detailed information that are required by Ordinance that have not been provided. These include specifics on the types and numbers of units to be constructed, details on the type of recreational facilities to be provided and phasing of the project. In addition, there are a number of details that will need to be worked out regarding such things as access to (and use of) Lake Frederick, the extent and location of environmental features present and the degree of proposed disturbance. If you would like to discuss any of the comments or issues raised, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Director cc: Dogwood Development Group UAKris\2000\1etters\shendoah 1.wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Review Comments 8/22/2000 The Shenandoah Project proposes 2,130 dwellings on 926 acres for a residential density of 2.3 units per acre which is well within the maximum permitted density of the R-5 zone. The R-5 zone permits developments which are age -restricted subject to appropriate deed restrictions or other legal documents being provided which insure that the development will in fact be age -restricted. This documentation will need to be provided prior to final approval of a Master Development Plan (MDP). Please note that for our purposes the MDP should be limited to the land area within Frederick County. The Preliminary Master Development Plan (PMDP) which has been submitted fails to provide a number of required bits of information. The required information which is lacking from the plan submitted is listed below. 1) The Plan must indicate the proposed number of units of each housing type which are proposed in each phase of the development and in the total development, as well as the approximate location of the various housing types. In addition, the acreage in common open space, roads, streets or right-of-ways by phase and for the entire development should be provided. Experience indicates that the most efficient way to convey this information is to produce a table listing each phase and the various numbers, units, acreage, percentages, etc. per phase. 2) A certified boundary survey of the entire property indicating all dimensions in feet is required. 3) Intervals of the topography should be indicated. For the sake oflegibility, topography should not be shown on each sheet, but rather limited to the page indicating the location of steep slopes. 4) In addition to the information provided in the title block, the names of the owners, contract owners and firms preparing the plan should be clearly identified. The age -restricted nature of the development should also be indicated. 5) The use and ownership of adjoining properties should be indicated on the plan. 6) In addition to the location steep slopes and woodland, the location of wetlands should be provided. 7) The sheet depicting the location of woodlands and the areas to be disturbed is flawed. This sheet needs to be redraw to clearly indicate the location of existing woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and those areas that will be disturbed. It appears -1- that more than 25 percent of the existing woodlands are to be disturbed, therefore, a waiver will need to be requested from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. Staff notes that the approved neatlands MDP called for reforestation of the area between the public fishing area and the proposed community center and the granting of a conservation easement on this acreage to the DGIF. 8) The location of environmental protection land that is to be included in common open space should be shown and the acreage and percentage of open space made up of these features should be given. 9) Additional information on the type, number and scale of recreational facilities to be provided is needed. The location and configuration ofrecreational facilities should also be indicated on the plan. Ultimately, the County Parks and Recreation Department will need to determine the adequacy of the proposed facilities. It should be noted that, if single family small lot housing is proposed within the development, additional recreational facilities must be provided in accordance with section 165-64.A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. It should be similarly noted that, within the R-5 zone, recreational facilities are to be provided with each phase in proportion to the fraction of the total dwelling units in each phase. Information will need to be provided which demonstrates how this requirement is to be met. 10) Although there are three street cross-section details among the information provided, the plan fails to indicate which roads within the development are to be of which type. The labeling of the road types should be consistent with the R-5 zoning. Roads should be either Greenways, Neighborhood Collectors, or Local streets. Staff has concerns regarding the depiction of numerous utilities within the rights -of -way of the proposed streets. All indications to this point have been that, although the development would have private streets, the construction of the streets would be such that they could be turned over to the VDOT should that become necessary. VDOT standards would not permit utility lines to be run under the centerline of the pavement. 11) Information on stormwater management facilities should be indicated on the plan. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County's Public Works Department. 12) No buffers or screening are depicted on the NIDP. Buffers must either be provided in accordance with County requirements, or a waiver must be sought. 13) The network of trails depicted does not appear to provide access to every use, structure or recreational facility as required. It appears this might be remedied by providing a few -2- additional linkages between certain subdivision streets and the trail network which is depicted. 14) Staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will wish to see a detailed Generalized Development Plan (as provided for under R-5 zoning) which indicates the type of uses, access, and circulation patterns proposed for the Village Center. Comments on: Final Notes to Master Development Plan - Shenandoah The following comments pertain to the notes submitted along with the MDP for the proposed Shenandoah Development 1) Mixture of housing Types a) = Describing the housing to be built as "a mix of housing types allowed in the R-5 zone" is inadequate. Please see item #1 above under PMDP comments. (b) This comment is unacceptable. The MDP must specify the number and type of units in each phase. Future variation in the numbers or types of units may require a revision to an approved MDP. (c) This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. 2) Transportation Improvements (a) No problem. (b) The note should clearly state at what point in the project the relocation of the VDGIF entrance will take place. (c) The improvements to Route 636 should be linked to the construction of a specified number of dwelling units rather than approval of a phase of the development. 3) Trail System The trail system described does not meet the requirement of Section 165-77.M of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. (See comment #13 above.) 4) Streetlights While the design of streetlights may be selected by the developer, they must be approved by -3- the Zoning Administrator. 5) Provision of water and sewer service (a) No problem. (b) In addition to State Water Control Board, the plans for the waste water treatment facility will also need to be approved by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. In addition, arrangements acceptable to the Authority will need to be made for turning all sewer and water facilities (including treatment facilities, lift stations, and water storage facilities) over to the Authority following satisfactory completion of their construction. (c) Same as (b) above. 6) Fire and Rescue In order to be effective, the details concerning the amount and location of this acreage will need to be resolved and noted on the MDP prior to approval. Preliminary indications from the Emergency Services Director are that the proposed location for a fire and rescue facility is undesirable. It is also appears clear that the offer of land for a library (given the limited three-year duration of the offer) is of little value given that a branch library is -currently under construction on Tasker Road which is intended to serve the needs of the southeastern area of the County for the foreseeable future. Staff notes that the three-year duration of this offer from the time the MDP is approved falls far short of the "12 years from the date of platting of the first phase of the development" offered by the previous plan. 7) Open Space This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. 8) Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality (a) No problem. (b) The language will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works and the VDGIF. (c) The proposed method of maintenance of BMP's will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works. The reference to Section 16 -4- should be removed as the notes contain no such number. (d) No problem. (e) Staff believes that the interests of protecting water quality and maintaining tree cover would be better served if the conservation easement is granted to the VDGIF (as currently stipulated on the Wheatlands MDP) as opposed to the home owners association as is proposed. (f) As with (e) above, the assurance that trails will be constructed with the approval of VDGIF is far better insured if the DGIF holds an easement on this acreage rather than a homeowners association. (g) All woodland areas (as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) proposed for clearing must be indicated as disturbed on the MDP and counted toward the total percentage of disturbed woodlands. r.. (h) Any improvements which are intended to count toward fulfillment of required recreation facilities will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Parks and Recreation. The completion of such facilities will need to be covered by performance guarantees prior to platting of relevant sections of the development. (i) Why would the flood easements not be conveyed on, and with, the recordation of approved plats? 9) Access to the Lake It is anticipated that any access to be provided to Lake Frederick would need to be public. 10) Provision of adequate monumentation No problem. 11) School Site Staff anticipates that given the approved MDP for Wheatlands includes the offer of a school site, the failure of the Shenandoah proposal to carry forward with this offer will no doubt generate discussion. 12) Recreational Facilities The statement "substantial recreational facilities" is inadequate. Detailed information on exactly what type of facilities including the number, square footage, cost estimates, etc. along -5- with specifics on what facilities will be provided at what point in the development of the project must be provided. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Parks and Recreation Department. 13) Phasing (a) This statement indicates that there will be six phases, whereas, the MDP submitted identifies eight phases, which is correct? The exact number of units per phase must be identified on the MDP. Significant alterations to these numbers subsequent to Board of Supervisor approval may result in the need to formally revise the approved MDP. (b) These improvements will need to be built or bonded prior to plat approval. (c) = No problem. (d) It would be preferable to link construction ofthese improvements to a specific number of units rather than to a general phase of development. At a minimum they should be tied to the approval of a particular phase. (e) Same as (d) above. (f) This comment should be eliminated. Prior to any infrastructure improvements, grading, or other construction activity commencing within any given area, land disturbance and other pertinent permits are required per normal County procedures. More importantly, density within phases is determined by an approved MDP; the swapping of units between phases subsequent to MOP approval is not permitted. 14) Homeowner's Association (a) This section again contains a reference to the nonexistent # 16 within the notes. A reference to maintenance of the all roads would be appropriate here. (b) There is little apparent value of the statement, particularly given that it is inconsistent with other statements such as note 8.(g), which indicates the developer intents to clear areas solely for the purpose of providing views of the lake. Limits of woodland disturbance must be depicted on the MDP. Staff notes the absence of restrictions contained in the approved Wheatlands MDP which prohibited the cutting trees over a six-inch caliper other than for placement of a home, driveway or utilities, placed a limit of 30% disturbance on those lots which adjoin the lake, and had building lot approval subject to HOA with the stated goal of minimizing site disturbance. W THE FISCAL IMPACT OF SHENANDOAH ON FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Prepared for Dogwood Development Group Reston, Virginia Prepared by Stephen S. Fuller, Ph.D. Professor of Public Policy George Mason University and Dean D. Bellas Urban Analytics, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia May 2000 Table of Contents Summary of Findings......................................................................................... 1 Summary of the Fiscal Impact Analysis................................................................... 1 Shenandoah Proposed Development Program........................................................... 2 FiscalImpacts.................................................................................................. 4 Conclusion..................................................................................................... 4 Appendix Methodology................................................................................................... 6 Supporting Fiscal Revenue and Expenditure Tables (Pages 1 - 12)................................ 8 List of Tables Table 1: Summary of Fiscal Impacts...................................................................... 1 Table 2: Fiscal Impact of the Shenandoah Plan Development ........................................ 3 Appendix Table 1: Shenandoah Plan Residential Development Data ................................ 7 The Fiscal Impact of Shenandoah on Frederick County, Virginia The proposed Shenandoah community will generate a net annual fiscal benefit to Frederick County totaling $6.2 million dollars reflecting revenues totaling $7.9 million and expenditures of $1.7 million. On a per housing unit basis, the Shenandoah community would return to Frederick County a net annual fiscal benefit of $2,917. Alternatively, Shenandoah will generate $4.68 in revenues for each $1 of added County expenditures. This fiscal benefit reflects a conservative approach to assigning County costs as actual expenditures by the County for many services will be lower than indicated due to the lower demand levels associated with active -adult communities for public safety and parks and recreation. These fiscal benefits are summarized in the table below and arrayed in detail in Table 2. Table 1 Summary of Fiscal Impacts (dollars in thousands) Proposal County Revenues County Expenditures Shenandoah Percent Net Benefit Per Housing Unit Net Benefit $7,930 $1,696 Net Benefit $6,234 267.6 % $2,917 The objective of this fiscal analysis is to measure the expenditure demand on Frederick County and the County revenues that will be generated by the proposed Shenandoah community. The fiscal impact of the proposed Shenandoah community on Frederick County reflects the increases in County revenues that will be generated by the new residents and real estate development associated with the community minus the expenditures required to provide public services to these new residents. These revenue and expenditure flows are different for each type of land use development. In order to accurately measure these distinct fiscal flows, a fiscal impact model has been developed that prorates the local revenues and expenditures by land use type including breakouts for different types of residential units. This model has been calibrated to reflect Frederick County's current level of services and costs of operations as well as its current schedule of tax rates and revenue sources, as reflected in its 1998 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. This analysis reflects 1998 real dollar values, tax rates and levels of services and provides an accurate measurement of expenditures and revenues reflecting these rates. If tax rates or levels of services are changed in future years, then respective revenue and expenditure estimates would also change. Similarly, if assessments change at a rate exceeding the rate of inflation, then the value base for calculating revenues would also change. For the purposes of this analysis, all of these values are held constant and this provides an accurate portrayal of the fiscal impacts of Shenandoah as if it existed as part of the tax base in 1998. The specific costs associated with the public schools are excluded from the analysis as there will not be school -age children resident in Shenandoah due to its age restriction. Shenandoah is planned as an "active adult" community in contrast to the previously approved plan for this site that included only a "primary home" community. The "active adult" community would be restricted to residents 55 years old and above and be limited to households without resident children. The "active adult" housing would have an average occupancy rate of 1.8 persons and include no children. The commercial uses included in the Shenandoah community include office and retail uses. Retail uses are projected to include a food store, cinema, drug store and other general retail outlets while the office uses are projected to include a post office (leased space) and a range of personal and business services. Provision is made in the plan for a town center arrangement of retail and office functions including sites for government facilities and non - government organizations, such as a church. These are not included in the fiscal analysis as they would likely be tax-exempt land uses. E Table 2 Fiscal Impact of the Shenandoah Plan Development Frederick County, Virginia Estimated Estimated Estimated County County County Type of Total Total Revenues Expenditures Revenue Units units AE Generated Impac Su[RIus(Deficit) Age-Resticted - Condominiums 310 $906,468 $218,395 $688,073 Age-Resticted - SFD Quad 490 $1,659,899 $345,205 $1,314,694 Age-Resticted - SF (Small Lot) 679 $2,389.481 $478,278 $1,911,203 Age-Resticted - SF (Large Lot) 658 $2,438,592 $463,405 $1,975,187 Office 112,000 $255,172 $110,881 $144,291 Retail 121,000 $280,838 $79,965 $200,873 Total 2,137 233,000 $7,930,450 $1,696,129 $6,234,321 Source: Mason Enterprise Center, The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University Urban Analytics, Inc. 3 Number of Number of Number of People Chin Jobs 558 0 882 0 1,222 0 1,184 0 373 269 3,846 0 642 Fiscal Impacts The annual fiscal flows associated with Shenandoah are presented in Table 2. Based on an examination of all potential local revenue sources and associated County expenditures allocated by the land use mix, with a total of 2,137 units located in Frederick County plus 233,000 square feet of commercial space (office and retail), the calculated net annual fiscal benefit to Frederick County was found to equal $6.2 million reflecting the generation of revenues totaling $7.9 million with associated County expenditures totaling $1.7 million. This revenue output results from Shenandoah's 233,000 square feet of commercial space and its relatively high value of residential units and associated household incomes that translate into relatively higher per unit local tax revenues with its personal property and retail sales taxes being a function of income levels. On the expenditure side of the equation, Shenandoah will cost the County $1.7 million for locally funded services, reflecting a per unit cost well below the County average. These lower costs reflect Shenandoah's age -restricted housing that substantially reduces the residents' demand for public services. It should also be noted that the expenditure demands included in this analysis assign the same per unit (or per capita) costs to Shenandoah residents, with the exception of public education, as for residents elsewhere in the County. This overstates this expenditure demand as the on -site amenities, design, and household profile of Shenandoah will result in below -average demands on the County's public safety and parks and recreation budgets. 171 In summary, Shenandoah will generate a net fiscal benefit totaling $6.2 million annually with revenues exceeding expenditures by 267.6 percent. On a per -unit basis, this net fiscal annual benefit amounts to $2,917 per unit. 0 Appendix The process of calculating the revenue and expenditure flows generated by each residential and non-residential land use analyzed involved formulating a fiscal model that allocates the County's revenues and expenditures to their direct sources. The basis for this analysis was the Frederick County Cmprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year 1998. The audited revenue and expenditure totals by source and agency reported in this document were divided between those generated by (assignable to) residential and non- residential uses according to percent distributions developed from detailed examinations of comparable County budgets in neighboring Northern Virginia jurisdictions. These percent distributions of fiscal revenues and expenditures were scaled (calibrated) to the demographic and economic characteristics of Frederick County. The residential share of each category of County revenue and expenditures (that is, the portions generated by local residents as opposed to local business activities, or which provide services to local residents as distinguished from local businesses) was converted to a per capita equivalent to facilitate the calculation of fiscal flows associated with each residential land use analyzed. The non-residential share of each category of County expenditures was converted to a per job equivalent to facilitate the calculation of non-residential fiscal flows from commercial development. This approach assumes that each person living or working in Frederick County has access to the County's services and therefore potentially shares from the benefits of these services. This cost or expenditure allocation is not based on the actual utilization of County services by specific individuals but rather reflects equal access to and availability of these services to all County residents. The one exception in the case of an age - restricted community is public school expenditures. The findings derived in this study are based on an analysis of average costs, not marginal costs. By using average costs and revenue multipliers in this analysis and not adjusting revenue sources and expenditure demands to reflect the income structure of the future residents of Shenandoah or the actual utilization rate of specific services, the actual revenue forecast is likely to be conservative and the actual demand for County services and programs may be overstated. However, where specific costs and revenues could be assigned based on actual use or values, these were calculated based on available data. For example, the real estate tax revenues associated with a particular type of residential development were calculated based on the average value of these units. The residential development plan data for Shenandoah is shown in Appendix Table 1. The estimated average real estate assessed values for residential units at Shenandoah ranges from $172,500 to $305,000. C. Appendix Table 1 Shenandoah Residential Development Data Frederick County, Virginia Average Real Estate Type of Total Assessed Number of Number of Units unim Value People Children Age-Resticted - Condominiums 310 $172,586 558 0 Age-Resticted - SFD Quad 490 $250,746 882 0 Age-Resticted - SF (Small Lot) 679 $273,122 1,222 0 Age-Resticted - SF (Large Lot) $ $304,887 1184 Q Total 2,137 3,846 0 Weighted Average Value 2,137 $263,188 Source: Mason Enterprise Center, The Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University Urban Analytics, Inc. 7 Supporting Fiscal Revenue and Expenditure Tables (Pages 1 - 12) Appendix Table 1 Revenues Generated by 310 Age -Restricted Condominium Units - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated County Revenues Cawory Generated 1 Real Estate Residential $315,660 Non -Residential $0 2 Personal Property $120,064 3 Sales Tax $27,758 4 Utilities (Consumer) $13,837 5 BPOL $0 6 Other Taxes $30,029 7 Licenses, Fees, Permits $1,618 8 Fines & Forfeitures $286 9 Use of Money $11,725 10 Charges for Services $33,980 11 Miscellaneous $30,146 12 Intergovernmental $323,317 Total $906,468 1 Appendix Table 2 Expenditure Requirements of 310 Age -Restricted Condominium Units - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated Category County Services Impact 1 General Government Administration $35,576 2 Judicial Administration $11,316 3 Public Safety $54,262 4 Public Works $16,304 5 Health and Welfare $40,638 6 Parks, Recreation and Cultural $28,140 7 Community Development $32,160 8 Public Schools $0 Total $218,395 Estimated County Revenues Generated $906,468 Estimated County Services Impact $218,395 Estimated County Revenue Surplus (Deficit) $688,073 K Appendix Table 3 Revenues Generated by 490 Age -Restricted SFD Quad Units - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated County Revenues Generated 1 Real Estate Residential $724,907 Non -Residential $0 2 Personal Property $189,779 3 Sales Tax $43,875 4 Utilities (Consumer) $21,872 5 BPOL $0 6 Other Taxes $47,466 7 Licenses, Fees, Permits $2,558 8 Fines & Forfeitures $452 9 Use of Money $18,533 10 Charges for Services $53,710 11 Miscellaneous $47,651 12 Intergovernmental $511,049 Total $1,659,899 3 Appendix Table 4 Expenditure Requirements of 490 Age -Restricted SFD Quad Units - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated County Services 1 General Government Administration $56,232 2 Judicial Administration $17,886 3 Public Safety $85,769 4 Public Works $25,771 5 Health and Welfare $64,234 6 Parks, Recreation and Cultural $44,480 7 Community Development $50,833 8 Public Schools $0 Total $345,205 Estimated County Revenues Generated $1,659,899 Estimated County Services Impact $345,205 Estimated County Revenue Surplus (Deficit) $1,314,693 4 Appendix Table 5 Revenues Generated by 679 Age -Restricted Single Family (Small Lot) Units - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated County Revenues Category Generated 1 Real Estate Residential $1,094,154 Non -Residential $0 2 Personal Property $262,936 3 Sales Tax $60,788 4 Utilities (Consumer) $30,303 5 BPOL $0 6 Other Taxes $65,763 7 Licenses, Fees, Permits $3,544 8 Fines & Forfeitures $626 9 Use of Money $25,677 10 Charges for services $74,415 11 Miscellaneous $66,020 12 Intergovernmental $708,053 Total $2,389,481 5 Appendix Table 6 Expenditure Requirements of 679 Age -Restricted Single Family (Small Lot) Units - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated County Services 1 General Government Administration $77,909 2 Judicial Administration $24,781 3 Public Safety $118,831 4 Public Works $35,706 5 Health and Welfare $88,995 6 Parks, Recreation and Cultural $61,626 7 Community Development $70,428 8 Public Schools $0 Total $478,278 Estimated County Revenues Generated $2,389,481 Estimated County Services Impact $478,278 Estimated County Revenue Surplus (Deficit) $1,911,203 0 Appendix Table 7 Revenues Generated by 658 Age -Restricted Single Family (Large Lot) Units - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated County Revenues Category Generated 1 Real Estate Residential $1,183,632 Non -Residential $0 2 Personal Property $254,760 3 Sales Tax $58,898 4 Utilities (Consumer) $29,361 5 BPOL $0 6 Other Taxes $63,718 7 Licenses, Fees, Permits $3,434 8 Fines & Forfeitures $607 9 Use of Money $24,878 10 Charges for Services $72,101 11 Miscellaneous $63,967 12 Intergovernmental $686,035 Total $2,438,592 VA Appendix Table 8 Expenditure Requirements of 658 Age -Restricted Single Family (Large Lot) Units - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated Cateaont County Services Impact 1 General Government Administration $75,487 2 Judicial Administration $24,010 3 Public Safety $115,136 4 Public Works $34,596 5 Health and Welfare $86,228 6 Parks, Recreation and Cultural $59,710 7 Community Development $68,238 8 Public Schools $0 Total $463,405 Estimated County Revenues Generated $2,438,592 Estimated County Services Impact $463,405 Estimated County Revenue Surplus (Deficit) $1,975,187 91 Appendix Table 9 Revenues Generated by Office Development - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia 1 Real Estate Residential Non -Residential 2 Personal Property 3 Sales Tax 4 Utilities (Consumer) 5 BPOL 6 Other Taxes 7 Licenses, Fees, Permits 8 Fines & Forfeitures 9 Use of Money 10 Charges for Services 11 Miscellaneous 12 Intergovernmental Total Estimated County Revenues Generated $0 $52,864 $77,378 $14,589 $10,226 $3,698 $17,735 $891 $44 $4,340 $2,384 $11,159 $63,386 $255,172 Note: Non-residential based on 112,000 sf of office space. W Appendix Table 10 Expenditure Requirements of Office Development - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated Catego!v County Services Imps 1 General Government Administration $23,778 2 Judicial Administration $7,743 3 Public Safety $51,494 4 Public Works $9,401 5 Health and Welfare $2,597 6 Parks, Recreation and Cultural $2,507 7 Community Development $13,361 8 Public Schools $0 Total $110,881 Estimated County Revenues Generated $255,172 Estimated County Services Impact $110,881 Estimated County Revenue Surplus (Deficit) $144,291 10 Appendix Table 11 Revenues Generated by Retail Development - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia 1 Real Estate Residential Non -Residential 2 Personal Property 3 Sales Tax 4 Utilities (Consumer) 5 BPOL 6 Other Taxes 7 Licenses, Fees, Permits 8 Fines & Forfeitures 9 Use of Money 10 Charges for Services 11 Miscellaneous 12 Intergovernmental Total Estimated County Revenues Generated $0 $57,112 $83,596 $15,761 $11,047 $3,996 $19,160 $3,438 $48 $4,689 $2,575 $12,056 $68,480 $280,838 Note: Non-residential based on 121,000 sf of retail space. 11 Appendix Table 12 Expenditure Requirements of Retail Development - Shenandoah Frederick County, Virginia Estimated County Services 1 General Government Administration $17,149 2 Judicial•Administration $5,584 3 Public Safety $37,137 4 Public Works $6,779 5 Health and Welfare $1,873 6 Parks, Recreation and Cultural $1,808 7 Community Development $9,635 8 Public Schools $0 Total $79,965 Estimated County Revenues Generated $280,838 Estimated County Services Impact $79,965 Estimated County Revenue Surplus (Deficit) $200,872 12 IMPACT STATEMENT 1 I i I 1�1 ri I F, S-I-iE-J`i�ANDOAH Active Adult Resort Gated Community "Age Restricted" 11 H Frederick County, Vireinia Master Development Plan Application Package 1 1 1. Project Title: 1 2. Owner's Name: n 11 1 1 1 1 1 3. 4. APPLICATION MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN "Shenandoah" Fred L. Glaize, III and Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester, VA 22604 Fred L. Glaize, III and James L. Bowman (Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest) Applicant: G.W. Clifford & Associates. Inc. Address c/o Charles E. Maddox Jr. 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester_ VA 22601 Phone (540) 667-2139 Design Company: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number (540) 667-2139 1 1 1 1 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package APPLICATION cont'd MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 5. Location of Property: ±3.5 miles east of Stephens City on south side of VA Route 277 and f 1 mile south of Double Tollgate on west side of UIS Route 340 & 522 6. Total Acreage: 7. Property Information: 926.266 Acres (Frederick County) a) Property Identification Number (PIN): 87-A-102 & 103 b) Current Zoning: R-5 c) Present Use: Vacant d) Proposed Use: Residential e) Adjoining Property Information: See attachment Property Identification Property Uses North South East West f) Magisterial District: Opequon 8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan? Original Amended X I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All required material will be complete ppor to the submission of my master development plan applicatiog.,,/ �j► / Signature: Date: /Z -2^ 2 I L� 1 1 1 1 Attachment 7e. Adjoining Property Information Property Identification Numbers Property Use North 86-A-218 Agficultural 87-A-15 Agricultural 87-A-16B Agficultural 87-A-95 Mobile Home Park 87-A-95B Vacant 87-A-96 Agricultural 87-A-96A Residential 87-A-97 Vacant 87-A-97A Vacant 87-A-98 Residential 87-A-99 Residential 87-A-100 Residential 87-A-101 Residential 27-A-12 Clarke Count Residential South 87-A-103B Commonwealth 93-A-77 Agficultural 94A-1-1-12 Vacant 94A-1-10-11 Vacant 94A-1-11-20 Vacant East 87-A-103A Residential 87-A-105 Residential 87-A-107 Residential 94-A-1 Residential 27-A-14 Clarke Count Residential 27-A-16 Clarke Count Vacant West 86-A-220 Residential 86-A-223 Agricultural 86-A-272 Residential 86-A-273 Residential 86-A-273B Residential 86-A-273C Axicultural 86-A-273D Agricultural I 1 1 t 1 I 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Required Information Checklist MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN The following information must be included on the master development plan. If the submitted master development plan is incomplete or is missing information, it will not be reviewed and will be returned to you for revisions. Administrative Information Yes No X 1. Name of proposed development. X 2. Name, address, and telephone number of owner. X 3. Name, address, and telephone number of developer. X 4. Name, address, and telephone number of designer. X 5. Signed certificate of surveyor, engineer or architect. X 6. Date plan prepared and date of revisions. N/A 7. A listing of all conditions placed on the site as a result of a conditional zoning approval. Rezoning file number should be cited. X 8. A space labeled "Approved by the Director of Planning and Development" for the approval Signature and date of approval. X 9. A space labeled "Approved by the County Admini- strator" for the approval signature and date of approval. X 10. Magisterial District. X 11. Sheet size less than 42 inches. I 3 u Frederick County, Vir¢inia Master Development Plan Application Package General Information Yes No X 1. Location Map (scale 1:2000). *X 2. Scale of the MDP is not to exceed 1:100. X 3. North Arrow. X 4. Legend describing all symbols. X 5. Surveyed boundaries of all lots and parcels. X 6. Acreage of all parcels included in the MDP. X 7. Topography contour lines at acceptable interval. X 8. A schedule of phases, boundary of phases, and order of development. X 9. Use, zoning, and property owner of all adjoining properties. X 10. Location of proposed uses (location, boundaries, arrangement). N/A 11. Location and treatment of historic structure and sites. Available 12. History of all land divisions in relation to this tract. X 13. Acreage, location and boundaries of environmental features: floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention areas, steep slopes, woodlands. X 14. Amount and percentage of disturbed and protected land in common open space. * Reduced scale approved by Planning Staff. 4 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Aaalication Packa¢e Residential Development Information Yes No X l . Location and dimension of Residential Separation Buffers. 2. Acreage in common open space, in housing type, in road rights -of -way, and for the entire development (by Phase). X 3. Location and boundaries of housing types. Resi- dential Performance (RP) dimensional requirements should be indicated. X 4. Number of dwelling units (by type, phase, and in total. X 5. Location and configuration of required recreational facilities. Statement of required and type of facil- itties to be provided. Infrastructure Informatton Yes No X 1. Location of adjoining streets and utilities. X 2. Location, arrangements, and right-of-way widths of roads and property access. X 3. Location and arrangement of street entrances, drive- ways, and parking areas. X 4. Location of entrances to the development from pub- lic streets. X 5. Type of road design (rural or urban). X 6. Use of inter -parcel connectors. X 7. Traffic impact analysis. To be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation. 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 Frederick County, Virginia Master Develoament Plan Aanlication Package X X Other Design Information Yes X X X X No N/A 8. Location of sewer and water mains with statements concerning the connection with and availability of facilities. 9. Location and arrangement of electric and gas utilities. l . Location of Zoning District and Road Efficiency buffers, and examples specifying the screening to be provided. 2. Plan for stormwater management. Location of stormwater facilities. 3. Acreage of each type of environmental protection land. (Amount and percentage of disturbed and protected land in common open space.) Shown in a table format. 4. Amount, boundaries, and location of common open space. (Indicate the percentage of the entire site to be placed in common open space.) 5. Location of environmental protected areas to be in- cluded in common open space. T 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Packaee County Health Department Information Yes No X 1. Statements and locations pertaining to sewer and water availability. X 2. Statements and locations concerning any existing pre- or post -water treatment facilities. X 3. Statements and location of any planned private treatment facilities. 7 IFrederick County, V' in' Master Develoipment Plan Aimlication Packa e 1 Adjoining Property Owners MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN Owners of property adjoining the land will be notified of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. For the purpose of this application, adjoining property is any property abutting the requested property on the side or rear or any property directly across a public right-of-way, a private right-of-way, or a watercourse from the requested property. The applicant is required to obtain the following information on each adjoining property including the parcel identification number which may be obtained from the office of the Commissioner of Revenue. The Commissioner of the Revenue is located on the 2" a floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street. Name Address Property # John M. & Joann G. Leight 115 Massie Lane, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-218 Harvey O. Lewis, Rose E. Vuillermet, Margaret E. Palmer 1633 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-220 Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 6, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-223 Loretta D. Bailey 1748 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-272 John Campbell 1895 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273 Lee E. Campbell 1787 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273B Bobby VI. & Gladys E. Gibson 1883 Hudson Hollow Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-273C Oak Ridge Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 885, Winchester, VA 22604 86-A-2731) Beatrice I. Apperson, Trustee 1702 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-15 Montie W. & Pearl E. Gibson 155 Castlebridge Court, Winchester, VA 22602 87-A-16B Sandy's Mobile Court, Inc. 2044 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22633 87-A-95 Melvin R. & Ethyl L. Sandy P.O. Box 432, Stephens City, VA 22655 87-A-95B Giles R. Cooke, Robert L. Cooke, Mary J. Cooke 986 Clark Road, Stephens City, VA 22655 87-A-96 Ralph L. & Stella M. Catlett 1954 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-96A Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk 1590 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 22663 87-A-97 1 1 C� L- I 1 I� i 1 Harold E. & Bernice A. Rapczyk 1590 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-97A 22663 Floyd L. & Shirley J. Lee 1908 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-98 22663 Carolyn C. Parker 113 W. Whitlock Avenue, Winchester, 87-A-99 VA 22601 Roger G. Clark 205 Moore Drive, Berryville, VA 22611 87-A-100 Gary A. Bolyard 1880 Fairfax Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-101 22663 David A. Headley 4490 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-103A 22663 Commonwealth of Virginia 4010 W. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 87-A-103B Commission of Game & Inland 23230 Fisheries J. David & Dirma V. Headley 4488 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-105 22663 Boyd D. & Candace L. Ritter 4436 Front Royal Pike, White Post, VA 87-A-107 22663 Victor A. & Julia A. Tolkan 4712 Reservoir Road, NW, Washington, 93-A-77 DC 20007 Jeffrey E. Williams P.O. Box 87, Stephens City, VA 22655 94-A-1 Mary M. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-1-12 Mary M. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-10-11 Albert M. & Terri L. Grady P.O. Box 442, Stephens City, VA 22655 94A-1-11-20 Robert C. Benton 4000 Chipstead Court, Chester, VA 27-A-12 (Clarke County) 23831 John F. , Jr. & Lillian M. Davis 4100 Stonewall Jackson Highway, 27-A-14 (Clarke County) White Post, VA 22663 Fred L. Glaize, III & Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 888, Winchester, VA 22604 —] 27-A-16 (Clarke County) f.1 MASTER PLAN NOTES 11 1 1 1 1 i 11 ' Revision 1.1 DRAFT FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN ' SHENANDOAH The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Amended Master ' Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided 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. Project Classification ' The developeragrees ees to include in its HOA Declaration and Restrictions a � provision which age restricts the gated active adult portion of the site (everything ' except the Village Center and the CCRC sites) so that; "80% of the homes will have at least one prime resident who is 55 years of age or older. The other 20% ' of the homes will have one prime resident who is 45 years of age or older. No children under the age of 19 may live in the community for more than 90 days a Year." The HOA further must develop a system, that they are obligated to maintain, which enforces this age restriction. The enforcement system must be ' included in the declarations and restrictions that run with the land. 2. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling ' units (2.3 DU/Acre) using a mix of housing types as shown on the attached "PHASING PLAN" (Appendix "A") ' (b) The mix of housing types will vary due to market demand from Phase to Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval. An amended phasing plan ' shall be submitted for such unit modifications. 3. Transportation improvements. (a) The developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340, Rte 636 and Rte 277 generally as shown in the plan and required by approved VDOT ' Permit. (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and ' Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan during Phase I of the project. 1 F Revision 1.1 C 0 (c) The developer shall prime and double seal the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, not later than the time of issuance of the 750 building permit. 4. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. 5. Streetlights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and, approved by the zoning administrator, will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. 6. Provision of water and sewer service. ' (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the ' general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board and the FCSA. (c) Public water will be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. (d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transferred to the FCSA ownership. ' 7. Fire and Rescue Service. ' A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either in the Village Center (which is the ' much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County but is offsite of Shenandoah. A one time gift of $20,000 is offered to provide assistance in the purchase of the alternative site. F 11 Revision 1.1 ' 8. Library A library site in the Village Center to a maximum size of 1 acre is offered for a ' period of 5 years. The developer will provide the site and planning, should the County library decide to construct and operate such a facility. ' 9. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite ' wastewater treatment facility. (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 Lake Frederick. 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 sub watershed 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 will eventually assign this responsibility to a homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer. 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. ' (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 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 Revision 1.1 DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. ' (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (HOA) and VDGIF at the time of recordation of a final plat for each residential ' section of the development. No building, tree cutting, clearing or disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation, or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit written approval of ' VDGIF. (f) To provide and contain walking traffic along the lake, the developer shall build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting to fishing, boating, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGIF. Such trails shall ' be maintained by the developer and successor HOAs. Trails will clearly identify private property lines (public access limits). ' (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through buffer areas reforesting those areas with herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VDGIG satisfaction. ' (h) The developer will build three piers — one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches — to VDGIF specifications. i () Flooding easements will be provided to VDGIF on a section b section g P Y basis as plats are recorded. ' 10. Access to Lake Frederick ' The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake for carry -ins (canoes, kayaks), as shown on the MDP. Each will have appropriate signage, parking and craft storage racks outside the conservation buffer, a walk path to lakeside in ' locations agreeable to VDGIF, and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. ' 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. IRevision 1.1 ' 12. School site. Since school age children will not reside in this project, and the remote location of ' the property to the urban population centers of the County, no school site is proposed. 13. Recreation Facilities ' The developer will provide recreation in accord with the attached schedule (Appendix `B"). Each of these facilities will be constructed during the identified phase of development of the community with which it is associated, and each will ' be turned over to its community HOA for use and maintenance under terms explicit in all home sale contracts. ' 14. Phasing (a) Each phase is one year of development. Building permits not granted in ' any previous phases .may be carved over so long as the cumulative total of authorized phases are not exceeded. ' (b) Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant, the entrance on US Rte 340/522, the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. ' c) Public water and sewer lines will be extended into each phase on an as- ( needed basis. (d) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 636 shall be constructed not later than before the 750 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3, when it will be opened for public access. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed not later than before the 1200 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction ' access until phase 6, when it will be opened for public access. (f) Disturbance and improvements in future phase areas will be required to ' implement this plan due to the need for grading, utilities, roadways, the substantial number of storm management ponds to protect water quality in Lake Frederick and the like. This work will be allowed upon plan ' approval by the County. 11 Revision 1.1 15. Homeowners' Association (HOA). (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, (i) Operation of a community center and Tennis Center. (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 (W) Maintenance of Roadway system ' (b) The HOA is empowered and required to project vegetative screening and open space trees, as well as all common area plantings, such as street trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the HOA, from time to time, to allow proper access by all emergency and service vehicles. 11 r 0 11 0 APPENDIX "A" DENSITY AND PHASING DATA Frederick County, Virginia Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Village Center Totals Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 S. Family Small Lot 65' Wide Lot 59 104 155 136 75 64 593 55' Wide Lot 75 149 153 145 66 40 628 Duplex 65 100 112 106 42 34 459 TownHouse 0 70 70 70 0 0 210 Garden Apartments 36 39 45 36 44 40 240 Totals 235 462 535 493 227 178 2130 Area Summary (acres) Area in Lots Area in Roads Area Area in Open Space 175.75 173.43 191.90 190.31 83.18 76.43 35.00 926.00 44.42 67.67 79.22 70.93 39.31 37.37 338.92 33.63 18.06 17.11 20.44 6.84 6.00 102.08 97.82 87.82 95.68 99.06 37.14 32.48 15.00 465.00 AREA in FREDERICK COUNTY 926.266 acres ALLOWED DENSITY per R-5 ZONE(2.3/acre) 2130 50.2% APPENDIX "B" Recreation Unit Summary Frederick County, Virginia Value of Amenities - Dollars Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Remarks Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 Community Building Trout Pond Outdoor Pool Play Courts Hiker/Biker Trails Natural Trails Nature Center(Village) Boat Docks DGIF Facilities Golf School Phase Totals -rr rrr rrr rrr .:rr rrr -- -_ _- :� rrr _- rr rrr, r rrr , r rrr r rrr , r rrrJ. LjoIsTo rrr r rrr , r rrr r rrr . , rrr rrr , rrr r rrr ,�rrr r rrr 11110"Ne"I Mort rrr rr rrr _- 1001 rrr rrr r rrr c rrr :r rrr , r rrr County Requirements No of Dwellings No of Rec Units at 1 per 30 Value per Rec Unit Value reqd by Ordinance 235.0 462.0 535.0 493.0 227.0 178.0 7.8 15.4 17.8 16.4 7.6 5.9 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $125,2801 $246,4001 $285,3331 $262,9331 $121,0671 $94,933 Constructed in 3 phases $4, 765,000 $1,135,946 [ij 1 VDOT COMMENTS 1 1 1 Ll I 1 AUG. -01' 00 (TUE) 15:31 VDOT LURAY RESIDENCY TEL:540 743 7249 P. 002 L� u 1 ' CHARUS D. NOTTINGHAM COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA r. C.E.Maddox, M E M x,Jr, PE VP G.W, Clifford & Associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P o. BOX 300 LURAY, VA 22835 July 31, 2000 REF: Shenandoah Routes 277, 340, 522 Clarke, Warren, and Frederick Counties Dear Chuck, RANDY S. KISER FIESWC ENGINEER 'TEL f54017434M FAX (540)7437249 ' We've received your July 11, 2000 letter along with an amended master development plan for the referenced project. ' After discussing this project recently with Mr. Steve Melnikoff, Edinburg Residency will handle and coordinate the plan review for this extensive project. The basis for the approach is due to the fact a majority of the project lies within their Residency boundaries, and should make facilitation of the plan review/approval process more efficient for you and your client by having to deal with only one local office. We also believe this method will be more effective for us to deal with our District Office Sections, If you recall, this arrangement is similar to how the process was to be handled for the former Wheatlands Project. We of course will be coordinating closely with and providing our recommendations to Edinburg's Permit and Subdivision Office for inclusion into their own review comments. We plan to field review the Route 340/522 corridor and possible impacts sometime this week. You indicated in your letter the centerline of the entrance roadway would be staked. Has this been accomplished? If not please do so at your earliest opportunity. 1 understand a meeting will be setup once the master plan and transportation study has been reviewed. We look forward to participating and ask that you give us a call if you have any questions, Sincerely, Robert B. Childress Assistant Resident Engineer RBC/msy cc: JA Copp 08/24i2000 14:17 5406650493 G w CLIFFORD & ASSOC PAGE 02 SN.owA�poAr-\ MDR° C:csw►in�Ts 1 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINOURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRY A. COPP CHARLES D. NOTTINGHANI EOINBURG, VA 22624 RESIDENT ENGINEER C�"�.1ISSlONI - R TELE 15d0I W-YM August 23, 2000 FAX(%4019W-W01 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 ' Ref: "Shenandoah"— Preliminary Master Development Plan Route 522/340 (Front Royal Pike) @ Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties Dear Chuck: ' A VDOT review by Luray and Edinburg Residencies has been completed on the preliminary plan dated 07/01/00 for the referenced project Our comments follow and are illustrated in red on the attached plan and supplemental references. rREFERENCES 1. U.S. Route 522/340 (Warren County) North Corridor Study by Clifford & Associates dated August, 1998: We recommend the traffic volumes and geometric recommendations for improvement to existing south bound lanes be given a weighted value consideration for impact by this proposed master development plan. A copy of "Findings" and "Recommendations" of the study has been extracted and is attached as a quick reference for your use. 2. The traffic analysis as developed by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Mr. John Callow using a peak hour count and projecting to a daily volume may be inadequate. It may be more desirable to provide a 24 hour count on several weekdays. ' PRELIMINARY MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1. Destinations from termini access points (proposed entrances) should be provided. IWE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 1 08/24/2000 14:17 5406650493 G W CLIFFOPD & ASSOC PAGE 03 ' Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" - Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #2 2. To meet the geometric roadway requirements, additional right-of-way should be ' dedicated for public road. a. Recommend a 50' wide right-of-way for portions of SR 636, Hudson Hollow ' Road, which fall within proposed development. b. On the corridors containing Route 522/340 and Route 277 respectively, ' adequate right-of-way should be provided to cover geometric designs. 3. The proposed access and crossover for CCRC area on north end of Route 522 should ' be rerouted to internal access or access development via the next crossover to the south. If continued access is planned, this entrance should be included in the traffic analysis. 4. Need for signalization at major access points: a. Route 277 and Route 636 intersection b. Route 277 at access entrance c. Phasing and potential signal head additions/modifications at Route 522/340 and Route 277 intersection d. Route 522/340 and main entrance — This location may need to be provided in the initial phasing or provision made by supplying a signalization agreement. 5. In the traffic analysis, reference is made to the proposed pavement structure as being prime and double seal. Based on raw traffic data, the surface should be asphalt concrete sufficient to accommodate projected volume of traffic. 6. Consideration of coordination between "Shenandoah" development and proposed preliminary VDOT plan (Project #0277-034-103, RW201, C501) currently being aCal;Nb prepared for Route 277 improvement between Route I-81 and Route 636, White Oak Road. 7. Warren County should be added to the title block. 8. All existing substandard crossovers should be upgraded, left and/or right turn lanes provided as appropriate for use and location. Of specific concern even at this concept stage, is the apparent main entrance access on Route 522/340 to "Shenandoah". a. Left turn lanes should be provided in both directions. The raw traffic volumes come close to S-250' on Chart Figure C-1-1.1, 250' length of lane should be provided. The taper of 200' appears satisfactory. 1 08/24/2000 14:17 5406650493 G w CLIFFORD & ASSOC PAGE 04 ' Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Ir., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" -Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #3 1 1 1 1 I I rl b. Lane grade differential may be too large to acquire desirable 5% grade on crossover. The desirable algebraic difference in grade at crown lines is 4 or 5%. The designer should strive to achieve those desirable elements, primarily due to large volumes of traffic projected. c. Consider relocating farm entrance on east side of Route 522/340 to align with proposed "Shenandoah" entrance and crossover. d. Please note the extremely poor "worse than the general" vertical alignment of Route 340/522 southbound lanes in the vicinity of the proposed main entrance. The stopping sight distance should be reviewed. Any necessary plan for relocation and/or reconstruction of vertical alignment should be developed under VDOT review to confirm adequacy of all sight distance concerns. e. All germane VDOT comments on geometries of Entrance Development Plan dated (5/10/00 SHEN) are shown in red on the copy of plan being returned with this review. 9. The intersection at existing Route 522/340 with Route 277 should be considered In terms of adequacy to serve the high volumes of traffic generated by the proposed "Shenandoah" site. The potential need for dual left turn appears to be realistic considering the projected traffic volumes in the "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" (even with proposed "Shenandoah" volumes being included therein) would appear to suggest the need to consider dual left turn exiting Route 522/340 onto Route 277 west bound. Reference is given here to the several attachments to this revlew: • Copy of comments offered for VDOT by letter from Mr. R. B. Childress, ARE, Luray: The entire letter is being forwarded. As can be seen, the comments overlap and do address similar concerns of the Edinburg Residency. This mirrors the VDOT view of the major impacts generated by the "Shenandoah" development. • An excerpt page from "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" showing "Findings" and "Recommendations". • A marked in red copy of Preliminary Master Development Plan dated 07/01/00. • A marked in red copy of "Shenandoah" Entrance Development Plan. 08i24/2000 14:17 5406650493 G w CLIFFOPD R ASSOC PAGE 05 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. ' Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page *4 ' The master development plan should Identify the proposed phasing as nearly as possible to the development plan of action for construction. Please review all the above concerns expressed by each VDOT review unit and address each comment. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call the respective VDOT personnel. ' Sipder44, Barry J. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer BJS/rf ' Enclosures xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn: Mr. Guy Tudor Mr. Bob Childress, Attn: Mr. Rick Miller (w/enclosures & copyjor Clarke Co.) Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Kris Tierney 1 1 1 I 08/24/2000 14:24 5406650493 G W CLIFFOPD E ASSOC PAGE 02 E L F 1 1 F 1 1 I I VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM WWI RESIDENCY August 4, 2000 TO: J.A. Copp ATTN: S.A. Melnikoff FROM: Robert B. Childress Q-4. C- - SUBJECT: Shenandoah Development Routes 277/340/522 Clarke, Frederick, & Warren Counties We've reviewed the Preliminary Master Plan and revised Traffic Impact Analysis for the subject projc(-t submitted with A1r. Chuck Maddox's July 11, 2000 letter (copy enclosed). Our preliminary continents on this submittal follow. It should be noted the Clarke County Board of Supervisors have yet to approve the portion of the project lying within its boundaries. Additionally, 6AV. Clifford and Associates completed a study of the U.S. Route 340/522 North Corridor for the Warren County Board of Supervisors in August 1998. Some of the conclusions and recommendations of this study directly relate to the types of improvements which will be required of this development. When mentioned below we will refer io it as simply the Corridor Shady, 1) Slgnalization al Ilie main entrance on Route 340/522 should be a requirement of the initial Land Use Pernut. if not required based on initial project phasing then its installation should be covered under agreement. 2) The Traffic Impact Analysis indicates the development will generate 17,094 trips per day at build out in 2007. can the surface this number seems somewhat low based on the project's size. 25 percent of the project's traffic will head east on Route 340 toward Waterloo and 25 percent south on Route 340/522 toward Front Royal. 25 percent equates to an additional 4,274 vehicles impacting these roadways. The Traffic Impact Analysis should be reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. We also suggest that current traffic counts be secured on all impacted roadways to ensure accuracy of the analysis. 3) Any access points into the development will need to meet our sight distance requirements and in keeping with the previous Corridor Study kept to a minimum. The access points for the commercial portions of the development on the south end of the project should be eliminated. Access can be provided through the main access roadway. Also, the proposed access point on the north end of the project serving the multi family sections should be 1 08/24/2000 14:24 5406650493 G w CLIFFOPD & ASSOC PAGE 03 eliminated and ciccessed internally. If this isn't possible it will need to be shifted southward to align with the: existing median crossover serving the Frederick/Clarke County Refuse Collection Site. ' 4) There are currently 8 substandard median crossovers on Route 340/522 within the limits of the project. The crossovers serve mainly residential single family homes and farms on both the east and west side of the roadway. Only one has been improved with a northbound left turn lane. Aside from the crossover serving the aforementioned Refuse ' Collection Site all should be closed/removed. Any remaining should be upgraded, widened, and turn lanes added. ' 5) The existing sotethbound lanes through the project limits are the old original roadway prior to the corridor's four laning. These southbound lanes do not meet our current geometric design guidelines. The pavement width ranges from 20'-22' with 2'-6' shoulders. The vertical abgn►nent is some of the worst on the corridor which results in poor sight distance. It is extremely had within the southern end of the project. The designer proposes the main access ►o the project within this area. The resulting median crossover necessary for this entrance would lie located in an area where there is a significant difference in elevation ' between the north and south bound lanes. The resulting grade would hamper maintenance operations, be unsafe and may not meet our minimum requirements at this location. To compound these current design and safety deficiencies this project is proposed to add an additional 4,274 trips per day to the Route 340/522 corridor. The previous Corridor ' Study's findings indicate this roadway will carry in access of 100,000 vehicles per day. This figure is based on build out of assumed zoned uses of warren Counties Land Use Map of properties along the corridor between I-66 and Route 661 just south of this development. The Corridor Study Roes further to recommend the roadway be ' reconstructed to provide 3-12' wide through lanes with a continuous 12' right turn lane in both directions. To this end, we would recommend the existing southbound lanes of Routc 340/522 within the limits of the development be reconstructed/widened to meet ' current vcrllc: it and horizontal alignment and provide 3-12'through lanes and 12' right torn lane. 'I'Iic improvements should include all necessary right of way, curb and gutter along the frontage and any storm sewer upgrades. ' 6) St.endard 5' concrete sidewalk should be considered along the entire frontage due to the proposed and potential commercial development along the corridor. 7) We have no overall objections to the boulevard design of the proposed main access road. However, as previously mentioned its location causes us concern due to the difference in evaluation between he north and southbound lanes. The median crossover will need to include: a southbound left turn lane. Exact dimensions of the entrance/crossover ' improvements will need to be determined after the Traffic Impact Analysis and site plan has been reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. If possible the existing farm entrance tin tho east side of the highway should be realigned with the crossover. 8) we are currently getting feedback from the Clarke County Board of Supervisons to improve the Route 277/ 4O/52Z intersection. The Board recently asked for preliminary engineering money at the Primary Planning and Scheduling meeting to fund a study/design for future improvements. As proposed, at least an additional 4,274 vehicles 1 O8/24/20O0 14: 24 _ 5406650493 G W CLIFFOPD & ASSOC PAGE 04 will impact this intersection daily. At a minimum a separate left turn lane should be ' pr(ovided by the developer on southbound Route 340 and eastbound Route 277. It appears the necessary right of way is available to accommodate these improvements. The capacity of the existing torte 340/522 northbound lane should also be considered when the Traffic Impact Analysis is reviewed. Even with its recent extension with the 7-11 project we've witnessed stacking problems in the P.M. peak hour. This turn lane may need to be extended and/or a dual left provided (which would compound problems westbound on Route 277). Any necessary signalization adjustmcnts/improvements will need to be ' addressed to accommodate any intersection modifications. 9) While only a small portion of the project lies within Warren County, approval f+nm their ' Board should be required also if required. The Preliminary Master Plan doesn't indicate Warren County in the title. As you're aware the plans submitted offer very little detail and our comments are focused prima city on "big picture" issues. More detailed comments can be provided once Traffic Engineering recommendatiotis on the Traffic, Impact Analysis are known and site plans are provided. We appreciate your office agrccing to handle the review of this project and look forward to working with you in the future. We xvill keep you apprised of Clarke County and Warren Counties position on this development. RBC/,nsy Attachments I cc: RA Miller )B Diamond 1 08/24/2000 15:44 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD $ ASSOC PAGE 01 ' Findings (F d R dations . ) anmmen cco 1 (F1) U S. Route 522/340 has an `bid" lane which was paralleled by a new lane more recently. This old lane is substandard in terms of alignment, lane width, sight distance, and drainage as well as general construction dimensions It requires reconstruction and/or other improvements too extensive to be 1 described in this report. ' (RI) VDOT be requested to prepare P. E. Study identifying specific improvements required (F2) Collector roads need to be "free flowing" in the vicinity of intersections with U.S. Route 522/340 Iov) Major commercial entrances and street intersections should be set back about 300 ft from the U.S Route 522/340 travel lane to facilitate 200 ft turn lanes with transitions. Frontage rouds shotsld be discouraged (See appendix). (F3) Traffic generated by commercial and industrial development should be delivered to U.S. Route 5712 �) at efficient and controlled intersections. R3) Collector roadv should be used to carry commercial and industrial traffic to safe sroplighf-'d intersections identifies! as C through G complete with left and right turn lanes in all direLlic.lr,. Direct entrance onto U.S. Route S221340 should be discouraged but, when needed, the e►ttnmu c should provide ingress and egress for multiple uses such as at property lines. Additional coll�s : �►r roads ,should be built to provide safe and convenient access to internal industrial parcels such u•. -it the Kellt•, Toray, Inland, Success, and Stephens Industrial parks. (F-1) Future traffic flows and movements on U.S. Route 522/340 will exceed the capacity of a 4 lane di\ ' hiuhway (R4) Provide a sir lane road►va), to handle ultimate traffic (.See typical section (in sheet 2 s j' 2). 1 ' (F5) 'tisalIvnru nt of S K 658 (Rockland Road) and S R 627 (Reliance Road) will create traffic contlic (R5) R►wli,tn S.R. 658 to intersect U.S. Route 5271340 to match centerline intersection ►►•ith 3. ' 627. This -ill allot, use of avisting Crooked Run Bridge and allow direct access to higlr 1-11h..;; c01111741rcial ts.�cs c'u.►t of U.S. Route 5221340. 1'rontipt i ads at intersection "C" create traffic conflict points. (R6) _ s. � t � I �i r ♦ ,�``� \� ; �� ` �•����. � • Imo• • 1 a � •`Jt' �� \1 1 l a �FA 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 w � t to -cuter 40 8 %.-PA49-s Fitts Q *41 i,. PikE ,sr R%J 5Lj�ps� uo-cu� �5 �5� RvES NE P�C� oo -r. R/W , NO TUPW LAWE5 sERVES 5uMMEi DAY FARM 4 3 S. HOMES OW WEST MCI I • vp 14 ►�" -- .1►,%mMP �1! i I I 1 1 I I I u I 4vo coax . ,.,. .. : . - O ob Rw "loc GPO � 1 0 US/US/UU lur, 1a:J1 PAd +vou&vWa&U 1632 Lot W, O1: fgWD 20151 16l! U )03.4HAM tOD.SS0.MIAA imc M449.6713 I 1 [1 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc August 7, 2000 Mr. Ray Smith President Dogwood Development 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 925 Reston, Virginia 20191 Dear Mr. Smith: tM69 rr§Wormb rsadow LA —WY owgh The Edinburg office of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) had two b;,, . questions about the study, "Revised Traffic Impact Analysis of Shenandoah" by Callow Simms Transportation Consulting in Association with Patton Harris Rust and Associates, pc dated MW= L May 4, 2000. I answered the questions by telephone and it was requested that I also reply 1sd`°p in writing and they would forward the letter and report to the Staunton office of VDOT for I"&""" final review. This letter is that requested written response. The first question was in regard to the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) shown on Figure 1 on Route 277 west of Route 340. VDOT's most recent daily count (1997) was about 4,000 trips higher than the ADT shown in the May 2000 report. The ADT shown in the report was derived from the peak period turning movement counts made in April 2000 by our firm. As has been done in other reports by us that have been reviewed by the VDOT Staunton District Office, the ADT is calculated by assuming that the PM peak hour is 10 percent of the daily volume. • The second question was with respect to the annual background growth rate of 5 percent used in the Shenandoah report. Callow Transportation conducted the first study for this property in 1990 when it was known as Wheadands. The traffic count conducted in May 2000 was compared to the count made in 1990. The average compound annual growth over the 10-year period was determined to be 5 percent. Si erely thn F. Callow President v+�ceua000,�iaroauoeoiu.aet�.aeu�ny.aoe 'I'1 I I f': FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD ri �I 1 P-i Fl [l Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Public Schools Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Public Schools Frederick County Public Schools Attn: School Superintendent 1415 Amherst St. 1415 Amherst St. Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-3888 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates. Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" I Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Frederick County Public Schools Comments: l�f r1� � // :; iAj //i/J S let 5 Ci 1 18 �l FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY 1 1 H F, Frederick County, Vireinia Master Development Plan Application Package r Reauest for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority 315 Tasker Road Attn: Engineer Stephens City, VA P.O. Box 1877 (540) 868-1061 Winchester, VA 22604 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick County Sanitation Authority with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" I I Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Comment: See page 2 (attached). e I 11 Frederick County, rginia Master Development Plant Application Package Page 2 ' Frederick County Sanitation Authority's Comment: 1) Frederick County Sanitation Authority will need approval from Clarke County to extend water ' and sewer service into their county. 2) I will need to see how you plan to extend the water line on SR636 and connect to our existing system. 3) Will the existing 8-inch water line be sufficient to supply the area served? 4) 1 have marked two locations I feel the water lines need to be looped to ensure better service. F ri 11 1 FREDERICK COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 1 I 11 L� I Fl COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 September 6, 2000 Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Vice President Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 ' RE: "Shenandoah" - Active Adult Resort Community - Master Development Plan Frederick County, Virginia 1 ri ri ri Dear Chuck: The master development plan dated July 1, 2000, is approved with a few minor comments which may be implemented during the actual site plan design phase. Our main concern at this point in time is the number of BMPs that will be required for the project to satisfy the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). Because of the number and complexity of the BMPs, we will require that the engineer of record perform inspections during construction and provide this office with a written certification that each facility meets the approved design. This requirement should be conveyed to the developer who will be responsible for the cost of these services. We realize that the roman numerals shown on the development plan are not intended as phasing sections. However, it would be very helpful to provide a plan which does reflect the anticipated construction phasing considering the construction of the entrance roads is tied to the phasing. We intend to perform a more comprehensive review at the time of the subdivision design submittal. We look forward to receiving your design documents for the individual BMP facilities. Sincerely, —,v P.XA �. Harvey 0 Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 11 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING STAFF [I 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK a Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 " 1783" FAX: 540/ 678-0682 August 24, 2000 ' C.E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice -President G.W. Cliffordand Associates, Inc. ' 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Shenandoah Preliminary Master Development Plan Dear Chuck: Enclosed are my comments on the materials submitted in association with the Preliminary Master ' Development Plan for the proposed Shenandoah project. I have reviewed the various sheets submitted as� part of the MDP, as well as the associated notes, and my comments are separate accordingly. In general, you will find that there are a number bits of detailed information that are required by Ordinance that have not been provided. These include specifics on the types and numbers of units to be constructed, details on the type of recreational facilities to be provided and phasing of the project. In addition, there are a number of details that will need to be worked out regarding such things as access to (and use of) Lake Frederick, the extent and location of environmental features present and the degree of proposed disturbance. If you would like to discuss any of the comments or issues raised, please do not hesitate to contact ' me. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Director cc: Dogwood Development Group C Kris;2000Aenus1AendoahI wpd 7 North Kent Street • Winchester Vir inia 22601-5000 10 g ' Shenandoah PreliminaryMaster Development Plan P ' Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Review Comments 8/22/2000 The Shenandoah Project proposes 2,130 dwellings on 926 acres for a residential density of 2.3 units ' per acre which is well within the maximum permitted density of the R-5 zone. The R-5 zone permits developments 'which are age -restricted subject to appropriate deed restrictions or other legal documents being provided which insure that the development will in fact be age -restricted. This documentation will need to be provided prior to final approval of a Master Development Plan (MDP). Please note that for our purposes the MDP should be limited to the land area within Frederick ' County. The Preliminary Master Development Plan (PMDP) which has been submitted fails to provide a number of required bits of information. The required information which is lacking from ' the plan submitted is listed below. 1) The Plan must indicate the proposed number of units of each housing type which are proposed in each phase of the development and in the total development, as well as the approximate location of the various housing types. In addition, the acreage in common open space,' roads, streets or right-of-ways by phase and for the entire development should be provided. Experience indicates that the most efficient way to convey this information is to produce a table listing each phase and the various numbers, units, acreage, percentages, etc. per phase. 2) A certified boundary survey ofthe entire property indicating all dimensions in feet is required. ' 3) Intervals of the topography should be indicated. For the sake of legibility, topography should not be shown on each sheet, but rather limited to the page indicating the location of steep slopes. 4) In addition to the information provided in the title block, the names of the owners, contract owners and firms preparing the plan should be clearly identified. The age -restricted nature of the development should also be indicated. 5) The use and ownership of adjoining properties should be indicated on the plan. 6) In addition to the location steep slopes and woodland, the location of wetlands should be provided. 7) The sheet depicting the location of woodlands and the areas to be disturbed is flawed. This sheet' needs to be redraw to clearly indicate the location of existing woodlands as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, and those areas that will be disturbed. It appears -1- that more than 25 percent of the existing woodlands are to be disturbed, therefore, a waiver will need to be requested from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. Staff notes that the approved Wheatlands MDP called for reforestation of the area between the public fishing area and the proposed community center and the granting of a ' conservation easement on this acreage to the DGIF. 8) The location of environmental protection land that is to be included in common open space should, be shown and the acreage and percentage of open space made up of these features should; be given. 9) Additional information on the type, number and scale of recreational facilities to be provided ' is needed. The location and configuration ofrecreational facilities should also be indicated on the plan. Ultimately, the County Parks and Recreation Department will need to determine the adequacy of the proposed facilities. It should be noted that, if single family small lot housing is proposed within the development, ' additional recreational facilities must be provided in accordance with section 165-64.A of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. ' It should be similarly noted that, within the R-5 zone, recreational facilities are to be provided with each phase in proportion to the fraction of the total dwelling units in each phase. Information will need to be provided which demonstrates how this requirement is to be met. 10) Although there are three street cross-section details among the information provided, the plan ' fails to indicate which roads within the development are to be of which type. The labeling of the road types should be consistent with the R-5 zoning. Roads should be either Greenways, Neighborhood Collectors, or Local streets. Staff has concerns regarding the depiction of numerous utilities within the rights -of -way of the proposed streets. All indications to this point!have been that, although the development would have private streets, the construction of the streets would be such that they could be turned over to the VDOT should that become ' necessary. VDOT standards would not permit utility lines to be run under the centerline of the pavement. ' 11) Information on stormwater management facilities should be indicated on the plan. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County's Public Works Deportment. 12 No buffers or screeningare depicted on the MDP. Buffers must either be provided in P accordance with County requirements, or a waiver must be sought. 13) The network of trails depicted does not appear to provide access to every use, structure or recreational facility as required. It appears this might be remedied by providing a few -2- 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 F additional linkages between certain subdivision streets and the trail network which is depicted. 14) Staff anticipates that the Planning Commission will wish to see a detailed Generalized Development Plan (as provided for under R-5 zoning) which indicates the type of uses, access, ;and circulation patterns proposed for the Village Center. Comments on: Final Notes to Master Development Plan - Shenandoah The following comments pertain to the notes submitted along with the MDP for the propos',ed Shenandoah Development 1) Mixture of Housing Types a) Describing the housing to be built as "a mix of housing types allowed in the R-5 zone" is inadequate. Please see item #1 above under PMDP comments. (b) (c) This comment is unacceptable. The MDP must specify the number and type of units in each phase. Future variation in the numbers or types of units may require a revision to an approved MDP. This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. 2) Transportation Improvements (a) No problem. (b) The note should clearly state at what point in the project the relocation of the VDGIF entrance will take place. (c) The improvements to Route 636 should be linked to the construction of a specified number of dwelling units rather than approval of a phase of the development. 3) Traii System The ;trail system described does not meet the requirement of Section 165-77.M of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. (See comment #13 above.) 4) Streetlights While the design of streetlights may be selected b the developer, the must be approved by g g Y Y p Y pp -3- C 1 5) 1 � a, 1 1 1 1 1 the Zoning Administrator. Provision of water and sewer service (a) iNo problem. (b) 11 In addition to State Water Control Board, the plans for the waste water treatment facility will also need to be approved by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. In addition, arrangements acceptable to the Authority will need to be made for turning all sewer and water facilities (including treatment facilities, lift stations, and water storage facilities) over to the Authority following satisfactory completion of their construction. (c) Same as (b) above. Fire and Rescue In order to be effective, the details concerning the amount and location of this acreage will need to be resolved and noted on the MDP prior to approval. Preliminary indications from the Ernergency Services Director are that the proposed location for a fire and rescue facility is undesirable. It is also appears clear that the offer of land for a library (given the limited three-year duration of the offer) is of little value given that a branch library is currently under construction on Tasker Road which is intended to serve the needs of the southeastern area of the, County for the foreseeable future. Staff dotes that the three-year duration of this offer from the time the MDP is approved falls far short of the "12 years from the date of platting of the first phase of the development" offered by the previous plan. Open Space This statement should be eliminated as compliance with County Ordinances is required regardless of such statements. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality (a) No problem. (b) The language will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works and the VDGIF. (c) The proposed method of maintenance of BMP's will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Public Works. The reference to Section 16 -4- L 1— I 1 11 j a 9) 10) 1 12) should be removed as the notes contain no such number. (d) No problem. (e) Staff believes that the interests of protecting water quality and maintaining tree cover would be better served if the conservation easement is granted to the VDGIF (as currently stipulated on the Wheatlands MDP) as opposed to the home owners association as is proposed. (f) As with (e) above, the assurance that trails will be constructed with the approval of 'VDGIF is far better insured if the DGIF holds an easement on this acreage rather than a homeowners association. (g) All woodland areas (as defined by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) proposed 'for clearing must be indicated as disturbed on the MDP and counted toward the total percentage of disturbed woodlands. (h) Any improvements which are intended to count toward fulfillment of required recreation facilities will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Department of Parks and Recreation. The completion of such facilities will need to be covered by performance guarantees prior to platting of relevant sections of the development. (i) Why would the flood easements not be conveyed on, and with, the recordation of approved plats? Access to the Lake It is anticipated that any access to be provided to Lake Frederick would need to be public. Provision of adequate monumentation No problem. School Site Staff anticipates that given the approved MDP for Wheatlands includes the offer of a school site, the failure of the Shenandoah proposal to carry forward with this offer will no doubt generate discussion. Recreational Facilities The statement "substantial recreational facilities" is inadequate. Detailed information on exactly what type of facilities including the number, square footage, cost estimates, etc. along -5- H 1 13) ki 1.1 1 14) I I with specifics on what facilities will be provided at what point in the development of the projectimust be provided. This information will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Parks and Recreation Department. Phasing (a) This statement indicates that there will be six phases, whereas, the MDP submitted identifies eight phases, which is correct? The exact number of units per phase must be identified on the MDP. Significant alterations to these numbers subsequent to Board of Supervisor approval may result in the need to formally revise the approved MDP. (b) These improvements will need to be built or bonded prior to plat approval. (c) No problem. (d) It would be preferable to link construction of these improvements to a specific number of units rather than to a general phase of development. At a minimum they should be tied to the approval of a particular phase. (e) Same as (d) above. (f) This comment should be eliminated. Prior to any infrastructure improvements, grading, or other construction activity commencing within any given area, land disturbance and other pertinent permits are required per normal County procedures. More importantly, density within phases is determined by an approved MDP; the swapping of units between phases subsequent to MDP approval is not permitted. Homeowner's Association (a) This section again contains a reference to the nonexistent #16 within the notes. A reference to maintenance of the all roads would be appropriate here. (b) There is little apparent value of the statement, particularly given that it is inconsistent with other statements such as note 8.(g), which indicates the developer intents to clear areas solely for the purpose of providing views of the lake. Limits of woodland disturbance must be depicted on the MDP. Staff notes the absence of restrictions contained in the approved Wheatlands MDP which prohibited the cutting trees over a six-inch caliper other than for placement of a home, driveway or utilities, placed a limit of 30% disturbance on those lots which adjoin the lake, and shad building lot approval subject to HOA with the stated goal of minimizing site disturbance. -6- P. I 1 1 m F1 1 1 n Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Department of Parks and Recreation 2nd Floor 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with the sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Department of Parks and Recreation's Comments: Plan appears to meet the intent of the Open Space and Recreational Unit Requirements. However, more detailed information is needed y this department to complete a tinai review ot open space an recreational amenities. 15 u VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES IFrederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package IRequest for Master Development Plan Comments Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Mail to: Hand deliver to: Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries Virginia Department of Game Attn: Residential Engineer Attn: Residential Engineer P.O. Box 996 P.O. Box 996 Verona, VA 24482 Verona, VA 24482 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Virginia Department of Transportation with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates. Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA 1 22 CLARKE COUNTY 1�� Sep 08 00 04:45p Bobby Levi 5409554002 I� �1 1 I 1 n CLARKE COUNTY S September 2000 C. F, ;Maddox. Jr., P.E., Vice President G. W. Clifford & Associates 2(X) North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 _ q Ui6kE .!PGtNtA 1b Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Amended Master Development Plan for "Shenandoah" (formerly "Wheatlands"). 1 believe that there are potentially three major impacts on Clarke County: 1. kineracncy Services, 2. Traffic. and 3. Visual Character. Based on current circumstances. Clarke County would be responsible lbr Meting the emergency service needs for 190 +/- age restricted residence, and a 150-bcd/unit nursing./assisted living, facility (CCRC). The County and volunteers have been Providing emergency services to age restricted recidences, assisted living, and musing laeilities in Berryville. This experience shows that these use.. generate a higher than average per capita demand for services. The Boyce Fire Company does not have the stall to respond io any increase in service calls. The nearest Clarke County rescue squitd to Shenandoah is in Berryville. 12 miles away. Errterg;ency services for 951in of Shenandoah will he Provided by Frederick County. The current mutual aid agreement has Frederick County providing rescue services to the 522 corridor. However, this agreement was not drafted to address this proposed intensity of use. I believe the most efficient and competent level of emergency services for the Shenandoah resldent5 living; in Clarke would be provided by Frederick County- This will require a substantially revised mutual aid agreement. Representatives of your pro,iect and Frederick and Clarke Counties should meet and discuss this iSsuc further 1 have hecn provided preliminary comments from VDOT's Fdinburg ind Luray Residencies regarding this Project. They do not accept the anticipated degree of trip reduction of the Shenanda0 h project when compared to the Wheatlands project. They also have identified major design issues regarding the Shenandoah project entrance, the commercial center entrances. and the CCRC entrance off of Stonewall Jackson Highway, Route 522. In addition, they believe that Stonewall Jackson Highway's multiple -crossovers, archaic design of the south bound Lanes, and inadequate turning lanes at its intersection with Lord Fairfax Highway preclude it from safely accommodating; the additional tralfic generated by this project. The Formal VDOT comments are not expected until mid -October. Again, representwives ol' your project, V00T, and Clarke should meet to discuss this issue. However. detailed discussions may not be possihle until the f0mial VD0T comments have been suhmitted. 102 N. Church Si, Itcrryvillc, Virginia 22611 (544) 955-5132 t-AX (540) 955-4002 1 Sep 08 00 04:45p Bobby Levi 5409554002 p.2 Clifford & Associates 8 Septemher 2000 Pace Two The land east of Shenandoah, across Stonewall Jackson Highway, is in the County'. Agricultural Open -Space Conservation Zoning District. The County Comprehensive Plan intends this arca to remain agricultural. The visual impact of this development (particularly its commercial, lnulti- family, and nursing home/assisted living facility) on the agricultural land will be significant. The ' agricultural land, with the blue Ridge behind it, is in the view shed of the Shenandoah project. Conversely, the character and appearance of Shenandoah affects the agricultural land and whether it remains attractive for agricultural uses. Commercial parking lets and multi -story structures on the west -side of Stonewall Jackson Highway will not contribute to the agricultural character of the land on the cast -side of the t'lighway. I recommend that the commercial parking areas be entirely within Frederick County, with adjacent Clarke County land used for landscape buffer. and attractively designed stormwater management facilities. Multi -family structures should set back from Stonewall Jackson Highway a distance equal to at least two times the height of the structure with a landscaped buffer located in the set back area. The single-family residential areas should also have a landscape buffer from Stonewall Jackson Highway. Please contact me if you would like to discuss these comments turther, Jiairlcs John.tun Planning Administrator U 1 11 1 WARREN COUNTY fl I I� I I COUNTY OF WARREN 11 I I I County Administrator's Office Warren County Government Center 220 North Commerce Avenue, Suite 100 Front Royal, Virginia 22630 Phone: (540) 6364600 Douglas P. Stanley FAX: (540) 636-6066 County Administrator BOARD OF August 23, 2000 SUPERVISORS Chuck Maddox G.W. Clifford Associates 200 North Cameron Street CHAIRMAN Winchester, Virginia 22601 Stuart L. Rudacille South river District RE: "Shenandoah"- Active Adult Resort Communitv Amended Master Development Plan - Frederick and Clarke Counties Dear Mr. Maddox: VICE-CHAIRMAN I am writing concerning your letter dated July 11, 2000 requesting B. K. Haynes, Jr. comments on applications for the "Shenandoah" development around Lake North River Frederick. The property is located off of Route 340/522, just to the north District and west of the Warren and Frederick County lines. Since the extent of the development lies outside of Warren County, most of my questions/comments are directed toward the traffic impactson Brack H. Bentley Route 340/522. Please accept the following questions/comments: H Duytrict Creek • Warren County has recently conducted a transportation plan for its portion of Route 340/522. This study was incorporated in the Front Royal Area Transportation Plan and its elements have been included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the plan is to utilize collector roads to handle local traffic and John E. Vance Fork reduce the need for unnecessary curb cuts and traffic signals. I District would recommend that traffic for the proposed commercial center be handled by the proposed main entrance on Route 340/522. This would reduce the need for a potential traffic signal for the commercial development? Benjamin H. Weddle . This section of Route 340/522(southbound) is the older section of Shenandoah District the highway. Are there any plans to address the vertical curve issues with this section of the roadway as part of the development. In rder o maintain tv of development along ..... • corridor, wouldotI uld encourage t re quirement quire ent of at least ridora 100' building setback from Route 340/522. 1 �I n 1 I 1 r� L F1 P I 1 .rJ • Due to concerns over outdoor lighting and protection of the night sky, Warren County has adopted stringent outdoor lighting standards. We would strongly recommend that all outdoor lighting fixtures over 50 watts be fully shielded (cut-off fixture). • The assumption is made that the proposed wastewater treatment facility will meet or exceed all Virginia Department of Health and Department of Environmental Quality standards. Will there be any negative impact on Crooked Run? Thank you for the opportunity to review this request. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, �/ -�J V Douglas P. Stanley, AICP County Administrator/ Planning Director DPS cc: Brett Haynes, Vice -Chairman, Warren County Board of Supervisors 1 FREDERICK COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL 1 1 fl C I Ll 0 I I LI Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederic County Fire Marshal 0 Floor Attn: Fire Marshal 107 N. Kent St. 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-6350 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach two (2) copies of the MDP with this sheet. iApplicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Fire Marshal's Comments: 1 14 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.MD00-0004 Date Received 7/12/2000 Date Reviewed 9/8/2000 ' Applicant G.W.Clifford & Assoc. Address 200 N.Cameron Street I Winchester, Va. 22601 IProject Name Shenandoah Phone No.540-667-2139 Type of ApplicationM aster Development Current Zoning R-5 ' 1st Due Fire Co. 11 1st Due Rescue Co. 11 Election DistrictOpequon Tax I.D. No. ' RECOMMENDATIONS Automatic Sprinkler SystemXX Residential Sprinkler SystemXX Automatic Fire Alarm SystemXX Other REQUIREMENTS Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Inadequate XX Not Identified Fire Lanes Required Yes XX No Comments: Local Streets- a 30 ft.right of way w/trees on both sides is not conducive to Fire Department ingress & egress. Roadway/Aisleway Widths Adequate Inadequate XX Not Identified Special Hazards Noted Yes XX No Comments : Stormwater & flood considerations at primary roadway below dam. Municipal water supply adequate for demand on total development? Hydrant Locations Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Siamese Location Adequate Inadequate Not Identified XX Yes XX No Additional Comments Attached? Plan Approval Recommended? Yes No XX Signature Title sz \ `'� �1 COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Control No.MD00-0004 Date Received 7/12/2000 Date Reviewed 9/8/2000 Applicant G.W.Clifford & Assoc. Address 200 N.Cameron Street Winchester, Va. 22601 Project Name Shenandoah Phone No.540-667-2139 Type of ApplicationMaster Development Current Zoning R-5 ' 1st Due Fire Co. 11 1st Due Rescue Co. 11 Election DistrictOpequon IAdditional Comments: Where the Trail System and roadways intersect, access for emergency vehicles is necessary. Additional access points may be necessary in areas where distance and housing lots preclude vehicle access to trails. iFire & Rescue Service- The suggested site within the Village Center is not an acceptable location to serve the Citizens of Frederick County. The site originally approved in the "Wheatlands" MDP adjoining Rt. 277 would better serve our needs. As well, the time frame that has been offered for the site is not adequate. We request this be extended to 10 years. 1 Access between the residential area and assisted living/retirement area Ifor emergency vehicles is also necessary. Signature Titl el �c ri P I FREDERICK COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTIONS n 11 Ci I rj L r I 11 Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Inspections Department Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Inspections Department e Floor Attn: Building Official 107 N. Kent St. 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Inspections Department with their review. Please attach one (1) copy of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: G.W. Clifford & Associates Inc. Address: c/o Chuck Maddox 200 N. Cameron St., Winchester, VA 22601 Phone Number: (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request "Shenandoah" Location of Property: South side and adjacent to VA Route 277; west side and adjacent to US Route 340 in Double Tollgate area of Fredrick County, east of Stephens City, VA Frederick County Inspections Department use only: No comtrbents required at this time.Shall ccmnent at the time of subdivision 1 nt- revi ew _ 12 WAIVER REQUEST n 1� gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 ' Engineers — Surveyors — Land Planners Water Quality 2 October 2000 imrd of Directors: President: ' Mr. Kris u Tierney,Director Frederick County Planning Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr.. P =. ' 107 N. Kent Street Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A. Mislowslcy. P.E. Winchester, Virginia 22601 David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: t RE: "Shenandoah" Ordinance Waiver Request P. Duane Brown, L.S. William L. Wright Michael A. Hammer Thomas W. Price Dear Kris, Thank you for our (meeting last Wednesday, 27 September. To assist in review by the Commission, we are ' pleased to submit ti is letter as a summary of those items identified as requiring a formal waiver by the Count--. in accord with the honing ordinance as has been recently revised. Waiver Pursuant to, 165.77(R) ' Waivers allowing minor disturbance of wetlands and flood plains, primarily for roads and trails, as shown on MDP, as required to construct the system of approximately 27 storm ponds and facilities which are created to protect the water quality in Lake Frederick, and allowing the disturbance of 60% of the ' woodlands identified by the MDP. The ordinance allows 25%. This clearing is required in order to cluster the housing units and roads on ground remote from the edge of the lake as shown on the MDP. Additional clearing is also required in order to install the substantial stormwater management facilities necessary to ' protect water quality on Lake Frederick. The plan is offered to replace trees along residential streets on 50' centers, on greenways where view lines are not required as designated on the MDP and at least 3 on each ' single family lot. A waiver is also requested allowing the disturbance of 5.28% of the current 5.68 ac. Of wetlands. Waiver 2- 165-37 (Buffers and Screens) and 165-77(H) A wavier is requested of all interior residential screening between uses and of all road efficiency buffers for this age restricted community. Buffers and screens, where required, are specifically shown on the ' approved MDP. Waiver 3 — 165-77(M) ' A waiver is requested to allow streets without conventional sidewalks, subject to an approved trail system. as shown on the approved MDP. 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council gilbert w. Clifford and associates, inc Page 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Thank you for your processing this request as a part of our Master Plan approval process by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & asp C. E. Maddo , .,Vice CEM/kf % cc: Mr. Ray Smith Mr. Mark Helmer Mr. David Cobey J Master 10elop2 ent Plan Shenandoah It 0 Request for Master Development Plan Comments Frederick County Department of Public Works Mail to: Hand deliver to: Frederick County 4th, l r IN F o �'` r 5-k cg Department of Public Works 107 N. Kent St. 107 N. Kent St. Winchester, VA Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5643 Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Please attach three (3) copies of the MDP with this sheet. Applicant's Name: Address: Phone Number: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Attn: Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street _Winchester, VA 22601 (540)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Shenandoah Master Development Plan Location of Property: The Property is located in the Southwest quadrant of the intersection of 522 South and Route 277 with access to each roadway. T)e.nnrtment of P»hlir. Work. Commentw �kar,�ir�n Department of Public Works use only Date received Review Number: 1 2 3 4 5 (Please circle one) Date reviewed _ Date appro ed:%, Revision required _ Signature and Date. 14 Co FILE COPY COUNTY of FREOERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 April 19, 2001 Mr. Charles Maddox G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-00 FOR "SHENANDOAH" Dear Chuck: During their meeting on March 25, 2001, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors agreed that the following contingencies, which were set forth at their meeting on October 25, 2000, have been satisfactorily met: 1) The Board of Supervisors be given an opportunity to review an executed agreement between you clients and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries prior to final approval. 2) The issues associated with the location of a future Fire and Rescue Station be resolved to the Board's satisfaction. 3) The wording of the offer for a future Library be revised to the Board's satisfaction: 4) That a note be added to the Plan indicating that a Generalized Development Plan depicting the the layout of the Village Center be submitted and review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors prior to any development of the proposed Village Center. Your firm will need to submit a for this project which addresses all review agency comments, as well as any other remaining comments of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Our department will provide your firm with administratively approved copies of the Final Master Development Plan once these issues have been addressed. If you have further questions regarding the approval of this master plan or requirements needed for submission of your Final Master Development Plan, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, &XI a • Evan A. Wyatt, ' P Director EAW\ch cc: Robert Sager, Opequon District Supervisor Dogwood Development O:\Agendas\APPR_DEN. LTR\MDP's\ShenandoahMDP2.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 MAR. -28' 01(W£D) 16:07 BOATING + FA TEL:804 367 23'' P. 001 COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA -las. cihnore, In Governor 0eparhment of Gauge and Inland Fisheries John Paul Wwoey, Jr. Secretory of Natural Resources March 29, 2001 By Facsimile to (540) 665-6395 Original will be mailed Mr. Evan Wyatt Planning Director Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 WM1are L. WoodrW, Jr. Director RE: Memorandum of Agreement with Dogwood Development Group, LLC for the Proposed Shenandoah Development at Lake Frederick Dear Mr. Wyatt: The purpose of this letter is to convey our support for the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with Dogwood Development Group for the proposed Shenandoah development at Lake Frederick. Our intent is demonstrated through the considerable cooperative effort between our staff and Dogwood Development in developing the agreement. The final MOA will have to be approved by our Board at an upcoming meeting. Yours very truly, Mitzi Mason Lee Real Property Manager RECEIVED MAR 2 8 2001 DEPT, OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT 4010 WEST BROAD STREET, P.O. Box 11104, RICHMOND, VA 23230-1104 (804) 367-1000 (V/TDD) Equal ©Wrttenity Employment, Preffmos and Facilities FAX (804) 367-9147 to COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 IOT1r1CMION Or PUBLIC MIEfING October 30, 2000 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: APPLICATION FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-00 OF SHENANDOAH On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on November 8, 2000, at 7:15 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This meeting is to consider the application for Master Development Plan #06-00, Shenandoah (a major revision to the previously - approved "Wheatlands" project), submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for the development of a 926-acre site for an Age -Restricted Residential Recreational Community. This property is located on the south side of Route 277, approximately 3.5 miles east of Stephens City, and approximately one mile south of the intersection of Routes 277, 340 and 522 and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 87-A-102 and 103 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library (temporary Loudoun Street Mall location) by the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, —\. Kris C. Tie Director KCT/ch A: Wdjoiners\Sha=doah_MDP.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on ort- 3 . 2000 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 93 - A- - 77- 66 - A- TOLKAN, VICTOR A & JULIA A JASBO, INCC 4712 RESERVOIR RD NW WASHINGTON, DC 20007.1905 PO BOX 6 94A - 1. 1- 12-1 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0006 GRADY, MARY MARGARET 86 - A- - 272- PO BOX 442 BAILEY, LORETTA D STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0442 1748 HUDSON HOLLOW RD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.3329 87 - A- - 103-A 86 - A- - 273- HEADLEY, DAVID A CAMPBELL, JOHN 4490 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663-1906 1 B95 HUDSON HOLLOW RD STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.3346 87 - A- - 105- HEADLEY, DIRMA V 86 - A- - 273-B CAMPBELL, LEE E. 1787 HUDSON HOLLOW RD STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.3345 86 - A- - 273-C GIBSON, BOBBY W. & GLADYS E. 1883 HUDSON HOLLOW RD STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.3346 87 - A- - 103-B COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA - DEPT OF GAME & INLAND FISHERIE 4010 W BROAD ST RICHMOND, VA. 23230.3916 446E FRONT ROYAL PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1906 87 - A- - 107- RITTER, BOYD D 4436 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1906 is C. y, rederick Co. PI g Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, a lo 02ss , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated �� '�f� UU , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this ��) day of My commission expires on I L. iva n q c2EI 1QQr-`� L Lij- - TARY PUBLIC 87 - A- - 107- RITTER, BOYD D 4436FRONT ROYAL .iKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1906 94 -A- - 1- WILLIAMS, JEFFREY E PO BOX 87 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0087 86 - A- - 220- LEWIS, HARVEY OTIS ETALS 1633 HUDSON HOLLOW RD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.3344 86 - A- - 273-D OAK RIDGE PROPERTIES, INC. PO BOX 885 WINCHESTER, VA 22604.0885 87 - A- - 96- COOKE, GILES ROSS & CIO ROBERT L COOKE 986 CLARK RD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.5402 87 - A- - 96-A CATLETT, RALPH L 1954 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1B11 B7 - A- - 97- RAPCZYK, HAROLD E & BERNICE A TRUSTEES 1590 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA. 22663.11307 87 - A- - 98- LEE, FLOYD L & SHIRLEY J 1908 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1811 86 - A- - 218- LEIGHT, JOHN MAX & JOANN G 115 MASSIE LN STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.3005 87 - A- - 15- APPERSON, BEATRICE I TRUSTEE 1702FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1809 87 - A- - 95- SANDY'S MOBILE HOME COURT, INC 2044 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1864 87 - A- - 16-B GIBSON, MONTIE W 155 CASTLEBRIDGE CT WINCHESTER,VA 22602-4568 87 - A- - 95-B SANDY, MELVIN RICHARD & ETHYL L PO BOX 432 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-0432 87 - A- - 99- DEAN, CHRISTOPHER GREGORY 1902 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663 87 -A- - 101- BOLYARD, GARY A 1880 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1810 87 - A- - 100- CLARK, ROGER G 205 MOORE DR BERRYVILLE, VA 22611-1149 �7-A7-Mr. Robert Benton 4000 Chipstead Ct. Chester, VA 23831 o--? - mil -t4- Mr. John Davis, Jr. 4100 Stonewall Jackson Hwy. White Post, VA 22663 e" a, /r fr J�u/ 1�4 7E COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 J'rlrl�r�r! J! Jr PUBLIC MEEM Ir October 10, 2000 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) ANC/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS(S) RE: APPLICATION FOR MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-00 OF SHENANDOAH On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public meeting being held on October 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. in the board room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. This meeting is to consider the application for Master Development Plan #06-00 (a major revision to the previously -approved "Wheatlands" project), submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for the development of a 926- acre site for an Age -Restricted Residential Recreational Community. This property is located on the south side of'Route 277, approximately 3.5 miles east of Stephens City, and approximately one mile south of the intersection of Routes 277, 340 and 522 and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 87-A-102 and 103 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library (temporary Loudoun Street Mall location) by the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Sincerely, Kris C. Tie y Director KCT/ch A: \Adj oiners\Shenwdoah_MDP. wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on (!2C, l4 2-0M from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 87 . A 96 A 86 - A- - 218- LEIGHT, JOHN MAX & JOANN G 115 MASSIE LN STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.3005 87 - A- - 15- APPERSON, BEATRICE I TRUSTEE 1702 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 87 - A- - 16-B GIBSON, MONTIE W 155 CASTLEBRIDGE CT WINCHESTER,VA CATLETT, RALPH L 1954 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1811 87 - A- - 97- a,,,f cj7A RAPCZYK, HAROLD E & BERNICE A TRUSTEES 1590 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA. 22663.1B07 22663.1809 87 - A- - 98- LEE, FLOYD L & SHIRLEY J 1908 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1811 22602.4568 87 - A- - 95- SANDY'S MOBILE HOME COURT, INC 2044 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1864 87 - A. - 95-B SANDY, MELVIN RICHARD & ETHYL L PO BOX 432 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0432 87 - A- - 100- CLARK, ROGER G 205 MOORE DR BERRYVILLE, VA 87 - A- - 101- BOLYARD, GARY A 1880 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 87 - A- - 96- COOKE, GILES ROSS & ^' CIO ROBERT L COOKE 986 CLARK RD WLis C. T e I 22611-1149 22663.1810 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-5402 Frederick Co. Plann[iig'Dept. STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, I, 'y Z y 1 Fit In t-l(j J I , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 10, l ) � 01) , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this � I �� day of My commission expires on anion,�U �3 , '±Lla I � - ARY PUBLIC 86 - A- - 273-B 87 - A- - 103-B -AMPBELL, LEE E. COMMONWEALTH OF INIA - ,787 HUDSON HOLLOW RD DEPT OF GAME & INLAiuu FISHERIE STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.3345 4010 W BROAD ST RICHMOND, VA. 23230.3916 86 - A. - 273-C 93 - A- - 77- GIBSON, BOBBY W. & GLADYS E. TOLKAN, VICTOR A & JULIA A 4712 RESERVOIR RD NW 1883 HUDSON HOLLOW RD WASHINGTON, DC 20007-1905 STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.3346 94A - 1. 1. 12- 86 - A- - 273-D GRADY, MARY MARGARET OAK RIDGE PROPERTIES, INC. PO BOX 885 PO BOX 442 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-0885 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0442 87 - A- - 99- 87 - A- 103-A DEAN, CHRISTOPHER GREGORY HEADLEY, DAVID A 4490 FRONT ROYAL PIKE 1902 FAIRFAX PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1906 WHITE POST, VA 22663 87 - A- - 105- HEADLEY, DIRMA V 4408 FRONT ROYAL PIKE WHITE POST, VA 22663.1906 87 -A. - 107- Mr. John Davis, Jr. RITTER, BOYD D 4100 Stonewall Jackson Hwy. 4436 FRONT ROYAL PIKE White Post, VA 22663 WHITE POST, VA 22663.1906 94 -A- - 1- 97-, % WILLIAMS, JEFFREY E Mr. Robert Benton 4000 Chipstead Ct. PO BOX 87 Chester, VA 23831 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-0087 86 A 220- LEWIS, HARVEY OTIS ETALS ( /� 1633 HUDSON HOLLOW RD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-3344 86 - A- - 223- JASBO, INC PO BOX 6 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-0006 86 - A- - 272- BAILEY, LORETTA D 1748 HUDSON HOLLOW RD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.3329 86 - A- - 273- CAMPBELL, JOHN 1895 HUDSON HOLLOW RD STEPHENS CITY, VA. 22655.3346 � S�enah doak M40P TO: Barbara in Data Processing FROM: PlanninF partment Please print sets of labels by: Attachment THANK YOU!! Adjoining Property Information Property Identification Numbers Property Use North 86-A-218 Agricultural 87-A-15 cultural 87-A-161i Agricultural 87-A-95 Mobile Home Park 87-A-95B Vacant 87-A-96 Agricultural 87-A-96A Residential 87-A-97 Vacant 87-A-97A C Vacant 87-A-98 Residential 87-A-99 Residential 87-A-100 Residential 87-A-101 Residential 27-A-12(Clarke Count Residential South 87-A-103B Commonwealth 93-A-77 Agficultural 94A-1-1-12 Vacant 94A-1-10-11 Vacant 94A-1-11-20 Vacant East 87-A-103A Residential 87-A-105 • Residential 87-A-107 Residential 94-A=1 Residential 27-A-14 Clarke Count Residential 27-A-16 Clarke County) Vacant West 86-A-220 Residential 86-A-223 Agricultural 86-A-272 Residential 86-A-273 Residential 86-A-273B Residential 86-A-273C Agricultural 86-A-273D ,✓ Agricultural g-Ltf btv4A W�r�,Jy 46 00 Chi stead Cf. . 4 �'oo s-t�ruJalr C�es�'r Z39'31 ���fc Post Zz 6 63 16_GIOU *Z Ts. a J-7 i 4 gilbee -r. Clifford & INCORPORATED 1972 te, inc Engineers — Land Planners — W 3 April 2001 Mr. Steven A Melnikoff Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 RE: "Shenandoah" MDP (Final) Frederick, Clarke and Warren County's, Virginia Dear Steve, Quality Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. t Y Ftx)lc. 11.1:. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox. Jr.. P.E. Earl R. Sutherland. P F. Ronald A. Mislowsky. P.1:. [land J. Saunders. 1'.l:. Directors: William L. Wright Michael A. I lammer 'llwmas W. Price We have enjoyed working with VDOT over the past months in planning for the Shenandoah Development. We have secured the approval from Boards and Commissions in F and have filed for final construction drawing approval of the entra road and have tiled for subdivision plat approval for Phases 1 and 2 c Our purpose for this letter is to summarize our response to VDOT o master plan approval to the Frederick County Planning staff. We construction drawings pursuant to initial VDOT comments and have I "Land Use Permit." Patton Harris Rust and Associates, PC (Mr. Jo study and projection in 2000 which updated their 1990 study and ha which provides additional requested information implied under refere Our reply is as follows: Preliminary Master Plan 1. Destinations and splits have been supplied. 2. The owner agrees to provide additional right of ways as follows: a. 50' right of way shall be dedicated for Route 636 within the b. The construction drawings submitted for the Route 340 entrl for dedication and these will be dedicated to VDOT when r designed in a later phase (preliminary drawings have 1 dedication will be made at that time. 3. The CCRC is not an integral part of the "Gated Community" a planning was to close the existing crossover and relocate the State and Warren County (the land owners across Route 340 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virt in (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwc .t•fember American Owisnlring Etigineers derick of our master development plans :e on the U.S. Routes 340,277 entrance the project. ►mments and request your notification of have modified our U.S. Route 340/522 iled the revised drawings for approval for to Callow) has prepared an initial traffic re recently filed an update (March 2001) nces in your August 23, 2000 letter. specify additional right of way needed sted. The Route 277 entrance will be previously submitted) and required I will access Route 340 directly. Initial isting crossover with permission of the The current thinking is to locate the nia 22601 ffWmnsinc.com 'uunci! ert w. clifford and associates, inc Page 2 entrance aligned with the current crossover. Plans will be prepared and submitted to VDOT for one of the alternates after zoning is achieved in Clarke County. (The CCRC lies within Clarke County). The traffic issues for the CCRC will be discussed at the time of rezoning in Clarke when a specific proposal is available. 4. Need for Signalization. a. The Route 277 and Route 636 intersection - This intersection is clearly "offsite" to Shenandoah and the nature of this application is not a rezoning. b. Route 277 access entrance — The owner agrees to a signalization agreement as a part of its land use permit. c. Route 277/340 intersection — (Same as "a" above) of note is the traffic study shows the year 2007 (build) level of service for this intersection is acceptable and manageable. d. Route 340 main entrance — The owner agrees to a signalization agreement. 5. The owner agrees to bituminous concrete. 6. This intersection is "offsite" as per 4 "a." 7. Warren County has been added. 8. Based on comments in 8, the plans have been revised and address comments. Substantial crossovers not affected by our construction will be closed at owners expense, with permission of VDOT, but will not be upgraded by this project. 9. This issue is addressed in 4 (c). Attachment Comments (VDOT Memo of R.B. Childress 8-4-2000) 1) Agreed. 2) Traffic generation is prepared using ITE. 3) Addressed by plans and previous comments. 4) See(3)above. 5) The construction drawings have been submitted and show improvements to meet the traffic study build out requirements with 5% compound growth of existing traffic. This is appropriate design for this corridor. 6) Internal trail and walkway systems adequately serve the proposed Village Center without sidewalks along Route 340. By agreement with the Frederick County Board of Supervisors brings a separate MDP back for approval when plans for the Village Center mature and walkways will be discussed again at that time. 7) Plans have been submitted which satisfy these concerns. 8) See comment in 4(c) above. 9) No improvements are proposed in Warren County. Warren County has been added to the title block. We trust these comments will allow you to comment favorably to Mr. Evan Wyatt, Frederick County Planning Director regarding our final master development plan. p"Nert w. Clifford and associates, inc Page 3 Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., ice President CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Mark Helmer Mr. Evan Wyatt Mr. John Callow RECEIVED APR 0 4 2001 DEPT. OF PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES O. NOTTtNGHAM EOINBVRG. VA 22824 Cr1MrnS3�t R August 23, 2000 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan Route 522/340 (Front Royal Pike) @ Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties Dear Chuck: JERRY A. COPP nESoDf NT ENG0*E11 TELE IS60190WAAM A VDOT review by Luray and Edinburg Residencies has been completed on the preliminary plan dated 07/01/00 for the referenced project. Our comments follow and are illustrated in red on the attached plan and supplemental references. REFERENCES U.S. Route 522/340 (Warren County) North Corridor Study by Clifford & Associates dated August, 1998: We recommend the traffic volumes and geometric recommendations for improvement to existing south bound lanes be given a weighted value consideration for impact by this proposed master development plan. A copy of "Findings" and "Recommendations" of the study has been extracted and is attached as a quick reference for your use. 2. The traffic analysis as developed by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Mr. John Callow using a peak hour count and projecting to a daily volume may be inadequate. It may be more desirable to provide a 24 hour count on several weekdays. 1. Destinations from termini access points (proposed entrances) should be provided. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. Charles E. Maddox, 3r., P.E., v Ref: "Shenandoah" — Prefiminar, ter Development Plan August Z3, 2000 Page #3 b. Lane grade differential may be too large to acquire desirable 5% grade on crossover. The desirable algebraic difference in grade at crown lines is 4 or 5%. The designer should strive to achieve those desirable elements, primarily due to large volumes of traffic projected. c. Consider relocating farm entrance on east side of Route 522/340 to allgn with proposed "Shenandoah" entrance and crossover. d. Please note the extremely poor "worse than the general" vertical alignment of Route 340/522 southbound lanes in the vicinity of the proposed main entrance. The stopping sight distance should be reviewed. Any necessary plan for relocation and/or reconstruction of vertical alignment should be developed under VDOT review to confirm adequacy of all sight distance concerns. e. All germane VDOT comments on geometric of Entrance Development Plan dated (5/10/00 SHEN) are shown in red on the copy of plan being returned with this review. 9. The intersection at existing Route 522/340 with Route 277 should be considered In terms of adequacy to serve the high volumes of traffic generated by the proposed "Shenandoah" site. The potential need for dual left turn appears to be realistic: considering the projected traffic volumes in the "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" (even with proposed "Shenandoah" volumes being included therein) would appear to suggest the need to consider dual left turn exiting Route 522/340 onto Route 277 west bound. Reference is given here to the several attachments to this review: Copy of comments offered for VDOT by letter from Mr. R. B. Childress, ARE, Luray: The entire letter is being forwarded. As can be seen, the comments overlap and do address similar concerns of the Edinburg Residency. This mirrors the VDOT view of the major impacts generated by the "Shenandoah development. • An excerpt page from "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" showing "Findings" and "Recommendations". • A marked in red copy of Preliminary Master Development Plan dated 07/01/00. • A marked in red copy of "Shenandoah" Entrance Development Plan. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V - Ref: "Shenandoah" - Preliminary er Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page 02 2. To meet the geometric roadway requirements, additional right-of-way should be dedicated for public road. a. Recommend a 50' wide right-of-way for portions of SR 636, Hudson Hollow Road, which fall within proposed development. b. On the corridors containing Route 522/340 and Route 277 respectively, adequate right-of-way should be provided to cover geometric designs. 3. The proposed access and crossover for CCRC area on north end of Route 522 should be rerouted to internal access or access development via the next crossover to the south. If continued access is planned, this entrance should be included in the traffic analysis. 4. Need for signalization at major access points: a. Route 277 and Route 636 intersection b. Route 277 at access entrance c. Phasing and potential signal head additions/modifications at Route 522/340 and Route 277 intersection d. Route 522/340 and main entrance — This location may need to be provided in the initial phasing or provision made by supplying a signalization agreement. 5. In the traffic analysis, reference is made to the proposed pavement structure as being prime and double seal. Based on raw traffic data, the surface should be asphalt concrete sufficient to accommodate projected volume of traffic. _ 6. Consideration of coordination between "Shenandoah" development and proposed preliminary VOOT plan (Project #0277-034-103, RW201, C501) currently being prepared for Route 277 improvement between Route I.81 and Route 636, White Oak Road. 7. Warren County should be added to the title block. 8. All existing substandard crossovers should be upgraded, left and/or right turn lanes provided as appropriate for use and location. Of specific concern even at this concept stage; is the apparent main entrance access on Route 522/340 to "Shenandoah". a. Left turn lanes should be provided in both directions. The raw traffic volumes come close to S-250' on Chart Figure C-1-1.1, 250' length of lane should be provided. The taper of 200' appears satisfactory. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM LURAY RESIDENCY August 4, 2000 TO: J.A. Copp ATTN: S.A. Melnikoff FROM. Robert B. Childress SUBJECT: Shenandoah Development Routes 277/340/522 Clarke. Frederick, & Warren Counties We've reviewed the Preliminary Master Plan and revised Traffic Impact Analysis for the subject project submitted with Mr. Chuck lMaddox's July 11, 2000 letter (copy enclosed). Our prcliminavy comments on this submittal follow. It should be noted the Clarke County Board of Supervisors have yet to approve the portion of the project lying within its boundaries. Additionally, et;',.\V. lifford and Associates completed a study of the U.S. Route 340/522 North Corridor for the Warren County Board of Supervisors in August 1998. Sonic of the conclusions and recommendations of this study directly relate to the types of improvements which will be required of this development. When mentioned below we will refer io it as simply the Corridor Study. 1) Si;;nalization ai the main entrance on Route 340/522 should be a requirement of the initial Land Use Permit. If riot required based on initial project phasing then its install.ition should be covered under agreement. 2) The Traffic impact Analysis indicates the development will generate 17,094 trips per day at build out In 2007. On the surface this number seems somewhat low based on the project's sire. 25 percent cif the projects traffic will head cast on Route 340 toward Waterloo and 25 percent south on Route 340/522 toward Front Royal. 25 percent equates to an additional 4,274 vehicles impacting these roadways. The Traffic impact Analysis should be reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. We also suggest that current traffic counts be soured can all impacted roadways to ensure accuracy of the analysis. 3) Ally access points into the development will need to meet our sight distance requirements aii, in keeping with the previous Corridor Study kept to a minimum. The access points for the commercial portions of the development on the south end of the project should be eliminated. A(cess can be provided through the main access roadway. Also, the proposed at cess point on the north end of the project serving the multi family sections should be Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., v " Aef: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary, -w Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page *4 The master development plan should Identify the proposed phasing as nearly as possible to the development plan of action for construction. Please review all the above concerns expressed by each VOOT review unit and address each comment. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call the respective VDOT personnel. Sinder�Jy, Barry 1. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer BJSIrf Enclosures xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn: Mr. Guy Tudor Mr. Bob Childress, Attn: Mr. Rick Miller (w/ enclosures & copy for Clarke Co.) Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Kris Tierney eliminated and acces.,.ted internally. if this isn't possible it will need to be shifted southward to Mign with the existing median crossover serving the Frederick/Clarke County Refuse Collection Site. 4) There are currently 8 substandard median crossovers on Route 340/522 within the limits of the project. 'i'lu: crossovers serve mainly residential single family homes and farms on both the east and west side of the roadway. Only one has been improved with a northbound lcfl turn lane. Aside from the crossover serving the aforementioned Refuse Collection Site all should be closed/removed. Any remaining should be upgraded, widened, and turn lanes added. S) The existing southbound lanes through the project limits are the old original roadway prior, to the corridor's four laning. These southbound lanes do not meet our current geometric dc,ign guideline. The pavement width ranges from 20'-22' with 2'-6' shoulders. The vertical ahgnure w is some of the worst on the corridor which results in poor sight distance. It is extremely lied within the southern end of the project. The designer proposes the main access to the project within this area. The resulting median crossover necessary for this entrance would In located in an area where there is a significant difference in elevation between the north and south bound lanes. The resulting grade would hamper IMLintCnanCC operations, be unsafe and may not meet our minimum requirements at this Icxation. To compound these current design and safety deficiencies this project is proposed to add an additional 4,274 trips per day to the Route 340/522 corridor. The previous Corridor Study's findings indicate this roadway will carry in access of 100,000 vehicles per day. 'Phis fib;tire is based on build out of assumed zoned uses of warren Counties Land Use Map of properties along the corridor between I-66 and Route 661 just south of this development. The Corridor Study Roes further to recommend the roadway be reconstructed it., provide 3-12' wide through lanes xvith a continuous 12' right turn lane III both directions. To this end, we would recommend the existing southbound lanes of Route 340!522 within the limits of the development be reconstructed/widened to meet current vertical and horizontal alignment and provide 3-12'through lanes and I2'right turn lane. The improvements should include all necessary right of way, curb and gutter along the frontage and any storm sewer upgrades. 6) Standard concrete sidewalk should be considered along the entire frontage dire to the proposed and lvtential commercial development along the corridor. 7) We have no overall objections to the boulevard design of the proposed main access road. However, as previously mentioned its location causes us concern due to the difference in evaluation between he north and southbound lanes. The median crossover will need to include a southbound left turn lane. Exact dimensions of the entrance/crossover improvements will need to be determined after the Traffic Impact Analysis and .ite plan has been reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. If possible the existing farm entrance on the east side of the highway should be realigned with the crossover. 8► We are currently getting feedback from the Clarke County Board of Supervisors to improve the Route -177, 340/52Z intersection. The Board recently asked for preliminary engincertng nioncy at the Primary Planning and Scheduling meeting to fund a i;tttdvicicsign toi tuttlre improvements. As proposed, at least an additional 4,Z74 vehicles will impact this intersection daily. At a minimum a separate left turn lane should be pixividcd by the developer on southbound Route 340 and eastbound Route 277. it appears the necessary right of way is available to accommodate these improvements. The capacity of the existiny, Route 340/522 northbound lane should also be considered when the Traffic Impact Analysis is reviewed. Even with its recent extension with the 7-11 project we've witnessed stacking problems in the P.M. peak hour. This turn lane may need to be extended aild/or a dual left provided (which would compound problems westbound on Route 277). tkny necessary signalization adjustments/improvements will need to be addressed to accommodate any intersection modifications. 9) While only a small portion of the project lies within Warren County, approval from their Board should be required also if required. The Preliminary Master Plan doesn't indicate Warren County in the title. As you're aware the plans submitted offer very little detail and our comments are focused primarily on "big picture" issues. More detailed ram►tients can be provided once Traffic Engineering recommendations on the Traffic: Impact Analysis are known and site plans are provided. We appreciate your office a'grccmg to handle the review of this project and look forward to working with you in the futurt . We krep you apprised of Clarke County and Warren Counties position on this development. RBC/rosy Attachments cc: RA Miller TB Diamond RECEIVED APR 0 4 2001 DEPT, OF PLANNINGIDEVELONENT DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM 1 OLD VALLEY PIKE EDI JERRY A. COPP COMMISSIONER DIOLD VA 22824 RESIDENT ENGINEER April 17, 2001 FAX Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: VDOT is reviewing the preliminary master plan for the "Shenandoah" development. Our comments are as follows: The majority of this project is in Frederick County. However, only the entrances to the site at Routes 340/522, 277, 636 and Lake Frederick Drive for 0.14 mile will be reviewed and approved to meet VDOT standards and maintained by VDOT. The remaining internal roadway network has been designed to be privately owned and maintained. Therefore, VDOT will not offer comment. We would like to offer the following comments on those entrances and roadway that will be VDOT's responsibility: Route 636 • Developer agrees to provide additional right-of-way on Route 636 through the limits of the development. • Developer shall, as stated on the master development plan sheet, pave with bituminous concrete the section of Route 636 between the subject property and the presently paved section to the north, no later than the time of the issuance of the Route 750 building permit. It should be noted that this portion of Route 636 must be upgraded to current Secondary Road Design requirements. Additional right-of- way will have to be obtained from adjoining property owners. Will the developer be participating in the acquisition of additional offsite right-of-way, engineering, design and construction? This is unclear and may have to fall upon Frederick County and VDOT to accomplish. Route 277 • Request to enter into a signalization agreement with the developer appears to be. acceptable. (See Attachment A.) • Preliminary plans have been submitted to this Department and are under review. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. April 17, 2001 Page #2 Lake Frederick Drive • Plans have not been submitted for review as of this date. • Approximately 0.24 of a mile is intended to be designed and constructed to VDOT standards and to become a State maintained road. Route 340/522 • This road and associated improvements are within the Luray Residency's jurisdiction. Attached are comments from Mr. R. B. Childress, Assistant Resident Engineer - Attachment "B". Also attached are previous comments provided to your office dated 08/23/00, Attachments C & D. The revised traffic impact analysis has not been returned to this office with review comments. Should the developer address all concerns to our satisfaction, VDOT will then be able to offer a more favorable comment. Sincerely, Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer SAM/rf Attachments xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn: Mr. Guy Tudor Mr. Bob Childress Mr. Dame Heironimus r. Evan Wyatt Attachment "A" gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers — Land Planners M Water Quality 3 April 2001 Mr. Steven A Melnikoff Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 RE: "Shenandoah" 1VIDP (Final) Frederick, Clarke and Warren County's, Virginia Dear Steve, Board of Directors: President: Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Vice Presidents: Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. David J. Saunders, P.E. Directors: William L. Wright Michael A. Hammer Thomas W. Price We have enjoyed working with VDOT over the past months in planning for the Shenandoah Development. We have secured the approval from Boards and Commissions in Frederick of our master development plans and have filed for final construction drawing approval of the entrance on the U.S. Routes 340/277 entrance road and have filed for subdivision plat approval for Phases 1 and 2 of the project. Our purpose for this letter is to summarize our response to VDOT comments and request your notification of master plan approval to the Frederick County Planning staff. We have modified our U.S. Route 340/522 construction drawings pursuant to initial VDOT comments and have filed the revised drawings for approval for "Land Use Permit." Patton Harris Rust and Associates, PC (Mr. John Callow) has prepared an initial traffic study and projection in 2000 which updated their 1990 study and have recently filed an update (March 2001) which provides additional requested information implied under references in your August 23, 2000 letter. Our reply is as follows: Preliminary Master Plan 1. Destinations and splits have been supplied. 2. The owner agrees to provide additional right of ways as follows: a. 50' right of way shall be dedicated for Route 636 within the development. b. The construction drawings submitted for the Route 340 entrance specify additional right of way needed for dedication and these will be dedicated to VDOT when requested. The Route 277 entrance will be designed in a later phase (preliminary drawings have been previously submitted) and required dedication will be made at that time. 3. The CCRC is not an integral part of the "Gated Community" and will access Route 340 directly. Initial planning was to close the existing crossover and relocate the existing crossover with permission of the State and Warren County (the land owners across Route 340). The current thinking is to locate the 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 (540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcliff@mnsinc.com Member American Consulting Engineers Council guoert w. Clifford and associates, inc Page 2 entrance aligned with the current crossover. Plans will be prepared and submitted to VDOT for one of the alternates after zoning is achieved in Clarke County. (The CCRC lies within Clarke County). The traffic issues for the CCRC will be discussed at the time of rezoning in Clarke when a specific proposal is available. 4. Need for Signalization. a. The Route 277 and Route 636 intersection - This intersection is clearly "offsite" to Shenandoah and the nature of this application is not a rezoning. b. Route 277 access entrance — The owner agrees to a signalization agreement as a part of its land use permit. c. Route 277/340 intersection — (Same as "a" above) of note is the traffic study shows the year 2007 (build) level of service for this intersection is acceptable and manageable. d. Route 340 main entrance — The owner agrees to a signalization agreement. 5. The owner agrees to bituminous concrete. b. This intersection is "offsite" as per 4 "a." 7. Warren County has been added. 8. Based on comments in 8, the plans have been revised and address comments. Substantial crossovers not affected by our construction will be closed at owners expense, with permission of VDOT, but will not be upgraded by this project. 9. This issue is addressed in 4 (c). Attachment Comments (VDOT A4emo of R.B. Childress 8-4-2000) 1) Agreed. 2) Traffic generation is prepared using ITE. 3) Addressed by plans and previous comments. 4) See (3) above. 5) The construction drawings have been submitted and show improvements to meet the traffic study build out requirements with 5% compound growth of existing traffic. This is appropriate design for this corridor. 6) Internal trail and walkway systems adequately serve the proposed Village Center without sidewalks along Route 340. By agreement with the Frederick County Board of Supervisors brings a separate MDP back for approval when plans for the Village Center mature and walkways will be discussed again at that time. 7) Plans have been submitted which satisfy these concerns. 8) See comment in 4(c) above. 9) No improvements are proposed in Warren County. Warren County has been added to the title block. We trust these comments will allow you to comment favorably to Mr. Evan Wyatt, Frederick County Planning Director regarding our final master development plan. gboert w. Clifford and associates, inc Page 3 Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely yours, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. ice President CEM/kf Enclosure cc: Mr. Mark Helmer Mr. Evan Wyatt Mr. John Callow I APR, -IF 01(WED) 14:05 V90T LURAY RESIDENCY TEL:540 74J 1249 t', uuZ Attachment "B" VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM LURAY RESIDENCY April 6, 2001 TO: J.A. Copp ATTN: S.A. Melnikoff FROM: R.S. Childress SUBJECT: Shenandoah Development Routes 277/340/522 Clarke, Warren, & Frederick Counties We have reviewed the G.W. Clifford & Associations site plan entitled "U.S. Route 5Z2/340 Improvements and Lake Frederick Drive" dated January 1, ZOO for the subject project provided with your transmittal of February 28, 2001. Our comments as follows are broken down between the proposed improvements/impacts on Route 340/522 and Lake Frederick Drive. U.S. Route 340/522 1) We appreciate the developers willingness to lower the southbound lanes in place as previously discussed. However, the largest remaining unresolved issue is the need to provide an additional southbound through lane. This project is estimated to add an additional 7,742 trips per day to the Route $40/522 corridor. The designer's 1999 Warren County Corridor Study's findings indicate this roadway will carry in access of 100,000 vehicles per day. This figure is based on build out of assumed zoned uses in Frederick and Warren Counties Land Use Map of properties along the corridor. The Corridor Study goes further to recommend the roadway be reconstructed to provide 3-12' wide through lanes with a continuous 12' right turn lane in both directions. To this end the existing southbound lanes of Route APR -11' O1('WED) 14:05 VDO`P LURAY RESIDENCY TEL:540 743 7249 F. 003 340/522 within the limits of the development need to be reconstructed/widened to meet current vertical and horizontal alignment and provide 3-127 through lanes and 1 V right turn lane. The improvements should include all necessary right of way, curb and gutter along the frontage and any storm sewer upgrades. This additional widening will impact and necessitate changes to the roadway typical sections, right of way/easement limits and drainage design as proposed. 2) Signalization at the main entrance on Route 340/52Z should be a requirement of the initial Land Use Permit. If not required based on initial project phasing then its installation should be covered under agreement. Conduit locations for signal services should be provided on the plans. 3)' It has already been established/discussed with the designer that the main access roadway into the project will be signalized at some point during development. Furthermore, if properly designed this main access point can more than accommodate all residential traffic and patrons of the on site commercial facilities. Therefore, in keeping with sound access management principals the two individual entrances on Route 340/522 to serve the proposed shopping center will not be permitted. As proposed, the entrances are located beyond the main access roadway intersection for southbound motorists and with no median crossover for northbound motorists we can see no real benefit other than creation of an additional conflict point for through traffic. 4) Additional detail needs to be provided on the proposed temporary crossover detours. In particular, tie in details are needed on how the transitions will be made from a 2 lane roadway to a single lane and vise -versa. A stripping plan will be necessary to accomplish this. Additionally, the designer needs to show how the existing median crossover just south of the project limits in Warren County will be impacted by the temporary detour and permanent improvements. Will the crossover need to be closed during construction or improved to accommodate the temporary detour? How will sight distance at this crossover be impacted? The designer also needs to provide details APR.-11'01(WED) 14:05 VDOT LURAY RESIDENCY TEL:540 743 7249 K U04 of how traffic will be separated in the northbound lane. Is the existing pavement width adequate to accommodate Channelizing devices or a barrier? If not, will pavement widening be necessary? Erosion and sedimentation control measures for the temporary detour construction will need to be provided. 5) The northbound left turn lane at the median crossover at station Z7+50 needs to be removed. 6) As new median crossovers have been installed and existing ones upgraded along the Route 340/522 corridor Traffic Engineering has required the use of std. EW--I I A end treatments on cross pipe, We feel this would be the preferred end treatment method for the cross over culvert at station 20+00. 7) Several existing drainage culverts under the southbound lane are to be removed as part of the proposed construction. We could not find were the remaining culverts under both the new southbound and northbound lane were addressed in the designer's drainage calculations. These pipe should be checked for adequacy and impacts from the development. At a minimum the following should be addressed: A) 1 S" C.M.P./N.B.L., STA. 15+75: Doesn't appear to be long enough to accommodate the proposed left turn lane and 10' shoulder width. Since half of this culvert will be beneath new construction it should be replaced due to its age and condition. Adequate end treatments should also be provided. If hydraulics allow, a standard DI-7B should be provided on the inlet end of the pipe to address possible safety issues B) 15" C.M.P./N.B.L., STA. 25+25: Can this pipe be eliminated and median drainage diverted to the existing cross pipe, if adequate, at sta. 26+60? C) The proposed pipe under the southbound lane should be tied together by a standard DI-7B drop inlet with the existing 24" C.M.P. under the northbound lane at sta. 26+60. This existing pipe should be replaced due to its age and condition. APR, -11' 01(WED) 14:05 VDOT LURAY RESIDENCY TEL:540 743 7249 P. 005 I K The existing pipe at sta. 29+90/S.B.L. which is under new construction should be replaced along with the pipe under the northbound lanes and tied together with a std. D1- 7B drop inlet. E) All replaced pipe should be R.C.P type III minimum. 8) 'There are currently 8 substandard median crossovers on Route 340/522 within the limits of the project. The crossovers serve manly residential single family homes and farms on both the east and west side of roadway, Only one has been improved with a northbound left turn lane and it is to be removed with the southbound lane reconstructed. Aside from the crossover serving the refuse collection site all will need to be closed/removed. Any remaining will need to be upgraded, widened, and turn lanes added to meet current standards. 9) While not shown on this site plan the intersection of Route 277/340/522 will be significantly impacted by this development. Based on potential zoning proffers from either Frederick or Clarke County, transportation related improvements at the intersection should be included in any design for Route 340/522 improvements. We will rely on Traffic Engineering's review of the Traffic Impact Analysis to determine these improvements. 10) Standard 5' concrete sidewalk should be considered along the entire frontage due to the proposed and potential commercial development along the corridor. If not required by Clarice and Warren Counties then a 5' flat space should be provided for its future installation. 11) Do to the significant amount of construction on Route 340/522 and the lowering of the southbound lanes standard cross section will need to be provided. Lake Frederick Drive 1) Length of the right turn lane and taper into the shopping center entrance needs to be ,provided. Also, standard 50' tapers need to be provided at this entrance. APR. -11' 01(WEU) 14:U6 VUU'I' MAY KKSIUBUY '11L:54U /4J /149 r, UUn r 2) The roadway tie-in with Route 340/522 will need to be adjusted to provide a landing of at least 50'. 3) Standard CG-12 handicap ramps will need to be incorporated into the design. 4) Due to the anticipated 6,000+ trips per day, significant grade, and adjacent commercial activity we strongly suggest this roadway be redesigned to urban standards. If not the shoulder should be paved with asphalt concrete for safety and stabilization purposes. 5) It is assumed the 24' pavement will allow for two lanes of traffic in each direction. Therefore, a pavement stripping plan will be required. 6) Additional detail should be provided on the turn around at the end of the roadway to include signage and traffic flow patterns. 7) The roadway right of way and easements need to be clearly identified, especially in the area of the turn around where state maintenance ends. 8) A 20' drainage easement needs to be provided to enclose the outfall of culvert C-9. Also, an easement needs to be provided to enclose the portion of culvert C-12 and C-13 which aren't on State right of way. 9) Is landscaping and/or an irrigation system going to be proposed with the MS-2 grass island? If so a plan will need to be provided and agreements entered into with the developer to cover future maintenance. 10) Is an identification sign for the development to be proposed at the main entrance? If so an easement(s) should be provided. 1'1) It appears that portions of the side ditches are off the proposed right of way. Twenty foot parallel drainage easements should be provided to address this issue, Also, we could not find the ditch design details on the plans. These will need to be provided. Typically on any ditch grade greater than 6%, at a minimum, standard EC-3 soil stabilization mat will be required. 12) A standard CD-1 will be required at approximately sta. 8+75, and CD-2 at sta. 11+01. APR. -11' O1 (WED) 14 : 06 r VDU'I' LURAY RESIDENCY 'I'EL:540 745 7249 F. O U / f 13) A standard UD-2 underdrain system should be required under the proposed MS-2 raised grass island. 14) The Clarke/Frederick County line should be identified. General 1) We have briefly checked the proposed pavement designs. However, until the actual proposed traffic impacts have been determined the design should not be approved. An example is the closing of the proposed commercial entrances to the shopping center on Route 340/522. The anticipated traffic from these entrances estimated to be approximately 1700 trips per day at build out, will move to Lake Frederick Drive which will in turn effect that roadway's pavement design, 2) A standard UD-4 underdrain system will be required under any/all curb and gutter sections. 3) Due to the significant amount of construction on Route 340/522 and lowering of the southbound lanes we question whether this project should be required to go through the State's early environmental review process (SERF). While developer funded, these improvements will alter this historically sensity•corridor and we don't want to put ourselves in a compromised position. 4) We have previously communicated our comments/concerns to Traffic Engineering concerning the designers traffic impact analysis. Please see the attached email dated March 23, 2001 to Mr. Kelly Downs concerning the base line data used and proposed traffic splits. These issues should be addressed prior to approval. 5) Other miscellaneous comments as marked will need to be addressed. We realize the significant costs associated with the addition of the third south bound lane as well as the elimination of several median crossovers and upgrading of others within the project limits. However, the Route 340/52Z corridor already carries a high volume of traffic with an anticipated growth rate of approximately S% per year. Based on the preliminary traffic volume figures in the traffic impact analysis, which we don't agree with, by build out of this 7 C APR. -11' U1(W6U) 14:06 VUU'I' LURAY RESIDENCY 'I'EL:54U /43 /249 N. UUK development in 2007 traffic volumes will have increased by approximately 30%. The designer, when developing the corridor study for Warren County several years ago concluded that a third through lane on the highway would be necessary due to increasing traffic volumes. Therefore, this requirement should not come as a surprise. To facilitate the safe north/south movement of traffic on the corridor, accommodate residents of the Shenandoah development, ensure the safety of residents already living in this area, and to protect the taxpayers interest these necessary improvements will need to be implemented by the developer. Before this office will approve any plans or issue any Land Use Permits for access to the development, site plans for the construction of total 4 lane facility (3 through lanes with 1 right turn lane) across the entire frontage of the property, details of the closure of existing median crossovers and upgrading of others within the project limits, and improvements at the Route 277/340/522 intersection, if proffered, will need to be reviewed and approved by the Department. We would fully anticipate the developer wanting to phase these improvements and will be willing to discuss it with him once the plans are approved. Please have the plans reviewed to reflect our concerns. If we need to get together with the developer to discuss our comments please let us know. If you have any questions please let us know. RBC/msy Attachment cc: A,R Boyce 08/242000 14:17 5406650493 G 0 CLIFFOPD E AJJOIr i . % Attachment "C" COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDW9URG RESIDENCY 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM EDINBURG, VA 22824 Cf1Y..1I.SSIONI R August 23, 2000 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan Route 522/340 (Front Royal Pike) @ Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) Clarke, Frederick & Warren Counties Dear Chuck: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE156019"AfM FAX 1F.019IA-560+ A VDOT review by Luray and Edinburg Residencies has been completed on the preliminary plan dated 07/01/00 for the referenced project. Our comments follow and are illustrated in red on the attached plan and supplemental references. REFERENCES I. U.S. Route 522/340 (Warren County) North Corridor Study by Clifford & Associates dated August, 1998: We recommend the traffic volumes and geometric recommendations for improvement to existing south bound lanes be given a weighted value consideration for impact by this proposed master development plan. A copy of "Findings" and "Recommendations" of the study has been extracted and is attached as a quick reference for your use. 2. The traffic analysis as developed by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates and Mr. John Callow using a peak hour count and projecting to a daily volume may be inadequate. It may be more desirable to provide a 24 hour count on several weekdays. .. qqwff m-4 F 01 1. Destinations from termini access points (proposed entrances) should be provided. r WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" -Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #2 2. To meet the geometric roadway requirements, additional right-of-way should be dedicated for public road. a. Recommend a 50' wide right-of-way for portions of SR 636, Hudson Hollow Road, which fall within proposed development. b. On the corridors containing Route 522/340 and Route 277 respectively, adequate right-of-way should be provided to cover geometric designs. 3. The proposed access and crossover for CCRC area on north end of Route 522 should be rerouted to internal access or access development via the next crossover to the south. If continued access is planned, this entrance should be included in the traffic analysis. 4. Need for signalization at major access points: a. Route 277 and Route 636 intersection b. Route 277 at access entrance c. Phasing and potential signal head additions/modifications at Route 522/340 and Route 277 intersection d. Route 522/340 and main entrance — This location may need to be provided in the initial phasing or provision made by supplying a signalization agreement. 5. In the traffic analysis, reference is made to the proposed pavement structure as being prime and double seal. Based on raw traffic data, the surface should be asphalt concrete sufficient to accommodate projected volume of traffic. 6. Consideration of coordination between "Shenandoah" development and proposed preliminary VDOT plan (Project #0277-034-103, RW201, C501) currently being prepared for Route 277 improvement between Route I-81 and Route 636, White Oak Road. 7. Warren County should be added to the title block. 8. All existing substandard crossovers should be upgraded, left and/or right turn lanes provided as appropriate for use and location. Of specific concern even at this concept stage, is the apparent main entrance access on Route 522/340 to "Shenandoah". a. Left turn lanes should be provided in both directions. The raw traffic volumes come close to S=250' on Chart Figure C-1-1.1, 250' length of lane should be provided. The taper of 200' appears satisfactory. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page #3 b. Lane grade differential may be too large to acquire desirable 5% grade on crossover. The desirable algebraic difference in grade at crown lines is 4 or 5%. The designer should strive to achieve those desirable elements, primarily due to large volumes of traffic projected. c. Consider relocating farm entrance on east side of Route 522/340 to align with proposed "Shenandoah" entrance and crossover. d. Please note the extremely poor "worse than the general" vertical alignment of Route 340/522 southbound lanes in the vicinity of the proposed main entrance. The stopping sight distance should be reviewed. Any necessary plan for relocation and/or reconstruction of vertical alignment should be developed under VDOT review to confirm adequacy of all sight distance concerns. e. All germane VDOT comments on geometries of Entrance Development Plan dated (5/10/00 SHEN) are shown in red on the copy of plan being returned with this review. 9. The intersection at existing Route 522/340 with Route 277 should be considered In terms of adequacy to serve the high volumes of traffic generated by the proposed "Shenandoah" site. The potential need for dual left turn appears to be realistic considering the projected traffic volumes in the "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" (even with proposed "Shenandoah" volumes being included therein) would appear to suggest the need to consider dual left turn exiting Route 522/340 onto Route 277 west bound. Reference is given here to the several attachments to this review: • Copy of comments offered for VDOT by letter from Mr. R. B. Childress, ARE, Luray: The. entire letter is being forwarded. As can be seen, the comments overlap and do address similar concerns of the Edinburg Residency. This mirrors the VDOT view of the major impacts generated by the "Shenandoah" development. • An excerpt page from "U.S. Route 522/340 North Corridor Study" showing "Findings" and "Recommendations". • A marked in red copy of Preliminary Master Development Plan dated 07/01/00. • A marked in red copy of "'Shenandoah" Entrance Development Plan. , 6 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: "Shenandoah" — Preliminary Master Development Plan August 23, 2000 Page *4 The master development plan should Identify the proposed phasing as nearly as possible to the development plan of action for construction. Please review all the above concerns expressed by each VOOT review unit and address each comment. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call the respective VDOT personnel. /� Suer .1Si, Barry J. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Steven A. Melnikoff Transportation Engineer BJS/rf Enclosures xc: Mr. Jim Diamond, Attn: Mr. Kelly Downs Mr. Terry Jackson, Attn: Mr. Guy Tudor Mr. Bob Childress, Attn: Mr. Rick Miller (w/enclosures & copyfor Clarke Co.) Mr. Dave Heironimus Mr. Kris Tierney '`*.achment "D" VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM LURAY RESIDENCY August 4, 2000 TO: J.A. Copp ATTN: S.A. Melnikoff FROM: Robcrt B. Childress Q/j, 64;U--- SUBJECT: Shenandoah Development Routes 277/340/522 Clarke. Frederick, & Warren Counties We've reviewed the Freliminary Master Plan and revised Traffic Impact Analysis foi- the subject project submitted with Air. Chuck Maddox's July 1112000 letter (copy enclosed). Our preliminary coniments on this submittal follow. It should be noted the Clarke County Board of Supervisors luive yet to approve the portion of the project lying within its boundaries. Additionally, 6. W. Clifford and Associates completed a study of the U.S. Route 340/ 522 North Corridor for the Warren County Board of Supervisors in August 1998. Some of the conclusions and recommendations of this study directly relate to the types of improvements which will be required of this development. When mentioned below we will refer io it as simply the corridor Study. 1) Si;;nalization at tihe main entrance on Route 340/522 should be a requirement of the initial Land Use Ferwit. if not required based on initial project phasing then its installation should be covered under agreement. 2) The Traffic impact Analysis indicates the development will generate 17,094 trips per day at build out to 2007. can the surface this number seems somewhat Iow based on the prcject's sire. 25 percent of the project's traffic will head -cast on Route 340 toward Waterloo and 25 percent south on Route 340/522 toward Front Royal. 25 percent. equates to an additional 4,274 vehicles impacting these roadways. The Traffic impact Analysis should be reviewed by the 'traffic Engineering Section. We also suggest that current traffic counts be secured on all impacted roadways to ensure accuracy of the analysis. 3) Any access points into the development will need to meet our sight distance requirements and in keeping with the previous Corridor Study kept to a minimum. The access points for the commercial portions of the development on the south end of the project should be eliminated. Access can be provided through the main access roadway. Also, the proposed access point on the north end of the project serving the multi family sections should be eliminated and accessed internally. If this isn't possible it will need to be shifted southward to align with the: existing median crossover serving the Frederick/Clarke County Refuse Collection Site. 4) There are currently 8 substandard median crossovers on Route 340/522 within the limits of the project. 'Me crossovers serve mainly residential single family homes and farms on both the east and west side of the roadway. Only one has been improved with a northbound left turn lane. Aside from the crossover serving the aforementioned Refuse Collection Site all should be closed/removed. Any remaining should be upgraded, widened, and turn lanes added. S) The existing southbound lanes through the project limits are the old original roadway prior to the corridor's four laning. These southbound lanes do not meet our current geometric design guidelines. Tlie pavement width ranges from 20'-22' with 2'-6' shoulders. The vertical ahgnutcnt is some of the worst on the corridor which results in poor sight distance. it )s extremely had within the southern end of the project. The designer proposes the main Access to the project within this area. The resulting median crossover necessary for this entrance would he located in an area where there is a significant difference in elevation between the north and south bound lanes. The resulting grade would hamper maintenance operations, be unsafe and may not meet our minimum requirements at this Icx•atioli. To compound these current design and safety deficiencies this project is proposed to add an additional 4,274 trips per day to the Route 346/522 corridor. The previous Corridor Stiidy's findings indicate this roadway will carry in access of 100,000 vehicles per day. This figure is based on build out of assumed zoned uses of warren Counties Land Use Map of properties along the corridor between I-66 and Route 661 just south of this development. The Corridor Study Roes further to recommend the roadway be reconstructed io provide ;-12' wide through lanes with a continuous 12' right turn lane in both directions. To this end, we would recommend the existing southbound lanes of Route 340 />22 within the limits of the development be reconstructed/widened to meet current vertical and horizontal alignment and provide 3-12'through lanes and 12'right tarn lane. 11ic improvements should include all necessary right of way, curb and gutter alking the frontage and any storm sewer upgrades. 6) Standard S' concrete sidewalk should be considered along the entire frontage due to the proposed and potential commercial development along the corridor. 7) We have »o overall objections to the boulevard design of the proposed main access road. However, as previously mentioned its location causes us concern due to the difference in evaluation between he north and southbound lanes. The median crossover will need to include a southbound left turn lane. Exact dimensions of the entrance/crossover itrprovements will need to be determined after the Traffic impact Analysis and .ite plan has been reviewed by the Traffic Engineering Section. If possible the existing farm entrance cm the, east side of the highway should be realigned with the crossover. 8) We are cun-enily getting feedback from the Clarke County Board of Supervisor to improve the Route 277,'34O/522 intersection. The Board recently asked for preliminary engineering money at the Primary Planning and Scheduling meeting to fund a studyidcsign for future improvements. As proposed, at least an additional 4,274 vehicles will impact this intersection daily. At a minimum a separate left turn lane should be provided by the developer on southbound Route 340 and eastbound Route 277. it appears the necesmiy right of way is available to accommodate these improvements. The capacity of the existing Notate 340/522 northbound lane should also be considered when the Traffic impact Analysis is reviewed. Even with its recent extension with the 7-11 project we've witnessed stacking problems in the P.M. peak hour. This turn lane may need to be extended and/car a dual left provided (which would compound problems westbound on Route 277). Any necessary signalization adjustments/improvements will need to be addressed to accommodate any intersection modifications. 9) While only a small portion of the project lies within Warren County, approval from their Board should be required also if required. The Preliminary ,Master Plan doesn't indicate Warren County in the title. As you're aware the plans submitted offer very little detail and our comments are focused primarily on "big picture" issues. More detailed comments can be provided once Traffic Engineering recommendations on the Traffic: Impact Analysis are known and site plans are provided. We appreciate your office agreeing to handle the review of this project and look forward to working with you in the futurt We will kreh you apprised of Clarke County and Warren Counties position on this development. RBC/,nsy Attachments cc: RA Miller JB Diamond Revision 2.0 DRAFT FINAL NOTES TO MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHENANDOAH The undersigned owners of the property which is the subject of this Amended Master Development Plan (MDP) submission ("the developer"), provided 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. Project Classification The developer agrees to include in its HOA Declaration and Restrictions a provision which age restricts the gated active adult portion of the site (everything except the Village Center and the CCRC sites) so that; "80% of the homes will have at least one prime resident who is 55 years of age or older. The other 20% of the homes will have one prime resident who is 45 years of age or older. No children under the age of 19 may live in the community for more than 90 days a year." The HOA further must develop a system, that they are obligated to maintain, which enforces this age restriction. The enforcement system must be included in the declarations and restrictions that run with the land. 2. Mixture of housing types. (a) The developer shall construct a maximum of 2130 individual dwelling units (2.3 DU/Acre) using a mix of housing types as shown on the attached "PHASING PLAN" (Appendix "A") (b) The mix of housing types will vary due to market demand from Phase to Phase. It is intended to allow the developer the ability to establish types of housing at the time of subdivision plat approval. An amended phasing plan shall be submitted for such unit modifications. 3. Transportation improvements. (a) The developer shall provide access points on Routes 522/340, Rte 636 and Rte 277 generally as shown in the plan and required by approved VDOT Permit. (b) The developer will relocate the existing Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) entry road as shown on the plan during Phase 1 of the project. In M • ,, W( C14AACA1, Aar IZfz-o - 2-l23 Revision 2.0 (c) The developer shall prime and double seal the section of Route 636 between the subject property line and the presently paved section to the North, not later than the time of issuance of the 750 building permit. 4. Trails system. The developer shall construct or cause to be constructed a system of walks and trails within the project to tie pedestrian access within the development from residential areas to certain points on the lake and to community recreation areas and commercial areas within the project, generally as located on the plan. Location and design of trails within 100' of the Lake will be as mutually agreed with VDGIF. 5. Streetlights. Streetlights of design selected by the developer and, approved by the zoning administrator, will be located at intersections and at the ends of cul de sacs. 6. Provision of water and sewer service. (a) The project shall be served by public water and sewer services. (b) The developer shall provide a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in the general location shown on the plan according to plans approved by the Virginia State Water Control Board and the FCSA. (c) Public water will be supplied by existing lines. Sufficient pressure will be afforded by an onsite water storage tank. (d) All water and sewer facilities shall be completed to the satisfaction of the FCSA and transferred to the FCSA ownership. 7. Fire and Rescue Service. A fire and rescue site is offered for a period of 5 years with 5 more years renewable if satisfactory progress is being made on site development for the fire and rescue facility. The site must be either an approximate 2 acre site in the Village Center (which is the much preferred site by the developer) or on an alternate site elsewhere in the area, which adequately serves Shenandoah and other areas of the County. The alternate site must be offsite to Shenandoah. A one time gift of $20,000 is offered to provide assistance in the purchase of the selected site, should an alternate site be chosen. Revision 2.0 8. Library A library site in the Village Center to a maximum size of 1 acre is offered for a period of 5 years. The developer will provide the site and planning, should the County library decide to construct and operate such a facility. 9. Preservation of Lake Frederick water quality. (a) No water will be taken from the Lake to operate or maintain the onsite wastewater treatment facility. (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 Lake Frederick. 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 sub watershed 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 will eventually assign this responsibility to a homeowner's association, or to such other appropriate entity as may be determined by Frederick County and the developer. 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. (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 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 Revision 2.0 DGIF, to the developer, and to the homeowner's association created in accordance with these Notes. (e) In order to preserve more of the natural buffering of existing vegetation surrounding the lake, a 50 feet wide easement adjoining the VDGIF property line shall be provided in the form of a conservation and water quality easement, to be granted to the Homeowners Association (HOA) and VDGIF at the time of recordation of a final plat for each residential section of the development. No building, tree cutting, clearing or disturbance of undergrowth or existing vegetation, or any use of the buffer area shall be permitted except with the explicit written approval of VDGIF. (f) To provide and contain walking traffic along the lake, the developer shall build pedestrian trails appropriate to topographic conditions, connecting to fishing, boating, and observation areas within the buffer area and the VDGIF lakeshore, in alignments acceptable to VDGIF. Such trails shall be maintained by the developer and successor HOAs. Trails will clearly identify private property lines (public access limits). (g) In locations satisfactory to VDGIF, the developer will clear selected views to the lake through buffer areas reforesting those areas with herbaceous plants, shrubs and trees to VDGIG satisfaction. (h) The developer will build three piers — one for the Community Center and two for the light boat launches — to VDGIF specifications. (i) Flooding easements will be provided to VDGIF on a section by section basis as plats are recorded. 10. Access to Lake Frederick The Developer will construct two accesses to the lake for carry -ins (canoes, kayaks), as shown on the MDP. Each will have appropriate signage, parking and craft storage racks outside the conservation buffer, a walk path to lakeside in locations agreeable to VDGIF, and a tie-up pier, all at general locations shown on the plan. 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. Revision 2.0 12. School site. Since school age children will not reside in this project, and the remote location of the property to the urban population centers of the County, no school site is proposed. 13. Recreation Facilities The developer will provide recreation in accord with the attached schedule (Appendix `B). Each of these facilities will be constructed during the identified phase of development of the community with which it is associated, and each will be turned over to its community HOA for use and maintenance under terms explicit in all home sale contracts. 14. Phasing (a) Each phase is one year of development. Building permits not granted in any previous phases may be carried over so long as the cumulative total of authorized phases are not exceeded. (b) Phase one development shall include the wastewater treatment plant, the entrance on US Rte 340/522, the main gate house facility and the relocation of the Lake access road. (c) Public water and sewer lines will be extended into each phase on an as - needed basis. (d) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 636 shall be constructed not later than before the 750 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 3, when it will be opened for public access. (e) The entrance to the subject property from State Route 277 shall be constructed not later than before the 1200 unit building permit of the development of the subject property, and shall be utilized for construction access until phase 6, when it will be opened for public access. (f) Disturbance and improvements in future phase areas will be required to implement this plan due to the need for grading, utilities, roadways, the substantial number of storm management ponds to protect water quality in Lake Frederick and the like. This work will be allowed upon plan approval by the County. Revision 2.0 15. Homeowners' Association (HOA). (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, (i) Operation of a community center and Tennis Center. (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 (vii) Maintenance of Roadway system (b) The HOA is empowered and required to project vegetative screening and open space trees, as well as all common area plantings, such as street trees. Pruning of trees will be a requirement of the HOA, from time to time, to allow proper access by all emergency and service vehicles. APPENDIX "A" DENSITY AND PHASING DATA Frederick County, Virginia Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Village Center Totals Type 1 2 3 4 6 6 S. Family Small Lot 65' Wide Lot 59 104 155 136 75 64 593 55' Wide Lot 75 149 153 145 66 40 628 Duplex 65 100 112 106 42 34 459 TownHouse 0 70 70 70 0 0 210 Garden Apartments 36 39 45 36 44 40 240 Totals 235 462 536 493 227 178 2130 Area Summary (acres) Area in Lots Area in Roads Area Area in Open Space 175.75 173.43 191.90 190.31 83.18 76.43 35.00 926.00 44.42 67.67 79.22 70.93 39.31 37.37 338.92 33.63 18.06 17.11 20.44 6.84 6.00 102.08 97.82 87.82 95.68 99.06 37.14 32.48 15.00 465.00 AREA in FREDERICK COUNTY 926.266 acres ALLOWED DENSITY per R-6 ZONE(2.3/acre) 2130 60.2% APPENDIX "B" Recreation Unit Summary Frederick County, Virginia Value of Amenities - Dollars Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Phase Remarks Type 1 2 3 4 6 6 Community Building Trout Pond Outdoor Pool Play Courts Hiker/Biker Trails Natural Trails Nature Center(Village) Boat Docks DGIF Facilities Golf School Phase Totals County Requirements No of Dwellings No of Rec Units at 1 per 3C Value per Rec Unii Value reqd by Ordinance M 11 lie 111 Ili 'T:II 11im KITTITITI from :I eie'- ', 11 Ile _-,- .'. 1 111 1 111 ,', 1 111 i lee 111 Eff"IT, 1 III , 1 eel 1 1'll iie 111 eee '. 1 1 1 1 ' I Ili . '. 1 1 1 1 _■_� 1 1 1 lei _■_■■�_- 1 iei = 1 lei 111 235.0 462.0 535.0 493.0 227.0 178.0 7.8 15.4 17.8 16.4 7.6 5.9 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $16,000 $125,280 1 $246,400 1 $285,333 1 $262,933 1 $121,067 1 $94,933 Constructed in 3 phases $4, 765, 000 $1,135,946 "Shenandoah" Review Comment "Shenandoah" Master Development Plan Agency Review Comment Summary 11-Sep-00 VDOT Review Authority Consider Rte 522/340 Warren Co Study by GWC&A Per Ltr of 7-31-00, Edinburg Residency has the lead Ultimate ROW and lane planning will consider this study Findings. This was a maximum build out study and was Meant to represent a "worst case" scenario. Plans For phase improvement of existing roadways will be sized to handle "Shenandoah" project impacts and existing traffic volumes with reasonable growth additions. Traffic analysis peak hour to daily To be discussed with VDOT. As a footnote to all discussions volume translation? of traffic generation, " Shenandoah " produces, according to Callow transportation study and based on ITE, roughly 40% less daily and peak hour traffic than does the current standing approval of "Wheatlands". Provide Termini destinations To be discussed with VDOT Provide W ROW for rte 636 OK(within development) Provide "adequate" ROW on OK(within development) Rtes 522/340 and 277 Access point for CCRC Internal access is not planned since this facility will "Stand Alone" and cut through traffic must be discouraged to protect gated community. Entrance point will be studied and agreed with VDOT. CCRC traffic will be included in study. Signalization It is not believed that warrants exist with build -out levels of traffic to justify Stoplights, due to traffic at Shenandoah, at rtes 636,277 or the CCRC.Shenandoah will produce traffic at the main Rte 340 entrance that will justify a light, possibly in phase one. Impact at Rte 277/340 intx will be assessed based on Clarke Co rezoning impact and proffers offered if justified. Pavement Prime and seal was being considered for rte 636 only. All other surfaces to be Bituminous Concrete. Coordinate with Rte 277-c501 plans This intersection is remote from the site, located at the White Oak Campground, intx of Rte 636 and 277. We will G.W. Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment Warren County added to title Substandard Crossovers Main Entrance on Rte 340/522. Intersection at rte 277 & rte 340 Phasing Plan Requested review this situation for current and future conditions for discussions of traffic impact. We do not believe Shenandoah has responsibility for upgrade measures, since less traffic is generated than the approved wheatlands plan. About 20,OOOsf is in Warren and no improvement is planned. It will be added to title on VDOT request. We would like to close all of these that are possible and will work with VDOT, Clarke Co and neighbors. If ok to close we will pay for the work to obscure pavement. Significant adjustment and construction is required to provide intersection to VDOT standards. We will finalize plans withh VDOT upon MDP approval. This intersection is offsite to Shenandoah. If traffic generated by the 50 ac.Clarke rezoning justifys changes to the degree impacts are created, a proffer is possible.. We think it is important to also look at ultimate traffic flows in light of certain major road projects planned by Frederick County. The Rte 37 connection with Rte 522 is possible well within the design life of "Shenandoah". Tasker Rd and the proposed Airport Road bridge to Winchester are others that will have and effect on northbound Rte 340 left turn traffic projections. A Six Phase (One phase per Year is provided on MDP) Eliminate South Commercial Entry's Plans will design right in /right out commercial entrances South of the access road to meet state entrance standards. It is agreed that further crossovers are not possible. Provide 5' Sidewalk along Frontage We do not intend to do this, but trail systems internal to site will be provided. The improvements on Rte 340/522 will be consistent with Rural design Standards except Curb and Gutter at entrances (CG-7). There will be no space for a sidewalk. Frederick Couidy School Board Define Small Number of Students This project is to be" Age Restricted" as provided for in the Fair Housing Act of State and Federal Law. As such, school age children cannot have permanent residence and are not eligible to attend school in Frederick County. Some discussion of allowing non age restricted housing above the shops in the commercial zone has been held with the Planning Commission, but, currently the R-5 does not allow it. This may be a topic later, which will G.W Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment involve the School Board in any changes that are requested. Enforcement of Age Restrictions The HOA will enforce the restrictions using a Deed Condition that requires Legal reviews and Sign -Offs at each closing. This will be covered in detail by the Covenants, bylaws and Deed documents that are a part Subdivision Approval. Dederick County Sanitation Auth Approved as noted Clarke County Approval Any customers in Clarke Co will be retail customers of Authority and this requires Clarke approval. Clarke officials have told us this is not a problem and will be clarified during that County's approval process. Plan to connect to Rte 636 Current planning calls for using the 8" connection avail. onsite in phase 1 and part of 2. A 12" main connection at Rte 277 is "Looped In" by the end of 2, beginning of 3. A elev water tank is built in the phase 4 or 5 period. A loop along Rte 636 is not planned but provision to extend this service will be a made. Existing 8" Line sufficient Yes pursuant to above Additional Looping The requested lines are being hydraulically modeled and will be discussed. Also rights for a loop around the North of the lake are being discussed with VDGIF Public Works Engineer of Record Certification Requirement noted and Approved of BMPS Phasing A Phasing Plan reflecting current planning and showing a six year build out is attached to the latest submission Dept of Planning and Development Project Summary is needed A Table is Attached to latest submission. Boundary Survey The survey is attached to latest submission Topography The topo is shown on the Phasing Plan. The steep slope plan is plotted at a sufficient scale to allow your verification and is attached. Project Owners ,Engineers etc A title Page has been added. Draft Master plan Notes are attached. Adjoining Owners Use and ownership have been indicated. G.W.Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment Wetlands These have been located by consultant and will be provided Woodlands The planned currently submitted calls for 61 % disturbance of identified woodlands. Mitigation is by providing. native variety street trees at 59 centers on all local streets and most greenways, the requirement to plant 3 trees and numerous shrubs for housing and the W buffer easement to be granted to VDGIF and HOA. The variances to do this are hereby requested Environmentally Protected In accord with revised R-5, wetlands and other lands Shown environmental lands are to be protected to the greatest extent possible but those that must be disturbed will be shown on the MDP and waivers requested. Recreational Units The owners are consolidating the list of Rec unit equivalents by phase for review by Parks and Rec, The majority of the amenities will happen in Phase 1 , due to the type of project, and the value promises to substantially exceed the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Road crossections The various types of roads will be identified. The utility layout with water and sewer located within the paved areas has been reviewed by the FCSA and has their preliminary approval subject to plans. The nature of the project requires compact utility corridors and this is achieved by this design. Other utilities have also been consulted. Since these are Private streets the normal preference of VDOT to have utilities out of their right of ways does not apply. It should be noted that there are numerous areas in the State of Virginia where utilities such as sewers are located within paved areas, including manhole structures. We will discuss your concern with VDOT prior to public meetings. Stormwater Management See comments by Public Works Buffers and Screens We are asking for elimination of any internal road efficiency buffers. Since these roads are not designated major collectors and a streetscape is master planned as shown including setbacks, hiker/biker trails and plantings. Buffers between uses are also requested to be eliminated such as between types of residential uses. These uses are Master Planned to coexist together as indicated on the Plan. Waiver of these buffers were discussed in the Ordinance Revision phase and the right to waive these in an Active Adult Gated Community were provided to the Commission and Board. We are hereby requesting this G.W. Clifford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment waiver. A I buffer is being provided along Rte522/340 and the W Buffer is provided around the Lake boundary. A natural tree buffer will exist along the outside of most greenway roads as indicated in the MAP. Trail Network The A/E design team will meet with staff to rectify issues related to trail access to facilities. Commercial Village Plan The Master Plan specifies the size, location and access for the Village Center. A generalized Development plan, as recommended, will be prepared for approval by the Planning Commission prior to site plan approval of our 300,000sf+ of building space planned for this site. Notes on Master Plan Substitute Notes are attached which address staff comment Explanation of certain Note comments are also provided as follows: Access to Lake An agreement with DGIF is being negotiated. There is intent to provide common area access to the Lake for use by homeowners only. The only access for the general public will be the improved facilities at the Dam. Dogwood is going to provide a new parking area, public water and sewer and new entrance road under the agreement. School Site We believe the best use of lands within this site to be for Age Restricted Housing and amenities, which produce a net income in excess tax revenue of costs to the County. This income will allow purchase of lands more suitable and conveniently located. Another reason is school age children are not generated here and this area is remote from those areas of Frederick County that do produce. children Flood Easements The VDGIF wants to insure no building below the flood elevation of the lake. The construction of trails, docks and other amenities are exceptions to this "no build" easement Parks and Recreation Plan appears to meet intent but See Appendix 'B" more information is needed VDGg' Planning is proceeding in cordially Meetings and discussions are proceeding towards a see no problem working out issues working understanding regarding the issues Clarke County G.W.CIif ford and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment Emergency Services We are working for a mutual agreement to assist Frederick and Clarke, and, perhaps Warren, in meeting Fire and Emergency services needs in the area. Meetings are in progress to discuss these issues Traffic See VDOT comments and answers. Formal VDOT comments customary for MAP purposes have been received and are attached Buffers A buffer will be proposed together with screening, berms, and vegetation. These items are to be discussed and specified as a part of the use permits and zoning in Clarke County Warren County Traffic See Comments under VDOT Southbound Lane Final design will address sightdistance and design safety requirements of VDOT prior to issuance of Land Use Permit for access IW Buffer A buffer will be proposed to Clarke County as a part of the rezoning and use permit procedure. The definition of this buffer will be generated then. It will visually protect both the dwellings within and the travelling public. Further definition on the amount of dedication for US rte 340 is required before we provide our suggested deffinition to Clarke Night Lighting We will discuss the use of "Cut-off fixtures".Lighting control is very important to our concept also. Wastewater Plant The facility will meet State and Federal standards for resulting water quality. There is always an effect on water quality due to treated water discharges. The purpose for the standards is to produce resulting water quality in an acceptable condition. Frederick Co Fire Marshall W Right of way not conducive Meetings with Emergency services are in progress to Fire access to clarify the issue raised. One point of agreement is the need to control street tree growth so as to prevent conflict with ladder trick access. Also, onstreet parking on 3V roadways not allowed by covenant. Flood below dam The dam will reduce the intensity of flooding, since it acts as a substantial flood control device due to storage G.W.CUffbrd and Associates, Inc "Shenandoah" Review Comment effect. The drainage structure passing the downstream flows will be sized to handle flood conditions allowing access during 50 year storm conditions (which exceeds VDOT regulations for this class of street) Water supply adequacy Design of water piping to meet fire requirements for the class of buildings involved. Onsite , elevated storage is provided at the point where needed to maintain hydraulic performance. Use of trail system for access This is being discussed Fire and rescue site and 3 year Prefers the Rte 277 corridor over Village site proposed. limit Discussions ongoing regarding site and time frame of offer Frederick Co Inspections No comment at this time G.W. Clifford and Associates, Inc FILE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX 540/665-6395 November 20, 2000 Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-00 FOR "SHENANDOAH" Dear Chuck: The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved the above -referenced Preliminary Master Development Plan which calls for the development of 2,130 units in an age -restricted, gated community on October 25, 2000 with the following contingencies: 1) The Board of Supervisors be given an opportunity to review an executed agreement between your clients and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries prior to final approval. 2) The issues associated with the location of a future Fire and Rescue Station be resolved to the Board's satisfaction. 3) The wording of the offer for a future library be revised to the Board's satisfaction. 4) That a note be added to the Plan indicating that a Generalized Development Plan depicting the the layout of the Village Center be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors prior to any development of the proposed Village Center. Once the above matters have been completed, your firm will need to submit a Final Master Development Plan for this project which addresses all review agency comments, as well as any other remaining comments of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Our department will provide your firm with administratively approved copies of this plan once these issues have been addressed. If you have any questions regarding the approval of this master plan or requirements needed for submission of your Final Master Development Plan, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, v Kris C. Tierney, AICP Director KCT\ch cc: Robert Sager, Opequon District Supervisor Dogwood Development 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 -.MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission Members From: Christopher M. Mo nWlanner II Subject: Proposed R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District Amendment Date: April 21, 2000 As you are aware, significant modifications to the R5 District section of the Zoning Ordinance are necessary to ensure the viability of the Dogwood Development Group plan for Shenandoah. The developer has submitted a proposed amendment that would provide the regulatory framework necessary for favorable consideration of the Shenandoah proposal. Staff conducted a thorough review of the suggested language and subsequently recommended that several issues receive further examination prior to formal Planning Commission action. The developer was provided an outline of comments that identified these issues, a copy of which has been attached for your reference. A preliminary discussion regarding the proposed amendment will be held during the April 27, 2000, meeting of the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS). Please do not hesitate to contact this office should you have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding this correspondence. CNW Attachment cc: Kris C. Tierney, AICP, Director Evan A. Wyatt, AICP, Deputy Director Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator Amy M. Lohr, Planner I U. Chms ,-om wnW rwndmentsV'CMemosV?5 amendment con menft wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/678-0682 April 17, 2000 Ray Smith, President Dogwood Development Group 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 925 Reston, Virginia 20191 RE: Proposed R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District Amendment Dear Ray: Enclosed for your review is an outline of staff comments regarding the proposed R5 District amendment. As you may be aware, this matter will receive preliminary consideration by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting scheduled for April 27, 2000. It is recommended that alternative language be prepared for this meeting that addresses the issues identified by staff. If possible, the revised text should be submitted for staff review prior to the meeting date. Please note that the comprehensiveness of the proposed amendment will necessitate significant evaluation by the DRRS that is likely to involve multiple committee meetings. As of this date, staff has not completed an assessment of the proposed Final Notes to Amended Master Development Plan dated March 31, 2000. Comments regarding this component of your proposal will be provided following its examination by staff. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, Christopher M. Mohn . Planner II CMMhsa Enclosure cc: Kris C. Tierney, AICP, Director Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. David Cobey U: CChnAwommon"uersldogwo wwnd /tr wpd 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22501-5000 PROPOSED R5 AMENDMENT COMMENTS General Observations The amendments being proposed tend to exempt the yet to be defined "Age -Restricted Resort Community" from a variety of requirements which currently apply to developments within the R-5 zone, without providing any alternative language for what regulation(s) would apply. An example would be P(1) which would, among other things, exempt such communities from the county's current 35% open space requirement, but proposes no substitute open space requirements. 165.76 Permitted Uses L. A definition for age -restricted communities needs to be provided. M. Section 165-77B(1) indicates that setbacks for commercial uses shall meet the requirements of the B 1 and B2 Districts. Currently the R5 District only allows specific uses within the B 1 and B2 Districts. It is doubtful that Frederick County will be interested in opening this zoning district to all commercial uses. (Ex: used car lots; motor freight warehousing; flex tech) More than likely, we will want to maintain some control over the location and nature of uses by requiring a rezoning for anything other than uses presently permitted. N. The notion of listing "recreational vehicle storage areas" as a permitted use in the R-5 zone has some drawbacks. If this is listed as a permitted use it implies public access to a commercial operation. It needs to be clear this is an accessory use within, and for the use of, a private development. Certain performance standards applying to screening, scale and rt surface treatment would be appropriate. O. Define a "waste recycling transfer facility" is this a compactor site or a sewage treatment plant or might it encompass both? Regardless, the term needs to be defined. Ultimately we may want to insert whatever language we come up with into the RA District provisions to encompass the County's compactor/convenience center sites. P. Are utility facilities already permitted in the R5 District based on Section 165-59B(6)? Some minor wordsmithing might be all that is needed. 165.77 Design Requirements * Note* Age restricted communities are permitted to have up to 80% of their housing for residents that are 55 or older. P. & P.(1) The statement of intent calls for age -restricted resort communities to be controlled access communities "of at least 400 acres"; however, P.(1) states that resort communities shall meet the requirements of 165.77A. This section states that no rezoning or MDP shall be approved for less than 500 contiguous acres. It appears that there is a discrepancy between the language in P. and P.(1)., which must be reconciled. The exclusion of age restricted communities from the requirements of 165.77 E, F, G and J raises a number of questions and concerns. In general, exemptions are sought from a number of requirements without any alternative standards or requirements being offered. For example: Paragraph (E) requires 35% open space to be preserved. If we exempt Shenandoah from this requirement, what assurances do we have that any open space will be preserved or maintained at all? Paragraph (F) contains a requirement for 1 recreational unit per 30 dwellings. Again, if Shenandoah is exempted from this requirement, what assurances are provided that recreational amenities would be provided with this development type at all? What standards would apply? Paragraph (G) contains a requirement for buffers and screening between housing types within the development, against adjoining uses and along certain roads. What substitute for these protections is proposed? Paragraph (J) contains a requirement for pedestrian access being provided to all uses within the development. The Subdivision Ordinance presently provides for the Planning Commission to grant a waiver from this requirement along local streets when an appropriate substitute is provided. Since Dogwood has proposed a system of walking and bike trails, it seems that what is needed is language that ensures the project will be developed in accordance with the descriptions that have been provided.. P.(2)(a) It is fine that Shenandoah will be focused around a lake, but, is that necessarily an essential element to an "age -restricted resort community"? Who determines what constitutes a "unique vista"? If we are interested in adopting such criteria, it needs to be better defined. P.(2)(b) Is there a construction standard specified for parkway access roads? If we decide to pursue these amendments, there needs to be a definition for this type of road system. There will be a need to amend sections of the Subdivision Ordinance under 144- 17K., Street Classification, to accommodate this approach. P.(2)(c) Who is to determine when an open space trail network is "appropriate in its extent and construction" to the terrain and its uses? It might be appropriate to require approval by the Planning Commission with a recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Department. (This statement has direct links to the desire to exempt the development from 165.77 J above. The two positions seem to be somewhat contradictory and should be reconciled.) P.(2)(d) Although not defined, it appears that a parkway access road serves the same function as our major collector road. If this is the case and we exempt this type of road from road efficiency buffer requirements, what assurances do we have that the intent of that requirement would be met? P.(3)(a) Once again, although it is the desire of Dogwood Development to have a gated community and private streets, is this an essential element of this style of community? It is doubtful that the County would have an interest in requiring private streets and a gated entrance. It appears that the waiver provision in this section is intended to be granted by the Planning Commission; however, the sentence structure is somewhat vague. Rather than require a waiver, why not just state that private roads are permitted within "age - restricted resort communities" subject to whatever standards we can agree upon? What are the desired right-of-way widths for the various road systems that are being proposed? As has been stated previously, the staff believes it will be imperative that the design, construction and right-of-way of the proposed private streets meet VDOT requirements in order to provide for the incorporation of the roads into z the State system should this become necessary. A table within Section 144-17K which delineates the hierarchy for the system of private roads may be appropriate. P.(3)(b) This section is rather redundant. The bike/pedestrian trail system is already proposed under P(2)(c), and the last sentence is. already proposed in P(2)(d). Given the proposal that no homes front on parkway access roads, why is it undesirable to provide a road efficiency buffer? The proposal to substitute an eight -foot meandering trail in -lieu of four foot sidewalks is appropriate, please see comments under P(1) J above. P.(3)(c) Is it the intent that street trees will not be provided along parkway access roads? The phrase "with houses on them" is vague. Is it intended that only street sections with single family homes frontin on them would have street trees? What about road segments that serve apartment or townhouse units, or those where single family homes back up to the street? 3 P.(3)(d) This section is extremely vague and will require considerable discussion and modification. Why would the County want to require mountable curb and gutter? How is an appropriate extent of variation from "standard subdivision regulations" to Abe determined? What sort of variations are we referring to? What are "specific resort goals"? P.(4) What is an "age -restricted small lot" ? There is no definition of, or standards for this housing type. If one is to be established the County will need to determine whether we are comfortable with structures of this scale on such small lots. P.(5)(a) It is unlikely that the County will be willing to permit a housing type with no minimum lot size. (b) - (d) Some discussion of the desired setbacks will be necessary. (e) The county presently allows a maximum height of 35 for duplex development. P.(6) This may be acceptable. P.(7) This request would place porches within 12 feet of the road system. Currently, porches can extend three feet into the front yard setback if they a less than 1/3 of the wall length. Some discussion of this request and the streetscape that would result will be required. P.(8)(b) We presently permit apartments to be 40' in height, thus, the net result of this request would be to increase that standard by 5'. A separate height limit for 2 and 3 story structures is not necessary. P.(8)(c) Two off-street parking spaces is our current standard for one -bedroom units. The age restricted housing will generate less traffic than normal; however, 20% of these units will not necessarily fall under this demographic. We may need to look at a greater number being required overall with the developers ability to allocate those spaces accordingly. Q. A general comment: It's interesting that you propose more standards, details and restrictions for your vehicle storage area than foryourprivate streets, bike/pedestrian trails, recreational amenities etc.. The language needs to make it clear that this is a private facility for the use of residents and not a commercial storage yard. 4 Q.(1) An eight -acre parking lot is fairly significant. Q.(2) The County may not be overly concerned that the setback area is maintained as a "meadow". Q.(3) The full screen should meet the requirements of Section 165-37. We have never allowed a chain link fence to meet the intent of a full screen. Q.(4) This should be more specific. Does aggregate include tar and chip? Prime and seal? a Other surface types? Q.(5) It may be appropriate to limit lighting pole heights to assist in preventing glare and spillover. With some minor modifications to statements already within the ordinance this issue should be easily addressed. R.(1) Does this pertain to residential uses within the R5 District, adjoining residential uses or both? "As far as practical" is vague and will be very difficult to administer. A minimum distance similar to that in Section 165-46 should be established. R.(2) This section needs to be rewritten. Perhaps something to the effect that a site plan addressing these issues would be approved by the Planning Commission. S. What is a "Parkway Alternative"? Again, the language dealing with the walkways is redundant. The issues associated with private roads and alternatives to sidewalks need to be addressed in a more coordinated fashion. T.(1) It is unlikely that the County will be comfortable with exempting townhouses from { lot area and coverage requirements. T.(2) Same comment as in P.(8)(c). 5 Pos(t�-it® Fax Note 7671 Date . 1766 pages Cp To les uci(� dd0)4 ul FromChO5 n j% /�^ Co./Dept./ W. 1. iu r (��. !Mohh Co. F' C_k_ co ' Phone # Phone" 1_ 5i70 . /1_ / 5_5/ 5 b Fax# 0.6&5 Fax 5 _J l8-0 8,:P— L) Post -it® Fax Note 7671 Date y 17, OD pages, I Ra Ll 6m i bi From F/'` L! ! 5 vYl.,h n N Co./Dept. 0 wod �i% • Co. r kr 'c Phone # Phone #5 O- &(,5— 0g/_ C J //-- Fax #7o3-tDaO" 32-6 Fax# 5i0_ cq-6680, AN COUi,% iL Y of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 5Uo • (0(05 • ov��3 Z�`� • 35� • �1i�0 P,a 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 April 17, 2000 Ray Smith, President Dogwood Development Group 11800 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 925 Reston, Virginia 20191 RE: Proposed R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District Amendment Dear Ray: Enclosed for your review is an outline of staff comments regarding the proposed R5 District amendment. As you may be aware, this matter will receive preliminary consideration by the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their meeting scheduled for April 27, 2000. It is recommended that alternative language be prepared for this meeting that addresses the issues identified by staff. If possible, the revised text should be submitted for staff review prior to the meeting date. Please note that the comprehensiveness of the proposed amendment will necessitate significant evaluation by the DRRS that is likely to involve multiple committee meetings. As of this date, staff has not completed an assessment of the proposed Final Notes to Amended Master Development Plan dated March 31, 2000. Comments regarding this component of your proposal will be provided following its examination by staff. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding this correspondence. Sincerely, Christopher M. Mohn Planner H CMMhsa Enclosure cc: Kris C. Tierney, AICP, Director Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. David Cobey U. tChHsleommonV ettersldogwood..amend.ltr.wpd 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 PROPOSED R5 AMENDMENT COMMENTS General Observations The amendments being proposed tend to exempt the yet to be defined "Age -Restricted Resort Community" from a variety of requirements which currently apply to developments within the R-5 zone, withoutproviding any alternative language for what regulation(s) would apply. An example would be P(1) which would, among other things, exempt such communities from the county's current 35% open space requirement, but proposes no substitute open space requirements. 165.76 Permitted Uses L. A definition for age -restricted communities needs to be provided. M. Section 165-77B(1) indicates that setbacks for commercial uses shall meet the requirements of the B 1 and B2 Districts. Currently the R5 District only allows specific uses within the B 1 and B2 Districts. It is doubtful that Frederick County will be interested in opening this zoning district to all commercial uses. (Ex: used car lots; motor freight warehousing; flex tech) More than likely, we will want to maintain some control over the location and nature of uses by requiring a rezoning for anything other than uses presently permitted. N. The notion of listing "recreational vehicle storage areas" as a permitted use in the R-5 zone has some drawbacks. If this is listed as a permitted use it implies public access to a commercial operation. It needs to be clear this is an accessory use within, and for the use of, a private development. Certain performance standards applying to screening, scale and surface treatment would be appropriate. O. Define a "waste recycling transfer facility" is this a compactor site or a sewage treatment plant or might it encompass both? Regardless, the term needs to be defined. Ultimately we may want to insert whatever language we come up with into the RA District provisions to encompass the County's compactor/convenience center sites. P. Are utility facilities already permitted in the R5 District based on Section 165-59B(6)? Some minor wordsmithing might be all that is needed. 165.77 Design Requirements * Note* Age restricted communities are permitted to have up to 80% of their housing for residents that are 55 or older. P. & P.(1) The statement of intent calls for age -restricted resort communities to be controlled access communities "of at least 400 acres"; however, P.(1) states that resort communities shall meet the requirements of 165.77A. This section states that no rezoning or MOP shall be approved for less than 500 contiguous acres. It appears that there is a discrepancy between the language in P. and P.(1)., which must be reconciled. The exclusion of age restricted communities from the requirements of 165.77 E, F, G and J raises a number of questions and concerns. In general, exemptions are sought from a number of requirements without any alternative standards or requirements being offered. For example: Paragraph (E) requires 35% open space to be preserved. If we exempt Shenandoah from this requirement, what assurances do we have that any open space will be preserved or maintained at all? Paragraph (F) contains a requirement for 1 recreational unit per 30 dwellings. Again, if Shenandoah is exempted from this requirement, what assurances are provided that recreational amenities would be provided with this development type at all? What standards would apply? Paragraph (G) contains a requirement for buffers and screening between housing types within the development, against adjoining uses and along certain roads. What substitute for these protections is proposed? Paragraph (J) contains a requirement for pedestrian access being provided to all uses within the development. The Subdivision Ordinance presently provides for the Planning Commission to grant a waiver from this requirement along local streets when an appropriate substitute is provided. Since Dogwood has proposed a system of walking and bike trails, it seems that what is needed is language that ensures the project will be developed in accordance with the descriptions that have been provided.. P.(2)(a) It is fine that Shenandoah will be focused around a lake, but, is that necessarily an essential element to an "age -restricted resort community"? Who determines what constitutes a "unique vista"? If we are interested in adopting such criteria, it needs to be better defined. P.(2)(b) Is there a construction standard specified for parkway access roads? If we decide to pursue these amendments, there needs to be a definition for this type of road system. There will be a need to amend sections of the Subdivision Ordinance under 144- 17K., Street Classification, to accommodate this approach. 2 P.(2)(c) Who is to determine when an open space trail network is "appropriate in its extent and construction" to the terrain and its uses? It might be appropriate to require approval by the Planning Commission with a recommendation by the Parks and Recreation Department. (This statement has direct links to the desire to exempt the development from 165.77 J above. The two positions seem to be somewhat contradictory and should be reconciled.) P.(2)(d) ` Although not defined, it appears that a parkway access road serves the same function as our major collector road. If this is the case and we exempt this type of road from road efficiency buffer requirements, what assurances do we have that the intent of that requirement would be met? P.(3)(a) Once again, although it is the desire of Dogwood Development to have a gated community and private streets, is this an essential element of this style of community? It is doubtful that the County would have an interest in requiring private streets and a gated entrance. It appears that the waiver provision in this section is intended to be granted by the Planning Commission; however, the sentence structure is somewhat vague. Rather than require a waiver, why not just state that private roads are permitted within "age - restricted resort communities" subject to whatever standards we can agree upon? What are the desired right-of-way widths for the various road systems that are being proposed? As has been stated previously, the staff believes it will be imperative that the design, construction and right-of-way of the proposed private streets meet VDOT requirements in order to provide for the incorporation of the roads into the State system should this become necessary. A table within Section 144-17K which delineates the hierarchy for the system of private roads may be appropriate. P.(3)(b) This section is rather redundant. The bike/pedestrian trail system is already proposed under P(2)(c), and the last sentence is already proposed in P(2)(d). Given the proposal that no homes front on parkway access roads, why is it undesirable to provide a road efficiency buffer? The proposal to substitute an eight -foot meandering trail in -lieu of four foot sidewalks is appropriate, please see comments under P(1) Jabove. P.(3)(c) Is it the intent that street trees will not be provided along parkway access roads? The phrase "with houses on them" is vague. Is it intended that only street sections with single family homes frontin on them would have street trees? What about road segments that serve apartment or townhouse units, or those where single family homes back up to the street? Kj P.(3)(d) This section is extremely vague and will require considerable discussion and modification. Why would the County want to require mountable curb and gutter? How is an appropriate extent of variation from "standard subdivision regulations" to P be determined? What sort of variations are we referring to? What are "specific resort goals"? P.(4) What is an "age -restricted small lot" ? There is no definition of, or standards for this housing type. If one is to be established the County will need to determine whether we are comfortable with structures of this scale on such small lots. P.(5)(a) It is unlikely that the County will be willing to permit a housing type with no minimum lot size. (b) - (d) Some discussion of the desired setbacks will be necessary. (e) The county presently allows a maximum height of 35 for duplex development. P.(6) This may be acceptable. P.(7) This request would place porches within 12 feet of the road system. Currently, porches can extend three feet into the front yard setback if they a less than 1/3 of the wall length. Some discussion of this request and the streetscape that would result will be required. P.(8)(b) We presently permit apartments to be 40' in height, thus, the net result of this request would be to increase that standard by 5'. A separate height limit for 2 and 3 story structures is not necessary. P.(8)(c) Two off-street parking spaces is our current standard for one -bedroom units. The age restricted housing will generate less traffic than normal; however, 20% of these units will not necessarily fall under this demographic. We may need to look at a greater number being required overall with the developers ability to allocate those spaces accordingly. Q. A general comment: It's interesting that you propose more standards, details and restrictions for your vehicle storage area than for your private streets, bike/pedestrian trails, recreational amenities etc.. The language needs to make it clear that this is a private facility for the use of residents and not a commercial storage yard. n W Q.(1) An eight -acre parking lot is fairly significant. Q.(2) The County may not be overly concerned that the setback area is maintained as a "meadow". Q.(3) The full screen should meet the requirements of Section 165-37. We have never allowed a chain link fence to meet the intent of a full screen. Q.(4) This should be more specific. Does aggregate include tar and chip? Prime and seal? Other surface types? Q.(5) It may be appropriate to limit lighting pole heights to assist in preventing glare and spillover. With some minor modifications to statements already within the ordinance this issue should be easily addressed. R.(1) Does this pertain to residential uses within the R5 District, adjoining residential uses or both? "As far as practical" is vague and will be very difficult to administer. A minimum distance similar to that in Section 165-46 should be established. R.(2) This section needs to be rewritten. Perhaps something to the effect that a site plan addressing these issues would be approved by the Planning Commission. S. What is a "Parkway Alternative"? Again, the language dealing with the walkways is redundant. The issues associated with private roads and alternatives to sidewalks need to be addressed in a more coordinated fashion. T.(1) It is unlikely that the County will be comfortable with exempting townhouses from ` lot area and coverage requirements. T.(2) Same comment as in P.(8)(c). 5 A COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 MIEMOI2ANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director RE: Discussion of Proposed Revisions to Wheatlands Master Development Plan .DATE: March 21, 2000 Dogwood Development Group of Reston, Virginia has requested time on the Planning Commission's agenda to present a concept for the redesign of the Wheatlands property in southeastern Frederick County. For those of you less _familiar with the Wheatlands project, the Co ty approved a Master Development Plan (MDP) for Wheatlands in of 1991. The approved plan c s for 1,288 single-family dwellings and 175 townhouse units on 26 acressurrounding Lake Frederic Thep or gerty has frontage on both Routes 277 and 522. At the time that the application was being considered, there was a great deal of public discussion regarding the impacts of the proposed development on traffic, schools, and the lake itself. The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries was included as a review agency and was very much a part of the review process. Following numerous public meetings, the development proposal was finally approved with a number of conditions. Aspects of the plan worth noting are: The approved MDP includes the construction of a wastewater treatment facility by the applicant which would ultimately be turned. over to the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Residential construction was to be phased such that no more than 15% of the total number of\ Njr units would be permitted per year following approval. This number was to be cumulative, provid at in no case would �— an 30% mor of the units be built in a single year.. Land for a fire and rescue station and a school were to be dedicated to the County. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 e rt ---. onw)w�L,,► dam.& -fkv-'' V'I'l - .r� �.-E Iv,2i 4 4sibyt C"zv-?, "T-"Y--iA L Un W/ Ataon"I"4 -;, a., K V'Ut1 b ) e; y ZM� N vv� 03 V Gc, F G Y � v �Yg�, �.�' (��"� � �'C,rYL��e•�' Go w,iti1 vYb1 WHEATLANDS DISCUSSION Page 2 March 21, 2000 • All roads within the development would be built to state standards and would be turned over to the VDOT. • The development included recreational facilities, a trail system and street lights. • Areas within the 926 acres were designated for future commercial or industrial use, subject to rezoning approval. • A 50' buffer beyond the limits of the state-owned property was to be reserved. The concept to be presented by the Dogwood Development Group is o active " adult and. Drimary ,home communit ," tentatively to be known as "Shenandoah.' riminary discussions with representatives of Dogwood Development indicate that they will b seeking a number of amendments to the County's R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) as well as the Subdi1 isio�n P'r3inan_ce Among other aspects of the proposal, Dogwood desires to have private Toads Wifthin a portion of their development, and desires amendments to certain setback, buff."'""' a c� height regulations. The purpose of this initial discussion with the Planning Commission is not to get into a detailed discussion of possible amendments, but rather to give the potential applicants an opportunity to fill the Commission in on the nature and scope of their concept for the property. KCT/ch �'� A, uAKr;s\2000\memos\Wneanas..pa 7I c►:SIN© CORROGPONDENCE (III )111 11111111011u 1)"pI ) MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #06-0-. OTV1 "SHENANDOAH" (a major revision to the Wheatlands MDP) s 9 Please note that the associated with iiiia %� S`r-�ieVnlnpfiieit #: Plan are, loc ated