The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-13 Impact AnalysisIM PA • 4R' 112"A E a- VIA A Ah � ��`w CT ANALYSIS STATEMENT for Madison Village Parcel TM# 64-A-18 Route. 522 — Front Royal Pike Shawnee Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia April 22, 2013 Revised: ,July. 1, 2013 Prepared for: Mr. David Mad - ison Madison 11, L.L.G. 558 Be,nnys Beach Road Front, Royal; Virginia. 22630 Prepared by: PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.. 817 Cedar Creek Grade, Suite 120 Winchester, VA 22601 Tel.. (540)662-5792 email: office@painteriewis.com Job, Number: 12010 , 07 IMPACT ANALYSIS �TEMENT Madison Village- TM# 64 -A =18 IMPACT, ANALYSIS STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS section oaae i'. INTRODUCTION 2 A. SITE SUITABILITY 3 DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW- 3 COORDINATION WITH FREDERICK COUNTY LONG RANGE PLANS 3 1'00 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 4 STEEP SLOPES 4- MATURE WOODLANDS 4: WETLANDS 4 SOILS 4 . B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES 5 C. TRAFFIC 5 D. SEWAGE .CONVEYANCE.:AND'TREATMENT 6, E. WATER SUPPLY 6. F. DRAINAGE 7 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES 7 H. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 7 SCHOOLS 7 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL 7 EMERGENCY SERVICES 8 PARKS AND RECREATION 8 GENERAL GOVERNMENTFACILITIES 8' LIBRARY 8 L HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES 9 4. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS 10 IMPACT ANALYSIS'AWTEMENT • . Madison Village't- TM# 64 -A -18 • A. SITE SUITABILITY DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW The, site has about 750 feet of frontage on Route 522. Route 522 is currently a minor arterial road' and a :major north =south roadway between Route 50 and the southern boundary of the county. Access. 'to the parcel will be from ,Route', 522 via new public streets which will conform `to the county long range transportation plans. The description of RP zoning in the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance identifies four basic land use characteristics which should be encouraged: (1') Efficient land use patterns that create high quality neighborhoods that are attractive and pedestrian. oriented„ (2) Densities that promote;a compact and efficient use of land; (3) Reduced housing and - public facility costs; (4) Energy efficient housi'rig `and housing patterns; (5) Sustainable and Ervirormentally sensitive land. use:. The owner is proposing to :construct a mixture of multifamily buildings and townhouses on the parcel. Section 165- 402.05 establishes the maximum allowed density for the RP district.,'The: maximum densityallowed for multifamily residentia'I building is 20 units per acre. The maximum density allowed for townhouses is 10 units per acre. The maximum ~� number, of residential units plannedfor`the parcel''is 64.0 ora maximum gross density of 12.5 units per acre. According to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.; the intent of the B2 district is to provide large areas for a variety of,busi.ness, office and service'. uses. General 'business areas are located on arterial highways at major intersections and at interchange areas. Businesses allowed involve frequent and direct access by the general public but not heavy truck' traffic on a constant basis other than that 'required' for delivery of retail goods. General business ;areas should have direct access to major thoroughfares and should be properly separated' from residential areas. Adequate frontage and depth should be - provided, and access should be properly controlled to promote safety and. orderly 'development: Nuisance Jactors are to be avoided. The establishment of a commercial - area -at the intersection of Route 522 and the main access road into the development will- provide a' broader tax base for the county, a location for businesses to serve; the local community:, and, will promote walkability and connectivity within the,. neighborhood. COORDINATION WITH FREDERICK COUNTY LONG RANGE PLANS The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use (EFLUP) identifies the site for future, high density resid4ritial ruse. A zoning designation of RR will be in conformance With the, EFLUR. The Co:u.nty Comprehensive Plan identifies this parcel as in close proximity Commercial Center. In general, the plan encourages high density _� to an Urban IMPACT ANALYSIS: WTEMENT Madison Village - TM# 64 -A -18 residential development near commercial centers in order to. enhance, walkable access to employment, shopping,. and employment. By reserving a small' portion of the parcel for commercial use, the ,goal of-integrating services within a residential setting can be realized, The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan identifies Route 522 at. the site as a future "Improved Major Arterial" Road. Route 522 is currently a five; lane urban road with two , through lanes and a center turn lane contained within a right of way that is approximately 115' .wide at the site.. Long range transportation improvements may require the expansion of the' right of way width to accommodate additional turn and travel lanes, The owner will dedicate right of way along the parcel frontage to accommodate these long range plans if required. The road plan.:also calls for the development of east -west roads that will connect Route 522 with `land that is adjacent to the east side of Interstate 81': These roads will be new minor collector roads. The owner will dedicate right of way through the parcel to accommodate the road network. 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN FIRM Community Panel Number 51069CO2.18D shows the subjectarea to be outside of Y any special flood hazard 'area. STEEP SLOPES Steep slopes . are defined by the Frederick County .Zoning .Ordinance as land areas where the slope exceeds 50 %. There is less than one acre. of steep slopes that has been identified on the site. LAKES AND PONDS One pond has been identified on the site. This pond will be preserved during the. development of the site and used as a recreational feature. WETLANDS Approximately 88,315 square feet of wetlands have been delineated on this site. On June 25,; -2012, the Northern" Virginia Regulatory Section of the US Army Corps of Engineers issued an approved jurisdictional determination for the wetlands areas. The requisite permits will have 'to be obtained to allow disturbance .of'jurisdictional wetlands. It is the intention of the owner to preserve the majority of the wetlands by the. establishmenf of :a riparian buffer along the length of existing streams and the preservation of the existing pond. SOILS According to the •SOil Survey of Frederick County, the site contains the following soil types: • Clearbrook channery silt loam, 9B This soil is shallow, 2 to 7 percent slope, and poorly drained. It is found on summit areas and consists of residuum. formed from acid shale and sandstone. 4: IMPACT ANALYSIS *TEMENT - Madison Village - TM# 64 -A -18 - Clearbrook channery silt loam, 9C: This soil is shallow;, 7 to 15 percent slope, and poorly drained: It is, found, on hillside areas and consists of residuum formed from acid p Y � - shale and sandstone. • Weikert -Becks channery silt loam, 41B: This soil is shallow, '2 to 7 percent slope; and well drained. It. is found on hillside areas and consists of residuum weathered from acid shale. • Weikert -Becks channery s:ilf loam, 41C: This soil is shallow,, 7 to 15 percent slope, and well drained. It is found.on hillside areas and consists of residuum weathered from acid shale. • Weikert -Becks channery silt loam, 41D: This soil is shallow, 15 to 25 percent slope, and'well drained. It is found on hillside areas and consists of residuum weathered from acid shale,. These soils will typically provide adequate support for small commercial and residential structures. The shallow bedrock will be removed by machine and in many cases, reused for fill. Storm water management`facilities'will be shallow. Road construction should be. easily accommodated. Infiltration as a means of providing Best Management Practices will likely not be,available as an option. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The parcel to be rezoned is located in an area that is generally, rural in character but one that has been identified by the comprehensive plan for high density residential development. Currently the properties along the northwest, west, and southwest borders are zoned RA and are vacant'.. Due north is the.Russell 150 project land where the zoning is RP -132. This land remains vacant but has been planned for townhouse development: At the, northeast corner of the parcel there area two small parcels that are zoned B2 and are currently vacant. The rem. aining land which lies on the west side of Route 522 and 'which borders -the parcel, is. zoned RA and is used for residential purposes. On the east side of Route 522, there are numerous single family residential parcels zoned RP. C.'TRAFFIC The subject property is; located .on Route 522 approximately 4500-feet north of its intersection with Papermill. Road and approximately 2000 feet south of its intersection with'Airport. Road. At the location of the site, Route 522- is, currently :a five Pane urban road section with a center'tu "rn :lane contained within a 115' + /- right of way. A Traffic Impact Analysis ,has: been prepared for the rezoning application by Stowe Engineering, PLC. The TIA is based on.640 residential units and 5 acres of commercial use. According to figures from the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Average Annual Daily Traffic, on Route 522 in 2009 .in the vicinity of the site was 15,220 vehicles per day. The TIA projects traffic on Route 522 to be 26,585 vehicles . er da in the year P Y' p 1 p y y 2026,. The proposed project will have a single entrance on Route 522. At the design 5 IMPACT ANALYSIS *TEMENT Madison Village, -- TM# 64 -A -1'8 Wbuild out of,the parcel, impacts to Route 522 at the entrance will be significant. In order to mitigate the impacts, the following improvements will be' implemented. 1:, Installation of a traffic signal at'the intersection of the proposed project entrance and Route 522; 2.. Installation of a right turn lane southbound on Route 522; 3. Installation of left turn lane - northbound at the project entrance; 4. Installation of-dual eastbound left` turn lanes at thez project entrance; 5: 'Installation of a roundabout at the entrance to the commercial areas. D. SEWAGE CONVEYMCE'AND TREATMENT' The site is inside the .limits of'the Frederick County Sewer and Water Service Area. The development will be serviced by the county sewer. system. Any existing drain fields on the property will, be located and appropriately abandoned at the time of. development. There is no direct access to sewerage facilities, that is, there are no terminal manholes on the property. The nearest sanitary sewer is located in the Route 522 right of way near Longcroft Road: A, lift. station -will be constructed `on the parcel and a force main will be constructed to this manhole. Additional sewage demand is estimated according to, the following: Sewage demand from the residential portion of the project will- be' based on. 40 persons per acre at 75 gpcd:_ The gross 1residential acreage ';is 46:2 acres with an estimated demand of 138,600 gpd. Sewage demand from the commercial portion of the project will be based on 20U gpd per'! iQ00 square feet of'retail. Five acres of commercial area will support approximately, 54,450 square feet of building; area. resulting .in an estimated demand of 10,890 gpd. The total estimated sewage flow from the project will be 149;490 gpd. This is a reasonable estimate of the new sewer demand and will be, used, to determine the adequacy of the receiving sewer conveyance system E. WATER SUPPLY The site is inside1he. limits of the Frederick County Sewer and'Water Service Area. The development will be .serviced by the county water system. Any existing wells on the property, will be�,located and appropriately abandoned at the time of development. The water main is located adjacent to the west side of the Route 522 right of way. The project infrastructure, development will include making connection to. the existing water main in two locations to create a loop in the network. New water main will be extended to ,the adjacent prope_.rties to the south .and west to accommodate future development. Additional water demand is: estimated to equal the sewage dem.a'nd: 149,490 gpd. IMPACT ANALYSIS: &TEMENT • Madison Village TM# 64 -A -18 F. DRAINAGE_ A complete aerial topographic rnap of the parcel has been completed. This site, has gentle to moderate slopes.. The majority of slopes range from 1 percent to 15 percent. Storm water runoff flows from west to east. toward Route 522 then continues on the - Buffalo Lick Run. With the development of-this site a storm water- management system would be implemented to control any added flow created by the increased impervious areas,. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The nearest citizens' trash facility is located at the main landfill off of Sulphur Springs Road approximately three. miles north and east of the site. In general, the collection of solid waste from the proposed: development will be accomplished by a private hauler. It is estimated that the residential development will generate approximately 4,5 pounds of solid waste per person per day that will be transported to. the landfill. Based on an assumption that'the project will. accommodate 40 persons per acre; the amount of solid waste will be approximately 8,316 pounds per day. The commercial portion of the project will generate approximately 100 pounds of solid .waster per day per acre equating to 500 pounds per day. Tipping fees are currently $45 per ton for commercial haulers. No additional solid waste disposal facilities will be required. for the proposed development. It is estimated that $70,650 in tipping fees will be paid to dispose. of 1,570 tons, of solid waste annually. H. COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL The Frederick County Development Impact Model (D.I.M.) is utilized to determine the fiscal impacts of residential rezoning requests. The applicant will meet the financial requirements of the D.,I.M... SCHOOLS: Public schools which are located 'in :proximity to the site include. Armel :Elementary School, Admiral; Richard -.E: Byrd Middle School, and Millbrook High School. The proposed development will likely contribute between 100 and 200 'students to the K -:12 school system _The: Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact. Model calculates a projected capital cost for school construction impacts attributable to residential development. The owner agrees to proffer a monetary contribution to the local school system..See the attached Proffer Statement 7 IMPACT ANALYSISATEMENT • Madison Village - TM #'64 -A =18 EMERGENCY SERVICES Police protection is provided by the Frederick County Sheriffs`Department. The nearest fire; and rescue facility is the. Millwood Station Fire and Rescue Company 2.11 located at 250 Costello Drive. The Frederick County Capital Facilities..,impact Model calculates a projected capital cost for emergency service facilities -attributable to residential development. The owner recognizes the importance of emergency- services, and agrees to proffer a monetary contribution to the local emergency responder. See the attached _ Proffer Statement. PARKS -AND RECREATION The Frederick County Capita I-Faci I ities Impact Model. calculates a projected capital cost for additional recreation facilities ,needed to serve residential developments. The owner recognizes the importance of',parks and recreation amenities., and agrees to proffer a monetary contribution. to the 'county for development` of parks and recreation facilities. See the attached Proffer Statement. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FA, CILITES' The Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model calculates a projected capital cost for additional general government facilities needed to; :serve residential developments'. _. The owner agrees to proffer :a monetary contribution to- the local government. See the attached Proffer Statement.: •LIBRARY The Frederick County Capital. Facilities Impact Model calculates .a projected capital cost for additional library ' facilities `needed to serve residential developments. The owner agrees to proffer a monetary contribution to the local library system. See the attached Proffer Statement. 8 IMPACT.ANALYS.ISTEMENT • Madison Village - TM# 64 -A -18. } I. HISTORIC SITES -ANb STRUCTURES This site contains no "potentially sighificant historic structures as listed in The Rural Landmarks Survey Report of.Frederick County. The survey lists three structures within approximately one mile of the site. These structures are shown below. 9 IMPACT ANALYSIS *T'EMENT Madison Village -- TM# 64 -A -18( J. CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS A copy of the Civil War: Battlefields and Sites map has been included below. The subject parcel does not.lie within any defined Civil War' Battlefield sites_. V61 Civil wor Baftlefields I' 1802 first RSnchesicr 'ISf2 First K6'nsufwn 3 1 So' Sfcphcnsonsbep )i d' 1803 S'ccmd Wiilclfcsibr 1Sli� '[ihird.ltfiitcicstiat' 4 I904 Third Wiirchester 7 (SOLI C'cdar Ctcuk {' I804 I'hiid WinchcsUIT `f I F,G4 'tiecnnil Ihirn:;trrivn Site:; (Fortificititms) If) Ilarkins` Lill 13itttery 11'. I RG f 1Vinrer I.;ine; X12 .Carriesbrooke Kediwbt. 13 .1= fillandale'Works 1 ` 99 tli:("orfi'rciLihtrei chments !' star FOI I 16 E:aii :oijicr 17.7iewla; Trendws CivirWar Sites ��' C ivilWar H riilrfuatfs 0.0.5tf f 4 6 10 Executive Summary 46 The Madison Village Development' Project is requesting rezoning of'5133 + /,- acres from Rural Agriculfure to RP Residential Performance and. 6=2 Business for the °devel'o;pment of 480 apartments, 1;60 townhouses, and 107,000.sq. ft..(gross floor °area) of retail shopping: T,his'change will contribute `.- additional traffic into th'e roadway network, therefore this Trafficlmpact Stu lywas prepared to evaluate those traffic impacts.. The Frederick'County'Compreh "ensive P Ian; 'Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban Area Plan designates the property's future land use as high density residential. The, current zoning surrounding the property is'� Residential Performance °to the north; south and eastjo the west the zoning is Rural Agriculture: _ Two nearby °developments th "at'have:been're2oned but notyet built were included'in the background traffic evaluation. These are the Russell 150`pr9ject and the Freedom M'airf r project: -To achieve acceptable . traffic o'perati'ons,in the 2026 design year, the following improvements are recommended: 1. A traffic „signal at the'"intersection ofthe site entrance and Frorit,Royai Pike„ 2. A southbound right`turn lane on Front Royal Pike at the entrance. 3. A.north bound. left,turn lar.e'f_rom Front Royal Pike at the entrance: 4. An eastbound dual left turn, lanes at the site-entrance. 5. .A round - about atthe entrance to the commercial areas. Even with these, i'mprovements'the love l °of,spMcefor'the NB left turn movement into the site,drops to D: in the design °year 2026'. However, other planned transportation improvements in the area such.as East,Tevis;street andW,arrior Drive wi11 be taking traffic from Front RoyaI Pike prior to, 2026. It is the professional' opinion of this author that'ihis level of service will increase with the completion of these other projects. Therefore; with °the above listed improvements in place, the transportation impacts_ of this rezoning are believed to be' manageable and acceptable for this project setting, Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................... ................................................................................................... i Introduction ........................... .............................. .................................................................. ........ —1 ' � Purpose ............................. ..................................................................... ............................................... ='1 � ` StudyObjectives — ........................................................................................................................ ............... l Backgroundinformation ...................................................................... ........ .......... .............. ............................. 1 � Transportation Improvements Assumed ................................................................................................... l Transportation Improvements Planned ..... =........ `—.............................................................. ............. �� Development Description ................................................. -----------------------_,1 - Site Location .................................... ............... ............................................................................................. 1 Descro�nnnf the PaoeL--.------------------',_—__,,,__,'—,_—.—..'Z ' � �� General Terrain Features .................................................................................................. =.--....... Z Location within, Jurisdiction and Region .......................................... ....................................................... 2 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations .... ...... ...... =--..................................................................... 2 � [4,nent�epng—,^__'__—.'--------------------=.—=_`_,__._ � 4 StudyArea Description ............................................................................................ —,,,,`_.................... S Study Area ................... .—............ ............................................................................................................ 5 Proposedand Existing Uses— .............................................................. ............................ ........................ s.S ExistingUse .......... ....................................................................................................................................... 5 ProposedUses Q Access ......................................................... .............................. .......... -..................... 5 NearbyUses ......................................................... ....................................................... .......... ................ h ` ExistingRoadways ..................... ,=................................................. ............ ......................................... 6 Existing Traffic Conditions 2O1Z--_--.'_— ......... =......................................... -------'-8 ` . DataCollection .................................................. .................................... ........... ........... ............................. � 8 Analysis....................................................................... ....................................... ,...................................... D Backg,ound Traffic Conditions (Z02U) ........................... ,......................................................................... l2 Analysis......................................................................... -........................................................ .............. .1Z Trip Generation & Distribution ............................................................. ....................................................... 14 Trip Generation .......................................................... --,_~`_= .......................... .......................... �4 TripDistribution ......................................................................................................................... `—......... 1S � Analysis................. `r'`^~ ........................ =....................... ................................................................ 2O -- 0 0 Recommended Roadway Improvements ...... .............................................................................................. 24 DesignYear (20%l6) .... .............. `^,^.'' ............ ......................................................... ..................................... Z6 � .Analysis ........................................ ' .................................................................... .................................... ,,Z6 , Queue Analysis "_—_'=-----------------__--__—.'_----.^__.- ........... 3O ` Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic .............................................. ............. . ...... .............. ........ ...... ................... 30 . - Conclusions................................................................................................ .............................................. 30 Appendices Appendix Traffit Count Data Appendix SynchroLOS,and Queue Reports Appendix H[SMu|ti`Lane Highway, Appendix Pre.-Sc.opeof Work Meeting Form Appendix CostEsthnate Appendix F Traffic Volume Computations • Introduction • Purpose This Traffic Impact Study ha -s been prepared to support the request for the rezoning of the property known as Madison Village Development. The project will create 480 apartments,160 townhouses and. 107,000 s:q. ft. (gross floor area) of retail shopping. Study Objectives The <o'bjectives of this are to determine; 1. The impacts on traffic operations that may occur within the study area as a result of constructing this project. 2. Future connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities that may result from the construction of the project. Background Information Transportation Improvements Assumed One transportation improvement near the proposed project has been assumed tobe in place prior to the project getting under way. It is the extension of East Tevis Street to its connection with ,Route 522. Tr..ansportation. Improvements Planned A review�of the VDOT Six year. Improvement Plan showed one planned construction project in the vicinity of this proposed rezoning, the East Tevis Street project. A review of the' 2012/1'3 — 2017/18 Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County, VA showed one planned roadway improvement in the vicinity of this project,- the east Tevis Street project. East Tevis Street is planned to connect Pleasant Valley Road in Winchester to Front Royal Pike about %: miles north of this project. The schedule for the East Tevis Street is undefined in either plan.. Development Description Site Location The subject property is located west.of US Route 522 (Front Royal Pike), south of Airport Road, and north of Papermill Road. Figure J shows the location of the project and the outline of the property. ', 1 Description.of`the'Parcel. The propertyon :which the Madison "Village `Development is planned is 'a 56:33+ acre tract with frontage on.R'oute 522. A rezoning;is being,sought for 51.33'of2the;.5633 acres. General Terrain Features Thee site and surrounding areas have rollirig,grades with slopes that °drain to,theeast.:Route.522 runs north -south adjacent to the= eastern, property boundary of the rezoning,area. 'Location within Jurisdiction;and'Region The subject property is located in °the Shawnee magisterial district,.Frederick County, VA. „ ComprehensiueTlan Recommendations Th:e 2030 Frederick Cou;ntytGomprehensive Plan and Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban,Area'Plan calls for the subject property`to'be developed.with'high density residential uses. Surrounding properties,are designated as high "den "sty "residential use'to'the north and `west, and residential uses to the east and south. The property is located within the Sewer and Water Service Area.and the' Urban Development; Area. Fig_ ure; 2A highlights °the suliject'property on the Senseny /Eastern. Frederick Urban,Area land. use. plan. • The.Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban (Area, Plan ,also shows Anofth7south major collector, roadway ,just west of this property with,a para I lei multi-usetrai I. Figure. 213 highlights the subject property oh the, Senseny/Ea.stern Frederick, Q,r,,ba-h,Are,a Transportation Plan. 3 • • Study Area Description • 1) Study Area For the purposes of this Traffic Impact Study, the study area is limited to the intersection of the proposed project entrance road with Route 522Jhe.re are no additional major intersections within 2000 feet of the site. Proposed and Existing Uses Existing Use The existing site is vacant land except for one house. Proposed Uses &.Access The proposed use for -the property is housing and specialty retail. Access to the site will be provided via a, new east -west roadway which will intersect with Route 522. 'Nearby Uses' Theekisting land uses.near,the proposed site are- • North — vacant'.land • West — vacant land and 1 -81 • South — limited housingandShenandoah Memorial Park' -_ • East housing Existing Roadways Figure 4. shows °the existing roadways near the;,subject property. The typical section for'.Route:5221 adjacent to the proj'ect°is a.54ane paved surface�With,a mountable curb,& gutter Future TrallspOrtation Improvements The subject property is located in the Virginia Department ,of' Transportation's .Staunton District, Edinburg Residency area'of responsibility.,_A review ofthe VDOT Six year Improvement.Plan showed one planned construction project in,ihewici6ity of this proposed- rezoning, the fast Tev s Street project: A review of`'the, 2012/13 2017 /185econdary Road Improvement Plan for'Frederick County, VXshowed one planned roadway'improvement in the vicinity "of this project; the east Tevis, Street,project., East Tevis Street is planned to connect Pleasant Valley Road in Winchester to Front.R "oyal Pike,about_% miles north of this project. The schedule for the East:Tevis,Street is undefined in either plan. s • • • Existing Traffic Conditions 20,12 Data Collection To analyze the existing traffic conditions, AM and, PNItraffilcvollurne's vvere,co.unted on Route,522 along the projoctfr ntage. These tdluhts a re included in Appendix A of'th is -report. A'K factor;' was applied to the,PM peak hour�voiumes to obtain th e average annual dailVlraffic (AAU). The,T' , factorOf 0.084 -and pbrcent,tru6ks, of 12% was obtained 'from�the VDOT'DailY Traffic,V61urnp, Estimates for 2011. Analysis Since there is,not an existing intersection at the point being analyzed, traff 1c conditions we re, analyzed usln&the HCS Multi -Lane H #way' traffic mode li ng;softwa re. Thr e'e-xisting, AM and RIM. peak, hoUrAraff ic volumes areshown,in. figure Sj th.e,ekist-ing,lahe,.georfietry and levels of service are shown in figure 61 and the modeling. results (levels of service); are shqw.n. in tabular form in Table 1. i 0 i•_J • Table 12012 Existing levels of Service Type of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue Intersection Control (sec) (feet) (sec) (feet). North-South: Front Royal Pike,(US 522) none NB Thru A A SB Thru A A it Background Traffic Conditions (2020) Background traffic conditions are those °that are expected to exist without the; proposed rezoning and associated development. These were established by increasing the existing 2012 traffic volume by 0.5% per year to the build -out year of`2020. The growth factor of 0.5% was - determined by'VDOT Staunton District'Planning staff and is based on the historical and anticipated growth in traffic volumes in the project area. The roadway network in the study area is unchanged from the Existing Conditions.(2012 conditions). Two other development projects in the vicinity of this project have, been rezoned, but not yet constructed, and therefore were included in the background traffic volumes. The traffic associated with the freedom Manor project'was obtained from the ITE Trip Generation manual and the traffic for, the " Russell 150 project came from the approved Traffic Impact Analysis for the project dated 11/1/2004, prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associates. The. result;,is shown in Table 1 Table 2 Other Developments, Contributing to Background Traffic - Trips from Other Developments on Route 522 at Madison Village Entrance AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Northbound 129 212 Southbound 79 260 Analysis Since there is not an existing intersection, the 2020 Background traffic conditions were analyzed using the HCS Multi -Lane traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7, and the. lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 8. The modeling results (level of service) are tabulated in Table 3. ' 12 Avg. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Daily Land Use Code Amount Trips In Out Total In Out Total Freedom Manor Single, Family Detached Residence 210 70 749 15 44 58 49 29 78 Russell 150 Retail (per 1000 sq ft) 820 440 17,802 232 148 381 800 866 1,666' Office Park'(per 1000 sq ft) 710 264 2,817 359 49 408 52 322 374 Townhouse /Condo 230 294 2,558 21 101 122 1 gg 48 146 Total T.ri s.from -Other Developments, 23,926 627 343 '969 999 1,265 2,264 Trips from Other Developments on Route 522 at Madison Village Entrance AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Northbound 129 212 Southbound 79 260 Analysis Since there is not an existing intersection, the 2020 Background traffic conditions were analyzed using the HCS Multi -Lane traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 7, and the. lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 8. The modeling results (level of service) are tabulated in Table 3. ' 12 0 Table`3 2020 Background Level of Service Type of AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS Delay Queue LOS Delay Queue Intersection Control (sec) (feet) (sec) (feet) North - South: Front Royal Pike (US 522) none NB Thru A SB Thru A A A 15 • ow Trip Generation, &;Distribution Trip Generation Trip generation for the project uses was developed using Trip Gen 2013 based on the 91h edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The peak traffic volumes on the adjacent streets for the AM and PM periods were used with apartment and townhouse uses and the peak hour generator rates were used for the specialty retail land uses to arrive atthe traffic volumes. For the townhouses, 80% of the traffic was generated using the VDOT Staunton District trip generation spreadsheet;. and the remaining 20% was generated from the TripGen 2013 ITE Trip Generation rates. Land uses and trips generated are summarized in Table -4. The percentage of'heavy'vehicles was'estim "ated at 2% based on the ITE Trip Generation Handbook data. Internal Capture trips are those "captured within a mixed use development.. With the mixture of housing °and retail uses, internal capture rates'were computed as follows: • For the AM peak hour, the smaller of 5% residential or 5% retail trips generated; e For the PM peak hour, the smaller of 10%, residential or 10 %'retail trips generated, • For24 hour traffic, the smaller of 15% residential or 15% retail trips generated. These computations and the °assignment of the values are shown in Table 4., Pass -by trip reductions accountsJorsite trips drawn from the existing traffic.stream on an adjacent street, recognizing that trips drawn to the site would otherwise already be on the adjacent street regardless of the development's ., existence. Pass -by trip reduction allows' a., percentage reduction in the trips associated with retail uses. While VDOT'Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations call for the pass -by rates used to be those reported,in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, the Handbook does not contain a pass -by rate for land. use 814, Specialty Retail. To acquire a pass -by rate, a number of similar retail uses were examined in. the Handbook and the pass -by rate of 25% was selected, as representative of Specialty retail. The pass -by trip reduction computations are.shown''in Table 4: Table 4 Trip Generation 5% 10% 15% of of of Internal Capture Tri 'Com utatons AM PM AADT AM PM Dail Residential trips 340 419 4,421 17 42 663 Retail trips 732 537 .4,74237s n : 16 Avg. AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Land Use ITE Code , Amount Tri 's In Out Total In Out .Total Apartments 220 480, 3,192 48 197 245 192 106 298 80% Townhouses (VDOT trip gen rate) 230 128 1;043 18 63 81 67 38 104 20% Townhouses (ITE trip,gen rate) 230 32 1'86 -2 12 14 11 6' 17 Specialty Retail Center (5 ac) 826 107 4,742 1 351 381 732 301 236 537 Gross New Trips 640 9;163 419 653 1.,072 571 386' 956 Internal Capture Trips Residential -663 -6 -11 -17 -25 -17 -42 Retail Pass-by Trip' Reduction @ 25% 826 107 =1186 1 =88 -95 =183 -75 -59 -134 Total New Trips 7,314 1325 547 872 470 310 780 5% 10% 15% of of of Internal Capture Tri 'Com utatons AM PM AADT AM PM Dail Residential trips 340 419 4,421 17 42 663 Retail trips 732 537 .4,74237s n : 16 i • Trip Distribution Trips generated by tKci development °were assigned to the roadway network based on a distribution developed with representatives from VDOT and Frederick County during the scoping meeting. All new trips are planned to pass through the project entrance at Front Royal Pike, while the commercial related trips will depart from =the main roadway at the round -a- bout. The trip distribution percentages are shown in figure 9 and the assignment of the new AM and PM peak hour trips is shown in figure 10. 17 n • • w J Q U' Ln 0 F- 0 Z V �II�I ^y O �V 01 u. a� w a� c � a� A c ago w m I • 2020 Build -out Conditions without Improvements The.20.20 build -out conditions combine the background traffic for the year 2020, and the traffic that. is forecasted to result from the development of this project._ The total of this traffic is called the build -out condition and is forecasted to occur in the year 2020. Analysis The 2020 Build -out AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 8.0 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are shown'in Figure 11, "and the lane geometry and level of service.are shown in Figure! 12.The modeling results (levels of service, delay and 95% queue) are tabulated in. Table 5,. 0 , I 20 �1 LJ • m LJ 7 0 N N ' Y U1 a v1 o y Y O v a� o a of a tioa }u013 ie ?� •, N, 0 V ,o • " cl 1, N; O N ' w bD U. w ' cn _ O _ O z' t • Table 5' 1020 Bu.1147out Level of 56r.Vk0,.De'laVj and 95% Queuetengt AM Peak Hour RM Peak Hour- Intersection 'Type of f 1 Control ch APPrpa — - LOS Lo7s( Delay Queue I Approad LOS Delay Queue North-South: Front Royal Pike L08 se LOS (sec):.., (ft) N& LT B 11.1 26 "C- 224 91; North-South: Front Royal Pike Stop Sign NB, Th ru (US 522) SIB, Thru :SB RT LT F F 398 F: See note f'. See .,no note I EB RT B '14.4 63 C W.6 51 ' NB = A 9.8 'A 6.21 East=West: Site; Entrance VVB A 7.8 Nbith-South:Cornmercial Round -a.7 SB A 7.1 A 75 Entrances Bo'ut EB B 10'.5 A- 6.1 1. Due to the severity of the movement failure, these values were not computed by modefing softwdre, 23 Recommended Roadway Improvements Due to the volume' of traffic being generated by the development, the intersection at the site entrance fails (level of service F) without a traffic signal. To achieve acceptable traffic operations in 2020 at Build; Out and 2026 in the design year, the following improvements are recommended: 1. _A traffic signal at the intersection of the site entrance.and Front Royal. Pike. 2. A southbound right turn lane on Front Royal Pike at.the entrance. 3.. A northbound left turn lane from Front Royal Pike'to'the entrance. A. ' An eastbound dual left`turn lane at the site entrance. ' 5. A round -a -bout at the entrance to the commercial areas. Although an analysis of the round -a -bout was not scoped for this project, an analysis was performed within Synchro to evaluate the westbound entrance traffic transitioning from two lanes to one lane prior to the round -a -bout. The Build out'and'design year analysis indicate no problems, and a visual review`in, ' Sim- Traffic also showed no problems with this transition. Even with these improvements the level of service for the NB left turn movement into the site drops to D in the design year 2026. However, other planned transportation improvements 'in the area such as East Tevis Street and Warrior Drive will be taking trafficfrom Front'Royal. Pike prior to 2026. It is the professional opinion of this author thatthis level of service will increase with the completion of these other projects. Therefore, with the: improvements, recommended in this report, the transportation, impacts of this rezoning are believed to be manageable and acceptable for this project setting. The levels of service resultingfrom these improvements are shown, in figure 13. " • 0 r N o m a 0 Y N - Q H LI . 0 Iti' 0 - ow ta o Ao PQ 0 N O N M a w bD •� J u ^. N 0 0 z • Design Year (2026) The design year for the project is six years beyond the completion of the, project, which in this case: is the year 2026: Analysis The 2026 Design Year AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro 8.0 traffic mode lingsoftware. AM and PM peak hour traffic�volumes are shown in Figure 14, and the lane geometry and level of service are shown in Figure 15. The modeling. results (levels of service, delay and 95% queue) are tabulated in Table.6. • 26 • I 1, i N Q J Q U Q 0 � � T V E y •.w it 6K C� bD • :0 Ll .i 0 O O N Y co 41 a or CL 2 •� �. a y O ' � C r = O , 01 L. W � r � O N O - N In ,. D bD w w J Q N z 3 N D N (O CY) OD LO . . cli IV C14 Cl) ° (D CO a0 — N v u74 r� ao aa) 01) C') v 0) r o r - M N — N N 7 Cl) _ 0 0 o a U m u L) ¢ m I J cu N a. U ca °p m U U :d Q J OL C A... 'V. ... U) - m 0 �0 J C � G1 J cr Ln .. .. c6 U 00 0. N d1 CO a0 co Lr) C U co cD N fN r - NN f0 f9 3 U) 0 O U¢ u m v m 0 J Y m m m ® a Q aC) Q O c o J U U) - - f0 �J C ba 3 3 O J cm m m m m m m m co m Z Z U) U) W W Z N • t0 0-0 C __ 7 HV �0 co Y - a c T a� m .` 0 a m N N N C- E 0 Lo LL O U .._ c L s - - 0 'N N 0 N .. Cl) L) t L N +! O • Z - w Z. w _ Queue Analysis At a signalized intersection, a queue forms while vehicles wait to advance. An analysis was performed'to _evaluate the back of the queue for the 50th;and 95th percentile of'the queue. The 50th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue on ^a typical traffic signal cycle. The 95th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of queue with 95th percentile traffic volumes when traffic does- not move'for two signal cycles. The queues associated with the 951h percentile maximum queue are shown in Tables 5 and 6. As traffic volumes increase over time, the queue associated with left turning movements will increase as. will the queue associated with the thru movement that opposes the left turn movement. This is reflected in the Design Year analysis. Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic. 'To identify any previously planned pedestrian and /or bicycle facilities in the project area, the Senseny /Eastern Frederick Urban Area Transportation Plan was reviewed. The plan shows a proposed multi -use trial to the west of the Madison Village property (see figure 213). Provisions will be made for a future connection to this and other off-site trails which may come to the site. Additionally, within the development, facilities will be provided to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian movements, and a multi -us trail is planned along Route 522 at the east side. of the project: Conclusions The Madison Village Development rezoning will contribute additional traffic into intersections along Front Royal Pike. A traffic signal is required at the entrance to the site, along with the associated turn lanes and pavement markings, to manage the traffic associated with the development. Even with these improvementsthe level of service for the NB left turn movement into the site drops to D in the design year 2026. However, other planned: transportation improvements in the area such as East.Tevis Street and Warrior Drive will be taking,traffic from Front, Royal Pike prior to 2026. It is the professional opinion, of this author that this level of service will increase with the completion of these other projects. Therefore, with the improvements recommended in this report, the transportation impacts ofthis rezoning,are believed, to be manageable,and acceptable for this project- ,setting. _ 30 Page 1 of John Lewis From: Tim Stowe, [timstowe @stowecompanies:com] ant: Wednesda Jul. 03 2013 8:20 AM Y Y .. �o: Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT)'; 'Bishop, John. (VDOT)' Cc: mcheran @co >frederick.va.us; 'John Lewis'; `Short, Terry (VDOT)',- 'Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT)'- 'Ge, Ruixin (VDOT)'; Rhonda Funkhouser Subject: RE: TIA & Rezoning for Madison Village, Parcel TM# 64 -A -18, Route 522 - Frederick'County Attachments:. Madison Village Traffic Study.zip Matt, As requested I have reviewed and considered the review comments you provided ,in your email on.June 11, 2013; and I offer the following responses. 1. The AADT and Truck percentage inputs to the HCS+ model were not correct for all scenarios.. Please. correct and update all related tables and figures. Response - The AADT and Truck: percentages have been, reviewed and updated where needed. The truck . percentages on Route 522 are 12 %has documented in the report For all ,other roadways; a 2% truck.,percentage was used based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook data for retail developments. Text discussing the or_ igin and usf of this 2°o value has been added to the report text. 2. Referencing Figure 7 and 8, the ,,traffic volumes on the side streets should also be updated to the 2020 scenario. Response - In a meeting with Richard Ge on June 25 it was found that this comment was making reference to the route numbers that were shown on the side - streets, not a traffic volume. The route numbers have been-removed to avoid future confusion. 3. Referencing Table 4 on Page 16 no explanation is provided regarding why.107k sq ft was used forSpecialty kRetail Center. Isthat the leasable area? Also, the trip generation results are not correct based on ITE (gth, Edition) rates. - Response — The description of the retail area has been updated as requested to reflect the.107,sq: ft. as the gross leasable area. Also, TripGen 2013 software was used to update the trip generation data. TripGen.2013 uses data from the.9th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. 4. Figure 10 on Page 19 please provide trip distribution information: within the `site: Response - The, requested distribution has been added to this figure. 5. Figure 12 on Page 22, the lane configuration at the entrance intersection is' not consistent with th;e Synchro model. Please:correct. Response —This has been updated. 6. Please include, a signal warrant analysis to justify the proposed signalization of the entrance intersection: Response - As discussed and agreed to in the meeting on June 25,. the signal warrant study will be needed at a later:time, after the project.is open to traffic. The proffers will be modified to reflect the developers responsibility for this analysis when he is: notified by VDOT of the need. 7. Table 5 on Page 23 shows that the eastbound, left -turn at the entrance intersection has -1 second delay during both AM and PM peak. Please check the model and correct. Response — This-has been updated. s. Referencing Table 5 and 6, overall intersection performances and approach performances need to be included in the;tables. Response —Table 5 has been updated to show the approach,LOS, but since this is an unsignalized analysis; there is no intersection LOS to show:, Table 6 has been updated ,to.show the, approach and intersection LOS. ( Bike and Pedestrian facilities are recommended along Route 522 frontage. Response — a multi -use trail is planned along Route 522 as was previously and iscurrently indicated in the proffers and cost estimate. 7/3/2013 �� Page 2 of. 10. Please provide a prelitary cost estimates for th'e proposed improvements. Response —A cost estimate was previously included;in Appendix E of the Traffic Impact Study submittal. The cost _ estimate Chas been updated and, is in Appendix E. ' '..,o pies of the updated Traffe Tin act'S'tud . and'its a endices. are being sent to. via snail mail this date; one set for p P p Y pP our records and one ,set f6vthe District..Planning staff I am also providing a CDROM' containing the updated Synchro and HCS files.. A11 "of these .data files, as well as the re ort and its a endices, are attached. p Pp. Please provide .your acceptance of this study at your earliest possible convenience: Tim Stowe Stowe Engineering, PLC 540.336.0656 From: F:unkhouser, Rhonda (VDOT) [mailto: Rhonda .Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] On Behalf Of Smith, Matthew, P.E. (VDOT) Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:39 PM To: Bishop, John. (VDOT) Cc:'mcheran @co.frederick:vaus'; Tim Stowe; John Lewis; Short, Terry (VDOT); Ingram, Lloyd (VDOT) Subject: TIA & Rezoning for Madison Village, Parcel TM #'64 -A -18, Route 522 - F"rederi'ck County Our District Planning Section has completed their review of the subject study and rezoning and offers the following comments for your review and consideration: • The AADT and Truck percentage inputs to the HCS+ model were not correct for all scenarios. Please correct and, update all related tables and figures. Referencing Figure'7 and 8, the traffic volumes on the side streets should also be updated Ito the'2020 scenario. ! • Referencing Table 4 on Page 16, no explanation is provided, regarding why 107k sq ft was used -for Specialty Retail Center. Is that the leasable area? Also,, the trip generation results are not correct based on ITE (8`h`Edition) rates. • figure 10 on Page 19; please provide trip distribution information within the site. • Figure 12 on Page 22, the lane, configuration at the entrance intersection is not consistent with the:Sy:nchro. model. Please.correct. • Please include a signal warrant analysis'to justify'the proposed signalization of -the entrance intersection.' • Table 5 on Page 23 shows that-the eastbound left-turn at the entrance intersection has -1 second delay during both AM and PM.peak. Please check the model and correct. Referencing Table 5 and 6, overall intersection performances and approach - performances need to be included in the tables. • Bike and Pedestrian facilities are recommended along Route 522 frontage. • Please provide a preliminary cost estimates forthe proposed improvements. Should you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. Matthew.B. Smith,,P.E. Area Land Use.Engineer VDOT- Land Development Clarke, Frederick; Shenandoah & Warren Counties 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 Phone ,# (540) 984 -56 :15 Fax #- (540) 984 -5607 7/3/2013 _ REZONING APPLI:WON Madison Property - TM# 64 -A -18 •