The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 01-06-10 Meeting AgendaAGENT FILE COPY FREDERICK COUNTY PLA The hoard Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia January 6, 2010 7.00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab) Election of Officers, Committee Assignments, 2010 Meeting Schedule and Adoption of Bylaws.............................................................................................................................. (A) November 4, 2009 Minutes ........................ Committee Reports ..................................... Citizen Comments ................................... PUBLIC HEARING .......................................... (B) ................................ (no tab) ............................... (iu0 tab) 6) Rezoning 906-09 of Jordan Springs Property, to revise proffers associated with Rezoning 410-01 for 10.33 acres of land zoned B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone. This revision is intended to add permitted uses on the site. The property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road and fronts the west side of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers 44-A-294 and 44 -A -294A (portions of). Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C) PUBLIC MEETING 7) Rezoning #09-09 of Graystone Corporation of Virginia, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Manufacturing Uses. The properties are located on the north side of Redbud Road (Route 661), the east side of CSX Railroad, the west side of Milburn Road (Route 662), and south of McCanns Road (Route 838), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers 43-A-158, 44-A- 25 and 44-A-26. Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (D) COMMISSION DISCUSSION 8) Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (E) 9) Northeast Land Use Plan Update — Transportation Component Mr. Bishop....................................................................................................................... (F) 10) Other • C� • ffMM 11 , COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director' SUBJECT: Election of Officers, Committee Appointments, Meeting Schedule DATE: December 18, 2009 ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2010 At the first meeting of each year, the Planning Commission elects a Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary. These three Planning Commission officers assume office immediately, and hold such office for the duration of the calendar year. For each office, the Commission will: open the nominations; accept nominations; close nominations; and, vote to fill the officer position. ADOPTION OF MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2010 At the first meeting of each year, the Planning Commission adopts their meeting schedule for the ensuing year. Historically, the Commission has held meetings on the first and third Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. to be held in the Board of Supervisors meeting room; the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee meets on the second Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room; and, the Development Review & Regulations Committee meets on the fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m- in the first floor conference room. COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2010 At the first meeting of each year, the Chairman appoints the membership for the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) and the Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC). The Chairman also appoints a Planning Commission 107 North bent Street, Suite 202 ® Winchester, Virginia 2260 -5000 Memorandum: Elections, Appointments, and Meeting Times December 18, 2009 Page 2 of 2 liaison to the: Transportation Committee (TC); Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB); Economic Development Commission (EDC); Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA); and, the Winchester Planning Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS FOR 2010 At the first meeting of each year, the Planning Commission adopts their Bylaws, and Roles and Responsibilities for the ensuing year. These documents are attached. Please contact staff should you have questions. Attachment: Proposed 2010 Planning Commission Bylaws Proposed 2010 Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities Proposed 2010 Planning Commission meeting dates and application deadlines ERL/bad PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS County of Frederick, Virginia PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION — January 6, 2010 ARTICLE I - AUTHORIZATION 1-1 The Frederick County Planning Commission is established by and in conformance with Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County, and in accord with the provisions of Section 15.2-2210 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 1-2 The official title of this body shall be the Frederick County Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission". ARTICLE II - PURPOSE 2-1 The primary purpose of the Commission is to advise to Frederick County Board of Supervisors and to carry out all duties and functions described by the Code of Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III - MEMBERSHIP 3-1 The membership of the Commission shall be determined by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as specified in Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. Methods of appointment and terms of office shall be determined by Chapter 165 of the Code of Frederick County. 3-2 Within the first month of initial appointment, new Commissioner appointees shall: 1) participate in an orientation to familiarize themselves with the operations of the Department and the Commission, and 2) meet with planning staff representatives in an effort to review and better understand specific agenda items by no later than their second Planning Commission meeting. Page 2 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 ARTICLE IV - OFFICERS 4-1 Officers of the Commission shall consist of a chairman, vice-chairman and secretary. The chairman and vice-chairman must be voting members of the Commission. The secretary shall be a member of the Commission or a county employee. 4-2 Selection 4-2-1 The officers shall be elected by the voting members of the Commission at the first meeting of the calendar year. 4-2-2 Nomination of officers shall be made from the floor. Elections of officers shall follow immediately. A candidate receiving a majority vote of the entire voting membership shall be declared elected. 4-3 Duties 4-3-1 The Chairman shall: 4-3-1-1 Preside at meetings. 4-3-1-2 Appoint committees. 4-3-1-3 Rule on procedural questions. A ruling on a procedural question by the chairman shall be subject to reversal by a two-thirds majority vote of the members present. 4-3-1-4 Report official communications. 4-3-1-5 Certify official documents involving the authority of the Commission. 4-3-1-6 Certify minutes as true and correct copies. 4-3-1-7 Carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission. 4-3-2 The Vice -Chairman shall: 4-3-2-1 Assume the full powers of the chairman in the absence or inability of the chairman to act. 4-3-2-2 When acting as chair, the vice-chairman shall carry out other duties as assigned by the Board of Supervisors and the Commission Chairman. Page 3 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 4-3-3 The Secretary shall: 4-3-3-1 Ensure that attendance is recorded at all meetings. 4-3-3-2 Ensure that the minutes of all Commission meetings are recorded - 4 -3-3-3 Notify members of all meetings. 4-3-3-4 Prepare agendas for all meetings. 4-3-3-5 Maintain files of all official Commission records and reports. Official records and reports may be purged in accordance with applicable state codes. 4-3-3-6 Give notice of all Commission meetings, public hearings and public meetings. 4-3-3-7 Provide to the Board of Supervisors reports and recommendations of the Commission. 4-3-3-8 Attend to the correspondence necessary for the execution of the duties and functions of the Commission. 4-4 Term of Office 4-4-1 Officers shall be elected for a one-year term or until a successor takes office. Vacancies shall be filled for an unexpired term by a majority vote of the Commission. In such cases, the newly elected officer shall serve only until the end of the calendar year or until a successor takes office. 4-5 Temporary Chairman 4-5-1 In the event of the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from. any meeting, the Commission shall designate from among its members a temporary chairman who shall act for that meeting in the absence of the chairman or vice- chairman. Page 4 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 ARTICLE V - COMMITTEES 5-1 The Commission shall establish committees necessary to accomplish its purpose. 5-2 In establishing committees, the Commission shall describe the purpose for each committee. 5-3 Members of the committees shall be appointed by the chairman and will serve for a term of one year. The chairman may request recommendations from the Commission or committee members on committee appointments. 5-4 Members of the committees may be Commission members, employees of the County, or citizen volunteers. 5-5 The chairman and vice-chairman of the Planning Commission shall be ex -officio members of every committee. 5-6 The committees will elect a chairman and vice-chairman annually. These officers shall be current Commission members and should represent different Magisterial Districts, if possible. 5-7 The committees may operate as a committee of the whole or by executive committee with current and past Cori -,mission members serving as members of that committee. 5-8 The committees may establish standing subcommittees whose activities will be a specific annual responsibility of the parent committee. One executive committee member will serve as liaison to the standing subcommittee and will assist staff in managing its activities. Membership will be comprised of past Commission members and citizens. Membership will be appointed by the chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission Chairman. 5-9 The committees may establish ad-hoc groups to assist in specific, carefully -defined tasks for a limited period of time. Important considerations for membership on the ad-hoc group are skills and experience necessary to assist in providing acceptable solutions. Membership will be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee with concurrence by the Commission Chairman. Page 5 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 ARTICLE VI — COMMISSION MEETINGS 6-1 At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Commission shall fix the date, time, and place of all its regular meetings for the ensuing calendar year, and shall fix the day on which a regular meeting shall be continued should the Chairman declare that weather or other conditions make it hazardous for members to attend. 6-2 Special meetings may be called by the chairman or by the secretary after due notice and publication by the secretary. 6-3 Notice of all meetings shall be sent by the secretary with an agenda at least five days before the meeting. 6-4 All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public except for Closed Sessions held in accordance with the provision specified under Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. 6-5 Work sessions shall be held at the adjournment of regular meetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. ARTICLE VII - VOTING 7-1 A majority of voting members shall constitute a quorum. No action shall be taken or motion made unless a quorum is present. 7-2 No action of the Commission shall be valid unless authorized by a majority vote of those present and voting. ARTICLE VIII - OPERATING RULES 8-1 Order of Business for a regular meeting 8-1-1 Call to Order. 8-1-2 Adoption of the Agenda. 8-1-3 Consideration of Minutes. 8-1-4 Committee Reports. Page 6 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 8-1-5 Citizen Comments on Items not on the Agenda. 8-1-6 Public Hearings. 8-1-7 Public Meetings. 8-1-8 Planning Commission Discussion. 8-1-9 Other. 8-1-10 Adjournment. 8-2 Minutes 8-2-1 The Commission shall keep minutes of each meeting. The chairman and secretary shall sign all minutes following approval by the Commission certifying that the minutes are true and correct. Minutes made available to the public prior to formal approval by the Commission shall be clearly identified as a draft version of the meeting. 8-3 Procedures 8-3-1 Parliamentary procedure ;n the Commission meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, except where otherwise specified in these procedures. 8-3-2 Whenever an agenda item involves a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors, the Commission shall continue to consider the item until a definite recommendation is made. If a motion has been made and defeated, additional, different motions may be made concerning the item under consideration. 8-3-3 The initial motion on an agenda item shall be made by a member representing the application's Magisterial District. If both District representatives are absent or decline to make the initial motion, then any other Commissioner may act. 8-3-4 Business items on the agenda shall be considered using the following procedures: 8-3-4-1 Report by County Staff. 8-3-4-2 Presentation by Applicant. 8-3-4-3 Citizen Comment. Page 7 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 8-3-4-4 Applicant Response. 8-3-4-5 Staff Summary. 8-3-4-6 Discussion by Commission. 8-3-4-7 Motion and Action by Commission. 8-3-5 Public comment shall be allowed in all cases required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or the Code of Frederick Coul�Ly. in other cases, the cha?rman may allow public comment. 8-3-6 The Commission members may ask questions of clarification and information after the staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-7 Petitions, displays, documents or correspondence presented at a meeting may be made part of the official record of the meeting by motion of the Commission and are to be kept on file by the secretary. Such items need not be made part of the published minutes. 8-3-8 Public Hearings 8-3-8-1 The Commission shall hold public hearings on all items for which hearings are required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, or by the Code of Frederick County. Such public hearing shall be advertised and notifications provided as required by the Code of Virginia, 1950, as nmentied 8-3-8-2 The Chairman may establish special rules for any public hearing at the beginning of said hearing. These rules may include limitations on the time of staff report, applicant presentation and citizen comment. 8-3-8-3 In addition to those required by law, the Commission may hold public hearings on any matter which it deems to be in the public interest. In such cases, the public hearings shall follow all procedures described for public hearing in these bylaws. 8-3-8-4 The 90 -day period (Section 165-102.03 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance) for the Planning Commission to make a rezoning recommendation to the Board will start at the date of the first completed public hearing 8-3-9 Tabling Page 8 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 8-3-9-1 The Planning Commission shall have the authority to table agenda items 45 -days (less if reaching the limits of Section 165-102.03) for any one of the following: A) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Virginia, 1950 as amended. B) The agenda item does not meet the requirements of the Code of Frederick County. C) Insufficient information has been provided for the agenda item. D) Revised proffers have been received from the applicant within twenty-one (21) days of the advertised Planning Commission meeting. E) Issues or concerns that arise during formal discussion of the agenda item warrant additional information or study. F) The applicant provides the Frederick County Planning Department with a written request to table the agenda item. G) The Frederick County Planning Department is advised of an emergency situation that prevents attendance by the applicant. I) The applicant fails to appear at the meeting in which the application has been advertised to appear. 8-3-9-2 The applicant shall be permitted to request that an agenda item be tabled from a scheduled Planning Commission meeting one time. The Planning Commission shall table the application for a specific period of time to ensure that the requirements of Section 165-102.03 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are not exceeded unless the applicant requests a waiver from this requirement. In no case shall an application be tabled for more than 12 months from the time the complete application was received by the Zoning Administator or applicable staff. 8-3-9-3 An application that has been tabled for an unspecified period of time shall be re -advertised for consideration by the Planning Commission once the following steps have been completed: A) The applicant has requested in writing that the agenda item be Page 9 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 considered by the Planning Commission. B) The applicant has provided all required Frederick County Planning Department concerns of the Planning Commission. 8-3-10 Work sessions information to the which addresses all 8-3-10-1 The Commission may hold work sessions at which the procedural rules of these bylaws shall not apply. 8-3-10-2 Work sessions shall be held after the adjournment of regular neetings or at the time and place set by the Commission. 8-3-10-3 Notice of work sessions shall be sent to the Planning Commissioners at least five days before the session. 8-3-10-4 The chairman shall lead the session and require orderly behavior and discussion. 8-3-10-5 No actions shall be taken or motions made at a work session. 8-3-10-6 Work sessions shall be open to the public. Public comment is not required at a work session. 8-3-10-7 The secretary shall keep a general record of all work sessions and the items discussed. 8-3-11 Adjournment 8-3-11-1 In no case shall the Commission consider any new items after 10:30 P.M. and the meeting shall be adjourned by 11:00 P.M. In the instance that an item begun before 10:30P.M. has not been acted on by the 11:00 P.M. hour, the Commission may, by majority vote, lift the adjournment time until a recommendation has been made, or such time, after 11:00 P.M., as the Commission may fix. ARTICLE IX - AMENDMENTS 9-1 These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the entire voting membership after thirty days prior notice at any time during the calendar year. Page 10 Planning Commission Bylaws PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION - January 6, 2010 9-2 Planning Commission shall conduct an annual review of these bylaws in November of each calendar year to ensure their accuracy. 9-3 At the first meeting of the calendar year, the By -Laws will be adopted. FREDERICK COUNTY PLA10JIN0 COMMISSION ROLES AND RESPONSIEBMITIES PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION - January 6, 2010 This document has been prepared to assist Frederick County Planning Commissioners in understanding what their role and responsibilities are in the myriad of activities that they accept as a member of the Planning Commission. This compilation is a companion document to the Commission's By -Laws. APPLICATION CONIlNWNICATIONS There are three primary sources of information gathered by and weighed by the Planning Commission in order to make quality planning recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. They are ex -parte communications, staff reports and public input. Ex -Parte Communications: Individual meetings between Commissioners and an applicant/developer regarding a specific application shall follow the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. During this discussion or at any other time prior to action taken by the Commission on the application, a Planning Commissioner should make no commitments or endorsements. Any new written materials provided by the applicant to any one Commissioner shall be made available to all commissioners and staff by the applicant prior to the application appearing on the agenda. To not do so may result in the application being tabled at the Planning Commission public hearing. Staff Application Briefmgs/Work Sessions: Prior to the first public hearing being held, staff will hold a briefing for the Planning Commissioners, with an invitation extended to the Board of Supervisors to participate, regarding any application deemed sufficiently complicated / controversial to warrant detailed explanation. The purpose is to apprise the Commissioners regarding the details of the application, both those items that meet the ordinance and those that do not. This provides the opportunity for the Commissioners to have a common understanding of the application prior to the public hearing. The decision to hold a briefing on a specific application will be made jointly by the Director of Planning and the Chairman of the Planning Commission. In addition to complexity, the application shall be basically complete prior to scheduling the briefing. The Planning Commission may request a work session for an application which, after the first public hearing is concluded, is subsequently tabled. The purpose of the work session Page 2 Planning Corrnnission Roles and Responsibilities PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION - January 6, 2010 is to discuss amongst each other and with staff details of the application, any revised proffers provided or anticipated by the applicant, and other improvements which could be made to the application. For either a briefing or a work session: -The applicant should attend, but will not have an active role. The format of a Planning Commission work session as identified in paragraph 8- 3-10 of the Commission's By -Laws will be used. -In no case will the legal timeline for consideration before the Planning Commission be changed. Public Hearing/ fleeting: Efficient and effective public hearings are an essential part of enabling the Commission to make reasoned recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Every attempt will be made to obtain focused and broad representation of opinion or information from the public. When possible, specific time limitations will not be used. However, both rules of order as well as time constraints most appropriate for the specific application will be implemented when there is either large interest in or controversy regarding an application. One constant during this process on both the past of the public, the applicant and the Commission itself is civility and respect for information offered or a differing opinion. Deviation from this behavior is unacceptable. COMMISSIONER DEVELOPMENT: Each Commissioner shall be cornmitted to preparing for and keeping knowledge current in order to do the most effective job for the community. New initial appointees should strive to obtain Planning Commissioner certification from an acceptable training program within the first year of appointment. This training is supported by the Planning Department budget Further continuing education through many offerings should be pursued and will be supported by the Planning budget as possible. These opportunities should be shared amongst the number of Commissioners who are serving. Examples include CPEAV's Page 3 Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION - January 6, 2010 annual meeting, other special offerings as well as the American Planning Association's readings and meetings. A library is maintained by the Planning office. COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE Commissioners are expected to participate in 80% of the regularly scheduled meetings per year. Members who cannot attend a meeting due to illness, business, and other governmental or family reasons should notify the Commission Chairman and/or staff Administrative Assistant prior to the scheduled meeting in order for the absence to be noted. It may affect quorum considerations. Especially essential is preparation and readiness for each of the Commission's meetings in order to use not only the Commission's but the staff's and public's time wisely. COMMISSION COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: Appointments to a Commission committee or liaison assignments are made by the chairman and shared by the membership. Generally, they involve a once per month meeting. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Each Commissioner needs to be familiar with Commonwealth of Virginia information on conflict of interest. If a Commissioner is unsure if there is conflict, the County Attorney is the correct resource. Upon determination that there is or might be perceived to be a conflict, the Commissioner should state immediately after the agenda item is read that recusal action is necessary (with, preferably, stating the reason) then step down from the dais until the item is concluded. PUBLIC REPRESENTATION: Commissioners are citizens, too. If there is a public item that is of interest, the Commissioner should participate, but not identify themselves as members of the Frederick County Planning Commission unless acting in an official capacity and directed to do so. Implied endorsements by the Commission should be avoided. PLANNING COMMISSION CUT-OFF DATES FOR 2010 :.- ----- ---- -- --- ... . .. . . .. .......... . .. ... .. ................... . ......... .... ................. .. .. . ..... ............ ............ ....... ..... .......... I .............. ...... ... . * -- --------- - --- - ......... - ----- ----------------- ...... ........... ...... C UT .................................. %,� ............................ - --- - -------- - ------- ----- ------ -- -- ------------ ---------------------------------- ........ ...... ....... ... ... %...-...., .. .. --- ---------- - . . . ....... -------------- ------------ - --------- - ------- -- - --------------------- ------------ =xMWE ................ ---- - -- ------- .. . ...... ------------------- . . ... ............ ------------ .................... ------------------- - .. . . .. .. . ------ .......... --------- . . ........ .......... - ------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------ ------------------------ --------- --------------------- -------- --------------------------------- .... ..... --- ------ ------- ------ --- ----- -------------- ------------------- -------------- - -- . .... ----- ----------------- .......... .......... - --------- 01/06/10 12/11/09 12/14/09 12/18/09 12/16/09 12/21/09 12/23/09* 01/20/10 12/23/09* 12/28/09 12/31/09* 12/30/09 01/04/10 01/08/10 02/03/10 01/08/10 01/11/10 01/15110 01/13/10 01/19/10* 01/22/10 02/17/10 01/22/10 01/25/10 01/29/10 01/27/10 02/01/10 02/05/10 03/03/10 02/05/10 02/08/10 02/12/10 02/10/10 02/16/10* 02119/10 03/17/10 02/19/10 02/22/10 02/26/10 02/24/10 03/01/10 03/05/10 04/07/10 03/12/10 03/15/10 03/19/10 03/17/10 1 03/22/10 03/26/10 04/21/10 03/26/10 03/29/10 04/02/10 03/31/10 04/05/10 04/09/10 05/05/10 04/09/10 04/12/10 04/16/10 04/14/10 04/19/10 04/23/10 05/19/10 04/23/10 04/26/10 04/29/10* 04/28/10 05/03/10 05/07/10 06/02/10 05/07/10 05110110 05/14/10 05/12!10 05/17/10 1 05/21/10 06/16/10 05/21/10 05/24/10 05/28/10 05/26/10 06/01/10* 06/04/10 07/07/10 06/11/10 06/14/10 06/18/10 06/16/10 06/21/10 06/25/10 07/21/10 06/25/10 06/29/10 07/02/10 06/30/10 07/06/10* ; 07/09/10 08/04/10 07/09/10 07/12/10 07/16/10 07/14/10 07/19/10 07/23/10 08/18/10 07/23/10 07/26/10 07/30/10 07/28/10 08/02/10 08/06/10 09/01/10 08/06/10 08/09/10 08/13/10 08/11/10 08/16/10 08/20/10 09/15/10 08/20/10 08/23/10 08/27/10 08/25/10 08/30/10 09/03/10 10/06/10 09/10/10 09/13/10 09/17/10 09/15/10 09/20/10 09/24/10 10/20/10 09/24/10 09/27/10 10/01/10 09/29/10 10/04/10 10/08/10 11/03/10 10/08/10 10/12/10* 10/15/10 10/13/10 10/18/10 10/22/10 11/17/10 10/22/10 10/25/10 10/29/10 10/27/10 11/01/10 11105110 12/01/10 11/05/10 11/08/10 11/12/10 11/10/10 11/15/10 11/19/10 12/15/10 11/19/10 11/22/10 11/24/10* 11/23/10* 11/29/10 12/03/10 01/05/11 12/10/10 12/13/10 12/17/10 12/15/10 12/20/10 12/23/10* 01/19/11 12/23/10* 12/27/10 12/30/10* 12/29/10 01/03/11 01/07/11 02/02/11 01/07/11 01/10/11 01/13/11* 01/12/11 01/18/11* 01/21/11 02/16/11 01/21/11 01/24/11 01/28/11 01/26/11 01/31/11 02/04/11 *Adjusted Date Due to County Holiday Printed on November 18, 2009 MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMPAISSION Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on November 4, 2009_ PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/ Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; ("nary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Roderick Williams, Legal Counsel; and Gary Lofton, Board of Supervisors Liaison. ABSENT: Richard Ruckman, Stonewall District; STAFF PRESENT: Eric R Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; John A. Bishop, Deputy Director -Transportation; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m_ Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the November 4, 2009, agenda for this evening's meeting. COMMITTEE REPORTS Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) —10/22/09 Mtg. Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRC discussed landscaping requirements and specifically, the types and spacing of trees; the transportation impact analysis (TIA) standards and ordinance revisions requiring a TIA to be done with all rezoning applications; and the Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone and how it relates to the Jordan Springs site. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2563 Minutes of November 4, 2009 F T -2— CITIZEN COMMIENTS Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning Application 909-09 of Graystone Corporation of Virginia, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 271.39 aeras from ;:A (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industria') District, with proffers, for office and manufacturing uses. The properties are located on the north side of Redbud Road (Rt. 661.), the east side of CSX Railroad, the west side of Milburn Road (Rt. 662), and -.outs: of McCanns Road (Rt. 838). The properties are further identified with P.I.N.s 43- A-158, 44-A-25, and 44-A-26 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. A Pion — Tabled for 60 Days - Commissioner ()ates stated he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this rezoning application due to a possible conflict of interest. Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Graystone rezoning application is generally inconsistent with the land use designation of the Northeastern Frederick Land Use Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and does not address additional goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Ruddy said the applicant has not yet demonstrated how the M1 land use designation is consistent with the land use plan. Mr_ Ruddy raised the following issues that had not been fully addressed by the applicant: 1) the potential impacts associated with the more intensive use of the properties; 2) the ning and construction transportation impacts associated with this request, including the impacts to the plan of future Route 37; 3) the recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), particularly regarding Archeological Resources Surveys, impacts to historical resources and developmentally sensitive areas (DSAs), and view shed mitigation through natural and enhanced buffering and screening; and, 4) the problematic language contained within the proffer statement regarding expansion of uses in the district and associated design standards. Deputy Director -Transportation, John A. Bishop, spoke about the unresolved transportation issues remaining with the rezoning proposal, which included specifics concerning the applicant's proffer, the development of the TIA, Route 37 issues, Route 11 impacts, and bicycle facility connectivity. Regarding the Route 37 issues, Mr. Bishop referred to the applicant's proffer, where the applicant based the dedication and reservation of right-of-way on a time line, giving the County five years to complete final engineering and design of the roadway; he said there was no expectation that the County, the State, or the Federal Government would be able to fund the engineering and design of Route 37 within the next five years and the staff was adamantly opposed to this language. He also discussed issues with the applicant's proposed dedication of corridor width, noting the insufficiency of the 225 -foot width provided by the applicant and making this determination based on comparisons with Route 37 West. Mr. Bishop said that right-ufrvejay width fcr future _Route 37 will be variable and is site specific. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors officially adopted a 350 -foot wide corridor based on guidance from VDOT engineers; he said the 350 -feet included extra width that will be needed for CD lanes and the need for the roadway to stay elevated, over multiple road crossings. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2564 Minutes of November 4, 2009 On. A V T -3— Ivir. Bishop proceeded to discuss the Route I l impacts; he said the TIA shows a number of intersections along Route I I which would be negatively impacted with this development. Mr. Bishop said that staffs discussions with the applicant suggested potential ways to address the Route I l impacts which included a partnership between the applicant and the County on the southbound Route I1 improvements and a connection between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Mr. Bishop said the applicant has not offered a proffer regarding either of these improvements at This point m time. Bicycle facility connectivity was the final issue addressed by Mr. Bishop, which he said was an issue that is becoming increasingly important to citizens, both locally and nationwide, and is a goal of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Bishop said this location of Frederick County provides a unique opportunity between the Snowden Bridge residential development, Rutherford Crossing wi±h a significant shopping area, and the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation's property which has a number of trails within it. He said in the middle of this is the proposed Graystcne development. He said this will be an opportunity to have a fully interconnected bicycle network where folks could potentially live in Snowden Bridge, work in the Graystone development, shop in the Rutherford Crossing shopping center, and play on the S VBF's property without having to drive their vehicles_ Commissioner Thomas asked how much land from this 271 -acre site woOd be ;n the 350 -foot corridor plus the interchange needed. Mr. Bishop replied that it would be approximately 33.5 acres as compared to the amount the applicant expected to dedicate, which was 27.5 acres or approximately 12% of the site. Commissioner Thomas asked for clarification on the right-of-way the applicant was willing to dedicate versus what they were willing to allow the county to purchase for the Route 37 corridor. Mr. Bishop said the full 350 -foot is not a dedication; the applicant is willing to dedicate 225 feet and enough right-cf way to accommodate an interchange with 800 -foot spacing between ramps. Mr. Bishop said the staffs issue is with the difference between 225 feet and 350 feet; he said this would be a significant cost to the taxpayers in the future - Commissioner Triplett asked Mr. Bishop if the applicant was in a position to help with the connection needed at Redbud and the off -ramp. Mr. Bishop said he was not suggesting that the applicant construct an off -ramp; however, in terms of the connection from Redbud to Snowden Bridge Boulevard, he said the applicant has property spanning this entire distance. Mr. Bishop suggested a possible right-of-way reservation or a design included with the land base layout, in terms of an internal road that would eventually become public; be said it would seem there was some way to reach the goal without too much deprivation to the site. Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT came forward for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the transportation system in this area will be able to accommodate this development, plus 2,000 dwellings, in addition to background traffic. Mr. Ingram replied that the applicant has discussed closing Redbud Road and re -aligning the off -ramp; he said VDOT has no way to do this, but it would have a considerable impact. Mr. Ingram said that until Route 37 is connected to I-81, this will be a deteriorating transportation system, as far as the level of service. Commissioner Thomas commented this is such a large traffic impact that it will not only affect intersections or roads, but the entire region; he asked if the transportation system could handle the traffic if Route 37 is not connected to I-81 before the development is at 50% build out. Mr. Ingram replied that it will be dependent on timing and the rate of construction; he said Route 11 will be challenged. Mr. Ingram said nothing has been offered with this rezoning application on Route 1 I to enhance the maneuverability and flow of traffic. He thought Route 37 would be the key to this whole northern section, in addition to closing Redbud Road, and re -aligning the ramp_ Frederick County Planning CommissionPage 2565 Minutes of November 4, 2009 1 ® Emig Commissioner Unger asked Mr_ Ingram if the 225 feet of right-of-way offered by the applicant would be sufficient for Route 37 and Mr. Ingram replied no. Mr. Ingram said that on Route 37 northbound, where it ties into Route 50, there is an elevated roadway and the flyover from one side to the other is about 340 feet, which is typical for that elevation. He said if CD lanes are placed, it will have to be re -engineered, but VDOT will need a minimum of 350 feet_ Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, was representing this rezoning application and came forward to address the issues raised by the staff_ Regarding conformity to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Mr_ Wyatt stated that the Stephenson Village/Snowden Bridge project fulfilled the planned unit development (PUD) goal of providing public, recreational, and open space and commercial services, but not employment opportunities. He said that by ,harrying this project along with what that PUD started, by providing the office and industrial park, the result is a balance of land uses which is in keeping with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Mr. Wyatt next addressed the transportation issues_ Mr_ Wyatt stated that this project's major intersection, Snowden Bridge Boulevard with Route Il, functions at a LOS "D" which has been viewed with previous economic development projects as being acceptable and reasonable. He said where they end up being deficient on Route I 1 is at the Welltown Road intersection, at the northbound off -ramp with I-81, and at the intersection of Old Charlestown Road. Mr. Wyatt said the intersections showing deficiencies in the LOS (E and F) are in the same place with background traffic as they are for this development_ He said Els clients are willing to help with improving the LOS at these locations. He noted they are providing a corridor study area and they've made the corridor study area wider to the south because of right-of-way acquisition costs for zoned property. In response to the corridor width issue, Mr. Wyatt said that until a design for Route 37 is accomplished, no one knows how much width will be required. Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT has stated they could accomplish a 30% design within five years. Mr. Wyatt next recognized the comments from the HRA_B. Mr. Wyatt said the applicant will provide 1,600 trees along Milburne Road, which is over 5,400 linear feet, to meet the buffer requirements of the zoning ordinance. He described other areas of buffering as required by the zoning ordinance_ Considering the I- n B comments, no revisions to the proffer were offered by the applicant to go above and beyond what is required by the zoning ordinance, other than the elimination of the higher FAR and building heights. Commissioner Unger expressed concern about the possibility of losing the right-of-way for Route 37 through this property after the eight years committed by the applicant. Mr. Wyatt explained that the proffer is written for a 350 -foot minimum study area which flairs out at the bottom and the County will have an opportunity to work a design within the general location shown on the MDP; once the eight-year time line expires, the applicant can either dedicate 225 feet of right-of-way or the applicant can continue the time line, if there is no need to worry about the land use in that area. Mr. Wyatt said that VDOT has stated there could be a design configuration determined by that time. Commissioner Thomas questioned why the Route 37 time line could not be extended to 15 years, since the applicant's speculation for development was a 30 plus -year build out_ In addition, Commissioner Thomas said the dedication of right-of-way less than 350 feet was not realistic, considering topography and engineering. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing for citizen comments and the following person came forward: Frederick County Planning Commission s Page 2566 Minutes of November 4, 2009 M I u� 1 1 -5 - The Executive Director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF), W. Denman Zirkle, came forward and presented a letter on behalf of the SVBF, dated November 3, 2009. Mr. Zirkle said the SVBF is a non-profit organization and is tasked by congressional legislation to preserve, interpret, and promote the battlefields 'in the Shenandoah Valley. Mr. Zirkle said the SVBF is concerned about this proposal because the Graystone property lies within core and study areas for the Second and Third Winchester battlefields. He said this property has the integrity and cohesion required for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the property itself and the surrounding landscape have intrinsic historic value to the nation as well as the community. Mr. Zirkle said the conversion of this property from agricultural to commercial/ light industrial use would be incompatible with its historic significance. He said furthermore, as noted by the Planning Staff, the uses proposed are inconsistent with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan_ Mr_ Zirkle said the SVBF, the National Park Service, the Commonwealth of Virginia, private donors in the Winchester -Frederick County area and beyond, the Civil War Preservation Trust, and Frederick County have together invested more than $6 million to preserve lands in this area in accordance with Frederick County's planning guidance. He said the subject proposal would devalue the significant investment made by these private and public entities_ A second concern raised by Mr_ Zirkle was the proposed building heights in the application_ He pointed out that more than 570 acres of preserved land lie immediately to the south of the subject property; he said much of this landscape appears as it did to residents and soldiers at the time of the Second and Ted Battles of Winchester and the land retains its historic, agricultural character and there are very few modern visual intrusions. Mir. Zirkle sWLed that the rezoning application proposed the construction of 90 -foot (potentially nine -story) office buildings and 70 -foot (potentially seven -story) parking garages on the subject property. He said the ARAB has expressed concerns about the impact of these buildings on preserved land and the SVBF shares that concern. He stated that buildings at those heights will dramatically change the historic character of the landscape that so many have worked very diligently to preserve. Accordingly, significantly reducing building height would reduce the visual impact on those preserved areas and viewsheds. Finally, Mr. Zirkle said they are concerned about the proposed buffers. He said the applicant proposes to create a buffer for his development and to place that buffer on SVBF land; he said that because the SVBF land is protected with federal funds, it would not be permissible for them to convey to a third party any interest in their land through easement. Mr_ Zirkle was pleased that the applicant recognizes the need for buffering and would suggest that effective buffering should be placed around the perimeter of the property along its frontage on Redbud Road, as well as Milburne Road. Mr. Zirkle then concluded his remarks and thanked the Commission for allowing him to speak_ No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to address the comments of Mr. Zirkle of the SVBF. Mr. Wyatt said for the Board of Supervisors' meeting, the applicant will eliminate the additional heights Mr. Zirkle mentioned. Mr. Wyatt also wanted to clarify the proffer by stating the applicant was not looking to acquire SVBF land, but they were basically looking for permission to do landscaping plantings on their property, if they would choose, because the ordinance does not require buffering between the applicant's site and the SVBF's property. Mr. Ruddy returned to the podium to state this was a significant project in a location with a variety of significant elements_ He said procedurally, this application and proffer statement were submitted as part of the Commission's agenda package and the staff and the Commission are bound to address the information provided, although recognizing the applicant is anticipating making some changes to what was discussed in detail this evening and to present those changes to the Board. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2567 Minutes of November 4, 2009 r0i ® d F 1 Z. Chairman Wilmot called for Commission discussion and mentioned the two primary issues raised by the Commission, the extension of the time line for reservation of the Route 37 corridor and the width of the right-of-way for the reserved corridor. Commissioners commented that the proffers have been changed and neither the staff nor the Commission has had an opportunity to review those revisions. Other Commissioners mentioned that no restrictions or limitations have been placed on the M1 uses, especially from the standpoint of transportation, land use, and visual impacts on the surrounding community; the uncertainty of who would own the property five years from now and what they would do with the property was a concern. Others noted that the size of development and the use was wide open and there was no phasing plan; transportation impacts will be felt along Routes 7, 11, 522, and I-81. Commissioners also commented this will be a destination site, as far as employment; housing and infrastructure questions were also raised. Mr_ Ingram said VDOT received a new set of rules on access management in October and 350 feet will be required for the Route 37 corridor. He said his personal opinion was that anything less than 350 feet at this time will hamstring the County a few years down the road. Mr. Ingram said another important key to the transportation was the relocation of the north -bound off -ramp so that it aligns with the north -bound on-ramp. He said it will relieve a lot of pressure in that area; however, the connection to Redbud is needed in order to accomplish that_ Some of the Commissioners were supportive of the M1 zoning, but believed there were too many unanswered questions regarding transportation and other issues at this time. A motion was made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas to table the rezoning application for 60 days. This motion passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table for 60 days Rezoning Application #09-09 of Graystone Corporation of Virginia, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 27139 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for office and manufacturing uses_ (Note: Corrmissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting; Commissioner Oates abstained_) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 605, OM (Office Manufacturing Park) District. This revision to the zoning ordinance will include additional uses and new design standards. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that Frederick County had received a request to revise portions of the Office -Manufacturing (OM) Park Zoning District. Ms. Perkins said specifically, the request is to add various manufacturing uses, office uses, and service uses. The request also included revisions to the height allowance for office buildings from 60 feet to 90 feet, and 70 feet for automobile parking structures, to allow a height exemption for automated storage facilities, and to increase the FAR (floor to area ratio) from 1.0 to 2.0. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2568 Minuies of November 4, 2009 Do 0 I F T" -7 - Ms. Perkins said the Planning Commission discussed this amendment at their meeting of October 7, 2009, and recommend the request be sent forward to the Board of Supervisors. She said the Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their October 14, 2009, meeting and was satisfied with the changes and approved the item to be sent forward to public hearing. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. The Planning Commission had no concerns or issues with the amendment. A motion to recommend approval was made by Commissioner Thomas, seconded by Commissioner Kriz, and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 605, OM (Office Manufacturing Park) District_ This revision to the zoning ordinance will include additional uses and new design standards. (Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Cade, Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 155 102.®6, to revise the rezoning procedures. This amendment will add a : equiren,ent for the legal form of proffers and a requirement that approved proffers be recorded, along with modifications to the enforcement standards. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that the Planning Commission held a public hearing for this amendment at their June 17, 2009, meeting, for the legal form and recordation of proffers, and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Esoard of Supervisors. Ms. Perkins said that when the Board held a public hearing for this at their July 22 meeting, they requested to see some additional changes. The changes were for provisions for the modifications of proffers. She said the amendment still includes the recordation and legal form of proffers, as well as some revised enforcement standards. She said all of the changes were endorsed by the Board at their September 9, 2009 meeting. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments_ No one came forward to speak and Ms. Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. presented. No issues were raised by the Planning Commission and they endorsed the amendment as Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Section 165-102.06, to revise the rezoning procedures. This amendment will add a requirement for the legal form of proffers and a requirement that approved proffers be recorded, along with modifications to -Lb e enforcement standards. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2569 Minutes of November 4, 2009 D n (Note: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting.) An Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606, M1 (Light Industrial) District. This amendment provides revisions to the zoning ordinance to include commercial recreation (indoor) as a permitted use. Action — Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E_ Perkins, reported that Frederick County had received a formal request to include commercial recreation operated indoor to the permitted uses in the MI (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Ms. Perkins said currently, this use is permitted in the B2 (Business General) and B3 (Industrial Transition) Districts. She said that while this request was originally for a dog training program, the ordinance amendment would be applicable to all types of commercial indoor recreation. Ms. Perkins said the staff has since received numerous requests for other recreational uses in this district_ Ms. Perkins stated that with this proposed ordinance amendment, design standards have been included for the use when established in the Ml District; these standards address patron parking and safety, along wi li regulations for when this use is developed in a -Waster-planned industrial park_ A revised definition has also been included. Ms. Perkins said the Planning Commission discussed this proposed amendment at their September 16, 2009, meeting. At that meeting, she said Commissioners discussed whether this was an appropriate permanent solution for this issue and questioned if indoor dog training would not be more appropriate as a conditional use in the RA (Rural Areas) District. She said it was recommended to the Board of Supervisors !hat the use be limited to the dog training. Ms. Perkins said the Board discussed this at their October 14, 2009, meeting and recommended that indoor recreation as a whole be sent to public hearing. Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. John Defilippi, Shawnee District was representing the Blue Ridge Dog Training Club, the group making the original request for the ordinance amendment. Mr. Defilippi said the Blue Ridge Dog Training Club is a 40 -year old, non-profit organization_ He said the club is community active through demonstrations, community outreach, working at shelters, and offering training for people with new dogs and those who wish to compete. He said they originally conducted outdoor training, and then moved to an indoor site where they rented from Sportsplex; however, they were always looking for a permanent solution or their own facility so they could establish regular classes that would be accessible to more people. Mr. Defilippi said this particular building seems to be what they were looking for, with available open spaces. Commissioner Oates said he was opposed to this proposal at the DRRC discussion. He said he did not believe indoor recreation was appropriate for industrial areas. Commissioner Oates believed the difference between B3 and MI is becoming too vague; he said the uses were not being separated any longer. Commissioner Oates believed the industrial areas should be set up for factories and other good tax -generating businesses_ He said there are existing B3 and B2 areas available for indoor Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 4, 2009 0C1GIPr`il' Page 2570 won recreation; and possibly, areas in RA with a conditional use permit (CUP). Commissioner Oates said he could not support this request. Commissioner Madagan agreed with Commissioner Oates. He said after reviewing comments from the EDC (Economic Development Commission), he agreed this could restrict the marketing of the industrial areas to outside manufacturers because they would not be interested in mixing passenger vehicles and industrial traffic. Commissioner Madagan said he could not support this request either. Commissioner Thomas commented about how this could be economically feasible for an industrial area, especially if the hours are limited from 5.00 p_m_ to 12:00 a -m. He said the restriction was placed so the use would not conflict with the industrial park traffic. Commissioner Unger stated that this was extensively discussed at the DRRC meeting. Commissioner Unger felt sure the reason this wasn't being done in the RA District with a CUP was because of the expense of constructing a building. He said the hours proposed would limit the traffic conflict and he also believed this was an isolated case. Commission members asked Ms. Perkins about the nature of the other inquiries. Ms_ Perkins said there were inquiries for indoor sports, such as soccer, hockey, etc_ Commissioner Triplett commented atat tine owners of these MI buildings have empty buildings which are not being used and they are willing to consider leasing their buildings on a temporary basis, rather than have them sit empty. Commissioners believed that the economy is affecting the use of these buildings. Some members of the COMMIssion had hoped this amendment could have been restricted to dog training only. They couldn't see bow a sporting event or dog training could compete economically with the rent a building owner could receive from an MI user. Consequentially, they believed the economy would sort this out in the long run. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and it was passed by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an Ordinance to Amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 606, MI (Light Industrial) District. This amendment provides revisions to the zoning ordinance to include commercial recreation (indoor) as a permitted use. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Mohn, Triplett, Thomas, Manuel, Ambrogi, Crosen, Unger NO: Oates, Wilmot, Madagan, Kriz (Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting_) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2571 Minutes of November 4, 2009 WWI F ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 935 p -m. by a unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, '-me M- Wilmot, Chairman Eric R Lawrence, Secretary Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of November 4, 2009 Page 2572 REZONING APPLICATION #06-09 JORDAN SPRINGS PROPERTY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: December 18, 2009 Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed Action Planning Commissiorc 01/06/10 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/27/10 Pending PROPOSAL: To revise proffers associated with Rezoning 410-01 for 10.33 acres of land zoned B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone. This revision is intended to add permitted uses on the site. LOCATION: The property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road and fronts the west side of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THL 01/06/10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone 10.33 acres of land zoned B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone to B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone with revised proffers for the Historic Jordan Springs Property. This proffer revision seeks to provide for additional uses on the site. The land arse proposed in this application is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and has addressed all of staff's concerns. This proposed proffer amendment is necessary to resolve existing zoning violations on the property concerning uses being conducted that are not permitted by proffer (outlined in the site history portion on page 3). Approval of this proffer amendment will also require the property owner to implement parking improvements to accommodate the uses. Followink the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be apprivriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning 406-09 — Jordan Springs Property December 18, 2009 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 011/06/10 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/27/10 Pending PROPOSAL: To revise proffers associated with Rezoning #01-07 for 10.33 acres of land zoned B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay "Zone with proffers to B2 District with HA with revised profferg. LOCATION: The property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road and fronts the east and west side of Jordan Springs Road (Route 664) and fronts the west side of Wood's Mill Road (Route 660). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 44-A-294 and 44 -A -294A (portions of) PROPERTY ZONING: B2 (Business General) District with a Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone PRESENT USE: Historic and Commercial ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned R4 (Residential Use: Vacant Planned Community) District South: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District East: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Zoned RP (Residential Performance) Use: Agricultural / Residential Use: Agricultural / Residential Use: Residential West: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Agricultural / Residential Rezoning #06-09 — Jordan Springs Property December 18, 2009 Page 3 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The driveway pavement will need to be widened, to allow two vehicles to pass without driving on the grass, a sufficient distance to allow for a reasonable outbound queue. Foliage to the north of the entrance needs to be adjusted so as not to block sight distance. If the facility is looking at primarily weekend events, I do not believe a turn lane is needed at this time. Increased radii will be required at the entrance to allow large vehicles, such as limousines, to enter without entering the outbound lane. This will probably take a bit of engineering due to the shallow cover at the existing drainage pipe. Curb and gutter would be optional at this time. I will reserve any further comments for when I review the proposed entrance plan. Planning Department: Please see attached letter dated June 12, 2009, from Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director. Historic Resources Advisor Board: Please see attached letter dated December 1, 2009, from Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the zoning for the parcels which comprise the proposed rezoning as A-2 (Agricultural General) District zoning classification. The A-2 classification was modified to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the county's Zoning Ordinance. The subject site has been utilized in the past as a resort, a hotel, and as a seminary by the Missionary Servants of the Holy Trinity, a rehabilitation center by Shalom et Benedictus and more recently as offices for County Court Reporters Inc. In 2001 the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning # 10-01 for Jordan Springs (County Court Reports, Inc.) which rezoned the 10.33 acre site from the RA District to the B2 District with a HA Overlay Zone. Rezoning #10-01 restricted the site usage to: Health Services, Legal Services, Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services, General business offices, Public buildings, and Residential uses that are accessory to allowed business uses. In the summer of 2009, the property owners were informed that certain activities being conducted on the site (special events such as weddings, dinners and other events) were not permitted and were in violation of the use conditions associated with Rezoning #10-01. It was further explained that in order to remedy this violation, the property owner needed to secure a proffer amendment including the new uses, secure an approved site plan that addresses parking areas on the site and, finally, implement the improvements specified on the siteplan. Theproffer amendmentproposed with this application is thefirst step necessary to resolve the violations on the property. Rezoning #06-09 — Jordan Springs Property December 18, 2009 Page 4 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] The subject properties (portions currently zoned B2/HA) are within the limits of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Sewer and Water Service Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of planned commercial, and industrial development will occur. The properties are within the limits of the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan. The plan shows this area with a commercial land use designation. The applicant is requesting to revise the proffers for 10.33 acres of land zoned B2/HA and this request is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Land Use. Rezoning #10-01 restricted the site usage to: Health Services, Legal Services, Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services, General business offices, Public buildings, and Residential uses that are accessory to allowed business uses. The proffer revision being proposed with Rezoning #06-09 seeks to add Museums, Eating and drinking places, Exposition operations and Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services to the list of permitted uses on the site. This proffer revision is being sought to provide for additional uses and opportunities on the site as well as legitimize uses currently operating on the site in violation of the approved proffers from Rezoning #10-01. 3) Proffer Statement — Dated November 3, 2009: A) Allowed Uses Health Services Legal Services Engineering, accounting, research management and related services General Business Offices ® Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses • Museums ® Eating and drinking places Exposition operations • Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 01/06/10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This is an application to rezone 10.33 acres of land zoned B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone to B2 (General Business) District with Historic Area (HA) Overlay Zone with Rezoning #06-09 — Jordan Springs Property December 18, 2009 Page 5 revised proffers for the Historic Jordan Springs Property. This proffer revision seeks to provide for additional uses on the site. The land use proposed in this application is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and has addressed all of staff's concerns. This proposed proffer amendment is necessary to resolve existing zoning violations on the property concerning uses being conducted that are not permitted by proffer (outlined in the site historyportion on page 3). Approval of this proffer amendment will also require the property owner to implement parking improvements to accommodate the uses. Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 June 12, 2009 Toni Wallace Historic Jordan Springs 1160 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, Virginia 22656 RE: Special Event Uses at the Jordan Springs property Property Identification Number (PIN): 44-A-294 1160 Jordan Springs Road Zoned: B2 with proffers / Historic Area Overlay Dear Ms. Wallace: I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you June 2, 2009, to discuss your use of the Jordan Springs property for special events. I trust those of us at the meeting; including you, Paige Manuel, John Trenary, Mark Cheran, and me, collectively have a better understanding of your envisioned use of the historic property for special events, and the associated County building code and zoning requirements. This letter is offered as a summary of our discussions, and as further clarification regarding the steps necessary to bring the property into conformance with the zoning ordinance. The site is a beautiful property, and whether an event is held inside the site's historic structure or within a temporary tent, it is important to maintain compliance with the applicable county codes. John Trenary has informed me that the building code concerns associated with the temporary tent have been addressed, and that a 180 day temporary tent permit has been issued (tent permit to expire December 15, 2009 per building permit #642-09). Confirming adherence with the building code addresses an important safety component. As we discussed, the actual use of the property for special events — whether it be within the existing historic structure or outside on the grounds of the property — is in violation of the proffered conditions associated with the property's B2 zoning (Rezoning Application # 10-01 ), approved by the County on December 12, 2001. The proffered conditions identified the permitted uses; speciai events facilities were not included in the list of permitted uses. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 s Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 June 12, 2009 Ms. Toni Wallace RE: Special Event Uses at the Jordan Springs property The zoning violation could be alleviated upon successful completion of the following three development steps: Securing a proffer amendment, approved by the Board of Supervisors, which includes special events as a permitted use on the property; 2 Securing an approved site plan, a key component of which addresses parking area(s) location and design adequate to accommodate the anticipated capacity of a special event; and 3 Implementation of the site plan identified improvements. Two potential hurdles to the process might be achieving compliance with any Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) requirements pertaining to the site entrance onto Jordan Spring Road, and the ordinance requirements for parking to accommodate your special event guests. I would encourage you to consider establishing a maximum number of guests allowed as part of a special event; such a limitation may be of assistance in determining if any/or the degree of entrance improvements that may be necessary to satisfy transportation safety. Staff has initiated communication with VDOT to assist in gaining an understanding of the potential entrance and road requirements. I had hoped to include our findings in this letter, but have not yet completed our discussions with VDOT. Once we receive finalize our discussions with VDOT, we will convey this information to you. Additionally, in recognition of the property's history, and its inclusion in the Historic Area Overlay District, it may be appropriate to consider an amendment to the County Code pertaining to parking lot material standards. With a letter from you requesting a revision to the parking material standards, the County is prepared to initiate an ordinance amendment that would enable a parking material more complementary of a historic setting. As we discussed, parking areas constructed of pea gravel and grass pave may be more appropriate and compatible with the historic character of properties within the HA Overlay District, such as Jordan Springs. Presuming that you do intend to continue to host special events on this property, resolution of the zoning violation is necessary. Therefore, it is expected that you will make application by September 1, 2009 for a proffer amendment, or other means you might wish to pursue, to facilitate the Special Events as a permitted use on the property. Following an approved proffer amendment, it is expected the site plan and associated constructed improvements be implemented by June 1, 2010. Page 3 June 12, 2009 Ms. Toni Wallace RE: Special Event Uses at the Jordan Springs property I would note that if we do receive a formal complaint regarding the special event activities occurring on the property, we will need to expedite these targeted dates and seek ordinance compliance. I look forward to assisting you in achieving your envisioned special event uses on this property. Sincere , Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development cc: John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator John Trenary, Building Official Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 December 1, 2009 Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. Harrison & Johnston, PLC 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Application Requesting a Rezoning of 1033 Acres from B2 with HA Overlay to B2 with HA Overlay with revised proffers Historic Jordan Springs Property Location: 1160 Jordan Springs Road, Stephenson Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 44-A-294 and 44 -A -294A (portions) Dear Mr. Pettler: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board considered the above - referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting on November 17, 2009. The ARAB reviewed information associated with the applicant's proposed proffer statement and rezoning application. Historic Resources Advisory Board Comments The proposal seeks to revise the proffers approved with Rezoning #10-01, which rezoned ten acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B2 (Business General) District with a Historic Area Overlay with proffers. The property is located at 1160 Jordan Springs Road in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The ARAB reviewed information associated with the applicant's proposed proffer statement and rezoning application. With this proposed rezoning the applicant is seeking to revise the proffer statement to include the following uses: 0 Health Services a Legal Services a Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services b General business offices a Public buildings 0 Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses 9 Museums o Eating and drinking places • Exposition operations 0 Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Stephen L. Pettler, Jr. RE: Jordan Springs — HRAB Comment December 1, 2009 Page 2 The above referenced parcel is a significant site; it is located in the study area for the Second Battle of Winchester and contains structures that are eligible for the State and National Register. The HRAB recognized the applicant's intent to preserve the historic character of the site and felt that the addition of the proposed uses requested by the applicant would further ' their goals. During the HRAB's discussion' there were no adverse comments and after consideration, the HRAB felt that the applicant was seeking to preserve the historic nature of the site and they recommended approval of this rezoning application with the uses presented by the applicant. If this application changes substantially from the information presented to the ARAB on November 17, 2009, the HRAB requests it be provided for further review. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the formal comment from the Historic Resources Advisory Board. Sincerely, Candice E. Perkins, AICP Senior Planner cc_ Rhoda Kriz, HRAB Chairman Jordarpt Sprin� Greig Aitken Et Proffer Revision Toni Wallace Current Zoning PIN: 44 - A - 294 rt 294A (portion) Case Planner: CPerkins ",_ 7 4F-1. RV17 Byp— Zoning B3 (B.—, --,ml -.M.. Dwllid) 4�' NII f NIS (NIIS DiOnd) Case Planner: CPerkins 4F-1. RV17 Byp— Zoning B3 (B.—, --,ml -.M.. Dwllid) 4�' NII f NIS (NIIS DiOnd) ycay " [=4O 1. (1--M, --1 Ois no)R' (n.id-1.1 PI .... d Community, Dujd) RP - P.—... N B2 G...,.] DIA,M) N.1 (-u - ,, 11. Dikf) 4M R5 (R.id—ml W 0 125 250 500 Feet jt (F r 6.1o, "lal 1.�pP, o�lcl m,"J) i iii PROPOSED .MENDED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: Proffer Amendment RZ#09- PROPERTY: Historic Jordan Springs Tax Map Parcels # 44-A-294 and 44 -A -294A 10.33 Acres in Historic Area Overlay Zone RECORD OWNER: Greig D. W. Aitken and Tonic M. Wallace, husband and wife APPLICANT: Greig D. W. Aitken and Tonic M. Wallace, husband and wife PROFFER DATE: November 3, 2009 The Applicant hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as identified above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall be in addition to the proffers made and dated December 11, 2001 per that certain Ordinance Amending The Rezoning District Map, Rezoning#10-01 of Jordan Springs dated Decemberl2, 2001. In the event that the above referenced rezoning proffer amendment is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), this proffer shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, this proffer is contingent upon acceptance of the proffer by a final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of Supervisors' (`Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The Applicant hereby proffers as follows: Allowed Uses Limit the allowed uses to: Health Services Legal Services Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services General business offices Public buildings Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses Museums Eating and drinking places Exposition operations Theatrical Producers and Miscellaneous Theatrical Services Respectfully submitted this o day 2009, GREIG D. W. AITKEN TONE M. WALLACE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of November, 2009, by Greig D. W. Aitken. NOTARY 4 '•' 'QNOTARYRegistration No.: �� PUBLIC My commission expires: C>' �� . (� ,, REG. #241038 = n MY CONOASSION Q so,'. EXPIRES T '•,10,131/2012, STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGEFA�1\°"` FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: ''s, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j� ,day of November, 2009, by Tonic M. Wallace. NOT Y PUBLIC o�ti►e�o�et�,,e Registration No.: JV30 My commission expires: Q l d ' ` d .•' NOTARY �� w J : PUBLIC `1 REG. #241038 : y�y commi1iSS104 IRES �ppglllllsl�� D n� Prrper ty IdentMeana n N - zee: Pp7,. 9 -3f? -Preliminary IIailj A Pttrsuaat iu oC ,7oTr I5."l-Z�^5 pr= Get _ of -be code oTVir&:nU;. 1X50, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County tuning Ordinance with respect m conditional zorkng, the undcrwf `;. _,_ 3^ * - - iffers that in the event the- Board of 9upervisors of Frederick C:onixv_ V iva;a1a, Ntlld; a}pycse ri� fir the = n:ng of 10.33 (+/.•;{-=-s -`turn 'tr i Ar-- %RA- Zoning j.)iaaicc i4 i3u i►j%-� sjejac 41 W-2; Zoning District a-, :' -i: A =:a (HA) Overlay Pone. ilerelopmcm of the subjCCt prvpt::�ry shall be don—f- ist conformity with the terms and conditions set forth h -cin, exucpt to the extent that such nans, ann conditions may be subsequently amertue,: or revised by the: applicant and by the Frederick Caumy board of :"apervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, thea these proffers shall be doemed -:iA have rw L$ect whatsoever. The undersigned, that owns the abflve described property, hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Bo£i�' T;f ,:-^:;rc rs f r the C: Lnrr rrf i ppmycs the rezoning for the 10.33 r+ ' 1 :3.� res the w -i rs'_gncs =: 'I- - Trans�por��ti�:i Ci:.21d". and I�if_ si;--. plar ring stage in accoMance With the Virginia Department of Thmaportation (VDOT) standand Js. Provi,cie ai u AR jti ,: rias'_ e -:t- i - VDOT. Extuau:xs slrall b,.� ;iLiitad Ta -iw j cyi---iirazfc!J ct:ti-Ex cs onto I'_ir --- Ir,14 - All enter-ces shall be coastmacd in accordance with VDOT standards and Frederick County standards. Allowed Uses Limit the allowed uses to: Health 5'etviccs Legal Services Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services. General business offices Publir buildings Residential uses which are accessory to allowed business uses -R -E -ZONING RIQUE ST PROFFER Liz- tic allowed business sign to ane sign_ The sign sball be of monument tvoe co;istrtiction and Limited to fu -Y (30) sq,;;are f::d ;n s .c. &-- a r1-aC;4rI- E--ovEz'_e f'e*lcing cion the gst3tr�et :'.)i .he laL .:..:v:�facc sy-t�e*M pond th4 -APrvices the 10.33 (+/-) acres. -. !i cmd-:Nans pm-#ff�r_ed &,ove shad b-- bind;nff npon the bests, cxecutors, admiltisltwoae +rnre 2I? 17iPer? t Qf � � C8I3t and Ow=. in Tii�: ivClli lc�ld Fic'�CT3C1C FEL - L--" of Supervisors grant said to-zonin and accepts these canditions; the �_r^ff ;i rrT,�jjf�(3Trs 5M1 i �rry :;r:: ' :.a �;tzon to other requirements Set F rrt�', '.^ �r �':•'�p[i�C !Yi-T[_s?11Y � ��= PROPERTY OWNER TNI i -;r aIMU 1-1,all ts of ae ?;Tait Haly ; :°iriity -Sig 06 (Prion atx?ei.p.,1L�� STAVE OF M. �R.YLAIVD, AT I.At Vid C)N-TC VNffiR ' COUNTY, Trrwii: Nl The forcgaing jv3tn=ent was acknowledged before me, #his 77th day of December, 2001. rriv i .nnsy'r11551011 C:�liii�i: ^ t� 1! 1.�L! , !t7 � Nota*y Public: %� _ Revised 12J05 01 pet 1 rcdetick Cou*y SugaudPlcwai ; c.a. yion uu�nusns T 3TI-L P.03 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 'o be completed by Planning Staff: ning Amendment Number ' Hearing Date % „{ Fee Amount Paid $ S-000 Date Received BOS Hearing Date i � i r i T he fllowing information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greig D.W. Aitken & Tmn; P Wal lace Telephone: 540.667. o6on . Address: 1160 Jordan Springs Road, Stephenson, VA 22656 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Address: 3. Contact person if other than above Telephone: Name: Telephone: 4. Checklist: Check the following itemPhat have been included with this applicatiow Location map Agency Comments ✓✓ Plat — Fees Deed to property ✓ Impact Analysis Statement �,/�//o Verification of taxes paid Proffer Statement 10 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request fill disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or patties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Greig D.W. Aitken and Tonie M. Wallace 6. A) Current Use of the Property: RA/B2 B) Proposed Use of the Property: RA/B2 - Amend uses proffered on December 12, 2001 to include: Restaurants (SIC 58); Theatrical Productions (SIC 7922); Hotels (SIC 70); and uses accessory to using the property for events. 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING (See List) 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): The property fronts onto both Jordan Springs (Route 664 i— Dropertv at the intersection). 11 9. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed : Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: N/A Townhome: NIA Multi -Family: /A Non -Residential Lots: N/A Mobile Home: NIA Hotel Rooms: �N/A Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: NIA Service Station: N/A Retail: N/A Manufacturing: N/A Restaurant: N/A Warehouse: N/A Other: N/A 10. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): Owner(s): s ".Z; 20—W& ez� IX 12 Date//I_ ate • .� /_ Date: �r � of Date: fie. % :roves JORDAN SPRINGS Dist of Adjoining Property Owners T.M. 44-A-295 William and Sharon M. Rexrode 1099 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 775. PG. 876 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-A-133 Dorothy L. Hart 897 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D. B. 322. PG. 395 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-7-1 Michael L. & Carol T. Sweet 362 Woods Mill Drive Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 637. PG. 412 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-7-14A William G. Meirer III & Barbara E. Meirer INSTR. #: 030000603 Zoning: RA T.M. 55-7-14 William G. Meirer III & Barbara E. Meirer 270 Lick Run Crossing Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 744. PG. 437 Zoning: RA T.M. 44 -A -31A Stephenson Associates, LC INSTR. #: 030005765 Zoning R4 Mailing Address: 207 Plaza. Street, NE Leesburg, VA 20176 Mailing Address: 207 Plaza Street, NE Leesburg, VA 20176 Mailing Address: PO Box 2530 Winchester, VA 22604 T.M. 44-A-292 Stephenson Associates, LC Mailing Address: INSTR. #: 030005766 PO Box 2530 Zoning R4 Winchester, VA 22604 T.M. 45-5-2-17 Rene Carlson 154 Hummingbird Lane Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 698. PG. 45 Zoning: RP T.M. 45-4-1-1 Clark D. & Barbara K. Fortiney 1281 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 542. PG. 35 Zoning: RP T.M. 45-4-1-2 Clark D. & Barbara K. Fortiney 1281 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 542. PG. 35 Zoning: RP T.M. 45-5-2-16 Michael S. & Joan B. Sigler 141 Hummingbird Lane Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 484. PG. 234 Zoning: RP T.M. 45-4-1-3 John M. & K. June Conley Mailing Address: 1327 Jordan Springs Road PO Box 218 Stephenson, VA 22656 Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 484. PG. 22 Zoning: RP T.M. 44-A-293 Brookfield Stephenson Village, LLC Mailing Address: INSTR. #: 040002 293 8500 Executive Park Avenue Zoning: R4 Suite 300 Fairfax, VA 22031 T.M. 45-9-3-2 William D. & Patsy L. Hoffman 163 Monastery Ridge Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 585. PG.442 Zoning: RA T.M. 45-8-3-3 Terry F. & Angela Rudolph 170 Monastery Ridge Road Stephenson, VA 22656 INSTR.#: 0500014891 Zoning: RA T.M. 45-9-3-4 Ervin W. & Barbara K. Simons 220 Monastery Ridge Road Stephenson, VA 22656 INSTR. #:010007198 Zoning: RA T.M. 45-4-1-4 Christian F. Kiene 1373 Jordan Springs Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 509. PG. 214 Zoning: RA T.M. 44-A-296 Herman D. Claar 102 Wood Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22656 Zoning: RA T.M. 44-A-297 & 297A Harold R. & Caroline D. Connor 1010 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 804. PG. 207 Zoning: RA Mailing Address: PO Box 22 Stephenson, VA 22656 T.M. 55-A-135 Ronald A. & Mary C. Lee 1847 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22603 D.B. 867. PG. 1843 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A -1-22A Herman M Clark, III 966 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 840. PG. 824 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A-1-21 Robert L. Williams 946 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22656 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A-1-20 JRW Properties & Rentals, Inc. 13 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 D.B. 596. PG. 515 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A-1-19 JRW Properties & Rentals, Inc. 13 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 D.B. 596. PG. 515 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A-1-18 JRW Properties & Rentals, Inc. 13 South Loudoun Street Winchester, VA 22601 D.B. 596. PG. 515 Zoning: RA T.M. 55A-1-17 Tina Newlin 906 Woods Mill Road Stephenson, VA 22656 D.B. 960. PG. 103 Zoning: RA A CURRENT OWNER: MISSIONARY SERVANTS OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY REF: TAX MAP 44 - A PRCL 294 CURRENT ZONING: RA REOUESTED REZONING: B - 2 REZONING AREA: 10.33 ACRES N45.00'OQ"E 140.00 N17.30'00'W 250.00' \ n Sop S23''00'00"W \ 297.00' 2� \ s, \ BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS COMPILED FROM EXISTING LAND RECORDS �� •\ AND DOES NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL FIELD RUN BOUNDARY SURVEY BY TRIAD ENGINEERING. oo^ THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A T?LE REPORT. THEREFORE. THIS PLAT MAY NOT INDICATE ALL ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY. BUILDING LOCATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE DETERMINED FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND ARE APPROXIMATE. THE EXISTENCE OF VEGETATED OR TIDAL WETLANDS WAS NOT DETERMINED DURING THIS SURVEY. THE EXACT LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WAS NOT ESTABLISHED DURING THIS SURVEY. /00 O /00 200 300 400 SCALE-, /'-/Oo "•1 1514°20'23"W ' Y' 173.02' N i ` \g0S',i I `o � °o S79°56'54"E 01- N81' 32'18 351.88 ` 353.27' `N86' 33' 40"E 445. UB ' / oot, ` _ ----------------- — S89.18'03"E 900.00' I S00.41'59"W I/ W — — i 138.08' s� .. :moo aoo a.o O 88.97 IIo Ln o�m N 0 .\ 106.94' a� I 589.18' 0\J,"E 900.00' \ oo\ III i 00 S47'00'00"W 179.00' IN V1 \ '1'o 50 2 355 009,.E 1 1m 1 \ N83.00'01"W :i 105.00 �S23930'09'E .93i IN84'30'00"W i i 514.09' ! o0 i y0.y z /00 O /00 200 300 400 SCALE-, /'-/Oo • J REZONING APPLICATION 909-09 GRAYSTONE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: December 21, 2009 (Modified December 28, 2009) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director John Bishop, AICP, Transportation- Deputy Planning Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/04/09 Tabled 60 Days 01/06/10 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/27/10 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) Districtto MI (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Manufacturing Uses. LOCATION: The properties are located on the north side of Redbud Road (Route 661), the east side of the CSX Railroad, the west side of Milburn Road (Route 662), and the south of McCanns Road (Route 838). PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE FOR 01/06/10 MEETING: The Applicant has provided the Planning Commission with a revised Proffer Statement dated November 17, 2009. The modifications to the Proffer Statement address the concerns of the County Attorney and are in the appropriate legal form. Specifically, the Applicant has addressed the improper expansion of permitted land uses within the M1 District and the expansion of the dimensional requirements by removing both of them from the Proffer Statement. The Applicant has made several other minor modifications to the Statement in clarification of specific points. However, the Applicant has made no substantial modifications to the Proffer Statement to address the concerns identified during the Planning Commission or in the staff report. Most significantly, the Applicant has made no changes to the transportation proffers that would address the transportation impacts of this request. The Applicant's presentation to the Commission included several proposed commitments to changing the proffer. Not all of these commitments have been included in the latest Proffer Statement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 01/06/10 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Graystone rezoning application is generally inconsistent with the land use designation of the Northeastern Frederick Land Use Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, and does not address additional goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. The Applicant has not yet demonstrated how the M1 land use designation is consistent with the land use plan. In addition, elements of the rezoning application have been identified in the staff report that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Plan. More specifically, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following concerns: Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 2 -- -__ 1)= The potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. -- 2) The transportation impacts associated with this request, including the impacts to the planning and construction of future Route 37. 3) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding --- - Archeological Resource Surveys, impacts to historical resources and DSA's, and view shed mitigation through natural and enhanced buffering and screening. 4) The pfeblematie language eerAained within the Pfeffer- StafemeRt b b G +y n ++Rey, letter of the r;rW r ,.f fi s_dated n + b , 6 2009 Addressed in 11/17109 Proffer Statement. The required public Hearin,- was held on November 4, 2009. A recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The ayplicant should be vrepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning 409-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 3 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report: Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 11/04/09 Tabled 60 Days 01/06/10 Pending Board of Supervisors: 01/27/10 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Manufacturing Uses. LOCATION; "The properties are located on the north side of Redbud Road (Route 661), the east side of the CSX Railroad, the west side of Milburn Road (Route 662), and the south of McCanns Road (Route 838). MAGISTI II;iAL D't,"JTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 43 -A -158,44-A-25 and 44-A-26 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Use: South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: � a 4 li n • .,.. t L\E BLLU /1�'/LCLLLLILL aL LEs LL LI.I Red East: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Red Bud Agricultural District R4 (Residential Planned Community) West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: MI (Light Industrial) Agricultural/Vacant Agricultural/Residential/Historic Agricultural Vacant (Snowden Bridge) Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 4 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Frederick County Transportation: Please see attached email dated September 25, 2009, from John Bishop, Deputy Director — Transportation. Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see attached email from VDOT dated October 6, 2009 and attached response letter from Greenway Engineering dated October 9, 2009. Final review comment provided by VDOT on October 20, 2009. Fire Marshal: Approval for rezoning is contingent upon a second means of emergency access to the property once construction has begun. Access from Milburn Road and Redbud Road is preferred. Plan approval recommended. Public Works Department: 1. Refer to Existing Conditions under Site Suitability. Expand the discussion to include a reference to the power line which crosses the southern end of the property. 2. Refer to Wetlands under Site Suitability. Include reference locations of all the existing springs within the proposed development. 3. Refer to Soil Types under Site Suitability. The description of the soil types should be expanded to include a more thorough description of the site geology. The statement referencing "minor areas of limestone geology exist on the subject properties" is not correct. In fact, a majority of the site is underlaid by limestone formations. Developed sinkholes also are present with the site. In addition, a maj or thrust fault diagonally bisects this site. It appears that the existing springs are located in close proximity to this fault. We recommend that detailed geological mapping be performed and included with the master development plan. The mapping should include, but not be limited to, approximate locations of limestone and shale formation faults, sinkholes, springs and owner pertinent karst features. Department of Inspections: No comment required at this time. Shall comment at the time of site plan review. Sanitation Authority: A review of our sewer and water systems indicate there should be (1) sufficient transportation capacity in the sewer lines and treatment capacity at the receiving sewer facility, and (2) sufficient water line pressure and water supply to serve the parcels for the type of rezoning requested. Service Authority: No comments. Winchester Regional Airport: Based on estimated calculation using existing ground elevations in that area, we do not believe that this rezoning will impact operations of the Winchester Regional Airport; however, because of the location mere is some concern with Section C items 2,3 and 4 of the proffer statement regarding the heights of proposed structures. Without knowing the FF elevation we cannot determine at this time the maximum height allowed to avoid a penetration into the airport's airspace. That determination would be made upon review of the site plan(s) when submitted. We would request that the owner be advised that upon review of actual site plan(s), should one or more of the structures penetrate into the airport's airspace we would request the owner to install FAA approved obstruction lights which would address any safety concerns. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 5 Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated September 16, 2009, from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB): The DRAB met on October 20, 2009. Their comments are provided in attached letter dated October 21, 2009. Plannin1l Department: Please see attached Memorandum dated October 2, 2009 from Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use. The 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the UDA and SWSA. In general, the proposed land use is not clearly supported by the Comprehensive Plan. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan recommends that the land use for this property is predominantly Planned Unit Development with large areas of identified DSA (Developmentally Sensitive Area). The Applicant should further demonstrate how the MI land use designation is consistent with the land use plan. The Planned Unit Development Concept seeks to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment, and service uses. Areas used for commercial and industrial land uses shall not exceed 50% of the gross area of the planned community. Sufficient commercial and industrial areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide an appropriate balance of uses and to lessen the overall impact of the planned community on Frederick County. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 6 The proposed Ml (Light Industrial) designation is intended to provide for a variety of light manufacturing, commercial office and heavy commercial uses in well planned industrial settings. Uses are allowed which do not create noise smoke, dust or other hazards. Uses are allowed which do not adversely affect nearby residential or business areas. Such industrial areas shall be provided with safe and sufficient access. In general, the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan was designed to provide for a balance of land uses which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors, the introduction of a planned unit development (PUD) land use, and the preservation of rural areas and significant historic features within the study area boundaries. Future land uses within the study area boundary should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. Identified Developmentally Sensitive Areas (PSA's) The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, identifies a portion of the Graystone rezoning site as being within the Second Winchester Study Area and a large portion of parcel 44-A-25 is within the Core Battlefield. This core area is part of Stephenson's Depot (Second Winchester — Phase 9). The core area of the Second Winchester Battlefield (Stephenson's Depot) on this site is shown as having retained much of its historic integrity according to the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Portions of the site are also within the study area of the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon) and adjacent to its core. Portions of this site are designated as Development -Sensitive Area in the Northeast Land Use Plan of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. See the attached maps for further information. The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia, identifies seven structures/sites within the immediate area of the subject site; one structure was located on-site. The sites that are listed in the survey are: 1. Carter -Hardesty House (#34-112) — was located on site but burned and was demolished 2. Byers House (#34-1124) 3. Godfries-Semples House (#34-135) 4. Helm -McCann Property (#34-703) 5. Rutherford's Farm (#34-727) — site consists of historical markers and foundations 6. McCann, Thomas House (#34-729) 7. Milburn Chapel & Cemetery (#34-950) Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District The Frederick County Board of Supervisors established the Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal District, consisting of 879.98 acres in the Stonewall Magisterial District, on May 1St, 2006. Several properties located to the east of this project, directly across Milburn Road, and properties to the south, directly across Red Bud Road, which also contain significant historic resources, are included within the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District. The Red Bud Agricultural & Forestal District was created to contribute to the conservation and preservation of agricultural and forestal land in Frederick County. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 7 Transportation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-206). The Comprehensive Plan calls for a number of significant roadway improvements which impact this property. Number one among those improvements is the Route 37 corridor and interchange. The Route 37 corridor has long been a planned arterial roadway connecting the eastern part of the County, and extreme care should be taken not to undermine this goal. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan calls for a public roadway connection between Snowden Bridge Boulevard and Redbud Road. Per the plan, this will allow the I-81 northbound exit ramp to Route 11 to be relocated which will improve traffic safety and flow on Route 11. Snowden Bridge Boulevard is a proffered major collector road improvement that implements the County's Eastern Road Plan. Site Access and design. The most recent proffers for this site indicate three entrances to Snowden Bridge, and allows that one will move. As this application moves forward due diligence will need to be given to make sure than no proposed entrances negatively impact the future implementation or functionality of Route 37. 3) Site SuitabilityXnvironment This property contains areas of Green Infrastructure elements and features including; areas of wetlands, areas of karst topography, and Developmentally Sensitive Areas. Such features could be incorporated into the project to a greater extent than is presently provided, in particular at the properties perimeter. Low Impact Design methods could be implemented throughout the development of this site, as could the use of LEED (or equivalent) land development and building design standards. It has been recommended that additional commitments are evaluated and made to adequately address the potential impacts on the historic and natural resources, both on the site and adjacent to the site. This could be done in coordination with adjacent stakeholders. Collaboration, now or in the future, with adjacent historical stakeholders would appear to be appropriate and beneficial to the project. The HRAB would be an important resource to help facilitate this collaboration. It is suggested that the Applicant is proactive in this regard. Please refer to the comments provided by the HRAB in this regard. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 8 The potential exists to further promote the use of the existing adjacent roads for historical recreational open space corridors as previously recognized. As part of this effort, it is suggested that the buffers adjacent to Battlefield preservation properties, easements, and historical corridors should be tailored, potentially in conjunction with historical stakeholders and the Virginia Department of Forestry. As an example, the adjacent development proposed creating naturally vegetated or natively planted buffer areas, even proposing re -vegetation at a specific rate of trees per acre. Such an approach would appear to be effective with this project. It would appear to be necessary for the Applicant, through the proffer statement, to provide some guidance as to the phases of site development and constructability of the site to ensure that any potential impacts to adjacent properties, environmental resources, and historical resources are mitigated or, more importantly, avoided. 4) Potential Impacts A. 'Transportation Applicant's Transportation Program To offset the transportation impacts of this 271.39 acre RA to Ml rezoning, this applicant has offered a number of transportation proffers. The proffers of this application provide partial right-of-way dedication for Route 37 and an interchange on their property, advance the implementation. of Snowden Bridge Boulevard ahead of the previous Snowden Bridge Proffer for this improvement, limit the number of entrances onto Snowden Bridge, limit access to Redbud Road and Milburn Road to emergency access, eliminate any access to McCann Lane, provide inter -parcel access, and note that the applicant will apply for public assistance mechanisms in implementing the proffers. As noted below, the proffers do nothing to address Route 11, which will handle all of the development trips for the foreseeable future, does not dedicate adequate right-of- wayfor Route 37 and places high cost requirements on the County to attain even the dedicated portion of the right-of-way, does not address bicycle and pedestrian needs, and does not offer a public roadway connection between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application assumed 1,749,000 square feet of office and 570,000 square feet of manufacturing. This amount provides the basis for the Traffic Impact Analysis. It should be recognized that the Applicant's proffer statement presently provides no limitations on the amount of M1 (Light Industrial) development that could occur on the property. It has been requested that the M1 district performance standards be modified to double the FAR from 1 FAR to 2 FAR which would have an impact on the amount and intensity of the development. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 9 The TIA indicates that this application will degrade the level of service at a number of intersections (see included fold out graphic of TIA results). Please note that these degradations occur even though staff and VDOT worked diligently with the applicant to base traffic generation off of real world projects such as Fort Collier Industrial Park and the Avion Office Park in Chantilly. Further, the TIA takes credit for the relocation of Redbud Road to an intersection with Snowden Bridge. The County and VDOT allowed the TIA to be scoped this way due to the applicant's willingness to work with the County and VDOT if this connection was desired. However, recent communications from the applicant indicates that they are not willing to be part of this solution. Had this position been taken earlier, it would have impacted the scoping of the TIA. Construction and site development. The potential exists for the site development and construction of the project to be impactful to the surrounding community and land uses. The Applicant should be proactive in ensuring that any potential impacts to adjacent properties and historical resources are mitigated or, more importantly, avoided. Efforts to achieve this in the planning stages are appropriate given the scale and location of this project. B. Design Standards The Applicant has requested modifications to several of the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District design standards which would enable a more intensive development of the property. It is not acceptable for a proffer statement to allow increases to development and design standards that exceed those current standards explicitly designed for the district. Doubling the FAR and height increases for Office Buildings and Parking Structures is not permissible by proffer. Mr. Rod Williams, County Attorney, has provided his opinion regarding this matter, which should be recognized. The appropriate approach to address the above issues is through potential modifications to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Such an approach was initiated by the Applicant. The Applicant has proffered to establish requirements for outdoor green areas and/or outdoor plaza areas. However, the amount of, and timing of, the development of the proposed outdoor green areas and plazas has not been defined. The Applicant has proffered to establish internal asphalt trails a minimum of eight feet in width. The minimum expectation for the ixridth of any trail_ is ten feet. In conjunction with Mr. Bishop's comments, the location of the internal trail system should be addressed further to ensure it provides connectivity with adjacent land uses and historical elements, and at a minimum to the previously proffered trail system that is part of Snowden Bridge Boulevard. The GDP could be used to a greater extent to identify this. The connectivity of the trail system goes beyond that of just this project. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 10 The Applicant has proffered to establish a 100 feet green space buffer area along the northern boundary of the property. In addition, the Applicant has proffered to provide for evergreen landscaping along the Redbud Road frontage of an adjacent property owned by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. This buffer is undefined and is conditioned upon the approval and furnishing of a landscape easement by the adjacent property owner. This constitutes the extent of the Application's effort to address the unique historic resources of the immediate area and surrounding properties. The comments offered by the HRAB support the clear expectations of the Comprehensive Plan in this regard. Please refer to the recommendations of the HRAB for additional guidance. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on Fire and Rescue Services. However, it is recognized that commercial and industrial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application makes an effort to address the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $0.05 per square foot of developed commercial structural area. Please recognize that this is generally less of a monetary contribution per square foot than proffered on more recent rezoning requests. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated August 24, 2009 with latest revision October 9, 2009 B) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has proffered a GDP for the property which would guide the development of the property. This GDP is very general and provides a minimal amount of detail, but does identify the general location of the future Route 37 corridor study area and future Snowden Bridge Boulevard and their associated interchange and intersections. Two specific locations of green space buffer areas have been identified; one on-site adjacent to McCanns Road, and one off-site on property owned by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. At this time, there has been no indication that the SVBF is aware of, and in agreement with, this proffer. C) Land Use The Applicant has requested the M I (Light Industrial) Zoning District classification. In doing so, the Applicant also requests an interpretation allowing additional land uses. It is not acceptable for a proffer statement to include uses that are not presently permitted within this district. Further, a proffer statement should not interpret the permissibility ofparticular uses. That role is designated to the ZoningAdministrato`. This is further clarified by the CountvAttornev in his review letter dated October 16, 2009. The appropriate approach is to address this through potential modifications to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically the permitted uses within each district. Such an approach was initiated by the Applicant, but for a different zoning district (OM). Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 11 Specifically, Financial Institution Offices and Medical Offices are permitted in other commercial zoning districts. Research and Development Offices are currently permitted within the M 1 District. In addition, any future amendments to the permitted uses within the M 1 District would be permitted on any M I zoned property that does not have a specific proffer prohibiting such a use. C) Site Design The Applicant has requested modifications to several of the M1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District design standards which would enable a more intensive development of the property. It is not acceptable for a proffer statement to allow increases to development and design standards that exceed those current standards explicitly designed for the district. Doubling the FAR and height increases (90 feet for Office Buildings and 70' for Parking Structures) is not permissible by proffer. This is further clarified by the County Attorney in his review letter dated October 16, 2009. The appropriate approach is to address this through potential modifications to the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Such an approach was initiated by the Applicant. The Applicant has proffered to establish requirements for outdoor green areas and/or outdoor plaza areas. It would be preferable for the Applicant to further define the amount of, and timing of, the development of the proposed outdoor green areas and plazas. The Applicant has proffered to establish internal asphalt trails a minimum of eight feet in width. The location of the internal trail system should be addressed further to ensure itprovides connectivity with adjacent land uses and historical elements, and at a minimum to the previously proffered trail system that is part of Snowden Bridge Boulevard The GDP could be used to a greater extent to identify this. The connectivity of the trail system goes beyond that of just this project. In addition, the minimum expectation for the width of any trail is ten feet. The Applicant has proffered to establish a 100 feet green space buffer area along the northern boundary of the property. In addition, the Applicant has proffered to provide for evergreen landscaping along the Redbud Road frontage of an adjacent property owned by the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation. This buffer is undefined and is conditioned upon the approval and furnishing of a landscape easement by the adjacent property owner. This constitutes the extent of the Applications effort to address the unique historic resources of the immediate area and surrounding properties. It is recognized that in some locations a zoning district buffer would be required. However, it has been recommended that the proffered buffering and landscaping should propose buffering and landscaping that would exceed the minimum expectation of the Ordinance. In addition, given the historical character of the surrounding land uses, there is an expectation of a more significant effort with regards to buffering and landscaping. This is a clear expectation of the Comprehensive Plan. Please refer to the recommendations of the HRAB for additional guidance. Rezoning 909-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 12 D) Transportation Route 37 Dedication (Proffers D1,D2,D3) The applicant has proffered to dedicate 225 feet of right of way for the corridor and enough right-of-way for a diamond interchange 800 feet in width with a study area of up to 350 feet available for purchase. The applicant has based the corridor needs on existing Route 37 west_ There is no proffer that would help the County to obtain Route 37 right of way in neighboring parcels. Staff would note that the Board of Supervisors adopted a 350 foot wide corridor in this location based upon guidance from VDOT engineers. To base what should be the dedication on Route 37 west is inappropriate. Further, without including the interchange areas, the Route 37 west right-of-way is highly variable and ranges from just over 200 feet to nearly 400 feet in width. As with all rights-of-way, it varies based upon the needs of specific locations along its length and current standards. This should only serve to highlight the fact that specific VDO Tguidancefor this site should be followed as opposed to assumptions from sections nfthe 30year old Route 37 west. Finally, it should again be noted that staff is adamantly against the dedication and reservation proffer language giving the Countyfive years to complete the final engineering and design of the roadway. This would bean extremely costly and time consuming effort for which it is well known that there is presently no funding. Redbud Road Relocation The applicant has not proffered any connection to Redbud Road from Snowden Bridge Boulevard. From the f rst meetings held with the applicants and their representatives, staff has made clear that there is a need for a public road connection between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Boulevard. This would allow the County to sever the current] - 81 NB ramp connection to Route 11 and move it to the area where the intersection between Redbud and Route 11 currently exists. This is a significant need to improve Route 11 traffic. The applicant has consistently stated that if the County wished to push for the connection between Redbud and Snowden Bridge, they would be willing to work with the County. However, recent written comment responses received indicate this is no longer the case. Trail System The applicant has not proffered any public trail connections. Staff would note that the Snowden Bridge Development, Rutherford Shopping Center, and the Battlefield Property all have either proffered or implemented bicycle and pedestrian improvements. This property sits in the middle of all these uses and is the final piece needed to create the County's first interconnected trail system which would link the areas where County residents live, work, shop, and recreate. The applicant has noted security concerns ofpotential tenants. Staff would note that bikers and walkers using a trails system that parallels the roadways pose less of a threat than the vehicles. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 13 Route 11 Improvements The applicant has made no proffers to offset impacts to Route 11. Staff would note that there are a number of ways that this applicant could help to offset Route 11 impacts. Among these would be to construct a connection between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Boulevard or to partner with the County and VDOT in providing additional southbound capacity from I -8l to Route 37. E) Community Facilities This application makes an effort to address the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by proffering a monetary contribution in an amount of $0.05 per square foot of developed commercial structural area. Please recognize that this is generally less of a monetary contribution per square foot than proffered on more recent rezoning requests. In addition, the trigger for this contribution is prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This should be changed to reflect the appropriate timing, which is prior to the issuance of a building permit. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/09/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Graystone rezoning application is generally inconsistent with the land use designation of the Northeastern Frederick Land Use Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, and does not address additional goals of the Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. The Applicant has not yet demonstrated how the M1 land use designation is consistent with the land use plan. In addition, elements of the rezoning application have been identified in the staff report that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address specific components of the Plan. More specifically, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the following concerns: 1) The potential impacts associated with more intensive use of properties. 2) The transportation impacts associated with this request, including the impacts to the planning and construction of future Route 37. 3) The recommendations of the Historic Resources Advisory Board, particularly regarding Archeological Resource Surveys, impacts to historical resources and DSA's, and view shed mitigation through natural and enhanced buffering and screening. 4) The problematic language contained within the Proffer Statement regarding expansion of uses in the District and associated design standards; as further iterated by Mr. Rod Williams, Frederick County Attorney, in his review letter of the final proffers dated October 16, 2009. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 14 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/04/09 MEETING: VDOT's representative, Mr. Lloyd Ingram, responded to questions from the Commission regarding the transportation system's ability to accommodate this development, along with adjacent residential and background traffic. Mr. Ingram said until Route 37 is connected to 1-81, the LOS for the transportation system will continue to deteriorate, depending on the timing and the rate of construction; he said Route 11 will be challenged. Mr. Ingram was not aware of anything offered with the rezoning application to enhance the maneuverability and flow of traffic on Route 11. He said Route 37, closing Redbud Road, and re -aligning the off -ramp would be the key to transportation in this entire northern section. With regard to the proffered 225 feet, Mr. Ingram stated that on Route 37 northbound, where it ties into Route 50, an elevated roadway is planned; he said the flyover from one side to the other is about 340 feet. If CD lanes are placed, VDOT will need a minimum of 350 feet. During the public comment portion of the public hearing, the Executive Director of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation (SVBF), W. Denman Zirkle, provided comments on behalf of the SVBF and presented a letter, dated November 3, 2009. Mr. Zirkle said the applicant's proposed building heights present a concern because more than 570 acres of preserved land lie immediately to the south of the subject property. Much of this landscape appears as it did to residents and soldiers at the time of the Second and Third Battles of Winchester and the land retains its historic, agricultural character with very few modern visual intrusions. He said the proposed 90 -foot office buildings and a 70 -foot parking garage will dramatically change the historic character of the landscape that so many have invested in and worked diligently to preserve. The final concern raised by Mr. Zirkle was the applicant's proposal to place landscaping buffer on SVBF land; he said it would not be permissible for SVBF to convey interest in their land to a third parry through easement. The applicant's representative, Mr. Evan Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, addressed issues raised by the staff and reviewing agencies. Regarding conformity to the Comprehensive Policy Plan, Mr. Wyatt stated that the office and industrial park proposed by Graystone would provide employment opportunities for the Stephenson Village/Snowden Bridge projects. He noted that the project's major intersection, Snowden Bridge Boulevard and Route 11, functions at a LOS "D," which has previously been viewed as acceptable for economic development projects. Other intersections showing deficiencies are along Route 11, at the Welltown Road intersection, at the northbound off -ramp with I- 81, and at the intersection of Old Charlestown Road. He said these intersections, showing deficiencies of "E" and "F" in the LOS, are in the same place with background traffic as they are for this development. Mr. Wyatt said the applicant is willing to assist in improving the LOS at these locations. When questioned about the possibility of the County losing the reserved Route 37 right-of-way after eight years, Mr. Wyatt said that once the eight-year time line expires, the applicant will either dedicate 225 feet of right-of-way or the applicant can continue the time line, if there is no need to worry about land use' in that area. Considering comments from the HRAB, Mr. Wyatt said they will meet all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Wyatt said the applicant agrees to eliminate the increased FARs and taller building heights and would amend the proffer before it goes to the Board of Supervisors. Regarding the buffer on SVBF property, Mr. Wyatt stated the applicant was not interested in acquiring SVBF land, but merely requesting permission to do landscaping on SVBF properly because the ordinance does not require buffering between the applicant's site and the SVBF's property. Rezoning #09-09 — Graystone Corp. of VA December 21, 2009 Page 15 A number of issues were raised and discussed by the Cominission. The difference in the right-of-way width dedicated by the applicant for the Route 37 corridor, 225 feet, and the amount officially adopted by the Board of Supervisors and recommended by VDOT, 350 feet. The difference in width would present a significant cost to the taxpayers to purchase the additional right-of-way. The eight-year time frame designated by the applicant for the Route 37 right-of-way reservation was a concern. There were questions about why the time line couldn't be extended to 15 years, since the applicant's speculation for build -out was 30 -plus years. Any dedication of right-of-way less than 350 feet was considered unrealistic, considering topography and engineering. There were no restrictions or limitations placed on the M1 uses, especially from the standpoint of transportation, land use, and visual impacts on the surrounding community. There was no phasing plan. Transportation impacts were anticipated to be experienced along Routes 7, 11, 522, and I-81. There was an expectation for the connection at Redbud and the off -ramp to Snowden Bridge Boulevard, considering the applicant had property spanning this entire distance; a right-of-way reservation area was suggested or a layout design for an internal road that would eventually become public. Some of the Commissioners were supportive of the M1 Zoning, but believed there were still many issues that needed to be addressed by the applicant. In addition, proffers that were verbally revised by the applicant needed to be reviewed by the staff, the County Attorney, and the Commission in their final form. The Planning Commission unanimously tabled the rezoning for 60 days to provide enough time for the applicant to make revisions and address issues raised. �1ote: Commissioner Ruckman was absent from the meeting; Commissioner Oates abstained.; Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Mike Ruddy From: Rod Williams Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 11:25 AM To: Clawson@lsplc.com Cc: Mike Ruddy Subject: Graystone - tentative draft revised Proffer Statement Ty, This is in response to your letter of November 17 and enclosed tentative draft revised Proffer Statement of the same date. I read your statement regarding the Route 37 issues, but do think it best that I reiterate here my comments on the proffers related to Route 37, so that the comments are part of the record of our correspondence. Having said that, my comments are as follows: Proffer C3 — The conditional "if applicable", in particular, the second parenthetical "if applicable" in the last sentence, is either unnecessary or may render the sentence ambiguous. The sentence is already conditioned on the construction of a building on or associated with the subject lot/parcel ("For each lot or parcel associated with the construction of a building, ... ") and therefore, a situation in which the provision of a trail facility would not be "applicable" is not apparent. Proffers D2 & D3 — The order of the language in the first sentence of Proffer D2 might read more clearly if as follows: "The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for a 225 -foot wide right- of-way dedication on the Property for the Route 37 corridor that is consistent with a Route 37 western bypass typical section." Also, with respect to the provision in the last sentence of each Proffer, while it is understood that the Applicant is not undertaking to develop Route 37 on the Property, the Proffers still do not indicate any time by which Route 37 would need to be developed on the Property for the reversion clause not to be triggered_ Proffer D5 -- If the westernmost intersection is the one as to which the roundaboutlsignalization is to take place, the GDP might make specific reference at the notation for that intersection to the roundabout/signalization. Also, the Proffer as currently worded (intersection "could potentially be developed as . _ _ ") does not actually state any obligation, if one was intended, to construct a roundabout or install a signal. Finally, the Proffer might better identify specific development levels/events at which time performance of the obligations for each respective intersection accrues. I have not reviewed the substance of the Proffers as to whether the Proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. Roderick B. Williams County Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia 107 North Kent Street, 3rd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: (540) 722-8383 Facsimile: (540) 667-0370 MEMORANDUM TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director of Planning FROM: Roderick B. Williams County Attorney DATE: October 16, 2009 COUNTY OF FREDERICK Roderick B. Williams County Attorney 540/722-8383 Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: rwillia@co.frederick.va.us RE: Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park — Proffer Statement dated October 9, 2009 I received from you, on October 14, the above -referenced proffer statement (the "Proffer Statement") for the proposed rezoning of 271.39± acres, Parcel Identification Numbers 43-A- 158, 44-A-25 & 44-A-26 (collectively, the "Property"), in the Stonewall Magisterial District, from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District. I have now reviewed the Proffer Statement and it is my opinion that the Proffer Statement would be in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and would be legally sufficient as a proffer statement, subject to the following comments: 1. Proffer BI —The Proffer attempts to limit the restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the Property. The Proffer attempts to do so in two ways. First, the Proffer seeks to change the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the Ordinance's interpretation. Sections 165-101.06 (formerly 165-4) and 165-601.01 (formerly the introductory paragraph of 165-82) have delegated authority for interpretation of the Ordinance to the Zoning Administrator. The Proffer would change a generally applicable provision of the Ordinance, other than one specific to the particular zoning district, so that a different rule would apply to the Property; hence, the Board would interpret uses for the Property, but the Zoning Administrator would interpret uses for properties in the rest of the County. Second, with the exception of Research and Development Offices (current Ml zoning allows "Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services"), the designated uses (or at least substantially similar uses) are explicitly permitted only in other 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Michael T. Ruddy, AICP October 16, 2009 Page 2 zoning districts — certain financial institutions in B 1 and B2 and certain medical offices in B1, without similar terms being included in what is permitted in ML The enabling legislation for the County's conditional zoning, Va. Code § 15.2-2298, in fact only uses the term "conditional zoning" in the context of a reference to the alternative provisions of Va. Code § 15.2-2203. Instead, § 15.2-2298 enables eligible localities thereunder to "provide for the voluntary proffering ... of reasonable conditions ... in addition to the regulations provided for the zoning district or zone by the ordinance" (emphasis added). This conclusion is consistent with the stated purpose of conditional zoning to allow a zoning reclassification "subject to certain conditions proffered by the zoning applicant for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned". See Va. Code § 15.2-2296 (emphasis added); see also Clark v. Town of Middleburg, 26 Va. Cir. 472 (1990) (proffers cannot be construed to provide a variance from or to exceed the allowances of a zoning ordinance). 2. Proffers Cl -C3 —As with Proffer B1, these Proffers attempt to allow uses/aspects that are more intensive than the requested zoning classification otherwise allows and the same comments therefore apply. 3. Proffer C4 — Because other items in the Proffer Statement request uses and aspects not otherwise permitted in the M1 District, this Proffer might better contain a provision clarifying that the ARB is not to be delegated any authority to approve aspects that are not otherwise allowed in the M1 District, in particular with respect to the size and number of signs. 4. Proffer C6 — This Proffer does not define the timing of the obligation, such as completion prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, for the trails within each respective lot(s) serving a structure sought to be occupied. 5. Proffers C7 & C8 —I note that, to the extent that 165-203.02(D)(4) now requires Category C buffers for M 1 -zoned property adjacent to RA -zoned property that is primarily in residential use, and RP- and R4 -zoned property, the reference in these Proffers to on-site buffers only on the northern boundary cannot override any buffer requirements for the other boundaries. 6. Proffers D2 & D3 — The order of the language in the first sentence of Proffer D2 might read more clearly if as follows: "The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for a 225 - foot wide right-of-way dedication on the Property for the Route 37 corridor that is consistent with a Route 37 western bypass typical section." Also, with respect to the provision in the last sentence of each Proffer, while it is understood that the Applicant is not undertaking to develop Route 37 on the Property, the Proffers still do not indicate any time by which Route 37 would need to be developed on the Property for the reversion clause not to be triggered. 2 Michael T. Ruddy, AICP October 16, 2009 Page 3 7. Proffer D4 — The last sentence might read more clearly, in the context of the entire Proffer, with "In addition," added to its beginning and the following language added to its end: ", if such volume condition occurs sooner than the proffer otherwise requires". 8. Proffer D5 — If the westernmost intersection is the one as to which the roundabout/signalization is to take place, the GDP might make specific reference at the notation for that intersection to the roundabout/signalization. Also, the Proffer as currently worded (intersection "could potentially be developed as ...") does not actually state any obligation, if one was intended, to construct a roundabout or install a signal. Finally, the Proffer might better identify specific development levels/events at which time performance of the obligations for each respective intersection accrues. 9. Proffer D12 —The last sentence, while it does contain the condition that it does not bind any future legislative act, is still overbroad in that a proffer cannot bind the County to perform any act, legislative or otherwise. I have not reviewed the substance of the Proffers as to whether the Proffers are suitable and appropriate for this specific development, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by staff and the Planning Commission. cc: Ty Lawson, Esq., Counsel for Applicant 3 Page 1 of 3 Evan Wyatt From: John Bishop [bishop@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 4:06 PM To: Evan Wyatt Cc: Mike Ruddy; Eric Lawrence; Iloyd.ingram@VDOT.virginia.gov; Copp, Jerry; Short, Terry Subject: Transportation Review Comments on Graystone Evan; Thank you for the opportunity to review the preliminary Graystone application. What follows is my review of the updated Transportation Proffers emailed to me 9/23/09 and attached for reference. Please note that as VDOT and I have not had time to do a full review of the TIA, other issues could arise from that ongoing process. Proffers D-1 and D-2 Staff believes that the identified Route 37 Corridor should be fully dedicated. Basing the dedication area upon existing Route 37 is not a good approach since it has already been established through County and VDOT study and coordination that this area will not be like existing Route 37 due to the need for collector distributor (CD) lanes. That said; if some hybrid form of study area and dedication is the only acceptable arrangement to the applicant, then the study term should be extended and the additional right of way above the 225' corridor identified via the study should be dedicated and not simply reserved for purchase. Dedication should be within 90 days as opposed to the proffered 6 months. 2. Proffer D-3 Staff is not opposed to the idea of a single point urban interchange(SPUI) in concept. However, the implementation cost of a SPUI is well known to be significantly higher than more common designs due to the additional bridge work required during construction. As long as the interchange area dedicated will accommodate a diamond interchange, staff is okay with that. However, it is apparent from VDOT comments so far that this may not be the case. Clarification is needed on this issue. Further the proffer should state the area instead of just referring to the design as even footprints among the same design style can vary. Staff preference for this dedication timeline would also be 90 days as opposed to the proffered 6 months. 3. Proffer D-4 a. It should be noted that the portion of Snowden Bridge Blvd being proffered here has already been proffered by the Snowden Bridge residential development, though this proffer does advance implementation. Regarding the 8,000 trip trigger it should be worded so that it includes the TIA trip generation count at site plan and takes into account any actual trips that may have developed should the Snowden Bridge residential development tie in sooner than currently expected. b. Though I have yet to encounter a situation where the County has refused endorsement of an economic development access or rail access funding application. I cannot recommend that the Board of Supervisors obligate themselves via accepting the language doing so in this proffer. One never knows what the situation will be at the time of application and I would not want to place the current Board for future Boards in a situation � 'vvhcr e they were forced to move of � your application when a competing application may be of greater benefit to the County. 4. Proffer D-5 Proposing 4 intersections is inappropriate in the vicinity of a planned interchange. Staff is much more supportive of the exhibits previously discussed which showed 1 major intersection with the rest of the property accessing via an internal roadway system. We had also discussed that this road system include a tie in to the northeast portion of the property under Route 37 in the vicinity of the railroad tracks. We acknowledge that that connection would need to be bridged 10/6/2009 Page 2 of 3 upon Route 37 construction, but is still much preferable to an intersection that does not meet standards near an interchange. This new proposal would place intersections at a spacing from the future interchange that would not meet VDOT standards which are becoming effective in October 2009. At worst, this has potential to jeopardize approval of the future Route 37 interchange with Snowden Bridge Blvd. and at best, this would create a situation where the Route 37 interchange functionality is hindered from its first day of operation due to the existing entrances created by this proposal. Please consider returning to the previous concept of an internal road system. On a final note relevant to this issue, I would point out that many of our discussions in scoping the TIA related to the fact that this is proposed to be a development similar to the Avion Business Park in Chantilly, VA. The Avion Business Park has two exterior connections; one to Route 50 and one to Stonecroft Blvd and is a nearly identical acreage(276 acres) to this proposed development. 5. Proffer D-6 and D-7 Staff is supportive of the proffer to limit access to Milburn Road and Redbud Roads to emergency access only as determined by the County. Staff would recommend extending this designation to McCanns Road as well. This will allow these roads to continue to serve as historic and scenic corridors for automotive and recreational traffic. The applicant may also want to consider significantly buffering these corridors in order to preserve their historic integrity. This should be carefully worded so as not to conflict with the County desire for a public roadway connection between Snowden Bridge Blvd and Redbud Road. 6. Proffer D-8 A public street connection should be implemented between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Blvd. The lack of such a connection in this area has caused the County to be unable to move on needed improvements to the 1-81 interchange with Route 11, namely, the relocation of the northbound 1-81 exit ramp to the current Red Bud road location. Additionally, this would allow potential employees from the neighborhoods along Redbud Road to directly access the park instead of forcing them to go all the way around via Old Charlestown Road and Route 11 or future Snowden Bridge. Beyond that issue, staff is supportive of other internal streets in the development being private. 7. Proffer C-7 The trail system proffered should be constructed to the standard 10 foot width and open to the public via a public access easement. In addition to that it should offer connections between Snowden Bridge Blvd and Redbud Road. Further, the trails should be continued along the full frontage of Snowden Bridge and Redbud Road. Finally, the applicant should consider extending the trail across the railroad tracks to meet Route 11. This would provide a continuous trail system between the Snowden Bridge residential development, the Rutherford Shopping Center, and this proposed development, not to mention setting up connections to the nearby battlefield park. This connectivity would aid in taking trips off the roadway and thus reduce this development's transportation impact as well as adding value to the entire community in this area. 8. Unproffered Considerations As noted by VDOT, staff is concerned that no consideration has been given to offsetting impacts to Route 11 at this point. Staff has noted items along Route 11 that you may wish to consider previously but will reiterate them here. a. The county and VDOT have both applied for funds to add additional southbound capacity under 1-81 all the way to Route 11. The applicant may wish to become a partner in this. b. Due to state cutbacks the funds previously available to relocate the I-81 northbound exit ramp to Route 11 are no longer available. This improvement would greatly improve traffic conditions in this area of Route 11. C. Aid in obtaining right of way across the Snowden Bridge property would be a significant contribution to implementing the County's future road plans. Thanks 1 n1+,19nno Mike Ruddy From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:42 PM To: Mike Ruddy Subject: FW: Graystone Property - VDOT Comments to 10/09/09 Proffers From: Funkhouser, Rhonda On Behalf Of Ingram, Lloyd Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:39 PM To: 'ewyatt@greenwayeng.com'; 'Michael C. Glickman' Cc: John.Bishop; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: Graystone Property - VDOT Comments to 10/09/09 Proffers The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11, 37, 661, 662, and 638. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the revised Graystone Property Rezoning Application dated October 9, 2009 address transportation concerns associated with this request. This office has reviewed the revised transportation proffers dated October 9, 2009 and offers the following comments: D---1 & 2: D-3: o The applicant did not address VDOT's concern that the timeframe of five years from the date of a rezoning approval for the alignment study, environmental study as well as the full and final design of the roadway plans is not realistic! o The applicant did not address the inadequate right-of-way width of 225'. Again I will point out that the Proposed Route 37 will have to cross four roads and a railroad, thus an elevated roadway will be required that will need a footprint of 350' to 400'. o The idea that the applicant alone will determine if the timeframe will be extended or identify the location of Route 37 is not acceptable. o VDOT has identified the need of 1000' for the Snowden Bridge interchange, the applicant has offered 800'. o If the additional right-of-way is to be purchased from the applicant, will it be at the pre - development or post development prices? D-4: No additional comments. D-5: All intersections as well as commercial entrances will need to meet all of VDOT's criteria prior to approval. D-6: VDOT is concerned that his proffer has too many "developed by others" that are not party to this proffer and therefore it is questionable if it is enforceable. D-7: No comment. D-8: VDOT dose not agree with this proffer. It has determined that access to Route 661 for "Local" traffic is a key requirement to any approval of this rezoning. D-9,10,11,12: No additional comments. It should be noted that there has not been any proffers offered to mitigate the almost 10,000 ADT generated by this site that will have a direct impact on Route 11 as well as the Interstate 81 interchange. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I T E Tri Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingrain, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency — Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984-5611 Fax #(540) 984-5607 John Bishop From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT_Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.Ingram@VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 3:09 PM To: ewyatt@greenwayeng.com; Michael C. Glickman Cc: John Bishop; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Copp, Jerry Subject: Graystone Property - VDOT Rezoning Comments Attachments: 37typical1.tif The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 11, 37, 661, 662, and 638. These routes are the VDOT roadways which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Graystone Property Rezoning Application dated September 23, 2009 address transportation concerns associated with this request. Specifically, we have the following concerns: Under transportation proffers, the applicant refers to his proposed 225' right-of-way dedication as similar to the western portion of the Route 37 Bypass. Upon review of the property in question there is no similarity. The property changes as much as 90' in elevation. Route 37 would be required to build up to 4 flyover bridges, including the interchange, in a little over a half of a mile. The only practical way to design the roadway, without feeling like a rollercoaster, is an elevated roadway. Therefore, a right-of-way dedication of 350' to 400' of dedication along the mainline will be required. The diamond interchange right-of-way dedication requirement could be as much as 1,200'. The TIA, after its initial review has been found to need additional information combined with recommendations from VDOT's reviewer. These have been requested from the applicant. The two mitigation items that were visible from the initial review, that are key to traffic movements in the area, are the relocation of the NB I-81 off -ramp to align with the existing NB I-81 on-ramp, combined with providing an access road for local traffic from the Snowden Bridge Boulevard to Redbud Road via the Graystone development. As the applicant has not offered to mitigate his impact of almost 10,000 ADT on Route 11, these may be items that should be considered prior to supporting this rezoning. Only setting aside right-of-way for a future roadway facility in lieu of any mitigation to offset impacts to existing road systems (i.e., Route 11) is not advised, particularly since the construction of Eastern Route 37 (which will aid to disperse the applicants' generated trips), could very well be a generation away from reality. Proffer D-1: In today's economy, additional time will be needed to obtain the funding for the study. We would like to see the proposed five years increased to ten years for both the alignment and preliminary engineering design to identify right-of-way needs for the Route 37 Bypass and full diamond interchange. Proffer D-2: The proposed alignment corridor of only 225' will not contain the proposed Route 37 east. Several key factors seem to have been overlooked when the Developer designated this area: 1. Due to the relative spacing between the Shockey interchange and the I-81 interchange, it has been recommended that C -D lanes be constructed to facilitate properly designed ramps and weave areas. Please see the 3/24/06 review correspondence of the County's CX -- CXL proposals for additional information. 2. In the 2,300 feet of proposed 37 alignment in the Shockey development there are five (5) grade separations/ bridges requiring high-fill/additional right-of-way: • Route 662 • Proposed Snowden Bridge Blvd (to include a full interchange) • Proposed secondary between Land Bays A/B and C • Hiatt Run tributary crossing • Crossing over CSX railroad (if double -stacking is a future consideration, CSX will require at least 23' vertical clearance from high rail) Given these unique conditions and topography, we recommend dedicating a 400' corridor minimum for the highway, flaring out to 1,200' total at the interchange. A sample typical section for a C -D highway is attached; note that it does not account for areas of higher fill necessary for longitudinal grade design, super elevation, etc. <<37typical1.tif>> Proffer D-3: Remove the references to SPUI interchange as all types of interchange designs will be considered. The appropriate interchange design, based on cost and constructability, will be determined at the design phase. Proffer D-4: VDOT will not support the use of economic development funds for construction of a roadway that has already been proffered. Proffer D-5: All intersections will be required to meet all of VDOT's criteria, including sight distance, crossover spacing and access management regulations. VDOT will not allow entrances to be located in such a manner as to jeopardize the future Route 37 Interchange. Site entrance/intersection design and location will be reviewed at the time of site plan submittal prior to location approval. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of- way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency — Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Graystone Corporation - Tr-nsportation Proffers Page 1 of 2 Evan Wyatt From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@ VDOT.Virginia_gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.Ingram @ VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 9:05 AM To: Evan Wyatt Cc: John.Bishop; Copp, Jerry; Ingram, Lloyd; Smith, Matthew, P.E.; Jackson, Terry, PE LS; Alexander, Scott Subject: Graystone Corporation - Transportation Proffers The following are expedited preliminary VDOT comments to the Graystone Corporation transportation proffers revised September 23, 2009 without a finalized TIA review. Additional comments will follow once corrections to the TIA have been completed and reviewed. This development has significant traffic impacts to Route 11 and the I-81 Interchange. We believe the applicant should provide appropriate resources to mitigate these impacts. D. Transportation Enhancements 1. `We are agreeable to the 350' minimum, however, an additional width may be required after a preliminary engineering study. In today's economy, additional time will be needed to obtain the funding for the study. We would like to see the proposed five years increased to ten years for both the alignment and preliminary engineering design to identify right-of-way needs for the Route 37 Bypass and full diamond interchange. It should be the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate with Frederick County and VDOT to determine final roadway and interchange locations. 2. The 225' of right-of-way offered for dedication is not sufficient to construct the roadway in that type of terrain. Right-of-way needs will be determined upon completion of preliminary engineering as noted in #1 above. All right-of-way required should be dedicated to Frederick County without compensation. 3. Remove all reference to "SPUI" as no determination has been made to the type of interchange. We believe the applicant should proffer the necessary right-of-way for a full diamond interchange. 4. As this roadway construction has already proffered in the Snowden Bridge rezoning, I do not see a need for tax payer's money to be spent on constructing any of Snowden Bridge Boulevard! This development is placing close to 8,000 additional trips onto Route I1 and yet there has been no proffers offered to mitigate this significant impact. Proffer #4 indicates Snowden Bridge Boulevard will be developed to four -lanes prior to "the site plan that exceeds 8,000 vpd". We suggest this is clarified to provide cumulative trips and/or traffic count total. 5. While limiting entrance to four commercial intersections is acceptable, it must be remembered all entrances/intersections will need to meet VDOT and County requirements for sight distance, crossover spacing, access management requirements as well as interchange restrictions at the time of development. Please call should you have any questions or concerns. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 10/6/2009 I October 21, 2009 Mr. Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester VA 22602 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 RE: Application Requesting a Rezoning of 271.39± Acres from RA to Af 4l (Light Industrial) for the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Property Identification Numbers (PINs): 43-A-158, 44-A-25, 44-A-26 Current Zoning District: RA (Rural Area) Dear Mr. Wyatt: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (ARAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting on October 20, 2009. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the 1992 National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, as well as information provided and presented by you on behalf of Greenway Engineering. The proposal seeks to rezone three parcels of land that total 271.39 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to the M1 (Light Industrial) District for office and manufacturing land uses. The site is located near the Interstate 81 Exit 317 interchange and Martinsburg Pike (Route 11), and is bound by Redbud Road (Route 661), Milburn Road (Route 662), McCann's Road (Route 838) and the CSX Railroad, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley, published by the National Park Service, identifies a portion of the Graystone rezoning site as being within the Second Winchester Study Area and a large portion of parcel 44-A-25 is within the Core Battlefield. This core area is part of Stephenson's Depot (Second Winchester — Phase 9). The core area of the Second Winchester Battlefield (Stephenson's Depot) on this site is shown as having retained much of its historic integrity according the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valles. Portions of the site are also within the study area of the Third Battle of Winchester (Opequon) and adjacent t:, its CO -le. Portions of this site are designated as Developmentally Sensitive Area in the Northeast Land Use Plan of the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 ® Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Mr. Evan Wyatt Re: Rezoning of 271.39± Acres from RA to M1 Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park October 21, 2009 Page 2 The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia, identifies seven structures/sites within the immediate area of the subject site; one structure was located on-site. The sites that are listed in the survey are: a Carter -Hardesty House (#34-112) — was located on site but burned and was demolished ® Byers House (434-1124) ® Godfries-Semples House (#34-135) ® Helm -McCann Property (#34-703) 0 Rutherford's Farm (434-727) — site consists of historical markers and foundations ® McCann, Thomas House (#34-729) ® Milburn Chapel & Cemetery (#34-950) After reviewing this information and the applicant's materials and proposals, the Historic Resource Advisory Board (HRAB) recommended that the Graystone Corporation Rezoning Application addresses the following: o A Phase I Archeological Survey should be done on the property in an effort to identify any archeological resources present on the property. If warranted, further survey work should be completed. It was recognized that this property is uniquely located with regards to a variety of significant historical resources, warranting particular effort to ensure any resources are appropriately addressed. o The proposed intensification of the project in terms of the request to increase the FAR to 2.0, to increase the height of Office Buildings to 90 feet, and to increase the height of parking structures to 70 feet is undesirable as this would increase the potential impact on the adjacent historic resources. In addition, current height exceptions that are allowed in the M1 district which exceed the height standard for the district should be avoided. The Applicant should evaluate if further restrictions to the standards of the M1 District may be warranted. o The Applicant should evaluate if any of the more intensive uses permitted in the Ml District could be proffered out in an effort to minimize the potential impact on the surrounding historical land uses. The more intensive industrial uses should not be located on the portion of the property which is north of future Route 37, as this area contains a far greater area of core battlefield. o Parking lots and other similar site development features should be located to the interior of the development in an effort to minimize the potential impact on the surrounding historical land uses. Mr. Evan Wyatt Re: Rezoning of 271.39+ Acres from RA to M1 Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park October 21, 2009 Page 3 o Buffers and screening should be placed on the property being developed adjacent to all historical properties to mitigate the potential impact on the adjacent historical properties and rural historical corridors. Additional buffering on adjacent historical properties is encouraged with the cooperation of those property owners. When buffers are proposed, or required by Ordinance, the buffers should be enhanced and should utilize existing vegetation and promote natural re - vegetation as opposed to utilizing the standard berming and screening required by Ordinance. Please contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Sincerely, Mike Ruddy, AICP for Candice Perkins, AICP HRAB Staff MTRlbbd cc: Rhoda Kriz, HRAB Chair TO: Evan Wyatt, AICP FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Director COUNTY of 11± REDKRJ_CK Department of 'Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 RE- Rezo ,ing Comments — Graystone C orporation Off; and Industrial Park. DATE: October 2, 2009 The following comments are offered regarding the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Conditional Rezoning Application. This is a request to rezone 292.87 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to OM (Office -Manufacturing Park) with Proffers. The review is generally based upon the updated proffer statement dated September 23, 2009 and the Impact Analysis dated August 24, 2009, including a TIA dated August 24, 2009. Please consider the comments as you continue your work preparing the application for submission to Frederick County. Prior to formal submission to the County, please ensure that these comments and all review agency comments, including the HRAB, are adequately addressed. At a minimum, a letter describing how each of the agencies and their comments have been addressed should be included as part of the submission. On September 18, 2009, Staff met with the Applicant and his Counsel and discussed an annroach tc1 anhiP"zng +_.he proposed additional land uses and design elements currently in the proffer statement. The lipplicant is concurrently working through the Development Review and Regulations to address this issue. Such an approach is the appropriate way to address land use and design modifications that may currently be more intensive than permitted in the OM District. General 1. Please provide a Plat of rezoning, including a metes and bounds description of the property. 2. Please ensure that all the necessary application materials are submitted with application for each parcel including the current parcel plat, deed information, and tax information. 167 North Kent Street, Smite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5060 Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Comments October 2, 2009 Page 2 3. The submission fee for this application would total $32,143.50, based upon acreage of 292.87 acres, plus the appropriate amount for public hearing signs. It is suggested that several public hearing signs are obtained for this application given the size and location of the property. Land Use The 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. The property is located within the UDA and SWSA. In general, the proposed land uses are not clearly supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 1. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan recommends that the land use for this property is predominantly Planned Unit Development with large areas of identified DSA (Developmentally Sensitive Area). 2. The Planned Unit Development Concept seeks to create new neighborhoods with an appropriate balance between residential, employment, and service uses. Areas used for commercial and industrial land uses shall not exceed 50% of the gross area of the planned community. Sufficient commercial and industrial areas shall be provided to meet the needs of the planned community, to provide an appropriate balance of uses and to lessen the overall impact of the planned community on Frederick County. It should be evaluated how this request is consistent with the Planned Unit Development concept when applied to this broader area, including the proffered mix of land uses associated with the Snowden Bridge project (previously approved as Stephenson Village). 3. It is recognized that recent efforts of the Comprehensive Plan and Policy Committee's Community Area Plan Subcommittee has preliminarily recognized this general location as an area of potential OM. However, this planning effort is preliminary in nature and not a consideration when evaluating this current request. 4. The OM District seeks to implement the mixed-use industrial office land use classification promoted in the Comprehensive Policy Plan by providing areas designed to promote research and development centers, office parks, and minimal impact industrial and assembly uses. Such areas should be located in a campus like atmosphere near major transportation facilities. This land use designation is aimed at promoting the County's economic development goals. 5. The Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan has been designed to provide for a balance of land uses which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors, the introduction of a planned unit development (PUD) land use, and the preservation of rural areas and significant historic features within the study area boundaries. Future land uses within the study area boundary should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. The land use plan has been designed to provide the opportunity to develop industrial, business, and PUD uses in a well-planned, coordinated manner. Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Comments October 2, 2009 Page 3 Transportation The transportation comments have been provided by John Bishop, County Transportation Planner, and should be considered as the County's position on this component of the rezoning. In addition, please consider the following related points. 1. As transportation relates directly to land use, it should be recognized that the TIA for this project is based on a development scenario that has not been proffered. There is no limitation on development beyond that permitted by the district. In addition, it is recognized that it is the ultimate desire of the Applicant to potentially double the development potential of the property by increasing the FAR. 2. The development of this project may have an immediate impact on the surrounding transportation network, and the adjacent residents and historic resources. Due consideration should be given to the constructability of the site and avoiding such potential impacts. 3. It is recommended that the trail improvements are provided during the initial phase of development rather than on an individual parcel basis. Key sections of the trail network could be completed for the benefit of the initial occupants of the project, the adjacent residential community, and the visitors utilizing the many historic resources in and around this general location. 4. It is suggested that in addition to prohibiting individual commercial entrances on Millburn and Redbud Roads, a prohibition be extended to McCann Road. To ensure absolutely minimal impact to the historical streets surrounding the project, the project should develop internal street alternatives which would provide for access to the developed project and eliminate any use of these roads by developmentally generated or induced traffic. Proffer Statement 1. As has been discussed previously, Proffer Statement Section B. OM, Office - Manufacturing District Land Uses and a significant portion of Section C. OM, Office -Manufacturing District Design Standards contains language that is problematic in form and principle by proposing uses and standards that expand upon those currently permitted by Frederick County's Zoning Ordinance. Please refer to the comments provided by Mr. Rod Williams for additional guidance on this issue. Please ensure that the final Proffer Statement recognizes the agreed upon approach to addressing this issue by removing these sections from the Statement. Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Comments October 2, 2009 Page 4 2. The application identifies 1,749,000 square feet of office and 570,000 square feet of manufacturing. This amount provides the basis for the Traffic Impact Analysis. It should be recognized that the Applicant's proffer statement presently provides no limitations on the amount of O -M development that could occur on the property. It has been requested that the O -M district performance standards be modified to double the FAR from I FAR to 2 FAR which would have an impact on the amount and intensity of the development. 3. It would be preferable for the Applicant to further define the amount of, and timing of, the development of the proposed outdoor green areas and plazas. 4. The general location of the adjoining parcels that are within permanent protective easements does not need to be an element of the proffered Generalized Development Plan. It is suggested that this remains a component of the Impact Analysis. 5. The location of the internal trail system should be addressed further to ensure it provides connectivity with adjacent land uses and historical elements, and at a minimum to the previously proffered trail system that is part of Snowden Bridge Boulevard. The GDP could be used to a greater extent to identify this. The connectivity of the trail system goes beyond that of just this project. 6. The proffered buffering and landscaping should propose buffering and landscaping that would exceed the minimum expectation of the Ordinance. In addition, given the historical character of the surrounding land uses, there is an expectation of a more significant effort with regards to buffering and landscaping. This is a clear expectation of the Comprehensive Plan. As an example, the adjacent project provided a more significant buffer to similar sensitive land uses utilizing a minimum 100 foot standard. 7. This application's effort to address the fire and rescue community facility impacts is recognized. It is the County's policy when accepting monetary contributions to address fire and rescue impacts that the language of the proffer should read "monetary contribution to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes". Recent rezonings have proffered a monetary contribution in excess of the $0.05 per square foot of structural development proffered in this application. It may be simpler to provide a comparable lump sum monetary contribution at the outset of the project to assist in the planned development of capital facilities that would be necessary to support the growth in this area of the County. A new facility in the Clearbrook area is a top priority of the CIP. 8. It would appear to be necessary for the proffer statement to provide some guidance as to the phases of site development and constructability of the site to ensure that any potential impacts to adjacent properties and historical resources are mitigated or more importantly avoided. Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park Rezoning Comments October 2, 2009 Page 5 Other Green Infrastructure This property contains areas of Green Infrastructure elements and features including; areas of wetlands, areas of karst topography, and Developmentally Sensitive Areas. Such features could be incorporated into the project to a greater extent than is presently provided, in particular at the properties perimeter. Low Impact Design methods could be implemented throughout the development of this site as could the use of L EED (or equivalent) land development and building design standards. Historic Resources and Developmentally Sensitive Areas It is recommended that additional commitments are evaluated and made to adequately address the potential impacts on the historic and natural resources, both on the site and adjacent to the site. This could be done in coordination with adjacent stakeholders. Collaboration, now or in the future, with adjacent historical stakeholders would appear to be appropriate and beneficial to the project. The HRAB would be an important resource to help facilitate this collaboration. It is suggested that the Applicant is proactive in this regard. The potential exists to further promote the use of the existing adjacent roads for historical recreational open space corridors as previously recognized. As part of this effort, it is suggested that the buffers adjacent to Battlefield preservation properties, easements, and historical corridors should be tailored, potentially in conjunction with historical stakeholders and the Virginia Department of Forestry. As an example, the adjacent development proposed creating naturally vegetated or natively planted buffer areas, even proposing re -vegetation at a specific rate of trees per acre. Such an approach would appear to be effective with this project. Construction and site development The potential exists for the site development and construction of the project to be impactful to the surrounding community and land uses. The Applicant should be proactive in ensuring that any potential impacts to adjacent properties and historical resources are mitigated or more importantly avoided. Efforts to achieve this in the planning stages are appropriate given the scale and location of this project. In conclusion, please ensure that the above comments, and those offered by the reviewing agency are given due consideration. MTR/bad -raystone Corp of Virginia _Z # 09 - 09 CURRENT Z®NINi, IN: 43 - A - 358; 44-A- 25; 44-A- 26 Case Plamier: MRuddy Future RM Bypass ZDtliug M2 (Industrial, Gcuerul District) REZ0909_Graystone_Corp_.F VA_ioi509 B1(Busincss; Neighburhuod District) 41PAIM(Mubile Hume. Cure—nity Dislrico Urban Development Area B2 (Business, General Distrist) <fa MS (Medical Suppurt District) -,"SWSA <3P B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) RJ (Residential Planned Cunununity District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) R5 (Residential Recreatimud Cumm—ity District) HE (Eligher Educatiun District) (�� RA (Rural Area District) L n11 (lnductrial t•i ht Di t n i,t _. , g s ) RP(Residennal Pcrfurmauce District) w-'��.e 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles L e L .,Catuar 1.41x,_ I:i-r.09tla --.r ,,.liar-_ C"P 'd;';-ra IU I`l09 a: dny m;d) 10/1li"J.' 10 S.. o7 ir,P,,l 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles rayst®ne Corp of Virginia aZ # 09 - 09 CURRENT LAND USj,, IN: 43 ®A - 158; 44-A- 25; 44-A- 26 .tea �, �' g Case Planner: MRuddy Future Rt37 Bypass LongRangel-and Use r Mixed Use Industrial \Office REZ0909_Graystone_Corp_of_VA_101509 `- .� Rural Community Center Urban Center `/ U. ban Uc,elor tArca m w 1 men Residential }� Neighborhood Village SWSA .�� Mixed Use Age Restricted j>planned Unit Development �M Mixed -Use Recreation ' Business Natural Resources & Recreation ,Z111 Mixed Use Commercial \ Office _ Open Space - Highway Commercial Y.�; Institutional Industrial "h1SZ' Historic\DSA fl (F.\ 1 L•r i.l; :..--.r. !<t CU9J9 ;�aysha"e Coi]-_Viryinid-10'1509Land(Jse. mxd)'1011512009--10.251)AI'vl CRAYSTONE CORPORATION of Virginia P. O. Doc 2530 Winchester, VA 226041730 December 2, 2009 Mr. Mike Ruddy Deputy Planning Director Frederick County 107 North Kent Street, 2nd Floor Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Graystone Rezoning Revised Proffers Dear Mike: Enclosed please find our revised proffers. This revision results from Ty Lawson's consultation with Rod Williams. Please let me know if you have any questions. Enclosure Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 ORAYSTONE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ # Oq _ Oq Rural Areas District (RA) to Light Manufacturing District (Ml) PROPERTY: 27139± acres; Tax Parcels #43 -((A)) -158,44-((A))-25, and 44-((A))-26, (here -in after the "property") RECORD OWNER: Graystone Corporation of Virginia APPLICANT: Graystone Corporation of Virginia (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: August 24, 2009 REVISION DATE: November 17, 2009 Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq. of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # G JD 1 for the rezoning of 271.39± -acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to 271.39± -acres to the Light Industrial (Ml) District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this Applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The Property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Graystone Corporation of Virginia (formerly Crider & Shockey, Inc. of West Virginia), being all of Tax Map Parcels 43-((A))-158, 44A, )-25, and 44-((A))-26, and further described by Instrument Number 030025588. (Please refer to Rezoning Application Deed Information). File #27606C Rezoning Proffer Statement Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 PROFFER STATEMENT A Generalized Development Plan The Applicant hereby proffers to submit a Generalized Development Plan (the "GDP") for the Property. The purpose of the GDP is to identify the general location of the MI District office and industrial land bays, the general location of the future Route 37 corridor study area, the general location of the Snowden Bridge Boulevard urban four -lane divided collector road system with signalized intersection or roundabout design and limited entrance locations, the general location of on-site and off-site green space buffer areas, and the general location of the adjoining parcels that are within permanent protective easements. 2. The Applicant hereby proffers to develop the Property in substantial conformity with the proffered GDP, prepared by Greenway Engineering dated October 9, 2000. T.he, GDP is recognized to be a conceptual plan and may be adjusted by the Applicant to accommodate final design and engineering constraints without the need of new conditional rezoning approval by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, provided that the adjustments do not eliminate or substantially relocate the areas indicated on the proffered GDP. B M1 Light Industrial District Land Uses 1. The Applicant intends to develop the Property to implement industrial and office land uses that are designed to coexist in an office park setting. 2. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors agrees to allow future office and industrial land uses that are included within future amendments to the M1, Light Industrial District to be developed on the Property without the need for conditional zoning amendments. C ML Light Industrial District Design Standards 1. The Applicant hereby proffers to establish an Architectural Review Board (ARB) to oversee and approve all structural design exterior treatments for new Proffer Statement File 42760GC Rezoning Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 construction and structural additions to ensure high quality development throughout the project. Additionally, the ARB will oversee and approve all monument signage and building mounted signage, to ensure consistency in the design of signage throughout the project. Notwithstanding what is stated herein, the ARB is intended to be in addition to and not intended to override or conflict with any provisions of the Frederick County Code. 2. The Applicant hereby proffers to establish requirements for outdoor green areas and/or outdoor plaza areas for the benefit of employees of the office and industrial park. These outdoor green areas and outdoor plaza areas will be located within each of the M1 District land bay areas identified in the proffered GDP. 3. The Applicant hereby proffers to establish internal asphalt trails for the benefit of employees of the office and industrial park. These asphalt trails will be a minimum of eight feet in width and will be designed to connect land uses throughout the M1 District land bay areas identified in the proffered GDP wherever possible. For each lot or parcel associated with the construction of a building, the Applicant agrees to identify the location on said lot or parcel for trails (if applicable, to said lot or parcel) and to have the trail constructed (if applicable) prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the structure or building on said lot or parcel. 4. The Applicant hereby proffers to establish a 100 -foot green space buffer area along the northern boundary of the Property as depicted on the proffered GDP. This green space buffer area will be left in its natural state to provide viewshed mitigation for the Milburn Cemetery and the Helm -McCann springhouse. Said buffer is in addition to the requirements of the Frederick County Code. 5. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for evergreen landscaping along the Redbud Road frontage of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation property identified as a green space buffer area on the proffered GDP. The provision of this evergreen landscaping is to provide viewshed mitigation for this property and is conditioned upon a landscape easement being furnished by Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation property owner. Said buffer is in addition to the requirements of the Frederick County Code. D. Transportation Enhancements 1. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide a corridor study area within the Property as depicted on the proffered GDP that is a minimum of 350 feet in width. The purpose of this corridor study area is to provide Frederick County with an opportunity to detei-jui le a final alignment for Route 37 through the completion of final engineering design throughout the limits of the Property. The corridor study File #2760GC Rezoning Proffer Statement Greenway Engineering August 29, 2009 Revised September 2-3,20D9 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 area depicted on the proffered GDP shall be available to Frederick County for a period of five years from the date of final non -appealable rezoning approval. 2. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for a 225 -foot wide right-of-way dedication for the Route 37 corridor that is consistent with the Route 37 western bypass typical section on the Property. The Applicant shall provide this right-of- way dedication to Frederick County within 90 days from the date of written notice by Frederick County of final engineering design approval for the section of Route 37 within the Property. In the event that final engineering design approval for Route 37 is not obtained within the time period specified in Section D(1), the Applicant may either extend the time period or shall determine the location of the 225 -foot wide right-of-way dedication area for Route 37 within the corridor study area depicted on the proffered GDP. In the event that Route 37 is not developed, or if an alternative design is approved for Route 37 that is not on the Property subsequent to the right-of-way dedication, Frederick County agrees to have the right-of-way transferred back to the Applicant within 90 days from the date of this determination. 3. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for right-of-way dedication sufficient for the development of up to an 800 -foot wide diamond interchange or a single point urban interchange (SPUI) in the general location depicted on the proffered GDP. The 800 -foot wide diamond interchange or SPUI interchange design is intended to provide direct access to the Property through its intersection with Snowden Bridge Boulevard. The Applicant shall provide the right-of-way dedication to Frederick County within 90 days from the date of written notice by Frederick County of final engineering design approval for the 800 -foot wide diamond interchange or SPUI interchange design serving Route 37 within the property_ In the event that Route 37 is not developed, or if an alternative design is approved for Route 37 that is not on the Property subsequent to the right-of-way dedication, Frederick County agrees to Have the right-of-way transferred back to the Applicant within 90 days from the date of this determination. 4. The Applicant hereby proffers to construct Snowden Bridge Boulevard between the Property and Martinsburg Pike (U.S_ Route 11 North), including the CSX bridge crossing, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the first office or industrial site plan approved on the Property. The Applicant shall design and construct Snowden Bridge Boulevard as an urban four -lane divided collector road section (U4D) throughout the limits of the Property, and shall develop the off-site segment of Snowden Bridge Boulevard consistent with the approved public improvement plan. Snowden Bridge Boulevard shall be initially constructed as a two-lane road section, and shall be constructed as the ultimate four -lane divided road section prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit for the site plan that exceeds 8,000 VPD or in the event that Snowden Bridge Boulevard is developed rtal traffic from outside the Property, the construction of to allow access for addition the ultimate four -lane divided road section shall be required when the total trip volume exceeds 8,000 VPD on the Property, which ever first occurs. Proffer Statement File #2760GC Rezoning Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 5 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 5. The Applicant hereby proffers to limit full commercial intersection access on Snowden Bridge Boulevard to establish up to three commercial intersections in the general location of intersections identified on the proffered GDP. An intersection has been identified on the proffered GDP that could potentially be developed as either a roundabout or as a signalized intersection if warranted by VDOT. All full commercial intersections identified on the proffered GDP will be developed with raised medians to provide for controlled left turn movement access to the Property. 6. The Applicant hereby proffers to allow for the full commercial intersection located on the east side of the Route 37 corridor study area to be closed entirely if necessary when Route 37 is developed by others throughout the limits of the Property. The closure of the full commercial intersection is conditioned upon the provision of street access to this portion of the Property from a new full commercial intersection on Snowden Bridge Boulevard located east of Milburn Road, which will traverse Milburn Road and will be developed by others during the construction of Route 37 throughout the limits of the Property. 7. The Applicant hereby proffers to prohibit direct commercial access frorrt the Property to existing Milburn Road (Route 662). The County may determine that emergency access from to the Property from existing Milburn Road is acceptable provided that it is designed to prohibit access for regular vehicular traffic. 8. The Applicant hereby proffers to prohibit direct commercial access from the Property to existing Redbud Road (Route 661). Frederick County may determine that emergency access from to the Property from existing Redbud Road is acceptable provided that it is designed to prohibit access for regular vehicular traffic. 9. The Applicant hereby proffers to prohibit direct commercial access from the Property to McCann's Road (Route 838). Emergency access to the Property from McCann's Road is prohibited as well to protect the integrity of the buffer identified along this road. 10. The Applicant shall develop Snowden Bridge Boulevard as a public street; however, the Applicant shall have the ability to develop all internal streets as private street systems. All private streets shall be constructed to meet or exceed VDOT vertical base section standards. 11. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for inter -parcel connections where possible to mitigate transportation impacts to the full commercial intersections identified on the proffered C -DP_ 12. The Applicant submits that it will apply for all such public assistance mechanisms that are available at the time of development to facilitate the installation of the File #2760GC Rezoning Proffer Statement Greenway Eng neering August 24, 2409 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 aforementioned transportation/infrastructure improvements. Those mechanisms include, but are not limited to, matching funds, industrial access funds and/or any other transportation/infrastructure funding vehicles, such as CDAs. Without binding any future legislative act, the Applicant and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors agree that the use of said mechanisms are advantageous to the development of the Property and the use of same should be encouraged and that both parties should make all reasonable efforts to cooperate with one another to implement the appropriate mechanism or combination of mechanisms to ensure rapid installation of the aforementioned improvements. E Fire and. Rescue Monetary Contribution The Graystone Office and Industrial Park has been demonstrated to provide a positive economic impact to Frederick County services by the Frederick County Development Impact Model. However, the Applicant intends to further support fire and rescue services through the provision of a monetary contribution in the arlount of $0.05 per square foot of structural development for all land uses within the Property. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit for each building permit issued within the Property. F Signatures — Crsystone Corporation of Virginia The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants and owners. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. [J,&ar tilres ;,n next page] Proffer Statement File #2760GC Rezoning Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 Respectfully Submitted: BY /' tom •�/ Date: ( - �5 -07 Ji !) S Commnonwealt of Vi/r�'' 'a, �/ City/County o. � Fi�F ��/t— To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2007 by SUSAN D. STA14L NOTARY PUBLIC r Commonwealthof Virginia Reg. #29#294874 Commission E;pires April 30, 2012 j Neitary Public My Commission Expires Registration No.: File #2760GC Rezoning Proffer Statement cs D (:3N N iN O a.�� Z:2 N anx LVA SEE PROFFER SECTION DIM FOR DETALS SCALE.. 1" = 900' I DESIGNED BY. WRS I { JOB NO. 2760GC SHEET 1 OF 1 z 3 126 1�m > El UILI� � Q 0 a� L z w El0 U� a Q ww � o LLI� DATE. 10/09/09 SCALE.. 1" = 900' I DESIGNED BY. WRS I { JOB NO. 2760GC SHEET 1 OF 1 GRAYSTO E CORPORATION of Virginia P. O. Box 2530 Winchester, VA 22604-1730 November 25, 2009 Frederick County Planning Commission 107 North Keret Street Winchester, VA 22601 RF: Grwystone Corporation of Virginia Rezoning ADPlication Honorable Members of the Frederick County Planning Commission: Please find enclosed the latest revision of our Proffer Statement with the changes highlighted. You will see that many of the concerns expressed during the November 4 meeting have been addressed. All of the benefits to Frederick County enumerated in the original have been retained. We introduced this project to many of you in the Fall of 2008. Prior to filing our application, Frederick County encouraged us to move through the process in an expeditious manner due to an industrial prospect considering our area with a potential investment of $200 million. The County has offered the prospect an incentive package. Our site might be a fit and could enhance the County's prospects of landing the client. It is a long shot, however, in the current economic environment all of us need to take every good shot we can get. We now understand that the Planning Commission was unaware of this opportunity. We remain prepared to address your questions whenever you decide to take up this rezoning. Our rezoning offers many benefits to Frederick County that will be outlined in one or more e-mails you can expect to receive early next week. Please watch for them. You do not need to wait until a formal meeting for your questions to be addressed. We would be happy to address them at your convenience. Please e-mail the questions or comments to '`igood(aishockeycompanies.com or call him at 540-665-3212. We appreciate your efforts to plan the future of Frederick County and we hope that you will agree that our project can be a positive part of that future. Sinc \ eiy, Don Shockey Copies to: Hon. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman, Frederick County Board of Supervisors Hon. Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Frederick County Board of Supervisors John R. Riley, Frederick County Administrator Michael Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director, Frederick County Enclosure Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 GRAYSTONE CORPORATION T OF VIRGINU PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ # C q -D 9 Rural Areas District (RA) to light Manufacturing District (Ml) PROPERTY: 27139¢ acres; Tax Parcels #43-((A))-158, 44-((A))-25, and 44-((A))-26, (here -in after the "I'r€rperty") RECORD OWNER: Graystone Corporation of Virginia APPLICANT: Graystone Corporation of Virginia (here -in after the "Applicant") PROJECT NAME: Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: August 24, 2009 REVISION DATE: I November 17, 2009 �_ W E Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 Et. Seq_ of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned Applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application for the rezoning of 271.39± -acres from the Rural Areas (RA) District to 27139± -acres to the Light Industrial (Ml) District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the Applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon this Applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns. The Property, more particularly described as the lands owned by Graystone Corporation of Virginia (formerly Crider & Shockey, Inc. of West Virginia), being all of Tax Map Parcels 43-((A))-158, 44-((A))-25, and 44-((A))-26, and further described by Instrument Number 030025588. (Please refer to Rezoning Application Deed information). File #2750GC Rezoning Proffer Statement Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2M PROFFER STATEMENT A Generalized DevelDgment Pian 1. The Applicant hereby proffers to submit a Generalized Development Plan (the "GDP") for the Property. The purpose of the GDP is to identify the general location of the MI District office and industrial land bays, the general location of the future Route 37 corridor study area, the general location of the Snowden Bridge Boulevard urban four -lane divided collector road system with signalized intersection or roundabout design and limited entrance locations, the general location of on-site and off-site green space buffer areas, and the general location of the adjoining parcels that are within permanent protective easements. 2.- The Applicant hereby proffers to develop the Property in substantial conformity with the proffered GDP, prepared by Greenway Engineering dated October 9, 2009. The GDP is recognized to be a conceptual plan and may be adjusted by the Applicant to accommodate final design and engineering constraints without the need of new conditional rezoning approval by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, provided that the adjustments do not eliminate or substantially relocate the areas indicated on the proffered GDP. B. M1, Light Industriai District Land Uses 1, The Applicant intends to develop the Property to implement industrial and office land uses that are designed to coexist in an office park setting. 2. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors agrees to allow future office and industrial land uses that are included within future amendments to the M1, Light Industrial District to be developed on the Property without the need for conditional zoning amendments_ ,y,rm_ HCC lF Ct C`. C. M1 Light Industrial District Desi Standards 1. The Applicant hereby proffers to establish an Architectural Review Board (ARS) to oversee and approve all structural design exterior treatments for new Proffer Statement File #2760GC Rezoning Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised Octolber 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 construction and structural additions to ensure high quality development throughout the project. Additionally, the ARB will oversee and approve all monument signage and building mounted s inae• to ensure_consistenenc in_ he design of sage throughout the project. `Notwithstanding what is stated herein;\, ,� the ARB is intended to be in addition to and not intended to override or conflict_ with any provisions of the Frederick County Code 4 r ftp 1 2. The Applicant hereby proffers to establish requirements for outdoor green areas and/or outdoor plaza areas for the benefit of employees of the office and industrial park. These outdoor green areas and outdoor plaza areas will be located within each of the M1 District land bay areas identified in the proffered GDP. 3. The Applicant hereby proffers to establish internal asphalt trails for the benefit of employees of the office and industrial park. These asphalt trails will be a minimum of eight feet in width and will be designed to connect land uses throughout the M1 District land bay areas identified in the proffered GDP wherever possible. or each lot or parcel associated with the construction of a building, the Applicant agrees to identify the location on said lot or parcel for trails (if applicable, to said lot or parcel) and to have the trail constructed (if applicable) prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the structure or building on said lot or parcel;j- c 4. The Applicant hereby proffers to establish a 100 -foot green space buffer area along the northern boundary of the Property as depicted on the proffered GDP. This green space buffer area will be left in its natural state to provide viewshed mitigation for the Milburn Cemetery and the Helm -McCann sprsnghouse Sa t- buffer is in addition to the requirements of the Frederick County Code. 5. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for evergreen landscaping along the Redbud Road frontage of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation property identified as a green space buffer area on the proffered GDP. The provision of this evergreen landscaping is to provide viewshed mitigation for this property and is conditioned upon a landscape easement being furnished by Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation property owner. Said buffer is in addition to the requirements of the Frederick County Code. D. Transportation Enhancements 1. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide a corridor study area within the Property as depicted on the proffered GDP that is a minimum of 350 feet in width. The purpose of this corridor study area is to provide Frederick County with an opportunity to dete:jaine a final alignment for Route 37 through the completion of final engineering design throughout the limits of the Property. The corridor study File #2760GC Rezoning Proffer Statement Greenway Fngineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 area depicted on the proffered GDP shall be available to Frederick County for a period of five years from the date of final non -appealable rezoning approval. 2. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for a 225 -foot wide right-of-way dedication for the Route 37 corridor that is consistent with the Route 37 western bypass typical section on the Property. The Applicant shall provide this right-of- way dedication to Frederick County within 90 days from the date of written notice by Frederick County of final engineering design approval for the section of Route 37 within the Property. In the event that final engineering design approval for Route 37 is not obtained within the time period specified in Section D(1), the Applicant may either extend the time period or shall determine the location of the 225 -foot wide right-of-way dedication area for Route 37 within the corridor study area depicted on the proffered GDP_ In the event that Route 37 is not developed, or if an alternative design is approved for Route 37 that is not on the Property subsequent to the right-of-way dedication, Frederick County agrees to have the right-of-way transferred back to the Applicant within 90 days from the date of this determination. 3.' The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for right-of-way dedication sufficient for the development of up to an 800 -foot gide diamond interchange or a single point urban interchange (SPUI) in the general location depicted on the proffered GDP. The 800 -foot wide diamond interchange or SPUI interchange design is intended to provide direct access to the Property through its intersection with Snowden Bridge Boulevard. The Applicant shall provide the right-of-way dedication to Frederick County within 90 days from the date of written notice by Frederick County of final engineering design approval for the 800 -foot wide diamond interchange or SPUI interchange design serving route 37 within the Property. In the event that Route 37 is not developed, or if an alternative design is approved for Route 37 that is not on the Property subsequent to the right-of-way dedication, Frederick County agrees to have the right-of-way transferred back to the Applicant within 90 days from the date of this determination. 4. The Applicant hereby proffers to construct Snowden Bridge Boulevard between the Property and Martinsburg Pike (U.S_ Route 11 North), including the CSX bridge crossing, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the first office or industrial site plan approved on the Property. The Applicant shall design and construct Snowden Bridge Boulevard as an urban four -lane divided collector road section (U4D) throughout the limits of the Property, and shall develop the off-site segment of Snowden Bridge Boulevard consistent with the approved public improvement plan. Snowden Bridge Boulevard shall be initially constructed as a two-lane road section, and shall be constructed as the ultimate four -lane divided road section prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit for the site plan that exceeds 8,000 VPD oryin the event that Snowden Bridge Boulevard is developed to allow access for additional traffic from outside the Property, the construction of the ultimate four -lane divided road section shall be required when the total trip volume exceeds 8,000 VPD on the Propertyq which ever first occurs Proffer Statement File #2760GC Rezoning Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 5 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9- 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 5. The Applicant hereby proffers to limit full commercial intersection access on Snowden Bridge Boulevard to establish up to three commercial intersections in the general location of intersections identified on the proffered GDP. An intersection has been identified on the proffered GDP that could potentially be developed as either a roundabout or as a signalized intersection if warranted by VDOT. All full commercial intersections identified on the proffered GDP will be developed with raised medians to provide for controlled left turn movement access to the Property. 6. The Applicant hereby proffers to allow for the full commercial intersection located on the east side of the Route 37 corridor study area to be closed entirely if necessary when Route 37 is developed by others throughout the limits of the Property. The closure of the full comrnercial intersection is conditioned upon the provision of street access to this portion of the Property from a new full commercial intersection on Snowden Bridge Boulevard located east of Milburn Road, which will traverse Milburn Road and will be developed by others during the construction of Route 37 throughout the limits of the Property. 7. The Applicant hereby proffers to prohibit direct commercial access from the Property to existing Milburn Road (Route 662). The County may determine that emergency access from to the Property from existing Milburn Road is acceptable provided that it is designed to prohibit access for regular vehicular traffic_ 8. The Applicant hereby proffers to prohibit direct commercial access from the Property to existing Redbud Road (Route 661). Frederick County may determine that emergency access from to the Property from existing Redbud Road is acceptable provided that it is designed to prohibit access for regular vehicular traffic. 9. The Applicant hereby proffers to prohibit direct commercial access from the Property to McCann's Road (Route 838)_ Emergency access to the Property from McCann's Road is prohibited as well to protect the integrity of the buffer identified along this road. 10. The Applicant shall develop Snowden Bridge Boulevard as a public street; however, the Applicant shall have the ability to develop all internal streets as private street systems. All private streets shall be constructed to meet or exceed VDOT vertical base section standards. 11. The Applicant hereby proffers to provide for inter -parcel connections where possible to mitigate transportation impacts to the full commercial intersections identified on the proffered GDP. 12. The Applicant submits that it will apply for all such public assistance mechanisms that are available at the time of development to facilitate the installation of the File 92760GC Rezoning Proffer Statement Greenway Engineering August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 aforementioned transportation/infrastructure improvements. Those mechanisms include, but are not limited to, matching funds, industrial access funds and/or any other transportation/infrastructure funding vehicles, such as CDAs. Without binding any future legislative act, the Applicant and the Frederick County Board of Supervisors agree that the use of said mechanisms are advantageous to the development of the Property and the use of same should be encouraged and that both parties should make all reasonable efforts_ to—cooperate with one another to implement the appropriate mechanism or combination of mechanisms to ensure rapid installation of the aforementioned improvements. E. Fire and Rescue Monetary Contribution The Graystone Office and Industrial Park has been demonstrated to provide a positive economic impact to Frederick County services by the Frederick County Development lmpact Model. However, the Applicant intends to further support fire and rescue services through the provision of a monetary contribution in the amount of $0.05 per square foot of structural development for all land uses within the Property. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy permit for each building permit issued within the Property. F Siwnatures — Glraystone Corporation of Virginia The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants and owners. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Si[gnmwres on next page; Fite #2760GC Rezoning Proffer Statement Greenway Engineering Respectfully Submitted: August 24, 2009 Revised September 23, 2009 Revised October 9, 2009 Revised November 17, 2009 By. f>>�� ,tZSt �C��<'4f Date:�� G� Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_ by Notary Public My Commission Expires Registration No.: File #2760GC Rezoning Proffer Statement 4 N REENVAY ENGIN NO ' 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Telephone 540-662-4185 Engineers FAX 540-722-9528 Surveyors www.greenwayeng.com Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Organization/Company: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) From: Michael Glickman, PE, PTOE Date: October 9, 2009 Response to October 2, 2009 VDOT comments regarding Project Name/Subject: Gra stv one Of & Indurtrzal Park Traffic Impact Study, dated August 24, 2009 Greenway Engineering File Number: 2760GC Greenway Engineering has prepared this memorandum to provide responses to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) October 2, 2009 and October 6, 2009 comments regarding the Traffic Impact Study (August 24, 2009) and Proffer Statement (September 23, 2009), respectively, for the Rezoning Application associated with the Graystone Corporation Office & Industrial Park to be located along Snowden Bridge Boulevard in Frederick County, Virginia. The following provides responses to each of the VDOT comments: VDOT "TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY" COMMENTS — DATED OCTOBER 2,200 VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #1: -SB and NB movements at Route 11 /Crown Lane were coded as a permissive movement. Given the size of this intersection, a "Split" phase and longer yellow time should have been used for safety purposes. Greenway Engineering Response: The study area intersections along Route 11, south of I-81, were optimized to improve capacity and progression throughout the corridor. It is VDOT's prerogative to determine any necessary adjustments to address safety concerns. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #2:-Synchro shows three EB through lanes between Market St and Merchant St along Route 11 which is not consistent with aerial photos. Also, the lane configurations at the Route 11 /Merchant St. intersection are not consistent with aerial photos. Greenway Engineering Response: Three (3) eastbound lanes are in existence along Route 11 between Market Street and Merchant Street. It is apparent that the referenced aerial photograph does not include the improvements constructed per the Pubic Improvement Plan (PIP) associated with Rutherford Crossing. Page 1 of 7 Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Page 2 of 7 VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #3: Given the high traffic volumes on Route 11, a Permissive left -turn phase is not recommended; please verify if any left -turn movements operate with "Perm" phase currently. With this change, many left turnings movements will operate at LOS F instead of D or E. For example, the WBL at the I-81 SB ramp will have LOS F instead of D for 2028 BO PM conditions. Please revise. Greenway Engineering Response: The study area intersections along the Route 11 corridor, south of I-81, were optimized for levels of service, capacity, delay and progression. It is VDOT's prerogative to determine any necessary adjustments, which may result in decreased levels of service, capacity, delay and progression, to address perceived safety concerns at the intersections. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #4: The EB right -turn movement at Route 11/I-81SB Ramps was coded as a "Free" movement. This movement yields to WBL on-ramp traffic. "Perm" is the correct coding. Making such change will yield nominal changes. Greenway Engineering Response: Greenway Engineering acknowledges this discrepancy and concurs with VDOT's assessment that revising the analyses would have a minimal impact upon the results documented in the August 24, 2009 Traffic Impact Study. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #5: The Synchro model provided with the TIA coded a Two Way Left -Turn Lane (TWLTL) as the median type for Rte. 11 /FEMA Driveway; Synchro assumes a two -car storage for a TWLTL. The TWLTL on Rte. 11 is 12' wide, which is not wide enough to store vehicles within the median area. The Syi — cmodel should be coded using a 12' median width and removal of the T%LTL. Doing so would produce LOS F, and reported delay reads `error' for the 2028 scenarios because is exceeds HCM limits. Please revise. Greenway Engineering Response: The Two -Way Left -Turn Lane existing along US Route 11 was installed by VDOT to function as a storage lane for northbound and southbound left -turning vehicles. The 12 -foot width is consistent with the industry standard of 10 to 16 feet as per AASHTO guidelines. Greenway Engineering has been unable to locate documentation that negates the algorithms included in the Synchro software regarding the Two -Way Left -Turn Lane input. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #6: 2022 and 2028 scenarios used "Perm" phase for the NBL movement at the relocated I -81N off -ramp. The study assumed double right turn lanes for this movement, as such a "Prof' phase should be used. Making such change will yield nominal changes. Greenway Engineering Response: Greenway Engineering acknowledges this discrepancy and concurs with VDOT's assessment that revising the analyses would have a minimal impact upon the results documented in the August 24, 2009 Traffic Impact Study. Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Page 3 of 7 VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #7: For the 2028 BO with Route 37 scenario, the distance between Site Entrance #3 and the SPUI interchange is less than 660 ft. Also, Site Entrance #2 is assumed as a signalized intersection, the distance between Site Access #2 and the SPUI interchange tamps is less than 1,320 ft. Those lengths do not meet access management requirements. Greenway Engineering Response: The SPUI was provided in the Traffic Impact Study and the associated Synchto software for illustrative purposes only. All access points will be designed to meet the. VDOT spacing requirements, subject to approval as per the mandatory Site Plan review process, outlined in the VDOT Road Design Manual. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #8: For the 2028 BO with Route 37 scenario, the TLA assumed all traffic using the SPUI interchange are site -generated traffic, which is not realistic and does not represent the worst-case scenario. For this reason, Planning strongly advises that adequate right-of-way be dedicated to accommodate a traditional diamond interchange. Greenway Engineering Response: Per AASHTO's Geometric De ign of Highzvays and Street (lhe "Green" Book), the Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI) has a greater capacity than conventional diamond interchanges. Accordingly, the worst-case design was assumed in the Traffic Impact Study. Greenway Engineering's revised Proffer Statement, dated September 23, 2009, does, however, include language to allow for a traditional diamond interchange at the planned junction of Route 37/Snowden Bridge Boulevard. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #9: Referencing Figure 25, all right -turn movements at the SPUI interchange are assumed as a "Free" movement. The RT on-ramp movement will yield to LT on-ramp movement. There are two EB lanes between Route 37NB off -ramp and Site Access #4 and two EB lanes between SPUI intersection and NB off -ramp intersection. Three EB lanes are needed between Route 37NB off -ramp and Site Access #4 to accommodate the "Free" RT movement from Route 37NB off -ramp. Greenway Engineering Response: The SPUI was provided in the Traffic Impact Study and the associated Synchro software for illustrative purposes only. Greenway Engineering recognizes that further evaluation will be required to determine the appropriate configuration for the planned junction of Route 37/Snowden Bridge Boulevard. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #10: Site Access #3 for 2028 BO with Route 37 downstream. Synchro inputs show two WB through lanes at scenario, but there is only one receiving lane Greenway Engineering Response: All access points are subject to fi;twc VDOT approval as per the required Site Plan review process. Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Page 4 of 7 VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #11: The study did not recommend any improvements on Route 11 except "Regional improvements Please elaborate what the "Regional Improvements" are. Setting aside right -of -wap for a future roadway facility in lieu any mitigation to offset impacts to existing road systems is not advised. Greenway Engineering Response: Per the request of Jerry Copp (VDOT — Edinburg Residency), Greenway Engineering has submitted to VDOT/Frederick County an Addendum, dated September 29, 2009, that evaluates the "regional improvement" referenced in the August 24, 2009 Traffic Impact Study. The adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures is beyond the scope of this Traffic Impact Study. The Owners of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park Property have been working with representatives of Frederick County to establish equitable proffers relating to the transportation implications of the Site. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #12: Referencing Table 10 on Page 45, the queues from 2028 BO traffic will result in many movements having much longer queues compared to the queues from 2028 BK scenarios. Also, some queue lengths are longer than the link lengths. Please explain why no improvements were recommended along Route 11. Greenway Engineering Response: The adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is beyond the scope of this Traffic Impact Study. The Owners of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park Property have been working with representatives of Frederick County to establish equitable proffers relating to the transportation implications of the Site. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #13: It should be noted that ANY type of interchange could reduce site -generated trips on Route 11 and improve LOS. Greenway Engineering Response: Greenway Engineering acknowledges that the future junction of Route 37/Snowden Bridge Boulevard would improve future background (no build)and build -out traffic conditions throughout the study area evaluated in the Traffic Impact Study. VDOT Trak Impact Study Comment #14: The turn lanes design along Snowden Bridge Blvd should be based on VDOT Road Design Manual, such analyses were not provided. Greenway Engineering Response: All access points are subject to future VDOT approval as per the required Site Plan review process. VDOT Traffic Impact Study Comment #15: Per Chapter 527 regulations, cost estimates for improvements are to be provided. Greenway Engineering Response: Per the scoping agreement, the only improvement assumed in the Traffic Impact Study was the relocation of Red Bud Road/I-81 NB off - ramp. VDOT/Frederick County has previously documented the costs associated with this improvement. Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Page 5 of 7 VDOT "PROFFER STATEMENT" COMMENTS — DATED OCTOBER 6, 2009 VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #1: Under transportation proffers, the applicant refers to his proposed 225' right-of-way dedication as similar to the western portion of the Route 37 Bypass. Upon review of the property in question there is no similarity. The property changes as much as 90' in elevation. Route 37 would be required to build up to 4 flyover bridges, including the interchange, in a little over a half of a mile. The only practical way to design the roadway, without feeling like a rollercoaster, is an elevated roadway. Therefore, a right-of-way dedication of 350' to 400' of dedication along the mainline will be required. The diamond interchange right-of- way dedication requirement could be as much as 1,200'. Greenway Engineering Response: See Greenway Engineering response to VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #6. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #2: The TIA, after its initial review has been found to need additional information combined with recommendations from VDOT's reviewer. These have been requested from the applicant. The two mitigation items that were visible from the initial review, that are key to traffic movements in the area, are the relocation of the NB I-81 off -ramp to align with the existing NB 1-81 on-ramp, combined with providing an access road for local traffic from the Snowden Bridge Boulevard to Redbud Road via the Graystone development. As the applicant has not offered to mitigate his impact of almost 10,000 ADT on Route 11, these may be items that should be considered prior to supporting this rezoning. Greenway Engineering Response: The Owners of the Graystone Office and Industrial Park Property have been working with representatives of Frederick County to establish equitable proffers relating to the transportation implications of the Site. The Applicant has agreed to a land dedication of approximately 27 -acres for Route 37 East, which, based upon and M-1 Zoning, would be worth over $2,7000,000. Additionally, according to the Frederick County Development Impact Model, this project would generate a 20 -year net return of $40,267,000 to the County. The Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park would be a fiscally positive development that will ultimately afford the County the funds to address a myriad of transportation improvements in the area. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #3: Only setting aside right-of-way for a future roadway facility in lieu of any mitigation to offset impacts to existing road systems (i.e., Route 11) is not advised, particularly since the construction of Eastern Route 37 (which will aid to disperse the applicants' generated trips), could very well be a generation away from reality. Greenway Engineering Response: The Proffer Statement describes the dedication of approximately 27 -acres, which, based upon and M-1 Zoning, would be worth over $2,7000,000. Additionally, according to the Frederick County Development Impact Model, this project would generate a 20 -year net return of $40,267,000 to the County. Merniorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Page 6 of 7 VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #4: Proffer D-1: In today's economy, additional time will be needed to obtain the funding for the study. We would like to see the proposed five years increased to ten years for both the alignment and preliminary engineering design to identify right- of-way needs for the Route 37 Bypass and full diamond interchange. Greenway Engineering Response: Per a previous VDOT comment, the Applicant increased the time period from 3 -years to 5 -years in order to allow for additional time to fund the Corridor Study. Given the current economic conditions, it would be detrimental to the Developer and the County to hinder the marketability of the land area for an additional 5 -year period. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #5: Proffer D-2: The proposed alignment corridor of only 225' will not contain the proposed Route 37 east. Several key factors seem to have been overlooked when the Developer designated this area: 1. Due to the relative spacing between the Shockey interchange and the I-81 interchange, it has been recommended that C -D lanes be constructed to facilitate properly designed ramps and weave areas. Please see the 3/24/06 review correspondence of the County's CX — CXL proposals for additional information. 2. In the 2,300 feet of proposed 37 alignment in the Shockey development there are five (5) grade separations/bridges requiring high-fill/additional right-of-way: • Route 662 • Proposed Snowden Bridge Blvd (to include a fullinterchange) • Proposed secondary between Land Bays A/B and C • Hiatt Run tributary crossing • Crossing over CSX railroad (if double -stacking is a future consideration, CSX will require at least 23' vertical clearance from high rail) Greenway Engineering Response: See Greenway Engineering response to VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #6. VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #6: Given these unique conditions and topography, we recommend dedicating a 400' corridor minimum for the highway, flaring out to 1,200' total at the interchange. A sample typical section for a C -D highway is attached <<37typicall.tif>>; note that it does not account for areas of higher fill necessary for longitudinal grade design, super elevation, etc. Greenway Engineering Response: Greenway Engineering has reviewed the typical section provided by VDOT (37typciall.ti fl and has concluded that a 400' corridor design vastly exceeds the needs of the facility and would only serve to place a tremendous burden on the County to allocate funding for construction. This design, for example, would require over 600,000 cubic yards of fill on the Graystone Site. Existing Route 37 West generally includes right-of-way widths of 225' with diamond interchange spreads of approximately 800'. Memorandum To: Lloyd Ingram Page 7 of 7 VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #7: Proffer D-3: Remove the references to SPUI interchange as all types of interchange designs will be considered. The appropriate interchange design, based on cost and constructability, will be determined at the design phase. Greenway Engineering Response: The latest Proffer Statement allows for up to 800' of width should a diamond interchange be required. This is consistent with existing diamond interchanges along Route 37 West_ VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #8: Proffer D-4: VDOT will not support the use of economic development funds for construction of a roadway that has already been proffered. Greenway Engineering Response: Noted VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #9: Proffer D-5: All intersections will be required to meet all of VDOT's criteria, including sight distance, crossover spacing and access management regulations. VDOT will not allow entrances to be located in such a manner as to jeopardize the future Route 37 Interchange. Site entrance/intersection design and location will be reviewed at the time of site plan submittal prior to location approval. Greenway Engineering Response: Noted VDOT Proffer Statement Comment #10: Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off-site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Greenway Engineering Response: Noted. P ®i NREENWRY ENRINEERINGo we 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 I Founded in 1971 October 9, 2009 Frederick County Planning Department Attn: Mike Ruddy, Deputy Director 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Graystone Corporation Rezoning Application - Review Agency Comment Response Letter Dear Mike: The purpose of this letter is to provide the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors with a comprehensive response to the various review agency comments received for the Graystone Corporation Rezoning Application. The following information provides a summary of the agency comments and the Applicant's response to address these matters. Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department (September 14, 2009 Comment) Comment: Approval for the rezoning is contingent upon a second means of emergency access to the property once construction has occurred. Access from Milburn Road and Redbud Road is preferred. Response: Section D(6) and Section D(7) of the Proffer Statement prohibit direct commercial access to Milburn Road and Redbud Road; however, provisions for emergency access provisions are provided along these road segments if desired by the County. Frederick County Attorney (September 16, 2009 Comment) Comment #1: Graystone needs to come into compliance with applicable law in West Virginia before proceeding with the requested rezoning. Response: The property owner has obtained a Certificate of Good Standing for Graystone Corporation from the state of West Virginia, which is included as information in the rezoning application package. Engineers Surveyors Planners Environmental Scientists Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 Project 2760GC www.greegwayeng.com Agency Comment Response Letter Comment #2: Proffer A(2) should be clarified to make reference to the proffered GDP. Response: Proffer A(2) has been revised to reflect this comment. Comment #3: The County Attorney is unable to conclude that the County may, by adoption of a conditional rezoning, make use allowances greater than otherwise allowed in the proposed zoning district. A text amendment may be the appropriate mechanism to address the request. Response: The Code of Virginia § 15.2-2201 defines Conditional Zoning as the classifying of land within a locality into areas and districts by legislative action, the allowing of reasonable conditions governing the use of such property, such conditions being in addition to, or modification of the regulations provided for a particular zoning district or zone by the overall zoning ordinance. Additionally, The Code of Virginia § 15.2-2296 states that more flexible and adaptable zoning methods are needed to permit differing land uses and the same time to recognize effects of change. It is the purpose of this section to provide a more flexible and adaptable zoning method to cope with situations found in such zones through conditional zoning, whereby a zoning reclassification may be allowed subject to certain conditions proffered by the zoning applicant for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned. Nothing in these sections prohibits a locality from adopting proffered conditions with allowances greater than otherwise allowed in the proposed zoning district. It should be noted that the Applicant participated in the suggested ordinance amendment process; however, this was ineffective in that desired food manufacturing land uses were not supported by the committee studying this matter. Therefore, the Applicant has modified the rezoning application to seek M1, Light Industrial zoning and has incorporated minor land use and height allowances in the proffer statement to be consistent with land uses and structural heights already provided for in other zoning districts in the County. Comment #4: The proffer does not set out standards for the determination of whether additional uses are "similar to the permitted land uses described in this section"; therefore, this could potentially result in a highly intensive use of the Property. Response: Section B(2) of the Proffer Statement has been revised to eliminate this language. Comment #5: Similar to Comment #3, uses that are more intensive than the requested zoning classification should not be addressed through conditional zoning, but rather through one or more text amendments. Response: Same comment response as specified in Comment #3 above. Project 2760GC 2 Agency Comment Response Letter Comment #6: This proffer might better contain a provision clarifying that the requirements of the zoning ordinance will apply regardless of actions taken by the proffered ARB. Response: Section C(4) of the proffer statement provides for an ARB to approve exterior design treatments and monument signs within the project. The Zoning Ordinance does not regulate design, nor should it; therefore, this section is appropriate as written. Comment #7: The proffer does not define the size of outdoor green/plaza areas or the timing of the obligation. Response: It is envisioned that individual sites will define the size and type (green area or plaza area) of outdoor spaces for their employees or visitors to the specific site. The Ml, Light Industrial District requires a minimum of 25% of the specific site to be in green area; therefore, there will be adequate room to determine these areas and types of areas based on the needs and desires of the individual land uses. Comment #8: The proffer does not define the timing for the obligation of the internal trail system. Response: It is envisioned that internal trail systems will be developed as site plans are developed. It is difficult to determine the location of trails at this time as land areas needed for sites are not known and users are not known. A site that is developed by a secure or semi -secure land use will not allow for trail connectivity to outsiders and manufacturing users will not want trail connectivity in certain portions of their site; therefore, this standard is best suited at the individual site plan design stage. Comment #9: Category C Buffers are required adjacent to RA -zoned property that is primarily in residential use. The proffers cannot override such requirements. Response: The proposed buffer along the northern property line adjacent to McCann's Road is not required as the rural area land adjacent to it is not residential. However, Section C(7) of the proffer statement has been revised to increase the buffer distance from 50 feet to 100 feet to be consistent with the Category C Buffer that will be required along other portions of the project site. Comment #10: The proffer does not indicate any time by which Route 37 would need to be developed on the Property. Response: Section D(6) of the proffer statement identifies that Route 37 is to be developed by others; therefore, the timing for this improvement is not needed in the proffer statement as this will not be a requirement of the Applicant. Comment #11: In Section D(4), replace the word developed with the word constructed. Response: Section D(4) of the proffer statement has been revised to reflect this comment. Project 2760GC 3 Agency Comment Response Letter Comment #12: The GDP erroneously refers to Section C(5) instead of Section D(5) and does not provide a time frame for performance of the obligation. Response: The GDP has been revised to refer to Section D(5) of the proffer statement for the western -most full commercial intersection. The timing of this improvement will occur when land use development occurs in the northern or southern M1 District land bay that will utilize the full commercial intersection for access to Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Comment #13: In Section E(1) the proffer should state if the funds are limited to fire and rescue purposes. Response: Section E(1) of the proffer statement has been revised to reflect this comment. Frederick County Building Official (September 17, 2009 Comment) Comment: No comments are required for the rezoning; however, comments will be required during the site plan process. Response: All site plans will be submitted to the Department of Inspections for review and approval. Winchester Regional Airport (September 18, 2009 Comment) Comment: The Winchester Regional Airport requests that the property owner is advised that if structures penetrate into airport airspace that the owner will be required to install FAA approved obstruction lights to address safety concerns. Response: The owner has been advised of the Winchester Regional Airport comment and is aware of the potential obstruction lighting requirement. The owner's property is located within the 5 -mile radius of the airport runway; therefore, site plans will be required to be submitted for review and approval by the airport prior to the issuance of building permits. Based op. site topography conditions, it appears that 90 -foot structures situated on the highest locations of the project site would still be 75 feet below the airport airspace in this area of the County. Frederick County Sanitation Authority (September 22, 2009 Comment) Comment: FCSA has reviewed the sewer and water systems and has determined that there should be adequate capacities for transmission and treatment, as well as sufficient pressures and supply. Project 2760GC 4 Agency Comment Response Letter Response: Agreed. Frederick County Transportation Planner (September 25, 2009 Comment) Comment #1: Staff believes that the identified Route 37 Corridor should be fully dedicated. Staff believes that the proffered dedication area that is similar to Route 37 West is not a good approach since VDOT and County study of this area has determined that this will need CD lanes. Staff believes that the study term should be extended and additional right-of-way dedicated. Dedication should be within 90 days as opposed to six months. Response: The Applicants have proffered to dedicate a 225 -foot wide mainline corridor and an interchange area that would allow for a diamond interchange that is 800 feet between ramps. This right-of-way width is consistent with the corridor width that was required to construct Route 37 West. The right-of-way dedication described totals approximately 27.39 acres, which represents 10% of the total land area in this project. The Applicants believe that this is a significant and appropriate proffer for Route 37. The proffer has been revised to provide for the right-of-way dedication within 90 days of written request from the County. Comment #2: Staff would like to see the proffer provide on option for a diamond interchange as well as the SPUI. Dedication of the interchange area should be within 90 days as opposed to six months. Response: Section D(3) of the proffer statement has been revised to provide an option for right-of-way dedication for an 800 -foot diamond interchange, and maintains the option for a single point urban interchange (SPUI). This section has also been revised to provide for the right-of-way dedication within 90 days of written request by the County. Comment #3a: The portion of Snowden Bridge Boulevard through the project site has also been proffered by the Snowden Bridge Subdivision. The 8,000 vehicle per day trip trigger to four -lane Snowden Bridge Boulevard should be worded so it includes the TIA trip generation count at site plan and takes into account any actual trips that may have developed should the Snowden Bridge Subdivision tie in sooner that expected. Response: Section D(4) of the proffer statement has been revised to require the four -lane construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard when the total trip volume exceeds 8,000 VPD on the property. This accounts for the potential tie in to the Snowden Bridge Subdivision. Comment #3h: Staff cannot recommend that the Board of Supervisors obligate themselves or a future Board in accepting a proffer that requires them to endorse an economic development access or rail access _funding application_ Project 2760GC 5 Agency Comment Response Letter Response: This language was eliminated from the previous proffer statement and new language has been incorporated in Section D(12) of the proffer statement, which identifies the Applicants' desire to apply for various funding sources that will assist in the economic development potential for the benefit of the property owner and the County. This new language shows intent; however, it clearly states that this is not binding any future legislative act by the County. Comment #4: Proposing 4 intersections is inappropriate in the vicinity of the planned interchange. Staff would prefer to see one major intersection with the rest of the property being accessed via internal road systems. Discussion has occurred regarding serving the northeast portion of the property under Route 37, which would need to be bridged upon the construction of Route 37. The current proposal would not meet VDOT spacing standards from the future interchange, which would hinder the operation of the future Route 37 interchange. Response: Section D(5) of the proffer statement reduces the number of full commercial intersections on the property from four to three. Section D(6) of the proffer statement agrees to the elimination of the eastern -most full commercial intersection if necessary when Route 37 is developed and allows for the relocation of street access to the northern land plan at a new full commercial intersection on Snowden Bridge Boulevard that will be located east of Milburn Road. Comment #5: Staff is supportive of the proffer to limit access to Redbud Road and Milburn Road to emergency access only, and would recommend extending this designation to McCann's Road as well. The applicant may also want to consider significantly buffering these corridors in order to preserve their historic integrity; however, this should be carefully worded to not conflict with the County desire to establish a public roadway connection between Snowden Bridge Boulevard and Redbud Road. Response: Section D(9) of the proffer statement prohibits commercial access and emergency access along McCann's Road to preserve the integrity of the proffered buffer area along the northern property line. Comment #6: A public street connection should be implemented between Redbud Road and Snowden Bridge Boulevard. The lack of such a connection in this area has caused the County to be unable to move on the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp to the current Redbud Road location. Response: The MBC, L.C. parcel has been eliminated from the rezoning application; therefore, the remaining frontage is not conducive to access due to poor site distance. The County has an opportunity to work with the Omps property to the northwest of this site to relocate Redbud Road. Comment #7: The proffered trail system should be constructed to the standard 10 -foot width and open to the public via a public access easement. This trail system should offer Project 2760GC 6 Agency Comment Response Letter connections between Snowden Bridge Boulevard and Redbud Road and should be continued along the full frontage of Snowden Bridge and Redbud Road. Finally, the applicant should consider extending the trail across the railroad tracks to meet Route 11, which would provide a continuous trail system between Snowden Bridge and Rutherford Crossing. Response: The proffered internal trail system has been widened to eight feet, which meets ADA requirements per discussions with VDOT. It is envisioned that internal trail systems will be developed as site plans are developed. It is difficult to determine the location of trails at this time as land areas needed for sites are not known and users are not known. A site that is developed by a secure or semi -secure land use will not allow for trail connectivity to outsiders and manufacturing users will not want trail connectivity in certain portions of their site; therefore, this standard is best suited at the individual site plan design stage. The approved public improvement plan for Snowden Bridge between Route 11 and crossing the CSX railroad into the project site does not include a trail system; however, it does provide for six-foot wide sidewalks along both sides of the road including the crossing of the CSX railroad. Therefore, pedestrian access from the property to Rutherford Crossing can occur. Comment #8: Staff is concerned that no consideration has been given to offsetting impacts to Route 11. Items for consideration include funds towards an additional southbound travel lane on Route 11, funds towards the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp to Redbud Road, or right-of-way across the Snowden Bridge property for Route 37. Response: The Applicants' proffer statement provides right-of-way dedication that is valued at more than $2.7M based on an M1 District land value of $100,000 per acre. This is a significant cost savings to facilitate the construction of Route 37. Once Route 37 is developed, a significant amount of traffic will access this system, which will further reduce impacts to Route 11 from this project site. The Applicants have been advised that funding for the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp has been taken from the County and is being used elsewhere in the state; therefore, participation in funding for this improvement is not appropriate as there are no other financial commitments for this project. This rezoning application does not discuss future Route 37 right-of-way matters associated with the Snowden Bridge property, nor do the Applicants intend to do so. Virginia Department of Transportation (September 25, 2009 Comment) Comment #1: The Applicant should provide a minimum 350 -foot right-of-way dedication for Route 37. VDOT would like to see the five-year condition for completion of the engineering design extended to 10 _years. It should be the responsibility of the Applicant to coordinate with Frederick County and VDOT to determine final roadway and interchange locations. Project 2760GC 7 Agency Comment Response Letter Response: The Applicants have proffered to dedicate a 225 -foot wide mainline corridor and an interchange area that would allow for a diamond interchange that is 800 feet between ramps. This right-of-way width is consistent with the corridor width that was required to construct Route 37 West. The right-of-way dedication described totals approximately 27.39 acres, which represents 10% of the total land area in this project. The Applicants believe that this is a significant and appropriate proffer for Route 37. The proffer has been revised to provide for the right-of-way dedication within 90 days of written request from the County. Section D(2) of the proffer statement has a provision that allows the Applicant to extend the time line for VDOT to complete final engineering design, which will more than likely be the case unless there is a need to develop land bays within the area of the corridor. Comment #2: The 225 -foot right-of-way dedication is not sufficient to construct the roadway in that type of terrain. All right-of-way required should be dedicated to Frederick County without compensation. Response: The property does not contain any area that is defined as steep slope; nor is the terrain mountainous. Comment #3: Remove all references to SPUI as no determination has been made to the type of interchange. VDOT believes that the Applicant should proffer the necessary right-of-way for a full diamond interchange. Response: Section D(3) of the proffer statement has been revised to provide an option for right-of-way dedication for an 800 -foot diamond interchange, and maintains the option for a single point urban interchange (SPUI). Comment #4: The roadway construction has already been proffered by the Snowden Bridge project; therefore, taxpayer money (economic access funds) should not be used for construction. The four -lane construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard should be based on 8,000 cumulative vehicle trips and not solely by trips from site plans within the project. Response: The County should support any funding mechanism that will expedite economic development activity to generate much needed revenue for the community. The tax —payer money is available throughout the state; therefore, it should be utilized in our community if possible before another community takes advantage of these funds. The proffer for Snowden Bridge to construct this section of road to Route 11 is very far in the future and will most likely not occur in the next 10 years due to the projected housing market development in this region. Section D(4) of the proffer statement has been revised to require the four -lane construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard when the total trip volume exceeds 8,000 VPD on the property. This accounts for the potential tie in to the Snowden Bridge Subdivision. Project 2760GC 8 Agency Comment Response Letter Comment #5: While limiting entrances to four commercial intersections is acceptable, it must be remembered that all entrances and intersections will need to meet VDOT and County requirements for sight distance, spacing, access management and interchange restrictions at the time of development. Response: The Applicants understand this requirement. Note: VDOT submitted additional comments dated October 2, 2009 and October 6, 2009. These comments, as well as responses to these comments have been provided in the attached .memorandum from Greenway Engineering to MOT dated October 7, 2009. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (September 30, 2009 Comment) Comment: No comments. Response: Greenway Engineering met with the FWSA Director to discuss the projected development and treatment demand needs associated with the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. It was determined that the expansion of this facility could easily accommodate this development proposal. Frederick County Planning Department (October 2, 2009 Comment) General Section Comment #1: Please provide a plat of rezoning. Response: A Rezoning Exhibit Plat has been included with the rezoning application. General Section Comment #2: Please submit all required application materials. Response: All required application materials have been provided except for the Special Limited Power of Attorney document. The Applicant's believe that their signature on the rezoning application and on the proffer statement are sufficient. General Section Comment #3: Please submit the appropriate rezoning application fee. Response: The appropriate rezoning application fee has been provided. Land Use Comment #1: The Northeast Land Use Plan recommends Planned Unit Development with large areas of DSA. Response: Agreed. Land Use Comment #2: The Planned Unit Development concept seeks to balance residential, employment and service uses. It should be evaluated how this proposal is consistent with the PUD concept when applied to the broader area. Project 2760GC 9 Agency Comment Response Letter Response: This project provides for employment area opportunities that are consistent with the PUD concept when applied to the broader area. Land Use Comment #3: The Comprehensive Plan Committee has discussed this general location for office and manufacturing land use; however, this has not been adopted and is not a consideration when evaluating this request. Response: Agreed. Previous versions of the Northeast Land Use Plan called for industrial and office development in this area; however, those recommendations were not followed by the County at that time. Land Use Comment #4: The office and manufacturing land uses should be located in a campus like atmosphere near major transportation facilities. This land use designation is aimed at promoting the County's economic development goals. Response: Agreed. Land Use Comment #5: The Northeast Land Use Plan has been designed to provide for a balance of land uses, which includes industrial and commercial growth along the major road and railroad corridors, PUD land use, and the preservation of rural areas and historic features. Future land uses within the study area should be sensitive to existing and planned land uses. Response: Agreed Transportation Comment #l: The TIA has been based on a development scenario that is not proffered. There is no limitation on development and the Applicant has requested an increased FAR that could potentially double the development of the project. Response: Frederick County has adopted standards that are more stringent that the VDOT 527 regulations for traffic studies in conjunction with all levels of development activity. Therefore, traffic studies can be required should development of the project site exceed 2,390,000 square feet of development. Transportation Comment #2: Due consideration should be given to the constructability of the site to avoid potential impacts on the surrounding transportation network. Response: Snowden Bridge Boulevard is anticipated to be the only public street serving the project; therefore, it is not anticipated that the surrounding transportation network will be impacted due to the constructability of the site. Transportation Comment #3: Trail improvements are recommended during the initial phase of development rather than on an individual parcel basis. Project 270000 10 A.-ency Comment Response Letter Response: The proffered internal trail system has been widened to eight feet, which meets ADA requirements per discussions with VDOT. It is envisioned that internal trail systems will be developed as site plans are developed. It is difficult to determine the location of trails at this time as land areas needed for sites are not known and users are not known. A site that is developed by a secure or semi -secure land use will not allow for trail connectivity to outsiders and manufacturing users will not want trail connectivity in certain portions of their site; therefore, this standard is best suited at the individual site plan design stage. Transportation Comment #4: It is suggested that individual commercial entrances should be prohibited on McCann's Road. Response: Section D(9) of the proffer statement prohibits commercial access and emergency access along McCann's Road to preserve the integrity of the proffered buffer area along the northern property line. Proffer Statement Comment #I: Section B and Section C contain language that is problematic in form and principal by proposing land uses and standards that expand upon those currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Please remove these sections from the proffer. Response: The Code of Virginia § 15.2-2201 defines Conditional Zoning as the classifying of land within a locality into areas and districts by legislative action, the allowing of reasonable conditions governing the use of such property, such conditions being in addition to, or modification of the regulations provided for a particular zoning district or zone by the overall zoning ordinance. Additionally, The Code of Virginia § 15.2-2296 states that more flexible and adaptable zoning methods are needed to permit differing land uses and the same time to recognize effects of change. It is the purpose of this section to provide a more flexible and adaptable zoning method to cope with situations found in such zones through conditional zoning, whereby a zoning reclassification may be allowed subject to certain conditions proffered by the zoning applicant for the protection of the community that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned. Nothing in these sections prohibits a locality from adopting proffered conditions with allowances greater than otherwise allowed in the proposed zoning district. It should be noted that the Applicant participated in the suggested ordinance amendment process; however, this was ineffective in that desired food manufacturing land uses were not supported by the committee studying this matter. Therefore, the Applicant has modified the rezoning application to seek M1, Light Industrial zoning and has incorporated minor land use and height allowances in the proffer statement to be consistent with land uses and structural heights already provided for in other zoning districts in the County. Project 2760GC 1 1 Agency Comment Response Letter Proffer Statement Comment #2: There is no limitation on development and the Applicant has requested an increased FAR that could potentially double the development of the project. Response: Frederick County has adopted standards that are more stringent that the VDOT 527 regulations for traffic studies in conjunction with all levels of development activity. Therefore, traffic studies can be required should development of the project site exceed 2,390,000 square feet of development. Proffer Statement Comment #3: It would be preferable to further define the amount of, and timing of, the development of outdoor green areas and plaza areas. Response: It is envisioned that individual sites will define the size and type (green area or plaza area) of outdoor spaces for their employees or visitors to the specific site. The M1, Light Industrial District requires a minimum of 25% of the specific site to be in green area; therefore, there will be adequate room to determine these areas and types of areas based on the needs and desires of the individual land uses. Proffer Statement Comment #4: It is suggested that the designation of adjoining properties in permanent protective easements be eliminated from the GDP. Response: The Applicants feel that this information is important to define buffer areas and provide a reference for activities that have occurred in this area of the County. Proffer Statement Comment #S: The location of the internal trail system should be addressed further to ensure it provides connectivity with adjacent land uses and historic elements, and at a minimum to the previously proffered trail system within Snowden Bridge. Response: The proffered internal trail system has been widened to eight feet, which meets ADA requirements per discussions with VDOT. It is envisioned that internal trail systems will be developed as site plans are developed. It is difficult to determine the location of trails at this time as land areas needed for sites are not known and users are not known. A site that is developed by a secure or semi -secure land use will not allow for trail connectivity to outsiders and manufacturing users will not want trail connectivity in certain portions of their site; therefore, this standard is best suited at the individual site plan design stage. The Hiatt Run trail system in Snowden Bridge does not adjoin this project. Proffer Statement Comment #6: The proffered buffering and landscaping should exceed the minimum expectation of the Zoning Ordinance. The adjacent project provided a more significant buffer utilizing a minimum 100 -foot standard. Response: Section C(7) of the proffer statement has been revised to establish a 100 -foot buffer along the northern property line. A 100 -foot minimum buffer will be required Project 2760GC 12 Agency Comment Response Letter along Milburn Road and Redbud Road along the Snowden Bridge Subdivision and along rural properties that are residential. Proffer Statement Comment #7: The language associated with the monetary contribution for fire and rescue should read "monetary contribution to Frederick County for fire and rescue purposes". Response: Section E(I) of the proffer statement has been revised to reflect this comment. Proffer Statement Comment #8: It would appear necessary for the proffer statement to provide some guidance as to the phases of site development and constructability of the site to ensure that potential impacts to adjacent properties are avoided. Response: The only element that can be phased is the construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard between Route I I and the project site. It would not be prudent to guess at land bay phases as industrial or office prospects could desire to locate on any portion of the property depending on their needs. Other Comment — Green Infrastructure: Green infrastructure elements and features including wetlands, karst topography, and DSA should be incorporated into the project to a greater extent than is currently provided. Response: The Impact Analysis Statement commits to narratives on the Master Development Plan that require geotechnical analysis during the site plan process to determine the location of potential sink holes, solution channels and other karst features. Geotechnical reports will be provided to the County Engineer as a condition of land disturbance for identified areas of concern during the site plan process. Other Comment — Historic Resources: It is recommended that additional commitments are evaluated and made to adequately address the impacts on historic and natural resources. As part of this effort, it is suggested that buffers adjacent to battlefields and historic road corridors should be developed in conjunction with stakeholders and the Virginia Department of Forestry. Response: The Applicants intend to provide for buffer and screening consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, which will establish a significant amount of landscaping on the project site. Other Comment - Construction and Site Development: The Applicant should be proactive in ensuring that any potential impacts to adjacent properties and historic resources are mitigated or avoided. Response: Agreed. Project 2760GC 13 Agency Comment Response Letter Frederick County Public Works (October` 5, 2009 Comment) Comment #1: Expand the discussion to include a reference to the power line which crosses the southern end of the property. Response: The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to discuss the power lines that exist on the project site. This information is included in the Suitability of the Site Section under the Existing Conditions description. Comment #2: Include reference locations of all existing springs within the proposed development. Response: The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to include a reference to the presence of springs on the project site. This information is included in the Suitability of the Site Section under the Wetlands description. Comment #3: Expand the discussion of soil types to reference the existence of limestone geology and limestone formations throughout the majority of the site. We recommend that detailed geological mapping be performed and included with the master development plan. Response: The Impact Analysis Statement has been revised to discuss the limestone geology and limestone formations throughout the majority of the site. This information is included in the Suitability of the Site Section under the Soil Types description. The Impact Analysis Statement commits to narratives on the Master Development Plan that require geotechnical analysis during the site plan process to determine the location of potential sink holes, solution channels and other karst features. Geotechnical reports will be provided to the County Engineer as a condition of land disturbance for identified areas of concern during the site plan process. Please include this comment response letter as information in the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors agenda packets to ensure that the Applicant's desires are communicated. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the information in this letter. Sincerely, Evan Wyatt, AIC Greenway Engineering Cc: Don Shockey John Good Ty Lawson Project 2760GC 14 Agency Comment Response Letter IMPACT ANALYSIS TATE ENT GRAS' TONE CORPORATION OFFICE & INDUSTRIAL PARK REZONING Tax Map Parcels 43 -((A)) -158,44-((A))-25 & 44 -((A)) -2E Aggregate Area of 271.39± acres Stonewall Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia October 9, 2009 Current Owners: Graystone Corporation of Virginia Contact Person: Evan A. Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-66.2-4185 Greenway Engineering General Information Graystone Corporation Rezoning Location: North side of Redbud Road (Route 661); East side of CSX Railroad; West side of Milburn Road (Route 662); and south side of McCanns Road (Route 838). Magisterial District: Tax Map Parcel Numbers: Current Zoning: Current Use: Proposed Zoning: Proposed Use: Total Area: Stonewall Magisterial District 43-((A))-158, 44-((A))-25, and 44-((A))-26, RA, Rural Areas District Agricultural, Residential, and Unimproved M1, Light Industrial District Office and Industrial Park 271.39± acres COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The Frederick County Board of Supervisors adopted revisions to the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan on August 13, 2003. This Comprehensive Policy Plan amendment was the third adoption of land use development concepts for this geographic area of the County over an eight-year period. At this time, the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan identifies the 271.39± acres within a Planned Unit Development designation, while previous versions of the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan have identified this acreage for industrial and office land use. Objectives for the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan call for the identification of appropriate locations within the study area for inclusion in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), the concentration of industrial uses near major road and railroad transportation systems, encouraging central access points to industrial areas while minimizing new driveways and intersections with Route 11 north, and encouraging industrial land uses to locate within master planned areas. Additionally, the Planned Unit Development designation promotes a balance between residential, employment and services uses; therefore, the 271.39± acre subject site would assist in providing a balance of employment land use within this geographic region of the County. The 271.39± acre subject site has been included within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is located adjacent to the CSX Railroad with approximately 6,800 linear feet of rail frontage. The 271.39± acre subject site has been identified to contain a segment of the Route 37 corridor with a new interchange area, and is planned to provide for an urban collector road system (Snowden Bridge Boulevard) that connects Route 11 File #2760GC 2 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning north to Old Charles Town Road. The Applicants propose to rezone the 271.39± acre subject site to the M1, Light Industrial District, to provide areas for research and development centers, office parks, and industrial uses near major transportation facilities. The Applicants have proffered a development program that accounts for the objectives specified in the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan and have proffered a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) that reflects the current location for the Route 37 corridor and the Snowden Bridge Boulevard urban four -lane divided collector road system, which is not accurately depicted in the 2003 Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan. Therefore, the Applicants have provided a rezoning application that is in conformance with the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan objectives for land use development, transportation and infrastructure, and planning policies specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Existing Conditions The subject properties comprising the 271.39± acre site consist primarily of open fields and woodlands with rolling and moderately sloped terrain. These properties are primarily unimproved wi*u minor areas of active agricultural activity. A residential structure (mobile home) exists on tax parcel 44-((A))-26, which is utilized as a rental unit; however, no other occupied structures are located on the subject properties. An old barn and old storage structures exist on tax parcel 44-((A))-26; however, the condition of these structures will require their removal along with the residential structure when the office and industrial park is developed. All existing structures will be permitted with the Frederick County Building Inspections Department to ensure that all necessary measures are accomplished prior to demolition. Additionally, an overhead power line exists along the western property boundary paralleling the CSX railroad, as well as an overhead power line, which runs east -west through tax parcel 44-((A))-26. These power lines will be evaluated during the site development phase to determine appropriate underground placement, as well as clearances for rail spur access into the site. Floodplains The subject properties comprising the 271.39± acre site are located on FEMA FIRM Map #510063-0105-B. The entire site is identified within a "ZONE C" area that is outside of the floodplain limits. Therefore, the development of structures and road systems throughout the subject properties will not impact floodplains within this geographic area of the County. Wetlands The National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies two small wetland areas throughout the 271.39± acre site that are located in the central and southeastern portions of the subject properties. The Applicants have conducted a detailed Wetlands Delineation Study File #2760GC 3 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning prepared by Environmental Consulting Services (ECS) for the entire project site. The Applicants have received a Jurisdiction Determination Letter from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers dated July 27, 2009, which identifies the approved wetland areas on the subject properties. These areas are delineated on the Graystone Corporation Property Environmental Features Map Exhibit that is included with this analysis. Additionally, a copy of the Jurisdiction Determination Letter has been included with this analysis. The projected impacts to the wetland areas in the central portion of the subject properties will be associated with the future development of the Route 37 corridor, and the projected impacts to the wetland areas will be associated with the development of office or industrial structures, parking areas and stormwater management facilities. It is anticipated that some of the defined wetland areas exist due to the presence of springs on the subject property. The location of all identified wetlands areas and springs will be provided on the Master Development Plan, which will include narratives satisfactory to ensure compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements during major infrastructure development and during individual site plan development. Steep Slopes The subject properties comprising the 271.39± acre site do not contain areas of steep slope as defined. The most significant slope within the project site is located adjacent to McCann Road (Route 838) along the northern boundary, which is approximately 25% slope. This portion of the project site is proffered to remain in its natural state to serve as a green space buffer area between the office and industrial land bay development areas and McCanns Road, the Milburn Cemetery, and the Helm -McCann springhouse. Therefore, there are no in, to steep slopes associated with the development of the office and industrial park. Mature Woodlands The subject properties comprising the 271.39± acre site contain sparse stands of mature woodlands and secondary growth areas that are located primarily within the central and southwestern portions of the project site. The proffered generalized development plan (GDP) identifies portions of the Route 37 corridor study area, the extension of Snowden Bridge Boulevard, and the M1 District land bays with rail access as impacting identified mature woodlands and secondary growth areas; therefore, disturbance of these features will occur. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for disturbance of mature woodland areas to implement planned development areas within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and establishes landscaping requirements to mitigate this impact. Therefore, the Applicant will disturb these areas during the development of the office and industrial park and will identify the location of new landscaping areas during the Site Development Plan process for individual sites. Soil Types The Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and the Frederick County GIS Database was consulted to determine soil types contained File #2760GC 4 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning in this tract. The subject properties comprising the 271.39± acre site contain the following soil types: 3B — Blairton Silt Loam, 2-7% slopes 5B — Carbo Silt Loams, 2-7% slopes 5C - Carbo Silt Loams, 7-15% slopes 6C - Carbo-Oaklet Silt Loams, Very Rocky, 2-15% slopes 7C — Carbo-Oaklet-Rock Outcrop Complex, 2-15% slopes 8B — Chilhowie Silty Clay Loams, 2-7% slopes 8C - Chilhowie Silty Clay Loams, 7-15% slopes 9C — Clearbrook Channery Silt Loams, 7-15% slopes 14B — Frederick-Poplimento Loams, 2-7% slopes 14C — Frederick-Poplimento Loams, 7-15% slopes 16C — Frederick-Poplimento Loams, very rocky, 7-15% slopes 17C — Frederick-Poplimento-Rock Outcrop Complex, 2-15% slopes 25C — Laidig Very Stony Fine Sandy Loams, 7-15% slopes 32B — Oaklet Silt L oams, 2-7% slopes 32C - Oaklet Silt Loams, 7-15% slopes 33E — Opequon-Chilhowies Silty Clays, Very Rocky, 15-45% slopes 41B — Weikert-Berks Channery Silt Loams, 2-7% slopes 41C - Weikert-Berks Channery Silt Loams, 7-15% slopes 44C— Zoar Silt Loams 7-15% slopes Table 5 of the Soil Sum . ide:.tifies soil types 3B, 5B, 14B and 32B as prime farmland soils. These soil types exist primarily in the central and southern portions of the subject site. The proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) identifies these areas for office and manufacturing land use, the Route 37 corridor study area, and the Snowden Bridge Boulevard extension. Table 10 of the Soil Survey identifies the majority of soil types as severe for the development of roads and commercial structures due to shrink -swell potential and wetness, while some soil types are identified as moderate for the same purposes. Soils testing and compaction testing are standard practice for development projects and road construction; therefore, reports verifying soils suitability will be conducted throughout the development of the subject site. Additionally, the majority of the subject site is underlain by limestone geology, which includes the presence of sinkhole areas on the subject properties. Limestone geology needs to be treated with care during site development to ensure that solution channels and sinkholes are identified prior to site disturbance and are designed to prevent infiltration of pollutants. The Applicant will incorporate narratives on the Master Development Plan that commit to geotechnical analysis during the site plan process to determine the location of potential sink holes, solution channels and other karst features. Geotechnical reports will be provided to the County Engineer as a condition of land disturbance for identified areas of concern during the site plan process. File #2760GC 5 Greenway Engineering SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The zoning and land uses for adjoining parcels are as follows: North: Zoned RA, Rural Area District South: Zoned RA, Rural Area District Graystone Corporation Rezoning Use: Unimproved and Permanent Easement Use: Residential; Unimproved; Agricultural and Permanent Easement East: Zoned RA, Rural Areas District Use: Residential; Agricultural; & Unimproved Zoned R4, Residential Planned Community District Use: Snowden Bridge West: Zoned RA, Rural Area District Use: Nursery & Unimproved Zoned RP, Residential Performance District Use: Unimproved Zoned M1, Light Industrial District Use: Omps Trucking The subject properties adjoin several properties to the north and east, which are primarily utilized for agricultural land use, while adjoining properties to the south and west are primarily utilized for residential, commercial and industrial land use. The development of the office and industrial park will provide buffers and screening for the benefit of adjacent residential properties and is compatible with all other adjoining land uses. Therefore, the Applicant can mitigate impacts to adjoining properties during the development of this project. TRANSPORTATION Traffic Impact Analysis A detailed Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park by Greenway Engineering, dated August 24, 2009, which is included as a component of the Impact Analysis Statement. The TIA has been prepared to determine the projected impacts associated with the proposed development, which assumes 1,749,000 square feet of office land use and 570,000 square feet of industrial land use that is developed over a three-phase study. The TIA studies turning movements and capacities at 19 intersections including the Interstate 81 Exit 317 on and off ramps, multiple intersections along the Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) corridor, and along Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Additionally, the TIA provides for an analysis including the Route 37 bypass with a 20u' intersection point on the subject property. The TIA provides for a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for AM and PM peak File #2760GC 6 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning hour weekday traffic volumes, an analysis for interstate ramp merge and divergence, an analysis for arterial LOS along the Martinsburg Pike corridor, as well as Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for existing, background, and build -out conditions for each transportation phase. The Applicants have prepared studies of existing office and industrial park traffic volumes to provide a comparative analysis between developed projects of similar size and the traffic volumes assumed using the ITE 7a` Edition Manual. These studies have been considered by VDOT and the Frederick County Transportation Planner and have been deemed acceptable for use in the TIA for the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park. VDOT and the County felt that the traffic volumes associated with the existing office and industrial parks should be increased by 15% to provide for a conservative analysis of this project, which has been factored into the TIA. Therefore, the TIA that is included as a component of this rezoning application provides for accurate data with a conservative buffer to allow for a realistic account of the transportation impacts associated with this development proposal. The following information identifies the results of the TIA analysis associated with intersection analyses, Interstate 81 ramp analyses, and Route 11 arterial analyses for each phase of development for the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park. PHASE 1 (2015): Intersection Analyses 1. Route 11 & Crown Lane: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and P.M. peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The eastbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "F" during 2015 background and build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. 2. Route 11 & Welltown Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "D" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour will maintain levels of service "F" during 2015 background and build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 3. Route 11 & 1-81 Southbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The southbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" during 2015 background and build -out 7 File #2760GC Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. 4. Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups maintain levels of service of "D" or better. 5. Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound On-Ramp/Red Bud Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the northbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The northbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" during 2015 background and build- out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. 6. Route 11 & Merchant Street/Snowden Bridge Boulevard: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups maintain levels of service of "D" or better. 7. Route 11 & FEMA Entrance: Analyses revealed unsignalized levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups maintain levels of service of "C" or better. 8. Route 11 & Old Charles Town Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the westbound and southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and southbound left -turn movements will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" or worse during 2015 background and build -out conditions. Ramp Analyses 1. 1-81 Mainline & Northbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 2. 1-81 Mainline & Northbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 3. 1-81 Mainline & Southbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. 1-81 Mainline & Southbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. File #2760GC 8 Greenway Engineering Arterial Analyses Graystone Corporation Rezoning 1. Route 11, South of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM and southbound AM peak hours. The southbound PM will maintain levels of service of "F" during 2015 background and build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the sub- standard intersection spacing currently existing along this segment of Route 11. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 2. Route 11, North of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound AM and southbound PM peak hours. 3. Route 11, South of the Old Charles Town Road. Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound AM and southbound PM peak hours. PHASE 2 (2022): Intersection Analyses L Route 11 & Crown Lane: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left and westbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The eastbound and westbound left -yarn movements will yield a level of service `B" or worse during 2022 background and build- out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. 2. Route 11 & Welltown Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "D" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour will maintain levels of service "F" during 2022 background and build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 3. Route 11 & I-81 Southbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The southbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service `B" or worse during 2022 background and build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. 9 File #2760GC Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning 4. Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound Off -Ramp: Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering has assumed the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp to intersect with Route 11 opposite the existing I-81 northbound on-ramp. In coordination with this improvement, Red Bed Road trips would be re-routed to Snowden Bridge Boulevard via the North Stephenson Tract. 5. Route 11 & I-81 Northbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left during the PM pe-'( hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The eastbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "F" during 2022 background and build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 6. Route 11 & Merchant Street/Snowden Bridge Boulevard: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the westbound and northbound left during the PM peak hours, will maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and northbound left -turn movements will maintain constrained levels of service of `B" during the PM peak hour build -out conditions. 7. Route 11 & FEMA Entrance: Analyses revealed unsignalized levels of service of "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups maintain levels of service of "D" or better. 8. Route 11 & Old Charles Town Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. All lane groups, except the westbound and southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and southbound left -turn movements will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" or worse during 2022 background and build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. Ramp Analyses 1. I-81 Mainline & Northbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 2. I-81 Mainline & Northbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. File #2760GC 10 Greenway Engineering Graystone Cogxwa ion Rezoning 3. I-81 Mainline & Southbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. I-81 Mainline & Southbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Arterial Analyses 1. Route 11, South of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM and southbound AM peak hours. The southbound PM will maintain levels of service of "F" during 2022 background and build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the sub- standard intersection spacing currently existing along this segment of Route 11. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 2. Route 11, North of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound AM and southbound PM peak hours. 3. Route 11, South of the Old Charles Town Road: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound PM peak hours. The southbound AM will maintain levels of service of "E" during 2022 build -out conditions. PHASE 3 (2028): Intersection Analyses 1. Route 11 & Crown Lane: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left and westbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The eastbound and westbound left -turn movements will yield a level of service "E" or worse during 2028 background and build- out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. 2. Route 11 & Welltown Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "D" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour will maintain levels of service "F" during 2028 background AND build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. File #2760GC I I Greenway Engineering Graystone C gKwation Rezoning 3. Route 11 & I-81 Southbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The southbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" or worse during 2028 background and build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. 4. Route 11 & I-81 Northbound Off -Ramp: Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering has assumed the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp to intersect with Route 11 opposite the existing I-81 northbound on-ramp. In coordination with this improvement, Red Bed Road trips would be re-routed to Snowden Bridge Boulevard via the North Stephenson Tract. 5. Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "E" or better during the AM and PM peak hours under build -out Scenario A (without Route 37). The eastbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "F" during 2028 background and build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along Route 11. The overall levels of service would improve to "D" or better assuming the construction of the interchange (SPUI) of Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 (Scenario B). This improvement would be facilitated by the dedication of right-of-way that is being proffered as a condition of the rezoning, which will be developed by others. 6. Route 11 & Merchant Street/Snowden Bridge Boulevard: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the westbound and northbound left during the PM peak hours, will maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and northbound left -turn movements will maintain constrained levels of service of "E" during the PM peak hour build -out conditions. 7. Route 11 & FEMA Entrance: Analyses revealed unsignalized levels of service of "E" or better during the AM and PM peak hours under build -out Scenario A (without Route 37). . The levels of service would improve to "D" or better assuming the construction of the interchange (SPUI) of Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 (Scenario B). This improvement would be facilitated by the dedication of right-of-way that is being proffered as a condition of the rezoning, which will be developed by others. 8. Route 11 & Old Charles Town Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. All lane groups, except the westbound and southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound File #2760GC 12 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning and southbound left -turn movements will yield a PM peak hour level of service `B" or worse during 2028 background and build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. Ramp Analyses 1. I-81 Mainline & Northbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 2. I-81 Mainline & Northbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 3. I-81 Mainline & Southbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. 4. I-81 Mainline & Southbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Arterial Analyses 1. Route 11, South of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM and southbound AM peak hours. The southbound PM will maintain levels of service of "F" during 2028 background and build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the sub- standard intersection spacing currently existing along this segment of Route 11. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 2. Route 11, North of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound PM, southbound AM and southbound PM peak hours. The northbound AM will maintain levels of service of "F" under build -out Scenario A (without Route 37). The levels of service would improve to "D" assuming the construction of the interchange (SPUI) of Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 (Scenario B). This improvement would be facilitated by the dedication of right-of-way that is being proffered as a condition of the rezoning, which will be developed by others. 3. Route 11, South of the Old Charles Town Road: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound PM peak hours. The southbound AM will maintain levels of service of "F" under build -out Scenario A (without Route 37). The levels of service would improve to "E" assuming the construction of the interchange (SPUI) of Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 (Scenario B). This improvement would be facilitated by the dedication of right-of-way that is being proffered as a condition of the rezoning, which will be developed by others. File #2760GC 13 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning Per the request of Jerry Copp of the VDOT, Edinburg Residency, Greenway Engineering also submitted an Addendum, dated September 29, 2009, to evaluate the following transportation improvements proposed by VDOT to improve traffic flow along southbound Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11, between 1-81 and Crown Lane: 1) the extension of the Martinsburg Pike southbound left -turn at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike/I-81 southbound ramps; 2) the extension of the Martinsburg Pike southbound left - turn lane at the intersection of Martinsburg Pike/Welltown Road; and 3) the addition of third southbound through lane from the I-81 southbound ramps to Crown Lane. Weekday AM and PM peak hours analyses were performed for each of the development phases contemplated in the August 2009 submission. Other than the improvements described above, all methodology utilized for this addendum are consistent with the original Report. The following narratives describe the resultant impacts to the future build -out traffic conditions evaluated in the Addendum: PRASE 1 (2015): Intersection Analvses 1. US Route 11 & Crown Lane: The eastbound left -turn lane group level of service increased from "F" to "E" during the PM peak hour. 2. US Route 11 & Welltown Road: Overall levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The westbound thru lane group level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. The westbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. The southbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "B" during the PM peak hour. 3. US Route 11 & I-81 Southbound Ramps: o Not Applicable Arterial Analyses 1. US Route 11, South of the Welltown Road: • Southbound "arterial" levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. File #2760GC 14 Greenway Engineering PHASE 2 (2022): Intersection Analyses Graystone Corporation Rezoning 1. US Route 11 & Crown Lane: ® The westbound left -turn lane group level of service increased from "E" to "D" during the AM peak hour. The eastbound left -turn lane group level of service increased from "F" to "E" during the PM peak hour. 2. US Route 11 & Welltown Road: • Overall levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The westbound thru lane group level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The westbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The southbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "B" during the PM peak hour. 3. US Route 11 & I-81 Southbound Ramps: ® Not Applicable Arterial Analyses 1. US Route 11, South of the Welltown Road: • Southbound "arterial" levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The 271.39± acre site subject property is located within the current Sewer and Water Service Area boundaries (SWSA). The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) approved a study that provided analysis for land use development throughout the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan area subsequent to County approval of the Stephenson Village (now Snowden Bridge) planned unit development. This study recommended the development of a regional pump station that would direct sewage effluent to the Opequon Wastewater Reclamation Facility, that would be located on the • _ r r �a_ n d the F the tin lagoon owned by the hictnri[ east sluC Ol J©rUau Springs Ax GaU vn erre site v, Lt. enlsua.g . g Jordan Springs Hotel. The regional pump station needed to serve the entire development area was determined to accommodate a projected peak load of 2100 gallons -per -minute (GPM) including a 10% safety factor and an ultimate station capacity of 2.75 million gallons -per -day (MGD). To date, the regional pump station and a 30 -inch sewer trunk File #2760GC 15 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning main has been developed, which is currently providing transmission of sewage effluent from the Snowden Bridge project to the Opequon Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The Applicants own the undeveloped Snowden Bridge property where the existing limits of the 30 -inch sewer trunk main have been developed; therefore, the Applicants have the ability to continue the sanitary sewer system to the 271.39± acre site subject property. The following calculations provide information for projected sewage impacts associated with the proposed 271.39± acre office and industrial park. These calculations assume 800 gallons per acre per day (GPD) for the build -out of the project site, which is based on comparable discharge patterns for office and industrial land uses. Q = 800 gallons/day/acre Q = 800 GPD x 271.39± acres Q = 217,112 GPD projected at project build -out The Opequon Water Reclamation Facility has a current hydraulic capacity of 8.4 MGD and has a current 12 -month hydraulic flow average of 6.69 MGD. An expansion of this facility is currently underway, which will increase the hydraulic capacity to 12.6 MGD and institute treatment treasures sufficient to meet state standards for nitrogen and phosphorus. It is anticipated that the expansion of the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility will be complete by Fall 2010, which will coincide with the first development phase of the 271.39± acre subject property. The proposed build -out of the 271.39± acre subject property is estimated to add 217,112 gallons per day to the public sewage conveyance system. Therefore, the proposed build- out of the subject property is anticipated to increase sewage treatment demands at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility by 1.9% above the current 12 -month hydraulic flow average. The build -out of this project, coupled with current community development treatment impacts represent 54.9% of the total hydraulic capacity at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The regional pump station has sufficient capacity to accommodate this development proposal, and the 30 -inch sewer transmission main is of adequate size to direct effluent to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The Applicant will work with the Winchester -Frederick Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority during the project development design phase to ensure that appropriate infrastructure is in place to accommodate the impacts associated with this project. WATER SUPPLY The 271.39± acre site subject property is located within the current Sewer and Water Service Area boundaries (SWSA). The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) owns and operates the Northern Water Treatment Plant, which is located to the north of the subject property. The Northern Water Treatment Plant contains a 3 million gallon ground storage tank and provides water transmission to this portion of the SWSA through a 20" water transmission line that parallels the Winchester and Western Railroad. File #2760GC 16 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning Analysis of this system indicates that there is sufficient capacity to serve the proposed office and industrial park. The following calculations provide information for projected water impacts associated with the proposed 271.39± acre office and industrial park. These calculations assume 1,000 gallons per acre per day (GPD) for the build -out of the project site, which is a conservative estimate for office and industrial land uses. The figures below represent the impact that the total build -out of the proposed land uses will have on the water supply and treatment systems. Q =1,000 gallons/day/acre Q =1,000 GPD x 271.39± acres Q = 271,390 GPD projected at project build -out The proposed build -out of the 271.39± acre subject property is estimated to require 271,390 GPD of public water service for the office and industrial land uses. The Northern Water Treatment Plant provides three million gallons per day (3 MGD) of potable water from this facility as one of the water sources contributing to the public water system within the Route 11 North Sewer and Water Service Area. Additionally, a 10 -inch water transmission line exists along Martinsburg Pike in this area of the County, which is supplemented by other water sources available to FCSA. The projected water usage for the build -out of the subject property would require approximately 7% of the available storage capacity at the Northern Water Treatment Plant; therefore, this information demonstrates that adequate water capacity is available for the proposed office and industrial park. Greenway Engineering has prepared design plans for the development of Snowden Bridge Boulevard, which will connect Martinsburg Pike (U.S. Route 11 North) and Old Charles Town Road (Route 761). The design plans that have been implemented bring a 16 -inch water transmission line into the Snowden Bridge Subdivision along Snowden Bridge Boulevard to the northeast of the subject property. The 16 -inch water transmission line will follow this road system to connect to the existing water line at the Rutherford Crossing Center. Therefore, the subject property could be served through the extension of the existing water transmission line. Additionally, a 1.25 MGD elevated water storage tank has been proposed to provide adequate water pressure and fire flow associated with the Snowden Bridge Subdivision. The Applicants will conduct an analysis of this system during the site plan process for the first known user to determine if the system is adequate at that time and will work with FCSA to implement infrastructure necessary to serve the 271.39± acre subject property. The on-site water infrastructure required to convey potable water to the proposed office and industrial land uses will be developed by the Applicant to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. File #2760GC 17 Greenway Engineering DRAINGE Graystone Corporation Rezoning The 271.39± acre subject property is naturally divided into 3 distinctive drainage areas, which direct drainage from the west towards the CSX railroad, while drainage from the north and east is directed to tributaries of Hiatt Run and Lick Run. The proffered Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park identifies the continuation of Snowden Bridge Boulevard as an east -west urban collector road through the limits of the subject property, as well as a study corridor area for the Route 37 bypass. The construction of Snowden Bridge Boulevard by the Applicants and the construction of the Route 37 bypass by others will create defined land bays as depicted on the proffered GDP, which will require a regional stormwater management approach for the office and industrial park. The Applicants have conducted a site visit with the Frederick County Public Works Department to determine potential areas of concern and to determine an appropriate approach for stormwater management implementation. The regional stormwater management approach will include a system that is designed to ensure that infiltration of stormwater and pollutants is avoided and that stormwater quality and quantity meet State and County regulations. The general location of structures that will be utilized for regional stormwater management will be provided on the Master Development Plan for the office and industrial park. Additionally, the Applicant will incorporate narratives on the Master Development Plan that commit to geotechnical analysis during the development of major infrastructure and during the individual site plan process to determine the appropriate design measures for stormwater management satisfactory the County Engineer. These measures that will occur throughout the planning and design process will mitigate impacts to the drainage areas within the geographic region of the County. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual business consumption of landfill volume of 5.4 cubic yards per 1,000 square feet of structural floor area (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th Edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 2,319,000 square feet of office and manufacturing land uses that are projected to develop over a 20 -year period: AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per 1,000 square feet AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 2,319 (1,000 square feet) AV =12,522 Cu. Yd. at build-out/yr, or 8,765 tons/yr at build -out TOTAL AV = 8,765 tons/yr / 20 -yr build -out = 438 ton annual increase at build out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected 20 -year build -out of the File #2760GC 18 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning subject site will generate on average 438 tons of solid waste annually. This represents a 0.02% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year. The complete build -out of the office and industrial park is projected to increase the solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill by 4.4% annually based on current averages. The office and industrial park will utilize commercial waste haulers for trash pickup service; therefore, tipping fees will be generated that will create a continuous revenue source for the Regional Landfill by the proposed project to mitigate solid waste disposal impacts. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies the Carter -Hardesty House (#34-112) as a potentially significant structure on the 271.39± acre subject property, and identifies the Helm -McCann Property (#34-703), the Milburn Cemetery (#34-950), and the Thomas McCann House (#34-729) as potentially significant properties and structures within close proximity of the subject property. However, research of the survey forms does not identify these sites as properties that are potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. The National Park Service- Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley identifies the southeastern portion of the Stephenson's Depot area (Second Winchester Battlefield — Phase 9) on the 271.39± acre subject property, and Phase 8 of the Third ":'inchester Battlefield across Red Bud Road (Route 661) immediately south of the subject site. The Carter -Hardesty House no longer exists of the subject property, and the remaining out buildings and barn are located within the Route 37 corridor study area; therefore, these structures will be eliminated when Route 37 is constructed by others. The Applicant's proffer statement provides for a green space buffer area along the northern property boundary that will provide for additional separation between the developed portion of the subject property and McCann's Road (Route 838), and will protect the existing vegetation along McCann's Road as a mitigation to the Milburn Cemetery and the spring house located on the Helm -McCann property. Additionally, the Applicant's proffer statement provides for a green space buffer area on the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation (SVBF) portion of the Third Winchester Battlefield, which includes the offer to provide landscaping within this area if a landscape easement is provided by the property owner. Finally, the Applicant's proffer statement prohibits commercial access entrances along Milburn Road (Route 661) to protect the integrity of this roadway. These measures are being offered by the Applicant to mitigate impacts to adjoining properties that are identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey and by the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. File #2760GC 19 Greenway Engineering Graystone Corporation Rezoning IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES Frederick County Development Impact Model The Frederick County Planning Department has prepared an analysis of the projected development program for the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park through the use of the County's Development Impact Model (DIM). The DIM generates a 20 - year net return analysis for development proposals to determine if projects are anticipated to provide a positive or negative fiscal impact to County facilities and services. The results of uhe DIM analysis demonstrate that the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park will provide a positive fiscal impact to Frederick County in the amount of $40,267,000.00 during this time period. The staff analysis indicates that the amount of taxes generated by personal property and business and professional operating licenses vary widely for office, research and development, and flex industrial land uses. Therefore, staff has also provided an analysis that assumes DIM scenarios of 50% and 150% of key tax values. These DIM scenarios demonstrate that the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park will provide a positive fiscal impact to Frederick' County ranging between $22,275,000.00 and $58,259,000.00 during this time period. The Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park provides a positive fiscal impact to community facilities and services; therefore, there are no negative impacts that require mitigation for this project. However, the Applicant intends to further support fire and rescue services through the provision of a monetary contribution in the amount of $0.05 per square foot of structural development for all land uses within the Property. The monetary contribution and projected positive revenues provided by this economic development and employment project demonstrate that the Graystone Corporation Office and Industrial Park is extremely positive for Frederick County. File #2760GC 20 le' Baltimore&��h1O RSR r Q1 Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, May 2009 Data 66 43 A 158 REDBU 44 A 26 Feet 900 450 1 911 Legend Graystone Corporation Property Zoning and Location Map � �® 16-0 }. 44 A 25 173 Graystone Corporation Property Parcel Boundary Location Map 0 3 a =w a 37 \ dine -Rd WI NCWES.T ER ` Miles i 1 0.5 0 , 1 RQ(�s,�T — — -- B2 (Business, General Distrist) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) RA (Rural Area District) Ml (Industrial, Light District) RP (Residential Performance District) mrv: M2 (Industrial, General District) o Whin RR+ F�C �w Graystone Corpoon Property SWSA Map ala, _ G°�� Q� 0 O Ry IT 0 Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, May 2009 Data <'•�A. f 662 F . Feet 71 PAM Owl :900 450 1 911 SMSA Legend Graystone Corporation Property } ` Parcel Boundary Nei ® Sewer -Water Service Area (SWSA) i Q�c�oo S WSA 3 ry IL LL1, n ON z O Q Z < z a0 U) O W cn LU z O U) Q ry 0 k� o ,— In F JESS16Li LN t T N - € WE+ W w [ S g Q Q W >_ N N��-��-t`U-�,_. 1•'11 o Whin RR+ F�C �w Graystone Corpoon Property SWSA Map ala, _ G°�� Q� 0 O Ry IT 0 Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, May 2009 Data <'•�A. f 662 F . Feet 71 PAM Owl :900 450 1 911 SMSA Legend Graystone Corporation Property } ` Parcel Boundary Nei ® Sewer -Water Service Area (SWSA) i Q�c�oo S WSA 3 ry IL LL1, n ON z O Q Z < z a0 U) O W cn LU z O U) Q ry 0 k� o ,— In j z W Z c? - O (9 W w J � Q Q W >_ N X�G�f '+ • IU)z 0 O Q j O U) 2 Y 'L U J 0 rn W Q tY a m z W m ` A O C) W o �w/ LL O LL N U Cn o O Q rf r4 I � 11 , -, t �t,-,, '-s , N�� - - - ,, %,11--i 11 -,-,.-- -- ---, I � "I - � I ! , I - I I : I I -� , , '4 , ) - , , . � 1� , . -1 - I , .. TZ,2 31"7�, " � t t . I � � I - . : 1- 1, - � .; I I : ". , � . � � � : . � -;- . ; C" z I , . --- t - -- , ,-� I -- - ',� I , . �, - � I . t , I - -, � - i-1: ,-�, . , , -I- --1 , I lkf--,-� - 'I, � I / - - *�c�-� , , 'I.-- ., '. , , �. , ,/ 7 , Y , . ---1/ - — — - � - , , - I .- - j � , , 11 " -- ,� -- - ,� , . � J � / 'I ..'�� I , — P - - - , .•�� - � ,! -�, -- , -, � -, . -- �- � -". f -.,- - - -- , � � - , i - � - -�� - :? -- 1. - - --.1 -1, ) i - - ------ U-�-�--`,-'O � � j " , . , " j , :�15u "> -, 1* - I '. g , , — '. - - --- �-- ", - . - . I ,r -1 I i � , "s t : /- ,� , I * �� 1. N,� f �, , I � I V,4,��, " � � I I -f - E , , , I , , . , - - - . � - � . - � 1,� , . I I - , , i I , ,�', I , ,�'. , I . " I .. f, - . _ -- 4�'/ j-'-. � � 11 I., , 1, 1 'I - I i '. - . , , � t, I , - - I --- - Y - e � - - � '- 01 --- " . I t " 'i - . � . � � N - , .. ,-/ . - � . -- I I . -. — --',Irl� - , —..- - . .1. .. " 664 = - e,,,-,� 1 N , f, // / , -N -e, , Z �' , --,,. .-I _ .1 - � , ---, , �.. I - ., , / � , - - Y - , - i -r Y- , - - . i ., , - 761 - , , c;` � I , - � -, �. � , .� - -,! -I— �, - " -1 ... ,. 1�", � - DQclf � � - [ � . , - us � - - � - S, ,�l - - � I i �` w --- " � " � : ; zE , -f- I -i -- ,�--- - - � � , O i I � � �' Gra Corporation Property � ", ,"I � �. I - - �Ik , -- -` , '. --- �- -,. � - 'U , . I -, I - - L A §�I.zj 1,� � !� f It" ` , 11; P�- --, , 111. , -, ,V� . V f -� -t V�,�- 7 , -��, .; " , 4 . ,- ,�/ . I -1 , , - . z �1 R -L- .- I I I / 1� I i, -_� . I 0 - Ui : I , --- ` . - -- � ,�, , w-- - � t* J� , I �� - r - . / - , " , I r-1 "I g - - I 11 " " - � ,O � � ,� �� / � .-O-. , , -- -- -- I � , , I � � -- - � , _r - - , I I- � � I . - .1 � � , , . - , i � z k � - - - , �� -K - - � �- - . IV .) � I - , . -, - ,��--I-i . I ,. x,� �— - I I -"-, �, , - ;7, . , 1" i- , � Environmental Features , -�,,-v" -Ii-t I i�, - - , ; czl�� -� -,. � -.0 ;,;Z.- � 11 ".. . - - !�.�.----A. I'--.,-- 1 �. I - 4�—\- ! , �- - - - . -- , ? - I - . - r-,�- ,,, �t I - � I , "<A - - � '. I I -? , ,--, - -1 .., , - - - � <-to e I '. , " , '- - A -� - - , -1 \��_..Lq4- I 1. , - - - , . , 11 , , - , �� .... . � !, .� -/1 t Y;e"' " z � I 11 , , �, �, /Z 1, --, ,� , Z��, , -� �,- I 1� , - ".., I - - !1: 1. I �� " " 0 1 " !;z�-Jtr,-, ,-`-",-;-- -, , — � �U - - V k I 131 � , ''It., - � I . it 11% .. � ,- - -1 '. t, � � :, . z . 1, . . � - . o I -\ ! � - , � I � � - `S: � � - - ,-,� � ��,, �, . 7-- 7--,.. � CO � , \ .� el I . I I � — , - , �", � � " I ' ", f 4rV i '. ' , , � 4 - O., - I J --- � ,\ 4 - � - - -�., ,� -- -- " " ._ -- V ,� / � � - , - - - ,P - . I X 1� ,..,-- -1 . - ,;7 N , . ,,,.r* .... , z , 11�(' ':fes. 11 - -, I I --...--.- -1 - � ; � , �. - , i , " �. - � . i /, , , I i 1 4 - � �` --- - - , 1, � ,- � , � � , I � - I L 7 , - � = NO - . , , � - , I ----- - - , � , - � . � , t ; 7 - 1i � , , � . --� I I e f - � I - � [1, I 1�- il ., I 1. /) ; � 111z, , , I I e - � Ir � � I -_ �,, � I � I-; ,� , , � fa �j I -1 -- - - : I " , . I � i 11 I ", ': � - i - , " -, - . -1 I I " - � , 11 I � - , � � � z vim_ ; . I I I - -- i� - I . , I/ - 1, I . . , 1�i� - � I 111�1- . � - . 1, �, '14 C.V,'� / z � , z . - ;", . - - - - �O IV' - 77--;` /i: I � -----1� / - \ . 4, - . ,, I" , , j � ,/� ,.: X�'j -�,� - .� � % ,I .1 � -� z �� t 0 � : � �,.� I -. I I I , ,� , , . � t, �,/"�,\ L �'. I � I , I'm -.- I � . . . �\.,�� - .T,-.., I I I , . � � - , , , � , 1� , � L ; , _f.,�_ - : , . � , . - . : �\ i -, -�/, -�� -/1,1�,, � 11 - w�� t, . . . I . - \ \ - - . �� , �,, j � / , � -. � * , - - - . -4�-,-----1VN I I F ," /� I - , PF -1 I '01 �1, -i I 11 /' . - - � � , , it I I i --i � . � 4- I.- I 1 - . , / g z I —1 -.� L -1 z z 2 " � I 1, " � � . z I I z 1 ,5; / . - - ; I . - INI 4 = ! n " ,141' , - � - I , I - . - � r I , I I .1 . - -- 11 o/ � I � V- -,�.,. ,� - It , t, I �. --� I - , , � �� . � - " I -" ,,, 11 t! I ! e,�- , , - � I - . - I I I . t I � . , X � jEn- , I , / I : i d k -N,- . ;� , , , - z � 1( , , . . . � , ,� � ., t i . - - A i " - - . -. / / - "I, I . . - " , - % -, - t, 4t 45 . , , --" 'i I ': � - - -. , " N, , --- I -"N I , - L - I �, ,( -- i - -- C 'IV - - - -- - - LA I , � - t - I -1 - - " ,�- --._: I , r - ,�� , I- m " � , . .... 4t . r ,�i , �; - , ,� , �- - - - - - \ � 11. . 4, . I 1, -Y -, -Z'� - -� - , ; z , , , � I . � 4 . - , - � , I -. - I - � � � t k I j � � I �!--�� I - r , - , /Z - - . I , , r z , I � , , - , I , , �', 1 1 e v � I � ��, , � ., 11 f - j z � -! I � �,_. " �- . -,--' - ,- - - ,� � ; V�5 "' I -, �, \ -,-,: �11 - I 1 :-z. 'ei, , 4 " -,� 1 I - I 11 -11 66 I'll, , I 11 - I/ -,-71 '� '..- - .1 , � , - �, � - , -1 : . , - , , , �� ,� ,-, ��- , , , _- - - --- I ; , � ' - a " - , -, i I � ,1- I , � ", '. . , - , Q k. I I - - � , . � / �� -,,� 1/� " 1 , , , , , , z - ! - , I- I -;- - 5- �- I 1�1 - 11 , I ,!,!-?�' ""' �,"4 �- � " " ". , . �� , , , , � -, � " . -1 , . � I --I I � , .1 - - V `7' - - I - � ;� - � , � ,� � . , V �� - .I ) ,/Y ,>, � � - � I . , .�Iji , , t4 k I ,� " � � - - - - , 5: , - - - . . 1� "./ - . , , --� . I - - 1, " I . . I " 1 -:"ti- / - .1 - - \ =�� SO ' ;'�'' - � I x "X, I I .. ., --�- - L & ��, � -- ,,, ,. - - I I I . ;i�' . , &, , -1 , ,- , - � I - /I 'il � - I , - I ; f - , ""-- I I � � I " - , �, - I ; �- 1. i-, - --- I . � t Z. 1 � � I � " , - . , I .f L � \ ', k� - t- , . . I - . - "', , , � - �e / , � ! '�� ,.�� , f" � , � -;,� - , - � I I - !,�?' I � ��, �/,,.$ , � I , � /-"-"/ , - / �,, ,!� "-:2 � , . - . , , � �rf , , W? � _"�, �, -,,</ , / 1 ,/ - � . I 11 lt;W - -j. , I . , , /,� // , " - ' Z-1 I 11� � , �' "� � "T I \ ------ I-. 7 I � / -�,, 4 , � - - �07 " _, . - ;r(�42 �� . t. I - tl�� i - % I 'I, .-I - U4 - � -�," ,-,,, , e, 2 '. , --- , �� /\ , I . V ,� \ :� It - 4'r,4. � " I - , , , - r , , I - : \ I �, - Z. _ " �, Z , i ( :t ,-' ., � . - - \ . I � - 'r ��, ;k ; '. t I , , , . . 1. -1 I I I � : I , . " , - w 11 5 � I - A .a � I I . , O I I � '. � ,-, -, A " / , �- \ � " t �;" 3� 1 " � , - .� Yli 4j�, 1-r-,;4-0-) ,.! � . - � - - - , =, I / �-,e -X , � - . !� X , � ., - � !- 1 1, - _ N,�; ,i�� . � / - +- P z --- I , --, � -,i � � - , -- t- ,V :�� , '.-"t , ,e- - , , � I - -;- I � - I , ,� . -1 � � !! I . "I -t�. -,; , -11 f , �, -- -- --111,11�e " ..... I'll "., � . � I � " - - w 0 , -- I -, �;, / , , W.- . 4Y , - I - , I , �� x�, , /Z I"? --m , - - - •� _ , - -,/�11 w - / ; �� / , � � � - P- - " �� 7. � 1�1� "I "i 6 : ---- �, - - " �- " , , /,�X - - - ',,� , " , W -, 11 � I � �, - , � � -/ 7, / I , � , . � , i I .1, - � z � , ";- . , ,, , ,6 \ � /:--- 51 _ . � 1� I- % - ,,�, i . . _,;� , , ,� % D ": I .,� " --- , ,,,, , I I . / - ��, - ... � - - . I � I , I -* - - , , �/� .S --�. --�, I , _ r� -it, . - t- I�-- , �A�7,�,- : - . ,,, , - -�� ,� ,�\ ,,--. � - J ,� ,,A7 . , .- ,� - , ,,�-� I I ,-�, � �--11� �,- - --- - . t k, - 0 11 � -f . . ., 11 I 1 � � � .: I �- . `- ,- �% . .. - , - I I - - , - -- '�! �i � - �2-1�,��IV N'� � --- . I I i I I -�,-.�� I � � , i - ef -� . , I 1/1 I-- i ;`-, - -, . " --1 z � 'j, , r,,_jl �--. � ,:-�%, '�' 64, - I I- \ I � I - - . . - _�r� 1. 11 - �. I - - � . , t I- '? - ----� '- , - - ,, '-i, - & % , . . � -� - - � -1 % , " � " " -p - - - 1 " %� ,� , - e* ; f , � . � r--_ I --1 _ , I � , - - � ;, , x , -� oe / - -- 5 � � ,�, � . , f - -, I ,_-,�/ / ,��-,V/ /,�, , 67� '.-'- C�' � .11 z � - , , � I � � I : � .-. - �I I. � - ` "-. - - - , `- ,- i t , , - I - ,�� . , ; , 17\"f-li.. # -- - 11 � "It\ S -- , ill ,�. - -/: � " '. I I , I ; N , - 1'� ' - � � .�� ;p 1, I.- - ::.,, i , -< " 1 7 � % 1. - � - " , 'A% , t� ; � � - , - - - '2' -- ,�-,, " , .1 ' - - 1. . � . -1, ) �z� ,,� - " I- �, 11 - �'-,-', - i � f- 1: �,iz� A I , �/��k7! I �� I, I , �� -. I ., - 56 - I - - - --�11 , , , . I i f � , , �,§ - � - , , , - I I t , Y �� I �, "I i. , � -- , ". , �_ �,., � I "", I , � I , -`� , J I , - , -, 4q- - I. -- ,:� , .,� : I I , t, Z� , Z -1, - - - I �, � "I , Zt - , - - --- �1- N �O , ,/ -11" �111 0 . . I - -- --- '- - -- L " -,:.,�,�! 1� �, , � ' r/�, �� t! , � . - . CO- ��11: ;- ,, � A -,/ - I I " , � . ' I , '�Jl � ", , / . , 0 1 !��, ,V � �- - � , 1\ ,, 'k - - 1, I /, _ k, - Ai� kc - "i.. `-1 . �... ., ---, . I � ' ' 11 - , ,.-- ��-, . I-, - -1, ,,, , , . -1 �C` 46 e -4 - � I t., -,�, : : ,,��, i ; ,,, , " i ,8 ,� � � __ . , , . 'o � la ? . 1 54 - , , -,A,;, � w , 1. � . 11 - Y� - - �R, 4(�' ;' ; � %I � '...��."11'1 I I z -I I I � I- . kx,\� i- 1-;� 4!",-,<��-", , " �Z - , I ��I:s - - � h - �, � , % , X " -1 L - I - - I - 11 -- Y� 'Y t�) 4 � .. i-, " L'RT- - 4, - - ? t 1, : I , , ,1i ., , c� � I I _�, % _ X� �'. - � - I � - , I . t6 I ', - I - . z ' � -k , -, " a � 1� .11,11", I - � z 11. , :: �q - � �, . . 1 .41� - 4, � i - - " - 'S - , -, - . , t'! , -r �i ,��", / ", r ) �' � ca, \ �L, _,' 2 --'� , - ` �, - , '9 - , it , " - . ,/, ,� - , . - , , , ./,. ., -- � , �, '-L;' /I - � - I - 1�.-� I � ., I � I ,�; - - ,�,/ � it . X —6, , . , - , X - 7 , . I - t , � 1 ,� (--.-". I-- " ,- , '- , - , , , , , !z , , - , ,4 1 � � � , , 1��. _ �� ' '/ 'L,, i, -`11 , � � �6. � I , 7, � : - 11 (z , 4!�� 1 , 1,41, �, I/ .11 - ,� - � 7 , . I , 1� : � 4 i ,Z?4 ' ' I ' V . ,�,� , , , I& - � -- - , , N - 4 I I "' ,' '- I / - - I - , " 's - ,� � ij cv " I , , -, � -,; "I.:., -, . � �-ZkES ' ' '* , �T �,' ,-� �, �/ - , , �/ - I -151a - . , , ., , , I , � � , / � - �11 11�` , �- - , , - , - I I -4 \ "' � 16, 1� I I -1, � 1, - � 1�, I " ,� : . . I � - - \1 (S I -/ " � , -\ �," --y , � , I � to rd ; I ,e -87 ,r� � I � �� - -,�� "I'll - - - � j I - I � L Z:< �-- , -- 1� �, A I �, , i 11 , , , N , - � '� , 1 , 1 - I � � , . . - I . 1� - i4 I 11 �, . .,; -1 � I I ' � , , �; -1 Y, I . ., -.- I - I'--.- /� , , - , � I , � , � ", , , - i (6 ! � ifti . " - - ,-----.-,� , Q, , ." , , - ,j , I � � - " , , -, .� , " t , , t \ - " I I � I � , - - I , , , ; � . , � , "_---_,! � . - , il -\ / . , (r, . � I, � � 1 V . . \ "I -, - � - � � , - 1. , - - � , I - . I - . . , � . �� , 0 ,\, � i .,�,. ,,, , . � .� , , ,- E6 � - � 11 . . I . : I IL I , I , I - 4--- �f � , " - - , 11, " , � I � � , - -, 1-� 11 I . - , j . , , 1�--� �-.c 7 '! � , , ", '- I I- - - - " SICA�L o ,/ ';'o ' i" IT � -, -;, � , - fill ,,,z � , , N � , - ': ��, . " � , � . "t, , � I � . .- , I , . , ., , i /,, I � I I I t i " � ".. - , , , f -�z�� " , , , � 4 - I . I - - S >- , ` I � - : "I �p � � - . t 1, t I �Ij' � I -i t -.11 � . I - , -- lz�. - � , ,� ,f �, I I - - , .---k- ��,-��;--,,','��.,p ,j\� , -n 1. � - I O'e,� , I . . - - I. , 8315 -- - , - - - 1, - X - , ii, - "I.", �, " '', L11 � . I - - .,., - - . `,,�, - � - . � - * ` , - , , ,� , I I , . I � - ' * ` ' . \\ 1. - , ,- � .-I I. - .1 . . - , � � \ - 1. I I I � , , . - , 11, � ��5i -f �-�?�, iA "�, . , I 11 ' ' ` . � - -.,-, r - � I - ; \ ",-\ ( ,- 1 - : -, '!_ \, , � - , \ . � 6 F- , I . , ,� . fIJ " j , �, . � : � � ) -�� ': � - I I I,, , -;_Z�q� ',,� . � � �. - : I z I 1. � I ; I 1 16 ,�\, - - - - \ - - , --�,-,� . - , --- Jj�-,'c � �. - �`- - �� - \�- ; I !: �?f I , 1'. - - - - , - , "\ � \ " \ - -, - -,-',- - ,I- i � -1 , - . , I - -- - � -- � I �1� - - , , - , � ." - , % . \ - I -L� M. I ,z" - --rq --f -�-,;s ), � -� , , � L, ".4,i "-,. � - -, -� �, 11 - I -'-,, , , , '-� � � 1, - i t 1 1, I- - , , Z- � , ,- I � �. .- ,r � . -, �il ,� , ,� ., � 3) ,4� I . ,� I -, , ,\',,\, .1 � �� w : I . �. ; -tT I I , I z ", , '. 1� � , f � 2 i ... I I , ,I N I . " ,; =t I , - - , , , , - - - , ,. , - & \ - -1 \, I I 1, , -�- Q) , , . . " -" -� - �-/ `--�,� � : ; I .,� � �� 1, \ � � v ro , % , . - . Ems: , �-.-_ --,- . � � ,;� 1� � � - . � I .1 , ,�K, � . � 1. _'. i, - ��,- / L 1: i �� , - - .1, -,, , I 9 ,C- � - , . ' I -11 - -4i�f 'i , . � . ,� , . . f I -,:', ,� � " * ., I ,� - , , , 0 f -k 1 . i , \1 ,- , , � 7 , . � I ., I, cN - � . � �, I � � � ` & , f , 1. � �� :-,� o", �� , � , � . yt j,", ,Z��- ! � i i .1. :� . i it (o, � - - ,,, I q % , , U) I , , I . �, ` - . I � I I I . 4- �! I , .,-. ; . � - � ., " 1, - � � I ,- � -" `1,�,,�,,-,-- - , - -1; ` . L I I - i _�� I 0 LU �."iJQ3�.. � � - , ?I" ,- '. -�,� , , � q, ; : ; 1'-, t i� .. : 11 I - � - 1, , /. I , , , . 1: i : " � . � - ---, . " � , I r - I , I ; .., ,- I : i, ,-_ -,D , I � . - -,�, - , -,,, k 1( . 1-1* , I k I. I. O b � - 4� � - � . , . 1. - . - I - �r, " � . , - , %�,,% \ , \, ,v - ,n) � : , , - - - - , , r 625 D . - I I a,'! 1. ; ry 1. J,Oi%, �- - , I " I - \ , I . 'L - (", "I.�,- '. � I I . r - " I / , i / , I, � . 1, - I ; -� ).�11 . ; I I -. � � : 4 I - -��- - � - � �,, 1- , - - z --- . � �o I ' - � - - . � -7` -- I . I � 1, . I � I I 11 : ". .. , - , , � , ,,, -�Q A�\ � I I � I 1, I 1, - . - I � '..." , , , � I I ,� " - �� 1 11q /-,6\ �,12 "� �3- -,__: 21 - �- -1 N--. - -:35� � I , - I " � z . I - I , -, 1. .� L - -, ; I , 4� . . ��, � �'; S, � � I . I --1 . . , � L I a � . '. � . I - � I L, �- , - ----' ! .� - � I , � , ,-... i �, el-�,, 'I" ---'.., ,z,i�q, - � : 1; , I � - - , , '-�., - - �. - - - - - � � !�z I - X11 ,( 19� , -, � " I - 1, ;,u,- i, \ � t!.---),�' '' , ." I I --:-��'� I ., , I , , , , I � - � . � A- - , , ,0 3 k"', \ -11 "I .., -/--- lz�-Ifi L11-1 , � �� , . � I . 4' A I - - * -, I -k 1. I 11 -- N --- - - rc9i,1-,-- I •, � I " �, . . , . � , . / ,,�, ,,, 1� I I -1 - . ." , � , "" C. i : , Z 45 . � / , , - 1 % I , � 0 , N - . - -,�, ,"k,', , ,�? 1, - , � - � , jj,!� � ,� If � , I � , � - � - � - - , , . / , ,,, \ ,, -- . .. 6 -* -` -i. I � �� -- I �"\ ,.,-\ ,.!- z_ - - ( , ,� :. I , . . � - I I " .. I "i -1 - - . , - , , . , -1 �- A- ", V � ... . � , �A I I W,� co -,- . - .1 ---__ 11 iyeZ � � C"'- 1 , I 4e V I- �,Q::y--,-,;" -;:" ul t - � � , _,, , I/-,- - � .� W� . -, — � � � i` ; ;, 1,11 I I , �� / - 01 I ,", -- I 3 . . . I . - - � 1, 11 I r - . "I : . . r r , , : . � � , , t ---- -- I � I � - � . . �. I 1� 'g -i 1 � - I i , I - - " - 1; - 1� . - I �� . - 6,40 - t - - - - I I " - - I I - .- . :, � � : (,� - _ �- .1 , �. .. , , " � - - - " ,1 ? I �- � ;-- -, I , � - ,- - - . I I , , - �--` -1,11" I i� 0 , � I � I -\ - � , 4 � - � � -1 I .. �, , I ", , - , - -, - - - - � ,�11 I , , - O � ,� 1�1, T1 / ,,,, LLJ - , � . , � i 1-n , d'i " �, , , - / - �. . : V . , -, , I I - . '/ � I -,� , -, / I . I . , , � - "I - . .1 I F - -1. I \ �, , : . , - .- - ��'- --� , 1, , � , 4-7, -- - -, , , � LL � " - . I I . .. --- � -'� �, � --- ., - - - 11 7 1 � 1 7 1 1 - / _ ' ' ' � - , � - , -"- - , . / . , . - , ,� , , , i, c .. t, / I i-'� Z �. , ,, I , �, . , � Co, ,, � . . j L6 le - " " � � i- - I i I - : I - - "Vil - , , , , t �� ?�" � , V � - - , , \�� , � " � 1 . , , �,, ,V,11 �', %\' ,-!t-�-..� i �-. --� , �111- � . I � � . � I ", - - "". . I I i�,-- . I --- � I � . --- . ",:"i-� , : , , .- I L, - ' , tk�- - - , ,_60 , --- - " I .1 - , a*- - - --- ., r- - ; : - t; 1 �, '--. , i� 0 , , . " I , � I , 1. I.:, � --4 ,�, � � ,., . � - 1 6' � , I < z - b � , I , i .�. I - . I � - A!k; .- ` � � . . I __,,, �64 1 t .::_ , .1 � i ; , , Z,, �� . � ., ��, '. � 11, � , - �7 G �< - , - , : ", � ,� -- . f �-i �1 - / Z' ?� ". 1, ; -,-,�-- , , , , �' - ,i, - -i -j I . ;-V cl. " . , . � � i � -- - . , I , , ". - " , - - , - - �, , � , � " ��, I zz , . z - : . , - , - - : " I , , 6�- r:: - -,-.�� !�_--i,-- 732 i , Ji '. -� � �\ \_1 � �p -1, � I . � � I -. � � � ,a I � - , � %� �_,, , ,q6 � 0 - . I . '�: -" - I " -- --- � � , - I - : . D� ; . , , I - - 11 11 4- - ----- - L �a I �/, , -- I . ; t, , � 1,9 11, - � 1�5 - - I ... I -�. - -�,�, i- ., - 62�- < .- - 41 . ii. , I : - - - - - � -- . # � 01 , , I � . -.-. , 1�� I - -- ; I ..c>" , � , C " ( , /�, ; .- , 1�� . � �<—, .1 I ,;wt- �� , - I � "i f - , it t, I 7 : I . �� - - I ; I kX , I , , .. 1��, I,-, � 0 0 z . . , : - � �� i - : .M- ir�., . -, � , - I / - , " - .- - 1, 1 � .! . � . �k. '. . �,� I < I /, -j, , , � � - ;, �!, . , I . � , " ,--�- ',*,, , '. - - - K)�., , . a-, - i ,.__ ,�� 4 1 , - " -- .1 1 2 1 �11 I t . , - ` , v, � � I a- N . I I -. . Z : : I z - ----:,- `,---'�- 'ti', I _ , I ,� 1 -�,� �11*,(Ujk , I I I � � . " � I I . � ...... . L -- - ,� U �,��- ,'' -,Z'. - A 1. - ,��. , - I � A i � -, . . - - I I - �. -��,�\-, Z . % i I I ! - , ,,�,, , ki ,, ,; . - , - ` P 1 -71 - I - , ., , " --� .. - - I ": - I . I ; I-, , i � ,,, , �-, � . , , . " , , S"', - . �' - -,%.p 2 , , I � - I . , : ", , �\"�,:-�-, - , � - ,, - 1, ::: � . . �, ,- , � - , L , , I , t,.c i Ll - I . ,:� � I P:�! ,'� I ""\, ,- " - , . . . � : --11 -1 . I ... - LLJ I � , '. I-, - ' \ � - , I I , , -.;. j, " ,�-. - - ��, 1 11f Lu I � . %� -- I , '- , t- . & �1 &L I _ I I I I - 7 1% ,,-- I I , - - I - i -," - I I -,� z ; I - - 7 t"\ - .N t � -t"- . '! " I 11 - , . I I I . r , . I I L : % - ' ' �. � . �, � I �, I I . / - � - - �e, ",-'e . � , 1, _0 - , I - ,� �_ , : 11 — t " 10 tl. �1, I -,-- ,.:" -- 7a,L� I "."I'A' t, 1. 0 w . �:, " �11 I i , - �!,��i Q % ' , 'I it' I I , , &, --, , "ti ,: - � , 1- ,/- - , ,\ I , I � I ` �1' ,� " !tti�- , w � - - , , - � _ I ,6 - z -� :� t -1 , tz,i 7 A I IL, \R - - , , , 11 � L. 1 &�' : -.-. / I � , , ` z \� - - , ,,, ,, ,, ., , - ,/ \ � t" - ' 11 t .11 'Ili � --i:", A _ .11 I - - �, I ,�, - ' - , - " " L."J"A& , -,. � - .. I .,.\ /> - ;1 j , '1'1\� _ , . , -� I � � � , , � I , t, I - 1�, I'll ,rN�2,� - - � 11 - . 1�1 , , , ', - � �, �\ j I I I , �,APPIN, 1, I--` - , I I . I I , , � � 1�'�,:"" �, jli;�, � - I "-�, `- �, . I - ; /11, .t, , - - � " 4, ' ' � � ' - . " , \ , C) � I - 1 . I � , ,; � � -\��\ . I . Vk . - ', I I Y ./ , - 1 -- z I I " N , , .; �, I I I � I � -Ik� - ,�,, �' �. - � t I 1- . I . 6�, \ i � . I I ,�/ �z , , �� - - �_- I - .� !�4 ,,, - ,� I I !� !�4 ,-,�,,- !,- . --a ,,� �, N !�4 , !,� I I � t ,, ., , . � � I .� ,,it .. � A� . � 1. !", !�4 ,,,,- !', I \ ,a- ! :� ". -A- , ,; I I I . z - - �� I It ".!i,k, I I .- ,I ��I" � ,�, - ,Z - - L ( , -'�'i` -, ,L\, - .ii. I , , Ak X `� � 1�0 , " q , . " , , -�-4 " � T�', ..- �� -:" 1. -t,7„- - - ” , , ,.,f?* �, � 41" - - , , . I -� � � L � ,\ :� , -- 'I ,,(.A , , \ � , - .-C I , �: , I I I - - , , - - --- _:tlet"It, ��,, �,� " , - - � I I I � t�,,>-`t i � I ,"'i" ..... . i� I , � � I I I - V 1, , f, , I I � I I ; . � z I I / , - -- "`,\"�, - ,-g,�,,,,,,,,,,,��,,,,,, � -,--,., - � . � I z - I I . I 'N , — - I., -, 11 � z . I - , . 1� � ; � , , _ . 4;�, , � I ,A`� - , k Z� -. I � - I I I I I 1� �, - -!� --- , , '�-, -,�:\\,, 7,'�-,-.�,, - I t1t, � , � , , � -- - . > , -�16', - I -- , , , ,�il. -�117 - � . . , , I , � .� . " - -)* , -- --,, , - . i � �, � 't " . �/ � - , , , z . �,, 1 - , I I 1 - � , , 6�:b-,-�- , , - ,,,� -, I A � , � -- , , I - - -�. . . -. .- - - ,� . ., r I � � �; , - �,- . U I I " - z , ".. 60- - � I . ""Y! I .r - , k , - �\, ", � , 1117- , , " >- �---� �', t: � 1��, 0 1 ,,f � ,, - , k� - � . ,\\� z z , I I � - . % z---- - . . I i z � .1 t �- I - �-��7', 1\"� ,--:� S �,- � I - , - I I � � - ,.- le , , , . e t 1 v / - - - ,,.,- z � i ,. - I . , ?\ 1, `� 'I .,.u� � " I � 1 , 4 - I , I �, -- , C , , " � - .11:'-:- t \ -� \ �,-, \- - - 1'., � t, . . . � � %. � , . . I - - I , / (? , - � 11 . 10- " I 11 -1 * \\ I ; � �""11�1 �, ,,6J6��S�-�J,�,t ,�\ k , � � / �� '... -","`-� 4�3 ,; , U s - ,, 't , I I I I .1 I , , � . I z . - - I " 1 i I , , , ��,--- t " I , , , , , , , , , , " , - , - . : ;�-,', �, -; - , , , ,- - - - I � - I f , -\ -f��, 11 z � -, 1 � -, - -� -, \ i 1'�11 , . . , , k , , : I I I - ro � 1 I - I I �.- . , i - 11 I �, .. � ,,111 i i -6��, � .D 1. � ,. . , , ) .. , i " I I - 1. q'it , '. , - - j". -, 1 ., -- �-_ , - .. I - I ,� - ) I , - .1 . - 1� � - - I . . I - --� \ ,�') . I .. . .1 - ,3v,�, - ,-�-_ �,,VA vi.�: ,I - , .. 4 \ --- %t k, �. - , .-- I I 11 L\ I I , �. .: 6-- �;,:' ", " , ,-'.- - � z -, C-41 -/ NN . , � , , � - 35 � , - / . "��, -, , . I . I . (5�. , ; . � , - _ -Z� �, Y,J, ,� , ZY --�2: ; �� I I -� t "? � - , kN' \ %,- �L 'I � . - I � j' 'L �. , -�,, `V, I _ � `�, � - � ��S� ai, � -� I � 1\ � / � ,, 3�, ,�, 1 --. � - "i-\- - ti �� - - - , , , � z, t�, ,; ,�� ,f, �f , , ,--L -- . I - � Z_ I I , \ , - . - ". 1..z.. � - - - , Lk - z - , , .40 I V - Q 't � � ;, � , ,�- " � � , -� � 'I � r � --F,,�,,� - , I-- , . i -, . , - 11� V z , � --- � ,� � - -, I ` i " - - - 1,, /-, �, t t --- - O-`\ I ,\.;\",- , .�, I . ��;. " . -1,,� --, , � - � - .. ,�,,"," , � - A - " -, 0 � / `1- �� L" ,,,,, ,NJ I I t- �,� - , 1 1 , - � �� L �) � re I - 11 , 11 - - . z . �� - \ , - � � 1, � i O � ,— 1��_11-( " 1, , �, . � -, -$ ,-' , .-�' .1 -�L:,- �. , � 7� ""': - � , �. . / � . -1,"L - S -� -ee';:7'-L-, w � . ---. . ; . I 1� � , ) t vt!4, , � -1, I . .-- , � ,� i I I �V . � - . , fb�--- --1. x f- I i --- 1. � , �?, &j 11,\% 1, , I � I 11 . - � '. � .. 1 ; i i, 41) ", 1 � ,• , 1� - " , , / I -,.!t- " , -_ , " - -- 11- ,,, , � w i �, � I 1 4, - ,. 0 ' 1. I I tl- . . � �?t I 1� ; .", I . 4 ��,, , , � I � , - � I �\ k;, , t , , � - . . . p " J�- . I,- - - .. .. , 1-11, ,' , - I , , , V�It!-I;A* -- -. : � 4b., I . . - 1�1 - , � - ilc�, "g,"tt,"!;, : F --"-' -� - . ,el -- - I.. - . I , � v , �1- , - , 'I, "I , t., , $ L 1, N �, ,.- ,I, e �-. - - - - 11 I -1, - ,,,. -, ,�, . 11 I I .1 11 , , I I 'I., - 1�-- N c� I , ; , ` , � .� . :r - � ,-O -0* I , laI I I , " --- , - :1 - - ; - ui I -- 'EQ - � I 'i, L . 'S �' 11 I 1, -- - .- - - . �p - -A, I, � I , . � / � �,,� � ; - , � I I � I 1. \ ,�, - , - S - . . I -,T�, - - ; : � �, I - - , , , . t , I \ - I , . � 3: Cj - "" �1 1, i,o i, � L,�'< i - w -,I , . .. Legend - �,- -, 01, -% R -1-q 7 V � , , : �� . \ I . , , I . , ri : / ,- ,- , . I I � 1. � zl I I � 11 . I I I - �fit; -� - --- - , �,; r . , - � �-- .�, ---, - - - - I � �!� - --- - - - �;� I" � ,,'� � - 1, I I � - I- �---= I .,-,-!w -�. - _-- , T;"!� - ,��,--�� ,:"�-, F-7:7/,:1 , - 7 "' � ��%, " I � --. . I -- . ,� I - 1. �- /I- - �-79� , , , ,�� , -r- - ,� - I � ; I ��11 , � 1 �, 1. - - .1 .1 . 1, ,� - - , W I I - - �, 11 - � 1, 1� I - , - - - - � -, - �- - I . , -, - , . - � . - . - , , - -/ I . . , I - - I - , " � . W 21 - - 11 I � / 11 - I :- , , , I .1 . w I � tl --1 � *-k iF-7�' �1'1 � I I � 4 - , 5 x� -4z � � I . I - , � , 11 �, , . -- . I - � A -1- �. , ,- , ; , I - m - I : - - 11 . 1, , . I Mw � , , /- , -.- - � .,�, � � -- -'-�:-- I , �-7 � , I - - � I �'- ; - I - 'Z� � - , -- -,'-,'�,�- I -- ,je - � --� - , � I - � - � - , i - - -, ��- - 111�1-1 1�� ,A� s - - , I ,A� s -- - - I I � - ,A� s j I - , -- : - --' t, � , " 1� � , - I . I - - -�- � , I � --k ; ,-,e4, :",�, -, -; , 7,:� / - 1, , 11 I I z - -- � p �-,--- �� -- - I - - - - --: - ,� , ,- " ., , , -, �,, , - ,,,;,,�� I - �.: , � , - " �� " - - - ,:."/ : - , �� -� I - I I -: �: ", 1. - � i, -1 I I � , , I ", (�, ��',','�,�-� �� !--"-,,�-,,�, e-,��:,t"-�,n';�,.�-, k"'. " �, , . �- -1 - , .- , � II - �� ... I �� - ,,-z,, - - - , -,:-,- " I - , '�' 4 �� Graystone Comoration Property � f�� - I , "j, , - -;: � I � , Olt -11 - I �1 -�, - i - .I- ,z - , -, � , . 111- - -- - �"-�'-�-'- ''I', � -- - �,�-- - - . - _ �,- - I � �1'1 �' - -'� � - ,��', , . I - , -� �,�Wi-v�f--�.'., -1 I , ,� I - � 1, "I, , -�-� " I-` ". 11 _,; � , , , , �,;-,� �`�,,Z,-, I ,:, � �- " - :�, - , - -�� / - - � - � .- -, �': ,", ,��!�:�., � - ��z t U - -- �- I , "" - , I I -` V. -� : � �,�� - . � I - - .4 ��,-,:,,�'-- I �:,,. ,,., - , I - N", ). n ,-" . ,� -_ , - - - , - �.�- ,- -%q, .- 1, � x '�.,' , �� ',':-, ,,, : " -� � � � �:t ,,,��,-_� -, " -, � .1 - I - , ,� � . I , : , , I . � cl ,Z'l � -, --'. -, , �z - �,,� - ,- , ; , 1-� � - .', . - I- �, -,� - - - I ", ,.1- e -, �-� - -. 1. w, - , ': � z- -;_,,--`,-- - . - � - - I � - - . 1 .,zl I - - . . - , ". . , � - �-! - �F-IU;-A---W,�. - - - �� 11 - I - 1111�-, I., , 11�1� -`-1. �.� 1, -, -- , .. .1 , - �, �'- ,-, ,,, LU �-- ,- - �� ( �- , ", I I - soills , z � , I I I ", A,-,. " . ;_�Cll.,�t,-�L- � -, ,.-i-i , '. /- ":, - - - - I . , - . , - A�v . I �� -3. , �,�', 4 ��, �,-,', �`�-, " � - �- �1� -- _-� .;,L . '11, -, i - aivl E----� , - - -- , - ,� . , , - ,: q� . _j � , �,-�,15- -'. �, -', 4�. .�� ? I , -, . I � .. ,� , - - :" � ,- I I . �, , � -. - ;;, . " " , ( "I -11, ��, 4 � -at - -� ----- , , - , , , , , - � �- � - I "., - I �, 1'a. , , , � I :1 , - , - F, :. .. � � - - " - -.: : , -- � - �, � . I ,� , � L��-,- - fl-,:-, --,:.-, ., - I., 11 �,�, � � .11 � ". " - I.- L , - - --�, � I �11. ., � - ��- _ 7 - - , /-- ----�-T _J I I - 11� ,�- I � - - -: , . .11- �.. , , '-O' , �- - , - ' - ;1 . 1. I :� � = , , , -�* �46,--',�,�"-""�f-��.'-� � � - �. �-- - 11, . - - , I � � , � Q � i, " � � , � . , (I � , � � � � - , - �� -v --, 1�7 .- , , �, � , �. � \11 . _ . , � . I �- , - ... , - . I . / :: I . � - . . , L, I i , 1, ,� -��', � , , 45im �- - , , . I I . . , , . . i:, � -, ��, 4""��' '\" , , - ? !�- � �, , L I . 7L ,!, " ,� - - I , :1 - ", � , ., - , - � - - , �-- , - _: r - L . .- 11 I:. ��. ,. I - "", ,�,'�,tSSIC&a � ------- /,..1, -,:,:, ;� �,_ ,j �, " , .w, .. �. � %�--,�`,,,- -,i��,�-�4-1,i -, 1� . I . I- , / ,- '' -� -- , , -4.:.. r . ,� - . i ,��,----, �, ra'-�- lk5 tl-xl .., I � I " : , I" �-,�- -'� 4 , I . , - -�, �-, -, 0 U-,� --��, , �- �',��- ky A *� --- - - I � - - , ,- , - , I i sc,'�, - 11 , , ,� , . Y , �,P� - .,,� .- 4,1 -, - ��,�7 I , - - I . � � . , � - 1�� ,,,, I . i .�. , .. �%,� A.:7':�!�,,, --- ��:-��:�,:,��- � : � -4 ,,- �, - �� 2 - 1, -I Z . I �� " /'--7, . -- C, N � I � -11 I I �,��,�,;: , , 'Nv-," � �-,,` - - , I I � "Ill, - ,.-( . - i � - ,. � - ,� , , � !"�,'�-, - _ � �� ,,�,. ,,�- I z - - - ,- ,,, - - w - I � -�� I � , , -,--- � `-.1 . . , �,�, i 4 . W-,-O�- ;1,6 i d, '1�1 I <W �� - ,� /- -- � .;,.' ;�'-,A:;;,''�', . ��, - 5 , ", .1 F.w�, � . - � _, "";YT, L � - , � -7� \;*:Ai�'g; ,�, .1� t� , --� :) ,,-,�,��,.,,��,---�-: � -�,�J,' -,,-�- , --,-, " Q_� � z .'�-,"y- ,,.- � -:';.'�`L: � " - , ".� , " -, , ,- - 1.1-111 ,v- I � 11�' 1, Lu - ,� -', �,-"_ ," - " , _ � . F. � 7 � 1. I ""; ,", " � I -,V - 'I'L I . "�/ -�"" ", L . " '�/' , , ,�� -�- - - - : /,. -; , �,- � I 1-1 i w � ,--�!, -,,. MS , _''L- - J� _ '. , � - I - \ I �, 1 % , - � - , -- ---� 7�,--�r':,�, 4,1,�,,- , - , c- C= f F, -,. -- . , - _ , � , , , ' I . - . / � - , , - -, �, ." � - ,-,, -�, � . , , , � .��, J� - �, I ��- - -��, - I - 1-,.,,�?,`,--,,' - , -� , ��---- 1 � �, V 4 ,I)- , / - � " , " - K � ,!5,� �- �1. �' - -X -,- I. >w . - , , , "��'-,� '41, , .,-,,, - - -1 � S, , - � . .. .... . � , I �-�,�-" ,, A'��,, � � -, � �-_' - - -, � - � . � N& ,-� ... �,� - , ,�-I�- -11-1-111 4 ,�:-"',:��,, 'y'. , " 1, -:3 I 'L�"' , � ", --- - ---- �-? , -- - � 838 - , - - - �� . � 1 , �, " /I, - t7- - A-�-"",, ,� ;_1 , 7 I-,-'-,--- - . � C " I " I I ,f,-- 1, I I � - � � .11 �.� I � � - 0 �. f,�T:.-, , '-`�'- -"':..��' --,,,,, IF, .." � -,--,�,� �,;,,,'�2',-� � � I - I � , - � �' , , P I �. _ , -�u 'g�'�% I :--",�,�:�� ,'�,`�", . , I 1 --� � , -��-�'Y -11 . � , = - - ), -,, , �,----�,� �"---'�:,,, � , � � -;--f ;rg gi �- - ` - "I - . � I . I ". ., 111,".-�',- ,-,,,� - "I"', -�: -,�<� " 11-11, . V , ,� j -- -1 LL 0 '4 - I -� ", .--- - . -� � , . ---- t M , - - . . , , I , � , . - I 1, , , � L - ,� - � , - , -.�., - � � 64 ,� , - I - I ', ; . � , 10- - � - ��,k�---,,-,-', r, , �7 :� , , - -- - , � I /� - 1�1 .1, - -- - , 1�� I . I , , - - - - -� �g- " , " � ,�,.7 � , � -, , , - - - I - I . - " - -A ,- - �, � - q � � �V.,�- � " "I � �,, � --� -, '! I , - < 5� V � *��' �) , , � - -,i*--,�4 , ", ,,, ,. _ , . "i If . �,�- , - - � ,11: - 1. , Z* ", " k , & ,�-',�'r , - ,� - -.- , �, . � I - - � , � ., .� F z - -----" I - � --, - - �Z�� , --- , -- - �1, f 'i A, - - -1", - I I I Al, L �, � � ", , " X'j � - - - .-Y --� -- -I-- �,. A�;� I ,- , .. ,- '3,� ,� �, ,,, - ,,�� , . - , � �, .11�-- z I - � - - -11 - - -: �--,,�,', -, , � -- ,�- - . � ", z�� - . It - , --l" , z ,��. .."'," ,- 1 : , ,�,�,,: - � g �:,---N-11 � 1.11, � �, � . , .- , , .�� -j� = �; 2� - I � " , ,I �1� �,t.- .',;, I I '- - - I I - � ., � - - � � "i , � --IN r , �, - - - - � -, , ,%. - - - 1 �� I - I -.-,L" -!-,-, :',�,�', �,; -� I , , -, � - � , ,..,. 7- - -t , . L_ k� � " , v , I I I - - '' � 'I --�'�'),:,�,�,- " 1, . I . 1 -' /'� L �'� '� � _-� -- - , ��5 `�-, � " I z = --I -�, ;:� -- , 2 - r � � _ I 11 I I : � ,, '' : I - .11 -� -1 :- - �, 1, � I ,�"�- .� , .. %, �, - - `---,�'I ", ` - : � ",!- ,,, �: , � �, ;" 7- ..; i - - �,'- � I , I ,-. �,, - �:�� ft";N I �- � , - �. '! �� . �, r , ... -17y - - . . , , , - 1, , , -` �, ;- � . - 7 , - I A� 1- ,�;,��, ,.� � , � -- E '? 4. - , - -, �� W I �� I � --- .. .� 71L ,i. - , �, �, , ", .1. I .. , -,-��, I ,b . - .- . �- I 1;. , , , , i `� -- , - - ,- , - 1. , -11 _� "I, . jo - L 1-1 "" 1� �� - - -: " � ,,- ,- , , , " �, �, " - . , I 1'1-- --- -� I 11 " � I , - -1 - �- , - - -.'.'," , - - - -�.I, ,�,'4-1�'z�,:��',��:'-��l�t,�7-�""","�,,,,-',,,', ", ", , 1", " ,- - -, , � L:�!_,,� ��, I 11 , ,, E . � , � -- - � . , � � . � x I I IQW I I �� , ': _.�', � " ,/--� � ---� ��; . " -'��,\, , � , I I ,� � LD �; � i I, 0-'� - . 1, -�,, - , ", , , - -� -< -111� " - , ` �, ", . . L j- ' k I I , I " �,, - -, �, � '. - , ,-, - '-� ,� I I � , . �, � , - ,- � , I -�, --- 'I',, I le,��`-- F - � - , I � ---�- 11 - � - w 1:1 - .. " � -, -no, , --, , " - I -�,r i��, , � , I _ 'L, L-Y� % � I �- 'N 1, �, :- Z� � �,U. I , "� . -; -, -,-�, I , � - �-,� � , 1 -71 i, ��.� -�,. _ "I - - - -� ; , I - , - ,C- �'�- -�� - - - --- , � -;,, " ,:,4�,� -, ; . . 1,-�7 , , .t, � - �, I � z k, , ", : `�� ,.,,,'�, �:. , , - - - , �. r--_ - - - , , � 1 - - � .-, ", - i'� 1� % - � " : i ,�!--,-_ , - , , , I -�:---z ,' �- �111 � 1� I -�,I- ,,� - 7-" �, �;' -�',��'- �' , , � , -: � , ',' � ,-� , I- " I � . L , � � � , I �, , f� , - � - 1-�� z �p �, � , , " " ; - - � , ��, - , :, -� ,,�� , � "', . �. , , �, I I I , �, - �� , �S , � � - - - .- -c,; � �- - i - � ..... . �, , ,,, ,� -Z -, - " `1� - Y / , , , ��,' - � - 1�1 ',, "4 � /14'�� ,,� I" ., , , - , � , - 11 - -�� - � ;,� -� ,�,/�-,,,,-,�,,��' � 4� 1. -"� � - , , " 11, � , � - I , - , , I �: --',: . - - �,�"- -X� '. ,4� -,,:,,,�,,,,� , - ,�.- - 10- "I l -,"'r j "I, �, ,� `- , , 24 -V ;,: i s a - ,� - , , � , "- .1 . �� - � , V N`i-,-�-�.� , F ', - i -,. , �1,, , - :1, - , , � � � �, -� -� � I'�, - �.. - & = � , g�.r- - , - - , - !" �; I - � , - . , , - � , -, �4 --':',- ', I - , , - - ,1 1A " - - - I. k -;�, -`-��-, �`,-,� � 11 1;;�� -,,--� ,�_,,� ,:�, � .A , :71L. -, , ,, � , ,- 1,�� I I � v, , � - I - 1; � - 'i . , -� , " �- , , - , , I -- - -%�-- - - `4- ,-�� " -�k�,!',�c--r�-- -- . �,- - - ., - - � ,---�5�4 - -, -, � --- , �; ?- - , ;kL41 - �� -�;, -,,,,,- . ,-. - - - / .�/, - - - ,-, - �; -: .1 - - ,� �, -��; � -F �- - - � - - - -� , L,�. '!� -- ""-�� ''. : "'�� , T<."'. � - ��--, , - ��, -� V - 4 1>1 - , � -�-"�e W, - - QC �-, it -1-1 , - - - -", , . `� t)� -/'�Y', 4., � - , � .6 �--� - �, ; A ,, ; .� � . , ", ."'.�_.,' ":- _ - ,-. � ,�, ;,", ., , � 'i, , '%,�- J 1 1 I" t -, - - . - � - , , /-- , ,-��L- -. �, , , , , IL� � - - �--, " - , ��, � I - , " " -, -, -'� , ._/ . � -'- � �, � ��, ... ,� , , �� , . ( I - 41 --- - Zl- ----,---- --b- - , - "' " :,� , � , � I � - -, " - -:' �� 1 -5- -- ,z ?-, I - �, � N� , . � -� � .11 �� .-,' -, � �� "-'-- � � I I',, 11. �111' - 1, 1� ", , -, ", I ,L _ I - , _,� �__ , L, , ,: __�j�t I I � - � � I '. , .--. I I ,� -��', - ", _� I i �, ��j�', , - � - I �, -, �, - � �Q - - I ," - " - , , _ - � �:� . � -- 4 % . . I I . . .i` � I _, " - - I , 41, -,,,,,) :' , - , , - - -Cq " :, - � I .. - I � , �,�, I " " I I I 1, - - - K , , � ��, , "", �� !"', � �, ,�,�., " � _; - . . � � , I ,�, ,-� , � I �� . . "I , � I � ", - � , I , � '', � 'R � -, � - U- � �---�'� -��" � , 1 - - ,�,," � -1 --- vo� -. �� ", -��,�,�'�, -, . '0 -- �! - , � , I I -�� . . I � 1- . - I " , - � I . il -' --�'L. � -�� '�, , , , ;, 1 4, 'I , :: ,�� f - 11 15 ,, -11111. � - r., �. , � . �:�,, -.,ILI�"-, ", , a ,; , , -�-,, - �,� �-, ;;V '� -,. - I - - ,,�. -A '. .!!,�,,��-",-"!.,.�,�:�io-�-.'�I 7�Z-lnli�`12 , , ,j " ., I L, � , � ,- -L -o" ��,�-%"' N -- - �- � �2� � �� '��.�,,�'-,--","'"',��/""""�""--", -��,� � �,�- " --o -�i:!,- - .�,'-k:�-L.T, -1L'1,.1,, � I �,.,�,- 1-1111/1, -- - . "� I - "I -� - ,;,,� " :,�-,:,�:, -.. -,,�, -,Z� . , , , I .,", , - i , 1. , �,.�'.. - . , � , , - ,< - -. .11 , ��,z( . �-� , - _, , - % -,�,� � I � ) A �� "O :';') '.L�L "'.�:, 1-1 - -, , - -, ��- � � - , / I _ , , - - ,� "; , , -, -11 , - , , __ _ _ _ , , - _ L� "I -"- � - . , -� -, -'� J. -7- - � , ,� ----,��-.--z , . ,� , -, -�', I � .1 _ _7 , _ _ � , ,,� � , _;�� , J f '. - _ " � U." t, I � t,�,, ,-, , _- " .. "- , ,�,� , , , , , �, ,�,", - ,:� , , . � - -,-`--�'� %--1 ' 'L , , f 1 � �, �� LEt p, �" � ;- -., -0 - , I ,,I ��, � , - k , ,Z i �� ,��;�: - � � . � � -V � - I , , - v � , ), , t', � , . � ,'-'.-j�",-'�- -7� ' ", I � .11 - ',-,'. ,� ;" - "/ �L, - - - , , �, -�-:� :- -,i; � ), , I , , , , 3f- I - , - - - - S'4; -' ' -% "V - � . ", - - - �.� ,- t �,, - , , � - , ,:, ,:"�. � � , ;, , , " �', -t " . I " : -i ; ��-',,,�,,: -,��T , �� , - �� I ,� �� ,, , �', ,�,�, ,-�',��," ,`!�-- �k� 1 ,.*,2� ., -� 3:- -�� ,L7 � - Z�iJ - , . I _X-, , , � � , � - - - , ,.i ij� .!i A , , � "' .Y -� _e"' ' "' �, ' ,,, , ,�11'1; -� ��, I I � ,� ,�, I I --1- , 4 ,�, �, ,-j�,, � I -- " ,--o � � x,. i � , . , ---,� - - I " �1, " - - ': � " 16��? .) 2�, , �`,,, 1�� ,:,� , - t " ,,, I , j � -� , - 1 I-- --�Zl -1-M. --,�; , - I _ �, , _ , - C 4 -� - , ,- " , , � � ,�, , , - , L, , , - , -� , � , � ,,� � , - -, , - , --� , ,,,, - . -- � I , ��L: ,�, � , , - , , � , . , - .� . � , - , , -- -, - _' ,:- , ',,��- . . . - , � , , � -1;1,�� q ,� - 1" t."�,, - I - - , I " � , �,_ .,� _ 4� , k: '� - � - �.. I - , - - I- -1 , "" '- , I ." � _; _ � .1 . .. - i - I - _ � 11 I , � I :_I,- f - I -�-., I . . I . I - . . . I � � - - -:, -� 1, � 1, �1�� 'I . . - . �,.; �, �: ��','�� , . c I "I - - '. GGHEE��'j�-6� - - ��`-) T , , � I � .... .. � , -� - �/ , , � .. - 1 �- � 1 �4,.�� -)-V,--,:��, .�4 � � �� ..- - I :.- "."11, I � , �xv*-- ,r,,,.,',, t I - - . � - - 'I -A - "I - 11, � �. � 7 ��, 17- 1 - . V, 11 0 �v , I 'N � , � - - -� P, ��,' �� -;,- - , - , , �, I % - , - -- , Q , - �. �, -',,,,-- - - r "T i�', �� - , , ,�: -i�': � �, ,,, ,�, ,- 0 . �_ - I �.,� , , �'i �, . - , - � I ,- , , - - , �� - � a . -, ,: -, -,�";- ,, � � - , , , ,,, z I i � . . ", - �- - , - . . I I I-` -11 1'--�� - � - -f- , q- - -,: �� - ��- )�- , z - - 1, � I I 11 I .- I I - Z" 1�� - I I � I -1- ., � I �� " , � --`, '�,�',',- ��,, � ;, � - � I 11 , - - I ,��, �-, '. , V', � " �,� t , I � . . � . - , ,;�� 71 � ' " � '' 1'1'2-111� -, � �1� �, - � . I I . I L I , . R. j 4 ", %� - -� �, ,I , �,�; 1� ". ,. �, - ,,�vj �, � �,� I = P � ... . . � " '%&',,-'-1-;-: � , ---- , " V , , ��'11�;- ,��,:,�f :� � " � I I I - , � I � ,��`�,. Z, � - "' ,�,, , i! , � , , i I,, � I � , 1- ,Y�-,�,� -\ , T ` �- �, : 1� , "' , ,,, '�� - - �: A,�;,.� - ':,. 7!M : I I , - �; ,*,- " -� - " - -, , � , . . �� - ,; . , , I -"- - � �. - I , -, , , . " ��.. . . `,�,,,,�',. ',`,',�`, � '. �',,��'v �:" I - . 1. a , , " - ". ;` ,�--,- - z . , -0 - " , . , 1- - ' I . - , , � -7�:- , . , / . � - �,_ R11 �K I , -,, � - I - - : � i;, �'� ;�.. ,,�, " /,�.--� �,,� -"�, ,,, - , � , , . . , . " / ::11-`--- �"- b - " , t . ( , N , -�� - ---�*� , - , ,� - 1, , ,i ��,- �', -- , -- ,,,, � , , ,'�, �X- - . t.� A � , i _ � , , � , - �, ,,- I -;�� . -��, , ,�.- , . , q- � ,� Z - -Y . . :� I . - -;--I � - � , - I ;,/�',�,��--,,-�� _:,;�"-j'�t '-- % - � ., I. -�r,:-,� ��, ,-'� 7, % :,7:, 1, - �- - - - - - :1 -� 1 , _ , , :� - - ,-. - , " I - .: , �, I . . . � - -- .", ,- --.-�,- ,__ , Y�-, �, -11 I - 'I" � ,� , 14��, -�-�k -vr"k , �- � ,� 1 -� , , --�, -�� - � � W - I - I . I , , �, , I I , . `�� - - - C, �- , I -,�`z z, Y;L -,,.� -N , . - ,' � d , , , � I � 1. ,'� F� ---,,,, 4,�`�` , � - - - ", , _ � , I I 11 I 11 . , � - - o� " I � . . _ � ,- = - � ,,� ,� , I I . ,. - -11, I -, , "A - I I - .w ) �� ,1. . I "-. �, ��, , � �- -� , �, I " : 11 : : � : , �!, ", " , EW - " I L ' -4. � - - , 16-�,� - - I , - , . I .�, , � 11:1 � . �, ''" 0 , . � � . . " �� ;" - � , - �. " , 1� , : , ", � , S - . � -- ----� . I (/Z,. , . 'r 'i, , ;�', �, - , 1 7, � ��, -- �1,'!',-- / , ,-.' �,, � � --- .� ,� � g, ��, - - I - - I - � - , - � ,%; �,.;4%- " � , - �,, � ,t -:., IV" I �O �7.', �� I I , - ,�-,�,, 'L � , -; --1%A, ";�"t- -�� - , ,;,;., - � I � I I - , -�� ' , -� - , ", Y -01,"r, N - . -0 . I I I - � �,-/- , , � ��N� i T. ',!�,,; 15�-' ��,� - - , t � 11 - , � . I / , - �,,�,� . t , A �% . _ ` �- "-)'(� � ---.-�-�,','-,7�`.'�'-`. "'., N- - I -, , , - . , , - "�L--, /,� 1 ,-:,;;, ��, -� � "�, � ��,�-in�r!-,-,--- - -,�,I�f-:��-, V'.'.--'-'. 7-- 'I.: -" - --,��;11-1 �1, �:,,, �.� y � .. � I � - 0 - , �t, r, - - , ` "�- � - . - , F�� -'t'- A7---� � " - 1 -"� - I - �, , I I ,� �, I- , , � , , , , �, �, , - �� , - , , , � I , . . , . . � , A �, .:�� I I - "� -- ,,,- - j-, - �i- 1 - "! - , 1;-�-,�7-s.,,, '�,.-,E :_� " , �q , - i�,�-��,- - I - 77, , , ,-, - ,--, T I � I . . . - , _A L- , � 2% -- 1',- -�--�� - - _,�"-,�,- - I " � I , F I . � . . I ,I � I � . �;�,�- ��,,,,,'Q,�-�Z�`,-�,�- - - - - , � � � , N , ", ,1 I . , . ', ,t, 4, � , - -- � - " , / ---�', - -., � -5, ��,, I-A� - - ", �, �N T -� - ;.- - �1� : . , ,� , ,, , �., , � - -��-Y! � , L I I - , I' , -L - - ?O�� - : 1� '�� -,'�, , �,-', �- ,Z�, �� 1.11.1, I JI/r, � XF,"'i -,, --- - , 1, :, �, -1 -� 1,',:%-!�; .:.�, � ; . , ,� � I .1 � � , I � , - - I f . ,/ , -..��,�;_:,111 , - I � . , - , - - I - . , , - . � , . , � -:;;��.�'-:�.'-- 11, I I , - � - , , I , .1, I , " (D , , - - - . �,,��,,� 4 - - - -�� - , _ , - -�,�,.:, ': �1� , - " -, b , , -'��' .1 , . -"r: M�, --'� , � _ ��. � ;�, .,-.14" - , � � , , , - . , , �, " 2,Z�,,,�� , s ��, ',� k; - --- . , , � , 1, ------ -, , - � \ - ,_�� ,, - Z � - I . � . - �- 11 .., 1. ,,, �� .',' . , (I -- - �. � �, ,/� � " , - nl� �' � �� - _ ' ,,.". � , � 11 1\ � 1,� , , � ", - �---,: Ar, �� """, -_ ,,k':, - . � , -L - �, , 11 I I . , , , -, - I I ,,, � - -,,, - -:;L,�,,,,�, . ', , " �, � , -- � Z, --'�-T /"�'K,' , � `�k: � , - � �� - � � �, � I L� � - 01, �n TE 1� ','j / `1. �'L:'� "'r� j- --�.;.f�'---�-,- :" L' , - I . 1� . .. "I ,� � ri,� � K - -, >- I Lui ,-- , , ,�� 1��` , I- I , , , fw� - � , - L' . ,� ", , -��,',' ,, -, �,. , � - � - � .-. 4; I I - - , I - - ,-I,. - � , , . , - . , , ', 1. - . ,,�, - " `,�,�!-:,, �, ,,�� " , ,;. . I , . I - ,�� -- . � - - 1_�.-,7��,:�', ::�':'�-:- "I 1-1 , , , , �. ,� , -, , -, � - L, I I -� , ,'� - " _ , ,7 1 . , � - I , - � , .. --7 - . L 11 � ";-", , , , " Z -W. - , e-11'1. -,�,, , - -, i� ,-: - g., . "' , � I - . �. � � .- - , -. -, � , - . - - -� � � I � - - - I ., , � ) " ... � -. �L/ I - , �w N-, , , , , , ,� �- � ". ��X;, -, , , , - , , - "I - - -- �, I - , , , . - 7, , , ,� , �-'A47C �,�/, -, - - -2� I - , - . . [-- -� . _:� ,w -� . . . � - , ,�, .�- . - , - -, -"% 1 P , - � " - - - �`, li�� A - � �' I � N-1 �g � z- - - I -- ' ' :1:� 1� ' ��, ". : -.'_-, �: :,," �,��', , ,I 11 � � - '? , , - �'- , � ,�� " )�1- � EL""'i ,-2,7, ,,,,: - .. .�� , , " , , � 1, - - � - , , ,� . , I � .. t'� . '- ", �--��- ,�;� - � � � Z, � � - � I 111x ,,-, , ,� , ,,�7-` , I -1 ��-, �� - , �, " � , - - , � , , � � f , -, �--,i-?," . �; , , , � �,- � ,'�/ , V -1 Z-, ,,:,,25�`,-�,, � "', ` . _ . , , _j -, � ,!.� - � � � �-, , - , - : , , I I - , - , - � �` ,L , '�,."�,��,�,��. , 'I _�', _ ;�, _.� _ _�� --- - - I .. , , - L, , I - � �, �� , � ,, � - � �', - -, - - " - I. , I � - .- � � - y-- F'," - ,- - � , - - I - I "'�,-" L, ' " -- ' " . , � � \ 1. . . ,� � , - . . . .. . � ': --,,, , ' _ . _ - I 1 \2�- ,-,i" , ��, -F -� . , � - , , , , �,, '. , , � , -, �, ,� - E � , � - -',,�,�-\ ,- -i-j".' Y. - 1- :",��,� �,N . . ,� - � ------ 1;1� 11 - ,� �-�-'-,L,;-'�7- '_ --L,�� 1, 4u, - . . - ,� I . / ' , � , , ", , - ,-� :, , � - ,-,� , - � - ;11 ': �-� - - 1 3 B , . %, ��,Z,111�1 ,,� - . - � I 11 - �, � , , .1 3c , j� - ,s, - _ ".. - _ '. . 1, - I -, � �, � "L ,� _ - -'. , '1:k.� . . , - -i,�:�'� ', ,,,�11'111-' - � ,-, '%: ,:�--'� � � - , , , , , I - < - - . � - , - - i , - I , 1, , i . I . - 7-'11 .e. I 'L ,,- �i" -,�-I.,'---,-�- , -�-,, ""', �, -----. -, - uLj , .��, � f-"-� -`k-" :�'��,, - . , - � UJI . � . I - .1 1, - 1, " -- `� - ", L1,; I I 1-1�� I � 4, , '' �,:- �, - � �, , - 1: �, - � , "' , -.�'�- I 1.,�-." -, � L, '. , '. L � - I I .. d - r� � -� ' �' �. ' . , � �� -,, , " ', "III: � ,,, , _ - - -- � , �gi- , �) , , Nkll 11 � . ; I � , �,� ,�� , "-,� � , L , . ",% , I , - - , , " - , - -- I I ,� ;�� ""If IL -: � - � 1� 1'�1�1� I ' 2�,�W�.�'�",-�� 'L ��P- ,- �-', , W, - , � % , � � - , - . �:�� :� , " � L -7- ',�, , - � 41.1 � -1 � , . , �!K ." - ,� : - - i . � , -, , -, ,L_ i , 5,: � �--,,i � " � 3 _ - -";! Q� � � - " -, ,i- � - - I , \ - � � '. . \ - -, ��,- "I '. I � ,�' "I " � , : , , I - , , - � 1, � - - �F- 41t -�l';,,�",�K,-,�.'s�l,",":,��","� ',-�' , , 11 I "I -1 - �.,- , . I ,� , a- - - -� -: � � "'. � ,�T *j��':�,�.-.,'�.:,--�lk-,,'�,�- - --- - - - �,--:�-,-- - \,,&� ��- - , �, I � � - 5B 1i , 1,� t � `,' -, , .1 ��L � , ,, I .� , I,.' I . � � � � , -( ", . R.Ir, , " -1 ' ,� -":�W L L / - I I - . I � � � �'. ,,"J - �, I �'111 , . , , ) I - I . I � r I - ", ,z , �., - - , . . , � - -x, `�,.-_ '-! - �,`;� I - - -1 -1-1 - z ", 4� ��- ,,�� " � � . I . " , , � , , , '. 11 � - I w .. - . . - -- � .1-N. kl�-' _�': I `; � 0 -;:,�:�� , :;",f/ , .1- R!�' , _ "I ��,, ,�.'�� L,: ,:,, ,., - - _ � � , I - - -, , i�-�"111`,L .� -,�:, �� .�",,. " '�,-��",� " Z . � _ � . _"T_ , ,;,�I,,. L , �j L - . . I , . . .1, -/ , � _ , 1- .. �- .. I I . � � � t, � - , , - " - -- " , -, , `-�,'��- �.,-,,�, � � ` .1 , � : " � � .F1 -,, : �--- � -, � 4A, --, . �, \ I- �1� ,1:c�-,- " - -XQ , � , � . � , - --� ,,, -�� - - Z 1-�-� yy',�--�Al� - . - I , --m , , I Or, ,. -. . I" ,�! �' , , / - TC , . .1 . , , , I , �� , i . - ", Z, li�,,� ,-.- - I � / �', ,�,, I" -�,:� , k�, . - , :7 . , I � I -� , ,.- . .It-,� �.. , I , Q� �- , , 61 - - � 11 , I 11 �-, , ,\ , , I --;'. � �' ' �� ' �, ., - I - I - - - - �'- ��,- I & 1,� "'' �. --7--'� "', �' - ,07,-�\� 1 ,41,� 4 -,-,/- - I �' - - , -.7, ,, -), � - - - �-� � , - �;, X�L- � I , , - "" - - , - - ,,L'�,- . '. I I , , -- - - - 1. " I - I � 11 - 1, -1 --- - --�� ' - 1- � , I , - - I . I - I - , " ' -' " L' ` I . : � I/ , - - - - ---,- - %- , "', J --k! "��-�� n- , " - - '-,'�;"'� N ,� , , 11 - - � -� , , - -, - - , , � � -:. � . � I � 0 � , -f---F,-U,,,-, ��,--� , tFOW-,, , , /,��,,�T a��`�i:`� , ,:� ,�, . , - - - _.� � ", -- I'll - - - - � _ k" - ! L ,:,,-' � - - , - - . ' . - ' I - � , , , � - . � ,- ., _ , : �', . . . ... � -1111111 "I � , � - ��--1�27--�� - �- -;� / - . .- 4 - " ,- �,/. --. % - , , 1 � � - � ,� 11 " ` - , �� ."w 11 � I - - Vl� , - J, � - '. , - �T� , . 1� -1 � - - � -- 9 , - / , - -" Z'�� ,�, I , - , �.' , . - - , z . I , � I -- - 'Z-'�--`�,:- ". , -, �� z- '.�. - , --' , - , , �,.:j,-,��.,, �,�,; 1, ,� �z -/ ,- '��f - 1, ` , , I �, _ 1, �- � , ,� �, I � � "k;� '-4, , , , !-;- ,-' -,w,L�T - . I I'll � I , ��,1�11. � , � I 111 --Tlq��,,!;,, ,-,,�`, -�7- , " � I - . , - �,f � ... , , I � 0 � . � - 11 �, �. 1, , - - �1' - ., - . I Z , � I , � - - -- � - I - - T ::: - ��. / -, � , " , � I -, ,� I � -�-,-� - , �',� A -1.17 . , , ' � -,,I,. �� - - � � I � 17- �!��! lk�- I I 1 ,,, , ,,, , - ------ .- . I " - � I , , , " , , 11 ,vvw � - - , , ;�:, -�\7-,:-C,�-, ;.' , �� -, ,, " � I 1, : � : - � - - j --;, : : . � - , " ��-, , , 11 -11 .1 I � I " �,� t- Is - . L . I - % - �� .;"/ I 1 � - ,� � - ,,-� .--, - I 1, � 1'1� , ": I I , , 1 ,,- � , - , ,.� ,,� ", ,,�,- , . I � -�\, - ------ 1-1 -,- , �� " , `�� -, ', , I \ ,� ... � . - , " ,-� , . - , I , -- - - 7��# 1. 1� ; L _ , , , , � � / , - - 1 � , I , , 6s, '- -,�_, -- �-,�, , - �, -,U �Z, " -.1 I , , �,, - , - - , � , � ,. I I -- � -, �, L .. , �il �11. L - - .� . � I , , , , , �, � , �.- � �� , � -1 - I , - �� _ � ',L I I �; -- �,;, � . , , , � q,N I . ,:, '_ ,t� � . I , IL � ' , - . . I - - ,5` - - �x - , I 11 - - � , .� v 1-1, ( 1 "'�L�...� ..", 'i" , � , , , - �-- � - _ '- , - � , " � I , , � , _ , `� � ��, , , . � � " -- , '! J- ': , , , 1, " � 7� \ - - I � I , , �,'� ,�.�� , i I - " ,2� % � - "� L ,- - I - , �, � I -j ' ' 'L - - 11 - .1 1, - I - , ---, '7-17-'��[ � 7 `�' I ", -- -, I - �,';-',','- �,, ,-,� ', , , , � ,� ,1 I I ' , : , 11 � I �-" , �, , I � I , - , . r . I I I , , ,-� � - ,� �� - " � I � - � � I , -1 .. I � - - I - I " - 4��,��: :z 1 �1�111 . .1 ,, I � , , 11 X -,-:,��, -, , '" - I �11, -- � ", ,�,� I '.�,,, � - �., ��,� "- � . , - � , 11 11 � , -- -- " q�� , - - , , _ , _ , � I I - I � I " ''. ,- ,-;L,;-.� - - . , � - 11 1, , , , "', ,��`- r I --,�,-� � �-�� ;�,�, I � , - � , ----,,\ , -- - � - .. ."��:-- -,",- ,� , ", �� -.i 4' -' ' .' ,k:,/ � , ,- , -, q- ,-L,-__",_-,-', I - - �:� N -� �: , . , - , L, - , - , �,," - 1) , ,,,. � 11 --- - , 7� - . , , - , � � - �, - � � "", , , "�': ��, � 41�4, �, , � L�� - ,'� "" �-"' - � , . -, - -- �, ��, �:�,�i 2'' , � 1, .- - u , , ,,, bt, -- .. - -11A� -- , ": � ,'�'. �-;, 1--�`,--:-,�,� �., �`_- � . - R, . � �� I �.-, � 'I. . , , � :, � I "I' - --2& , .,:ri, " - . ` I ' � , ` , -f�;v ., , � .� V, � � . I I , I � ,� �,,�-_ " I Z -i - I .-:, , ',.�,,;" 4 " � "'' . ,. .�� I ,� , - ,:� , ,; � - � -, ,, , - 11 �,�,,, - I- - " `�- - - ,- I . � �F�, "I', I'll ��, , , . �\ ,- I - �, _- � I --! � � . -11 - . -. - I , , . , -: 1. . ',',�'. ,�3'. ,,��,, - -1 , - ��f,�,-,�,.,�,/, -�/,,' 33E '� ' , -1 ,-, "' � ,' � 11 � - - �- . � ` , , -- -, , , , , , " '��i, t." - - � i,` �A,��,�,�,,� F--�-`,-,� - , �,� � - ': �z�V " �z- , -, - , El� I � � - I ,,,,,, �� i i, ,J 11 �� "I I , � �, I I - - . -e , I I -'--,--1-f" - - - - -- " ... ... : - -�i '�, -��,�,- , , � - I , � , , w", � -, , - - I I - 7 - � -- ��_� �:, / i a --, � -,,�-- % , --76, , I I ", I 1� .\ z 1, - � - -" Q/ 2- 1-1, I �1, - � _ , 11 . , �-�' - - !-� - , , �,;A,i g�� , - , , , , :�: " � I , ;� ,,' g /M A �- , " - ,- � - I .11 839 ,:�, , Y " , , � � , , - I 1,--,,�� I -, , I � - �-11,-` 11,;411 � 3� , I ,;, ,--." � , � I , �, I ,� - . I , e,>--, - , - , , " , 1� "" -,-- - , .,i -.� , . � � -. . �� - . - . / -� �'� �. � , , - , " - , , - . ,!��;-'e�� r ">, 0 . -� . . ,\ . , , - �- , - -� ;, ,�� ., - - , � ,Z �� 'L, - - - - ., " r- t� - - . , , . , ---'-11,- 751 - ,'.,� ,,,, ,,� � , , g , --k,"71 �,.- :, " �, - I � 4 , , - I 1 --- - - 0 - "�, ''�, 11 0,, � < - 14 / ��" t�, " , - ��,� -, _-_-,,- �*gl � < . - , . - I I � , . , . - . 11 1. - 11 11 � ,,�,�- A , , -,�"---, f��, --- , - , " � , , - ..". � � '--.- �` '11x , , � � , Z, " ,� �� - _� - - � . % .. -� � . - , � .--- L� J, ". I 4 ,� , , ,�', " � , - - , , , --- � -,--, �- - I , - - �:- - � I .-:,, , Z�-Ag,-T, --',-/_,-,/ , ,-,�%,� � 7 �� -�� ' r I'll I I � - --1111 "' ., � , - �-�, . , ��, , I � � � , '7�-��, , , , -� " j , ? -7-,-,,',�,4,, �- - ,� ,�,�� , - � ", , "�,�- " ��, �0�1;� -��,�,-��-,, I �., -"�,,�,,� 'I", � -", � � ,;�, � It � � "! � �, 'n D- 6 I � . , *= I I , . , , ) � , J. � � �� - - - -- � . ......... �, - -, ; -X-'�,k 5B, " , , " , , -�1,13-1- , , ;�4 1"A4i �,,,,.�� ,�,�.' -� , �,; ,- ,,�,_-,, ", - --", �� ,,� - I -1 - - - � � � _ . , . --, �' , - - , - I , v � � " 11 - , � � I . . , , ,-�, - , ��; ,, - ---, �, .t,'�- ,�, - - - 11 �:, 1 , � , ,�,z: - � , � � ,/ - - - , , V. , / �� - , , //,-,-, � 6 �� - 1 - � n -11 ��' - , "i A-Zt I'L::,� " - ��, - - � . 32B � 4;P L, -& ' & ' , -�', "I , - 7-,A55', : � , -, ,,��' '7�, '�-, - ,�- --- �-;3�.---�� ;,-- "M � �, , _ \ ,�, , -/5"' ,-�� `�, ��', , ,,, _ , , , 11 - -, � , � �' _. ,n - I --- / ,: , , ii � . , - __ - - . -% . , I . 2 -- �'t-\-- , - �-, ie . I -%, , . - � , , � � . . - i,-`�- ��-` ---,��,,,- .,'�,, ,%-, � ,- IZI I � - � '-,'� `� 4! S � )", , 1�-" � 1 -, --_ ,", � , L� , , - : � - I " , � - . I . , � �z -Rp;� I", � �,, �'Lr�� 'l " ' I !, ( .�, .: , � , - , �p , _ , � _ , . , - � � � . , X "'. "I "" ,� - , 11"I 'I, -i - "" _ "" " " _�- � 1\17 �- I ,Z \ \ , � "" , _�_ Z� li-, ,- J . - 4L 4.� " _ � . N ," P,�� ,� , _, _ . , " , - , - � � �, ,� , - � - , -, I " � � - . - �, " �7 �� I - - � ,� ,�� - � � - " - ��, , ", , " , i . , , , " , -�' , ,\ ,,- � , I - " �, - : : - � / .\ .. . � I �1�1 - , I � !;� '� I / I : I � I �� ,�,,--�', I �', " I ': , �! , " , � IV 0 ,� I - - , - , L - . � -- 4 . ss - - - - " - -.--�z�,-",- , , I " . , " , .1 -1 , � �,:, - , . - - � I's I -"-�-` -:�-'i,�,,��,,�,�:,�,,�,-�-,��',-�,�,-,,'� 1- - I "-- . � , � .1 � -- � � - -7 1 1 0. - I --�, , 1, -1 -. �� :, , In7l , - " - ,,,� 11 - I - " � �--. �_-,. "'11., - I 1. - �, , �, t�', "', ,, - ,,,- � - �,,��M- , �!' � -- 1` I 1� �. -,�",\ ,,� -,�:,- , -, � I ��_ ,, , I - I - . I � , " - - --/ , � � � "��-- , - - , - , , - � . � - 1�� , - - I - I � -- I --� I � ./,�- , - �- ��' , �-�' -� ��, , ;, � . I - I - --��, ":, �,:, - � . 'L.,� � �� , 1, - - - 1 - /-- , -� -4_ � I - - I �, - ", , " . , I I , , . &P - " � '� -- -�" -- � , "I'll . - � " � , - I , � , ,-- - I -- I , , �-/- - �t:" , n , I I :�� I , I 11 -�-, � , , - , N U) I , , , - i � - - 1. �, 11 1: � L ". " ," - - - -4 �t-,' �-', -', �� , � .� . � -- � , 11 �, I , - .-A '. � - -<�� - -,,� D- -1 ' - �1� �,,� , � �, ,, -- - , � , .� , - , /- -,"": " 4 ��L, � ,, 0 0 1 1 ; ; - - . .� I I , �4 . � - - , , ,!� I - -� . � 'L '.�yl 4� r' I I .1 ...... � 4 1 C; / � --i R,�,�, I I , �'111 , , , , "' ;:--,�:-!5r-�,:4,;,�.'4" - 1-21, ,,- , - - ,� 11 11 ��f,:,,,,'-, ,,:� - � I '/1111 , - , � _' /! � " , I .� -. , , . , 0 <1 I "-'- I I � I 11-1 I - - � . I � - , - !,-V � . , � - , � , I � � , � ". - 1, 1-1-r- �� ` 2 - , ,'� � � ".- � - - 0 -,. ,�� -!� El - - -0 - i -� . - -,, - , , 1,- 1 I , ` 1, , A-�' 'If ,-�- I - , , -, - � --�-- - -- , . - . � � , I- �� "-'-- /� -;� -- , , - - , � ,�, - -, , , - --� �b , . - * , - , I �. - - , ,. . - , " , , - t - , "; �,,,;�6' " -7- , . , ,- , ,�F _4, A'Cy , - � "I ��,�, - - ) I - . �) r , ,11�4�-� - I �', ;�. �, _ �� :, -. , - �� , -, - -, --,, - -�, , , /,�t , �', "' "I 11 I -," ,<--�� , - y -,--�,_,, -,� - ,-"Y-� ',-�-ii-,�, A -, 11 � 1, I " I I 1, w , , z , � . N �, �,,-� . � : I I . � � � . . � -i=WA -�,` �-i, - " " 1. -111: I � ,,, - ,�,�\. , --t-:7 --- �- - ,�,, - �, � �,i-,�,,z�,� � , , ,�. - 11 ----:,- '. ,� - . - - - - , - � K , , i ,� , I �,L-:, --'I' 1: , ;, ,� - , , I ( , - , -r . � - � - - 1� I I , , ,/ , I , -� I , ,1 , , / � -��. ''I . I 1. - -- , - - , ", , , � , I , . -1-1 , - � -1 1," �-, . � - - - ! ,f � , , � � . - � '! - - , , � , -- - - . , , ,, -j�� ,�, I I 11 - .111" 1k I - , , ,;, , , . , . , 1, � I , � 4 � � I -1 , -1 -��, i - - - - � �",4,�,� , � I , , -� - . i- � I , , � -�, ,� 5 � -:�,,��',,',� -',`�, - - � � . � --- . - Y 2' " . - ,� : 1�1 , ! 0� " � - I , - . I & , I I � ,L - , , , , - - " - � - 1. , , . � , - � . - , - , , I ii� 1�, -- - - , - , . . --d .' , "!�!,---1-1� r " v -��/ ,�7-,�s I I I ) 1 ,\� , 0 -, , �7 - , - � , . < ,q, ,-4�-" -�' � " , - , , . �� , , , I I � . , "z - I ;, � - I , . �� /--, -�,,� - �, � �, �L- � � ,� '�' , - " , � L �� ,, �, - . . . - , *- . �x z�: 1� - I ,� ,�, - ) , , � � - , 11 - , ,,, ', : �- --- I - � , - - - ; I I , � , � � , - , I - - -"� , , ,'' � , - ,,-� , , I -�` "" 6 - - -,;': � I . I -Z) �g A, . � . z� 7, , ,� � �, , ,�, - � � . 0 cl� � - �,'- . 1-� , ..... I I - 1;� � , - �,, , , , I --Z� ", i-� , - -ir , - �, - � -11 . -.�.��, - - ---',,-�, .I.- ,% I � I , -�; `�-, ,�?,-�, , ,, . f I - ... I - ,Z�:, ,,-- - - I" -- �, .. ,, , s 9, -,, , :, ` I _Z'.'.�-, �k I . I /,�.,,-,, ,� , -L - , " , , - , , - , - , I � , [ M . , - - , .1.� , , - - � I I & A��-,�, � '. -� - ;,/1 1; 1, �- 1, 7 .11" - ,,, ,6 ' Lt `4 �� I I I ; , 111�1 � , . - , -1 , , . , , Feet - - ,,, , �. , -1\ � " (L'I I �, � 11 -11-�W- L, , , �,- '3- - �g � � � - � I , - L� Li �, , , z � , , � �: � � � ,-7t��, I-, -- .1 . 1, , - � -:� " . I I � 32 - Y, �-- - ��! --,. "'L : 1\ � "I - -- ,,, - ,:� �F� , ,,� ��`� -:�Z,,-m,;L �-,, / /- �� ,,,� � � ��- ��- , ,�, ,�/,, . , , 0 , , . � 0 -11- , � - __, - 'i, , � � % , � - > � . � 1, I � -1 \ � , ) 'j-, , - I � b13 � '--1 ;�,z", - � - - ...... . - , - 7 , - - w , -.--� , , , - ', - mm -1 - -- . I � I I -1�i, ,',Tw,--� W., ,� -',--�-,w I � � -7 �, -1:11 - - �" . ,1 v - :� - / . �� -4 , , i',�,,� ,',� � . : , - - � /��,- - ,`- I I - , ", 1:1�' � -, � � , I I �- � 11 I , I � -'. , � I I , � - � ' , � ,V',��%,N ', , / " r_-�f:,L,---� ', �� --A ,,��, :11 ,�_;-_ �,� - � � I , , -g-i j;,� " '", I - I , ", � - , I 1 � ;, I " -- �,.",- 1��- � - -- - I I 1 �.17 1 1- 1, � I "' 1- -- , � , ;', " T �-, - "' ' 900 450 - I , --, � � � � - , 900 , I I z I �� I --i -1� �, � ,,� " ,,�,V� - 0 - - 11 - � 1, ----,-I'. , "o , - -.. , � !�', j '" , � , . . �,�,aL- ' , \ 1� 'I" 1� � n�,4 - . � -��15�'f " 1,��j f�-_- �, - �- ", �, -,-, ,�-, � I -/ I % , ,' - - - � I., 0 -� tZw , f, -z . . (� , � , - /'�IL"k`, "' ", , - � I 4t�,� ---- -! LLI L I L � - : , I I � ,""' ! 11 ; - / � q : .. I , � .L - � - � , , 7 - ... ., - � ,� -, , \ I _ , , , � - .. 5F I ,,� - , � : , ' - , "Tj - - , , .:rl.;, 1, : -n:�:.-�Ik- , � I ,�, - I _ �,O'-,--. � I - � -3 1 . - � , , , .. �- - � , � - � - , - I - : �-�,�,k-�> , i,�� , , � , - �` ��,' , I "I , , I - , - �, �;� ) i -A , _1� . L . 1� � �' . 1�1 /Z- . , . . . '.,-�111 - �:_�;,� Y, , ` -,,ii��v, ,,:��, - - 1� , . ,�,--7,",,i,., �-�). -. ", I 11 f,�z, ': ,,, �: , , ,;�-> . ,W1 I � . - � . i - 1� -1 � , � , �-,:., ., i -,: I . -- " j I 1, -" I I � t-,"': , . , ," ,��,---,:'�- �- , "I - - - - � �, 11 11 I , , . 0 �� - Q,� � 1�,fi�:f �W,,/� �,-� - I �� - I � I I � . ,,, I � " ,� - �- , , � , -�-� � I - ' L- � ' " -,� j�_,- � N -: �--��t�l - /�,'t, �,-��-,, '\�, � ." ,1111 , '� �- � L 7 ' , ' _7��'�--;" "- -:-�- �� ' ' - .,- L � "' �, � "\ I I '', , � ' I , L, - - � - _ ') �, - - �Z,'- - - ,,, , ,, - w - .. - I I ( :�' I ,z � .� �1' 1.), - �'t 11 - I I � A �� -`-�-, ��/:, - , .,�, " ,� , , TT '-� " �-- 1-- - I I �i I - � , J, � - - ) I I I - .1 *-- ,",�4"', � , , - , k' 32 B'--,�--'i`�" v , , L�,�--��,.":�J " � - 1 7., IMI", � I 11 - , "; - 1, 11: �,� : ,�- � -a , �� - ,, - I - � I � I .1 � I " _� ' -� I'll -,,-�.-- 1 �2 - 11 � , �� 3 13', - , " � , , �� ", - �, -.1 , - �, , � �� - , ,; 'I, ,-,�, 0 . ,!' , I.:-", --,�, " , �-m� , -- - � �- , \ -, - - -q J� , " , I . I I �1, - \ � -� - -.: , �11, - � , ��, I . �. I I - P -�7�i -1 I _,-�' I � , , , ,�,--, � �: - , - " , -- I " 4' 11 - . y, , - � � �� I - I ;,--�, , , k�ll .4 - ' ' ��-L� 11 � � I , -F . - U , - ,%,, �e� -1, I P - ,- �L'. , -!--:�, - - I I �, " , , . 11 . � � ,j� 4 1 � - �, �. � I I �- � � 11 . -1 -- - L ,.j - , � 'Y � � � ,� �,',�' � , � I -Z � -',�,5�1 - 1-M - loll , � . el. - , , - " '� \�,,-�-n :, , , :� X -, . - . : �, ':N -��', : - �� ; :,: � � :� 1, ',�, �` I --111�1 11 - Yv- , . - ': 1- I � " , , , , I . I 7�, \tz , -,�',1�� ,,,,v,,�`,,,' ��-�� , , -� I ,- - , < . I . 4, � - , , I , -. , � �N ,� -,�` ., " L " � ,,, - - �- . �� ,- , I -, I 1'� � ", : -k, ,� -,� , , -, - �,- ,,��",g", ��,,�,4�-:, ,'-`,')�' -'- � � -L� � 11 - . . � I , -�� - - ,,o; I ,,,, � .!� -,�, � -- 7, -� , ,, - , "' _ - I � I ,,,, - N, s, ,- .;I � --;&,� /:� -1, A 1: . , I � � , . � . I , 1� �.,,�, ". -,, ., , : �\r ,,.,��,Ll . , -11 ,, � ,� � - 1, � I � - - ,� z � 11 All _ " � 1 2� ... . 1 I �-- , ,- -, " !� ��, - ,: , 11:, 0� �'. - " 11 - ,� , � , -, I'll I/,'- 1- -1 I L �, ,,, , � " ,, , I , - �� ,, - , , I ,: I , , ��. I " � 11, `q� I - ��,r,, !� " , ,- --__- (D .1 11, z, � , "I ��-�- -, - .: � - - � . ��"' lj'�'- 1Z L , 4 � ,1-L I I I I - I ,� 2, 11 - n,�, � - ,�,,� ,,- ,- w , I I -;, - I � 1� , I ,�, � � , - L - -11,1 - ,,, -,�,` " , 4 , , ,� , , 'v - &N 1��M "I � � Z.1, � -"�- I � il , ,il,�-,2;,�', ,�� ,`,,�,� -,,z:�,�', ,�,,.- .�--', , , _ LqUe n d -� ,�11.,�� - . ��,r, , - � � 'L"�,� "", Ti, � , --- � , "I NEE ,,,...--, "5N74 z- Z . , �', -:, 1��,',�,- 11-1, , 1- - , - �: . � - -� 'L - , - , � - 661 � � 1, � � " " , , , - � ; - ,� ,: �,��,'��,�,-',� �� I � � �11 - , I - , . I -��, , ,1111,�r ", � , , , . � -.1 --, � � � �, '': � , ,� � � , . - '%� � , , '1'1;�,,-,-,,,"--, � I I � I " :' ' � �1, . 11 - , � L 11 I I � I 11 11, I - 'N, ',� '�'� �' � �" - �: ' ` -� '- �, , ,_- z -- � - 7 - -�\ , , I 11 . I.' .- � -.0 "- ,-- - '!� , . I ,,z�3 �3�g �0,'-� - , ggr,7�77�,.-�, 1�66, 1 I- " 1 2�- I -_ - , � , I ,. �_;,s� , "L -�-',.i, .- - -, 1. -� -,"', I � , , � ,,��,,, 11 - --- � - � -- , . -7��,�-�. - , -,�'- - "I �-� , ,�, :, -- .- , � ,� �': . 117�;, '- - , I ,� , , �, w I '-, �, w I I ,, _1/ L � , �' . ' �: �'."\ - ,,-- ,- � ": �, I - , , , I 11 � � , , - - , � . .1 � , , , " " w , , . - � � ,, - - , � . - - � - . � 4r?e-'�- -, -- ",,',�,-_" , �17 --' - 11 I 11 �`--1,11,-`: -,v' �,L�� - , , -,�, -� 1111�, , , , � - , - , � , -1 - - /- � - . � � , I - Y-� I " ._,_ ,saillmore., & ulliv, - ��,; 7 - , - 1- - j, � ': , -,.:-:, ,,�, � � f"- -.; "'' 111� `1",",----- �J, , ID � ", - : , ,,�: - �,�, , -, , , . Graystone Corporation Pr -, . - � , -�-r �w 'w- - ,,�,\ - 't :. . -j�� ! - , L " , " � ,40'1-`-,��,� .W`��,-, � I � � � -, � " : � ,1 ,'', - �i-� , , , �_", ", , . operty I ."i �: �, ,� , , -,� '-__ , ' �',L-�' _ I 11� ,� I �,j' �� 1, � �,, � ,�,�",� -, " .", , - -� �k�� , Nt , ': �, --,�:T & - - . � - - - , - -11 1-4 �. � - , I 111�,�� I - , 111. �z �Z)" - � -, , -, A , � ,:,:t - - U I � , I �� , ,,, �.11 - -42 � - : - , - , , 1, , , -, ��, - "*, � , , " ,.�,� , ": �'�, " �, �* - - - �N ��, �-- �,K �- �, ,,,,, '''', " .�, � .1 , , L' . , , 7 - -, . , , I �, - � , � - � , ��T-, - " , 1. I,- I 1 I'll, '1111-1'1-� /? " �, 4,z' �,� �'. - 0 �<;o . , � , - k-" - 7" `,-,-� ,� 1-,n.- �, ,-,-.,�� I L"f � I , - '"' �, , �� -�, / - " �,,,� I , ,, -,, 1, � L, � � '-,�, �� , ,�� , � , Qu, , , , - , -�,-�. ,-�� 5: - I , � �, , - / "'I,., , ,,� I � . I I'll I'll , ,� � 4- " 'I, , -11- . / I --�--,, "4 - 1�1� "I , , I ',�;'l 1�',', �",'�'l L ,1 , - - . , .� � , � - , -.---- ,- , , / . 'I � , - �,- : �, � . - ,, -� -0-7,-I--,� , �1� 7 If , � , , , L , - - & , -7 , ,� � , , A, � �. "I " ,- , � - i'� I -1 , L I , I I I , . , . � ,,- i 1��, I � -, � , � ` g -, �', , , . � , , - J�,--" , , - I , - - �, , � e� �. . ", , , , - La - , - I I I - , .- �-.l �1, "��:i ," ", , ,t . , I , ,,, � �- � , � � , f - - - , I " ,,""':! - , . I - , � ", I I � , � , ". - i , �, I rll, , , - -�--. , , , - I I I � . I -111, �� 11/- 11�1 -,,- ,- " � - , , L., t � ----- � ��- :. - ,,, , �,, "'. ', 1� - - I I . L I � 1, I 1-- I-- in -�,Q � Z4 ",�.� - . " ,,, , -1 I - ,�, , -,-� - 11 , , - , "-4,-. � - , , , "' , , � �-� - ','� - , ,, � -..- - v, I - � � ,- , , > - - I �---51�il�;, : - �,�,- � �x - - ,� , - , .'- .14. - -1: , L , ` � N� --� - ( r ; , , - , , , 1 � I" I Z, -, 11', I � � �', , , , ,�;_�� I I � I", , , � , - ,,". , , , , . , � -.��, , -�,47-3�,.-%" � - - " , I . � , " , 11,1�1 - - , , , , : -1 � 11�: _" , - _��,-' , - � - 11 - 11'11� D� (-) 0 I �Z7= -- , � Parcel Boundary - � , , F" , , ._ - - �, , - .. [ I - - , -1 I -, '' , , "' - � ��-! '/,"� w E < w - -, -, ,\- '�' -1-11 �,--1;11�.�,11,09,-q,� � � � t, ,'��`��,,�,� ,,�' ��4f'z` -�-, - � � , " � . " I - -,_`�,',',�1'11 .1 .,!. I 11� ,/ - - _ ,:,� J, I I - �', , ,� , , , � , , � - ... � � 4;,- � � I . I I . j I ,� I . ,,�,i�i ��,," , --1 i�� , --l-,", '--�'�,,,' -,�M-';; 0, - (D � - , ,,z4�- �', � , 11�1v- -- , - ,� , " , , -�, , , , N . , � , , , , �,�,�,,�":� -* , , ,� -'4� �� - �. -- I 1, -- 14 I'll , ; "- - - - - LA, --.1 -', , , - T, Z" Z � .� - - 1 11, - , , - - - - � . . ,� '' - ,< � ",!". �11, ,I,,,: , � , -,." �,7 - - - 't 4 � - -"- , - , - . : -,-`1 � '- - I % �, :,�: , ,,, � �,� � � � �, �, , " " , -- , ��- : F , I F � N 1� , �� , , ,� �, " , - � -�, � ` [�,� :�� - -1 - �, � - , - , -11 � , � , ,- -�'- , . " " -Z-� , T - �-, - � -',I, � -,�,--,,l � � - , , �` -: � , - " --�', �� 'm, � 0 U) Z U) � �%%%% , " , -, �-- - -- I ,� � ,,� � I ,� - . � - - - A - � I L 11, - , � 11 �, �t- , - , ', � ; N, ,,�,,�,,& � - L-1 0 (D LLI - � Cc -9- , � � '. � �;, * Ir .� 0- ,, : -i , �:,. P, Spills Le nd --11,11-��,,-,�;, ,.r 5: 0 11 qe --- - z . - - < , -'A , " , ,�.�q 0 ,�,��: �',,,'��', , 4j , , �- �,�';� , - 25 k, , 14B, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAMS, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES 33E, OPEQUON-CHILHOWIE SILTY CLAYS, VERY ROCKY, 15 TO 45 PERCENT SLOPES 6C, CARBO-OAKLET SILT LOAMS, VERY ROCKY, 2 TO 15 PERCENT SLDPES ,'�, I , , I 0 E >- (D �,1�11 1'�� 11 - li, " - " , ,� �-, , W I-- r- i7in� . �'��`, z , = , - - !� Cl) i.- z " - ,� ,-;�5," F ---,-,--"Il �,`f�-`�*,;� 7C CARBO-OAKLET-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 2 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES � or- -j U) ::) 6 .-, it - 14C, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAMS, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 313, BLAIRTON SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES , - 41 0 - I . M i � �,�-�,�:-� 0 I", ��-11 r -------i 13- Cf) ' � 11 [�-., 16C, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO LOAMS, VERY ROCKY, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES I -..'-.�-",',� F77771 8B, CHILHOWIE SILTY CLAY LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES V,,��,� A Cr_1 ui LL I - I .��-_.� 41 B, WEIKERT-BERKS CHANNERY SILT LOAMS, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES I ',� -,.,:�, � --, :5E y - �, - �� k, I ELI , -1,0 0 CD ;'! . . . . . . � 11 ,� � - . . � �� C) -i (-) , � - 6� om , , !. . .1 �� 1, - ;; - �, , LAY LOAM, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 1.11 , � !� .11"" �, 41 C, WE RY SILT LOAMS, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 8C, CHILHOWIE SILTY C lff,�3�' 17C, FREDERICK-POPLIMENTO-ROCK OUTCROP COMPLEX, 2 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES �1 - - -i LL i-, = I I ,- I ,� ., w < Q� - u) .1 - �� I z �: LLJ -i6 � . 1: -,� ,,';, I ��-'-'-1�11- 9C, CLEARBROOK CHANNERY SILT LOAM, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES I I'll M 25C, LAIDIG VERY STONY FINE SANDY LOAM, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES I - � 44C, ZOAR SILT LOAM, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES - � 0 LU 0 :3 s� cD u �� -- ,�� l'-1--l"..."�-.11. ,� L� 1-- W cD (D � - '. I - --------1 z cD �- , �,, .., i �� , I 1�- --2'r I FIG r a y', s � lli� 11 I .1'. 1�� i I � 11 IM"A I -----� --, 1� -1 - - , - , ,� ,1�� / I 1� I � I I - - I - - - - - " I -� ", 1 U) 0, � I W, WATER I ''. C , I - 32B, OAKLET SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES i --'� �" , 513, CARBO SILT LOAM, 2 TO 7 PERCENT SLOPES ! � - � , � , ,1� � , , � , zz ,'�� 1. - I-- - � -- , 11 . . . . . . . . . . -111 - - -i �;� ""I - "Ill: � , , ��, -�� . �1_ * ,'� � U) cD '17, _:� �1, : " I - � � - , I F-7 -7 17 � �-, I ,� 0� - - 1- �', - 32C, OAKLET SILT LOAM, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES 5C, CARBO SILT LOAM, 7 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES � ��,� (D 6i 177 ; ��-`,,:-� ".,-, � � , , s4 Li _j �,-,�' , - � - . I � - I- I ,;.� I 4-11-� 41 I--- < I - - -- � I - 1', , ,,� 1� I " 1� 1, � � � ,7-_, 1 : ,; a ... - - - - -:!:: 111 - . 1, - I - i - I I < 0 , �-1,11- - ! ,,,� �,� - ., � - , . , � " .- ) 4� : - - I ..- I 0 -, I � � I " I i , -� , � :-1: ., '/'� , �, - , I u) "� . � I - - � , -�'-11 , -�� , -. "6.,-�� 1, , I � , � I 11�1z; .1 ; - , 1. ,-� ,,,.,,- Lk:!7,",-� -�-.,� � "��-,. I I 11 . I I '.--�� , � .- - ., ,,I,-. � ., - " -�, � 11 ! �!! � , �7 �,,� =7777777�1�,� -, - 7 - ; ': � .1', " - %, � � �:,� j : -, �'L' ' " ,,�'.' 11". I . / 1, I Y.� 1,111 , - , ,�,--� � , �,� "";��',',/ -'�' � I L :. / L, , �� y I - ��,.- ---- ,, �� ,-�- � L'- - V, � ' �- �--� � .". � , -, � 'I' �. Z, t!, �, -, % , , - - ., I . . . . . . . 1 W - - ' -� �', I '' 77 TT - 7 � i 77,7, - -, -------E7- - , I I 77 � -7 7 -. 777777 , 7,-.- ot, A", � � � , � , -��".A � "' . � - - � � , � - - - . - -f- . .. Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, May 2009 Data *SS1 �L- N . W�OzE� S o.,1+➢:Wore &'Ohio,RR Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, May 2009 Data 127 s depot`. elf _ Graystone Corporation Property Historic Features Map J g C _ �'�� • , < _ ''ti's. •ti.. - .= tf 838 34-112 Taw 44 A 25 7.-� ?F � t- LU o f LIJ a- 0 ILOclD } m Z U) t O LLJ ❑ z � z Q _U O `z^ iw 0- Uj 0 c U `) U 01� V !i1 O z `r to v/ F) U) `) o Q f� Of Q 0 o �= W �rLU ;� Q dT1','' LL[LU N tL w 34-1124_. Legend 44 A 26 Graystone Corporation Property { i Parcel Boundary Landmarks 43 A 158 { �'�tiFR- 34-112 Carter -Hardesty House { ( 34-1124 Byers House REDBUD-RD ' f 34-135 Godfries-Semples House 34-703 Helm -McCann Property 34-727 Rutherford's Farm �i �ailefaeld M�� , 34-729 McCann, Thomas House 34-950 Milburn Chapel & Cemetary v ufi 1 0 - Civil War Battlefields f wy FeetMINx Stephensons Depot 900 450 0 900 Third Winchester � t- LU o f LIJ a- 0 ILOclD } m Z U) t O LLJ ❑ z � z Q _U O `z^ iw 0- Uj 0 c U `) U 01� V !i1 O z `r to v/ F) U) `) o Q f� Of Q 0 LU o } m t ❑ LU _U g `z^ OIL `) V `r Cr Q v/ F) (D `) o f� z0 Q > o �= W �rLU ;� Q N tL w O O t-- O U � w L LL U 0r --(U w 0 o O Q o 0) z to w 0 @ 0 :r ''t z w o (n O Il LL NQ L C U) T o uJ Q rr ❑ U) rGRAYSTONE OFFICE & NDUSTRIAL Traffic Impact Study Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Tax Map Parcels: 43-((A))-158, 44-((A))-25, 44-((A))-26 & 44-((A))-27 August 24, 2009 Prepared For: Graystone Corporation 1057 Martinsburg Pike Winchester, VA 22503 Contact Person: Michael C. GIickman, PE, PTOE KNOINEERING r 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Telephone 540-662-4185 Engineers FAX 540-722-9526 Surveyors w-ww_greenwayeng.com Table of Content Demotion Pam# Report Summary and Methodology .................................... 4 Existing Conditions........................................................ 6 Phase 1 Development Description ...................................... 10 2015 Background Conditions ............................................. 10 Phase 1 Trip Generation .................................................. 14 Phase 1 Trip Distribution And Trip Assignments ..................... 1.4 2015 Phase 1 Build -Out Conditions .................................... 14 Phase 2 Development Description ...................................... 20 2022 Background Conditions ............................................. 20 Phase 2 Trip Generation .................................................. 24 Phase 2 Trip Distribution And Trip Assignments ..................... 24 2022 Phase 2 Build -Out Conditions .................................... 24 Phase 3 Development Description ...................................... 31 2028 Background Conditions ............................................. 31 Phase 3 Trip Generation .................................... 35 Phase 3, Scenario A Trip Distribution And Trip Assignments..... 35 2028 Phase 3, Scenario A Build -Out Conditions ...................... 35 Phase 3, Scenario B Trip Distribution And Trip Assignments..... 40 2028 Phase 3, Scenario B Build -Out Conditions ...................... 40 Conclusions.................................................................- 47 53 VDOT Scoping Document ................................................ Appendix Existing Traffic Count Data .............................................. Appendix SYNCHRO 7 Analysis Worksheets .................................... Appendix (on CD only) HCS+ Analysis Worksheets (Interchange Ramps) ................... Appendix (on CD only) Graystone Office & Industria( Park - Trak Impact Study i ► GREENWAY ENGINACi�i1N '. File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page I List of Figures Figure # scrip on Y a Page # 1 Vicinity Map 5 2 Existing Traffic Volumes 7 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 8 4 2015 Background Traffic Volumes 12 5 2015 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 13 6 Phase 1 Trip Distribution Percentages 15 7 Phase 1 Graystone Office & Industrial Park Trip Assignments 16 8 2015 Phase 1 Build -out Traffic Volumes 17 9 2015 Phase 1 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 18 10 2022 Background Traffic Volumes 22 11 2022 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 23 12 Phase 2 Trip Distribution Percentages 25 13 Phase 2 Graystone Office & Industrial Park Trip Assignments 26 14 2022 Phase 2 Build -out Traffic Volumes 27 15 2022 Phase 2 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 28 16 2028 Background Traffic Volumes 33 17 2028 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service 34 18 Phase 3, Scenario A Trip Distribution Percentages 36 19 Phase 3, Scenario A Graystone Office & Industrial Park Trip 37 Assignments 20 2028 Phase 3, Scenario A Build -out Traffic Volumes 38 21 2028 Phase 3, Scenario A Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS 39 22 Phase 3, Scenario B Trip Distribution Percentages 41 23 Phase 3, Scenario B Graystone Office & Industrial Park Trip 42 Assignments 24 2028 Phase 3, Scenario B Build -out Traffic Volumes 43 25 2028 Phase 3, Scenario B Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS 44 A Graystone Office & Industrial Park General Development Plan Appendix Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Trartc Impact Study GREENWAY ENCHN M- 1?0 File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 2 List of 'T'a'bles Table # Description � Page # 1 Existing Levels of Service, Delay and Back of Queue Results 9 2 2015 Background Trip Generation Summary 11 3 Phase 1 Trip Generation Summary 14 4 2015 Background and Phase 1 Build -out LOS/Delay/Queue 19 5 2022 Background Trip Generation Summary 21 6 Phase 2 Trip Generation Summary 24 7 2022 Background and Phase 2 Build -out LOS/Delay/Queue 29-30 8 2028 Background Trip Generation Summary 32 9 Phase 3 Trip Generation Summary 35 10 2028 Background and Phase 3 Build -out LOS/Delay/Queue 45-46 Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Tra_ j1ic Impact Study . GREENWAV .ENQ, JNEERWG, File Number: 2760GC ' August 24, 2009 Page 3 OVERVIEW Report Summary Greenway Engineering has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Graystone Office & Industrial Park to be located east of US Route 11, north of the I-81 interchange, in Frederick County, Virginia. The Study is based upon a projected development program of 1,749,000 square feet of General Office / Research & Development and 570,000 square feet of Manufacturing / Warehousing with access provided via the intersection of US Route 11/Snowden Bridge Boulevard (to be extended from US Route I 1 to the Graystone Site). Build -out is anticipated to occur over three (3) transportation phases by the Year 2028. The proffered Graystone Office & Industrial Park Generalized Development Plan (GDP) is included in the Appendix section of this Report. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Graystone Office & Industrial Park development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology All methodology utilized in this Report is based upon an "approved" scoping letter established between the Applicant, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the Frederick County Planning Department. Documentation associated with this scoping letter is provided in the Appendix section of this Report. The traffic impacts accompanying the Graystone Office & Industrial Park development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: o Collection and evaluation of existing traffic data, Assessment ofbackground traffic (includes planned projects in the area of impact), ® Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Graystone Office & Industrial Park, * Distribution and assignment of the Graystone Office & Industrial Park development - generated trips onto the study area roadway network, m Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of Synchro for existing and future conditions. Note: HCS+ was utilized for merge/diverge analyses. Gmwtone O ce & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study �.. GREEMWAY ENGNNEERINd File Number:2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 4 U �t33 r :31 YZ1. �rrckz C�3 tJ7ji Y t� GREENWAYENCIFTERING, RNA. Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 1 [Ymd �-� p- 22�eslo, Irvginia 22602 Fngin S--- Telephone: (540) 662-41R5 Vicinity n kemwnn.e,wlsmy� FAX: (540)712-9528 V / 'omit/ a,.+ Project # 2760GC FouvdrQ .1971 —g --5—g— �� Y'S X 1(Y• N r :31 YZ1. �rrckz C�3 tJ7ji Y t� GREENWAYENCIFTERING, RNA. Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 1 [Ymd �-� p- 22�eslo, Irvginia 22602 Fngin S--- Telephone: (540) 662-41R5 Vicinity n kemwnn.e,wlsmy� FAX: (540)712-9528 V / 'omit/ a,.+ Project # 2760GC FouvdrQ .1971 —g --5—g— EXISTING CONDITIONS Greenway Engineering conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of US Route 11/Crown Lane, US Route I I/Welltown Road, US Route 11/1-81 southbound ramps, US Route 11/ I-81 northbound off -ramp, US Route 11/1-81 northbound on-ramp/Redbud Road, US Route I I/Market Street, US Route I I/Merchant Street, US Route 11/ FEMA Site -Driveway and US Route 11/Old Charles Town Road. Additionally, a 24-hour vehicle classification count was conducted along US Route 11, between Red Bud Road and Merchant Street, to ascertain heavy vehicle percentages within the Study Area. ADT_ (AverageDaily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "le' factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9% based upon the current VDOT traffic data. Figure 2 shows the existing weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the key locations identified within the study area. Figure 3 shows the corresponding existing lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All traffic count data, Synchro and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 1 to show the existing levels of service, vehicle delay as well as the 95`h percentile back of queue, by lane group/approach, for each of the study area intersections. Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Trak Impact Study _ r3REENWAY ENGINEERING File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 6 LEGEND OINTERSEC X (Y) AM PEAK 1000 DENOTES 9 �i1 �bht1 �t1 1t5631p'Li16�� f Ll m X611 � 8931 q81 W J 9P�K° 19gO1�58g8° o 15ti61 p k6 ` 0 411 rwar _ �O'�L � L •�� 1 ,s pAle b tlryle*ecy T �q`7' N` 1 a INTER -TION J� ' 11 1CN � N h m , b �\ m Flt RE q p '- NIA INTER lON dti Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 2 Conditions Project # 2760GC Existing (2008) Traffic � cREE wav ENL.- IG,.... 1.511 Windy xinl8 Lane Wrnrl erto, it gn a 22602 EEnw�ovmarol seam FAX (5 022-9528 ' FAX (54J72295 8 Few& .7971 LEGEND QINTERSECTION # LANE CONFIGURATIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® STOPS/GN A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) * DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN ' 1 Ne=c(r) SB=C(E) of QSIGNALIZED O SICNALIZED INTERSECTION INTERSECTION m LOS= A (A) LOS= B (B) e i QSIGNALIZED _ INTERSECTION �0 LOS= B (B) Q� - J� �� F UR r" s�� Q INTER TI( V 4ry e 1lQ � 13 RAMP DIVERGE ■ "�� LOS- B (B) RAMP MERGE LOS= C (C) I\` F -AMP MERGE . LOS= C (C) J'JT RAMP DIVER4 LOS= B (B) Q SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS= C (D) SITE 11 N � c O � 'Z SIGNALIZED NTERSECTION O ✓ij,Q'.�� P�Ke L05-A(B) pw Li{f/� rVa 3 trVCn �a _a[+a:�ue-�a�rraarnc=_m•-�.i . a:a'`v.awwt. 'nlUNSIGNALi7ED �,J .a INTERSECTION �f. •LP� 4 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION R(ght infout Only m 5 '014 Note: LOS only provided for critical movements �r�.aer r�.usm �e�rem� 10 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FU I RE INTER ION NIA IFGREE WAYdy.60Lane EERIMG,IN� I W.Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 3 h ndy-gilt L ches[er, .540) 6n 22602 FErKineea•gur ely,a TeFAX. e:(340)662A183 Existing (2008) Lane Geometry &LOS Project # 2760GC era i.I FAX. fsao) nz-vsza ,�.8.«n�-nyen8.co SIGNALIZED hay INTERSECTION [7 INTERSECTION LOS=A(B) 7TERUIL LOS NB = B (B)P�l PiKe SB -A (A) n �O�dF ss�^PE68�t '7 ✓ PPf ° a r,�Pkaa SITE 11 � 2 �lP .Q QSIGNALIZED O SICNALIZED INTERSECTION INTERSECTION m LOS= A (A) LOS= B (B) e i QSIGNALIZED _ INTERSECTION �0 LOS= B (B) Q� - J� �� F UR r" s�� Q INTER TI( V 4ry e 1lQ � 13 RAMP DIVERGE ■ "�� LOS- B (B) RAMP MERGE LOS= C (C) I\` F -AMP MERGE . LOS= C (C) J'JT RAMP DIVER4 LOS= B (B) Q SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS= C (D) SITE 11 N � c O � 'Z SIGNALIZED NTERSECTION O ✓ij,Q'.�� P�Ke L05-A(B) pw Li{f/� rVa 3 trVCn �a _a[+a:�ue-�a�rraarnc=_m•-�.i . a:a'`v.awwt. 'nlUNSIGNALi7ED �,J .a INTERSECTION �f. •LP� 4 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION R(ght infout Only m 5 '014 Note: LOS only provided for critical movements �r�.aer r�.usm �e�rem� 10 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION FU I RE INTER ION NIA IFGREE WAYdy.60Lane EERIMG,IN� I W.Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 3 h ndy-gilt L ches[er, .540) 6n 22602 FErKineea•gur ely,a TeFAX. e:(340)662A183 Existing (2008) Lane Geometry &LOS Project # 2760GC era i.I FAX. fsao) nz-vsza ,�.8.«n�-nyen8.co Table l Gli-Aystvne Business Park Lcvd- of Service. Delay and Back of Qtwuc (9-5616) Results Existing Cclnditiows Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Studv R.EENW. -AVINGMNEMMI File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 9 Fx1,111le Candi law lmasitillou a:+t �c� a'o;"�' Zseloa^ S � - O sec) Ym teal rAI Pew Iixsr iLOS p ( 0. xec..) 91. tees) 'FB tt°8=I`S It—It SR: (Yo.m Lane T,.M,. remraL- Steu<diaedlex .. Ehl A- 1d.<. 4iA E Kz. i ;5319 A tp {_1448 A49 i _ RB LlS A .,...-.-......-� ,,,. AWL C II3 x. 1 l`8 G 34s, ? ibtt � ..�:L...m. A WR IAS A D. NBLTR C 34x, ?'8 D des <t8 ____._ Nh I'm Z• �. SB'L1R SB LOS U OSTRALL. A B EA ttB_ VS Rem.. tiRB.T SB. Wt Ift—R—d _M17t: Amere I.:}na TrntBcr msel: SfltxagsWiou IRS E 'b r. 1459 F Ills. i 3SIR ra LOS is _ -li`RL �•U ux.iy.i948 U 1'--.:. ? 1??B D "13 s. 34' i F t a a_ tT$IC A 4. A ,_.65b$ 3t;.: i i0"fi ,,1--,il �� 13U -S � D 'i.R%LTA D - aS s. Ilii .F k5_x. 2;ti t? h'R 1.03 D i SItw'L F 91 x, ': ai i F„_ Nsc a. q, 71 A SR"i'R R It. J.-310 It A 8e. "(%8 S'B LOS D B OWRAll. C D RR-tt1t:1'4 Rowe Li sb:I S1. SBRwgpe 11411t C".4. SiK_uaBcotioa ayy F.B LOB A i tt7Y7. A IT_ Ib A RL.'i' A i 1T, "ll A'B IDS A A .Tw,-IC :i l a. b 8 A ! I w. u i9 SB LOS A A O\LR.-1IL A A - - EB STB: US Rem., 13 Jho G4.8: mP 1raIRr C'a...rre7: 5{�n4gwieB wlr A "T, 1718 s 1 $-s- ; 443'8 VRWS ..._ ..tt'&T 9 ' !x !68 B 74s. i 387E R'R L[T5 BB 7+3FR :+ Sa. 490 T)i lf}S C L OtTRAU. B R ER't4'R_T'S Remo. 11. 'r'B'SB: Red Rd Rd I -St NE Cho Ramp lralfie romreL M a. 4.._ F3{:L A 6�- 738C F3T A 4 a 63it s-- MR? 7 aa: 65 a 31f FRIAS AA - WRL a tg... to A p..61, 7S I H �� 3 I s l li nln LOS a A ?tTt-1-'rB�„ _ r, NO 1AM OtT.RALL a B rB'118: Us Rome I 1 ?'SB: Swa.ri.n B.iire BhA tib: ?.leathiuir Sslra Ttamr{'egh'ali 5{ura82at Qf♦_ - E8L R Ian Ti t RsB A� FB 16$ A A WRIL s;.. E 2 A D ttT4T Is 28 u. 1+598 C 33�_- IitB tt`BB'iC :+. i.-.. 1 -ii— A2t y. f it'B 1,OS B NI,T iltl A Sli't AW I s� "�Q8 is k4I..^�Y4z88. aB l.crN .A C «V1'.RAI3, D B I:B-tt11: T'S Reole. LI 511: I'i AJAS8e-Ihisewar Imint toms-al:$iap Slam rtN;'fl. ERIi36 NiA MA lt'B? N'A k�i N -A h.A h l i Nl j NA -,A, i';, -I K♦�A '.----`L F[R i 1 Atom ' ttlt LOS i«•.i - A SI}i,II Ips t18 P 3i1°B. 71A1 IT?A NiA i;?.l I MA ; :1=A SB LOs B B . };Ba O1d.('M�hs 7ew-n Reae 4`B SB: ITS Rome i t Try78e Cawr.el: 4rep Sign AML It Iia, :46f[ B f 13, 1 14,8 W3 MV B M _ AIT 3'±,«1 �N.9 'lv.S NB B_ KA E 3t;_A WA r A:ti 148 LOS VA Si+:2 A Sa. Ai A 1#s:s.. t8 S87 HsA XA nA ki _ SN I,/7S :f:A NA Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Studv R.EENW. -AVINGMNEMMI File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 9 PHASE 1 TRAFFIC ANALYSES (2010 The proposed Phase 1 development is to include 680,000 square feet of General Office / Research & Development and 220,000 square feet of Manufacturing / Warehousing with access provided via the intersection of US Route 11/Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Phase 1 is be built - out by Year 2015. 2015 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to detennine the 2015 background traffic conditions, Greenway Engineering increased the existing traffic volumes, shown in Figure 2, using a rate of 0.5% per year through Year 2015. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were incorporated. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 2 to summarize the 2015 "other developments" trip generation. Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering utilized the following sources for establishing 2015 background trip generation: 1) the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (1TE) Trip Generation Report was utilized for Bishop -Amari, Rutherford Crossing (remaining parcel only), Adams Commercial and Easy Living Associates Commercial Property; 2) VDOT residential rates were applied to the Snowden Bridge development; and 3) Rates derived from a trip generation study (by Greenway Engineering) perfonned for the Fort Collier Industrial Park (approved by VDOT/County) were increased by 15% and applied to the North Stephenson Tract (Omps Property) development. The Fort Collier Industrial Park Tip Generation Study is provided in the Appendix section of this Study. Figure 4 shows the 2015 background weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the key locations identified within the study area. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2015 background lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study +1 REEINW ,Y ENCHIVARINIG.File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 10 Table 2 2015 Background "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary, * Trips u e based upon rates derived from "actual' traffic counts conductea at a sumlar sne., ruese rarer Here nrc, em— — 1- ," F., GrqjLstone Office & Industria! Park - Trafflic Impact Study- File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page I I AAI Peril: HourFMPeril. Hour Cade Land Use Atnomt In Out Total In Out Total ADT North Stephenson Tract (Omps Property) Lidd bu'hustrial ♦ 400.000 SF 57 45 103 36 63 100 1.331 Sub -Total 57 45 103 36 63 100 1,381 10% reduction for trips interacting with Rutherford Crossing 6 5 10 4 6 10 138 Total Trips 52 41 93 33 57 90 1,243 Snowden Bridge (Formerly Stephenson Village) 210 Single-FamilvDetached 144 units 28 83 110 94 55 149 1,439 220 Apartnent (80% :DOT+20%nE 220) 27 units 4 16 20 25 14 38 359 230 Tovadnou:•eXondo (S0%iD0T+20%ITE 220) 29 units 4 16 20 16 9 25 246 Total "New" Trips 36 114 150 134 .. 212 21044 Bishop-Arnaii Parcels (Route WON Charlestown Road) 814 Specialty Retail 15,000 SF 31 20 50 25 32 57 679 853 COuven.Manttivptmyrs 16prnps 1377• 137 275 154 154 308 8,682 932 H -T Restaurant 5,000 SF 30 28 58 33 21 55 636 Sub4otal 198 185 382 212 207 420 9.99 - Pass -by Trips 40% (Code 853) 55 55 110 62 62 123 3,473 Total "New" Trips 143 130 273 151 146 297 6,524 Rutherford Crossings (Remaining Development) 850 Grocery Store 50,000 SF 114 73 187 275 264 539 4,739 Total "New" Trip 114 73 18'7 275 264 539 4,139 Adanns Connnedal 150 Warehousing 120,000 unit '8 17 95 19 57 75 792 151 Seif-Service Storage 140,000 units 12 9 21 is 17 35 334 710 Office 120,000 unit 191 26 217 36 1;? 213 1,533 812 Buildina/Lrunber Store 25,000 SF 44 _1 65 59 67 126 LOU 860 \17n0lesale Market 150,000 stud. 41 34 14 17 32 1,010 Total 366 107 473 146 334 481 4,695 Easy Living Associates Cormnercial Property 151 Self -Sen -ice Storage 35,000 SF 3 2 5 4 4 8 S2 710 Office 35.000 SF 71 10 81 20 98 118 594 820 Retail 45.000 SF 59 38 97 177 192 370 4,041 853 Conven. MartMzpunips 16 punps 137 137 275 154 154 309 8,682 934 Fast Food wt DT 5,000 SF 135 130 266 90 83 173 2.481 .,;Ub-Tehd 406 317 723 446 531 977 15,880 Pass -by Trips 25 % (Code 820) 12 12 24 46 46 92 1.010 Pass -by Trips 40% (Code 853) 55 55 110 62 62 123 3,473 Pass -by Trips 40% (Code 934) 53 53 106 35 35 69 992 Total Pass -by Trips 120 120 240 142 142 285 5,475 Total "New" Trip. 286 197 483 1 303 389 692 1 10,405 * Trips u e based upon rates derived from "actual' traffic counts conductea at a sumlar sne., ruese rarer Here nrc, em— — 1- ," F., GrqjLstone Office & Industria! Park - Trafflic Impact Study- File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page I I LEGEND QINTERSECTION# 1U Old•;:.. X (Y) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) - ��e �wL h o� Qd r1ODq IDENOTES WEEKDAY AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS (ADT) a ti O O X11 tgbol a giF r SITE Q m V Q- D W � � Al � ti'1 11 ym �pA11�1�31 o :tea d,1 PlKe m WO�3l'61 � r�L'� 1o'Ll�lp5gl a .9glM ,� -6, v 3 IyA 11 �toroa G 3 0..4, esT �ud� � g � Zg52 v N r 1 Pk° y 2n m Sbt! e' r�R# m ' SITE !{ r 11 41P5 1�1 ,�6�'t: mo - n"amo 11Av �- r 1435 qp1� {{a .`• Cl �g61`A \ m Q m V Q- � A311 r_Al� xtryool�A91 N Al � ti'1 11 ym �pA11�1�31 o :tea d,1 PlKe m WO�3l'61 y��l l ,� -6, v 3 IyA 11 3 3 0..4, esT NIA v N r Pk° y 2n m Sbt! e' r�R# m ' N w J y�■�` low ,�6�'t: mo - n"amo 11Av �- r 1435 qp1� {{a .`• ry 11 11, 130�pie eel 2r90 'e a �4 4 q�'r93 l X1 Q e L3 1® —.;,4 � b� r��e 3 NIA v N _�qq GREE 4 AY -4mu'r ENGINEERING, Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 4 JSI Nudy Tuda 2 415n�hester, Vrgitia 22602 .R" 9;s T FAX (340) `) -9528 5 2015 Background Traffic Conditions Project # 2760GC Ednvv MM L.l Serum --g—F�(540J 72b9528 ner yeng.co fY T>�-. wft�II+��_K+dt�+"`LaaE `r.FHBs.C�,._�d e:lfTw+:'��S ��+.-1 �� +�+l�W_��.�V�.i]c1�±u�ri:2�� +TL�� rFT�-®L•�-ErYdw LEGEND is �" [�O� INTERSECTION # .Q¢. d Cbsrles TO - U�u LANE CONFIGURATIONS Oed I� " "i TRAFFIC SIGNAL RTERWR LOS p N8=(A) STOP SIGN Q SB = D (C) A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) F • „r�-axr •� i SIGNALIZED 7k DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT Lrly Q INTERSECTION DENOTES FREE RIGHT-TURNU LOS -A (B) DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN ARTERIAL LOS SB=A () 1Y 12 �F ¢Q' 7 dl 11 U ARTERIAL LOS ,Q '�,� 6 fJgo�a➢O SITE NB = C (_) W �p SB = D (F) E ap .Qit O SIGNALIZED 0 INTERSECTION oqa � � LaOe 2 MO A p a Awa � �� 9�1a�r�b� P`t`e 1 ale 14 Q� �d LLflr M ae�� Wg 5 1,. S SITE � SIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED Q UNSIGNALIZED O® O � INTERSECTION INTERSECTION INTERSECTION LOS=A (B) L05= B (H)SIGNALIZED P Pt9l Rlg O�t INTERSECTION ? p �R�l P.IQ'1 11 WS--A(C) B `µe e `6 Ll LI LI y ,A w d IS ;OU o �l,8 m n ao S Note: LOS only provided for Critical movemeMa. �fa O e O O UNSIGNALIZED _`e Q,� ,P` �•l� INTERSECTION Q SIGNALIZED 40 P�K6 ��o. INTERSECTION SIGNALIZED Off. � �e X31 BjJc LOS=B (C) (V( INTERSECTION (\ ` Mei+^ r(, ,✓/ e4 °o� a LOS -B (C) n uxslcxALlzea r INTERSECTION o�7R /t- S, Righ infout only 11 ��P "� may 11 11 a Note: LOS only provided for critical movements. Iha%'�'.r:.rt-�'.�.xa r.rsnfs: , vu-. ;x:.ia. ,axr�lla� •, .. RAMP DIVERGE LOS= B (a) RAMP MERELOSt �h'o' p NIA. t ¢�s F RAMP MERGE + Qp- W RAMP DNERG pF L OS= C (B) v ote: LOS only Provided for crlflcx! movements. sea•.n�nr.— � GREE"Wav ENGINEERING, INC. Isr Graystone Office & Industria! Park FIGURE 5 wr,ey1�iQtsae W.0-1111 Yoginia 22502 TF 5 662-41 40722-9 2885 2015 Background Lane Geometry & LOS Project#2760GC Feuded 1.)971 —4pvr waye &. n PHASE i TRIP GENERATION Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering detennined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using rates derived from trip generation studies (increased by 15%) performed for the following existing developments: 1) "Avion Business Park" located in Fairfax County, Virginia and 2) "Fort Collier Industrial Park" located in Frederick County, Virginia. Table 3 is provided to summarize the total trip generation associated with Phase 1 of the Graystone Office & Industrial Park. The Avion Business Park Trip Generation Study and the Fort Collier Industrial Park Trip Generation Study are provided in the Appendix section of this Report. Table 3 Proposed Development: Graystone Office & Industrial Park Phase 1 Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Office/ R&D t 680,000 SF 301 27 328 49 228 277 3,257 Manufacturing/Warehousing" 220,000 SF 32 25 57 20 35 55 760 Sub -Total 332 52 385 69 262 332 4,016 10% reduction for trips interacting with Ruthetj�rd Crossing 33 5 38 7 26 33 402 Total Trips 299 47 346 62 236 298 3,615 .,,pa ase u- upun tatcb ucnveu from actual tratrle counts conducted at a similar sties., 7 hese rates were increased by 15% per Seopmg Corm. PHASE 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the proposed Graystone Office & Industrial Park Phase 1 development trips (Table 3) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development -generated weekday ADT and AMIPM peak hour trip assignments. PHASE 1 (2015) BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Phase 1 Graystone Office & Industrial Park assigned trips (Figure 7) were added to the 2015 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2015 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2015 Phase 1 build -out weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the key locations identified within the study area. Figure 9 shows the corresponding build- out lane geometry and weekday AMIPM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 1 to show the 2015 background and Phase 1 build -out levels of service, vehicle delay as well as the 95th percentile back of queue, by lane group/approach, for each of the study area intersections. Graystone Office & Industria! Park - Trak impact Study alueAY ENCt1��F1+'Ni File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 14 M1ARa.YSRaV _ i�-.-ma••-�•� - mal'9aYUC�ii�L�2-.��:1'�Z/anm-�-•u,��S�y;r••ai�.altc-T N Note: 10% of Graystone Office & Industrial Park trips would be distributed to/from Rutherford Crossing via Snowden Bridge Blvd _ Merchant Street at Route 11. The percentages shown on this -Includes 10% trips to/from the Snowden figure are based upon the remaining development (90%). Bridge Residential Development GREEIVYAYEMGIPlEER11dG,��G 131 W dy Gra stone ®Bice & Industrial Park FIGURE 6 Hifllane :-.kpl rer, 540) 662-41- FAX 6 22602 . ; eFAX (540aM-95 8 Phase 9 Trip Distribution Percentages Project # 2760GC �F�rv�a+me�rd smm FAX�(540)722-9528 Fawdrd in 1971 w�vw.grcenwcyeng.can _ __�.__��.�...� LEGEND q Ol INTERSECTION # 1:0 c, d/d C XM, AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) °ad 100 DENOTES WEEKDAYAVERAGE DAILY TR1P5 /ADT) �p� N oS y ^ r 1 D 4r6 aApoe er eef pf ^� 361 d a�e6Y b�~ SITE CIO � m 9� � s �� a� v 0 Q 5 � N ' 1'y� 9' P;kB A 1 Oe g0 a��,` krs 271 �4 11 ,� SITE 0 (D110 o 3 "� ��S'rl 11 '�9�ge1 11 m Eti WN111n5e YN 3,11�AA5�v Y`vs r 11e as�m Me t1a��5� 61�5� wm tM ILEI m ]1 0 goo m �� d ti 0 0 � e gi�'rsG�i •� p1oh`e^9 caJiOY ��`��las�' bpt P we ��i 1�y~v1 �� 9IL M 11 `A�,�qp, • oa 11 �, 11 —, J o' woo m m 5 b 1 j] �I i Snowden odd Blvd y S `` a r•`�i• ., / \ rj-2J (28)133 IL T if �Im I m`_1 f 50i a (42)1991�iy b 1 GREEh1VVAY ENGINEERING, 1.51 MG,.� Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGUR! ISJW, gmi. 2 w chaste•, ✓0)6622602 TelFAX-(54)722-528 Phase 1 Development Generated Trips Project #2760 b 1971 FAX. (500) T22-9518 www.greenwayeggs oLEGEND ll f. f INTERSECTION # y Old C XM AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) �� R° �°ad `, F -01-3q IDENOTES WEEKDAY AVERAGE DAILYTRIPS(ADT) S� N i0 .n T.l 6� � fp ��LI�'�p�,61ls141 w �i g 9YD � . yBCI a�msb�i /�--yyy v k SITE J y591 11P I " l r s J` pikee cn •�y�t�(s`�'� PµlSg(� z �, N 4,�P N. pPap n 3 a e 0 �Ml� a�`Piµ �5 ri spy 4 "a • rr,r �a ro j �e # 6-yJ Q eq� '93J 00w i l `1w�o, �v 1,10En CU c� 9Q " nom 'm .40M 0(0) rv31� 10i t 3 e `' (28)136 rw O V0bgl��' (42)1991 ag `� v GREENWAY EMGINEERING,. . Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 8 151 W-6, [fig lam W hewer, Virr im, 22W2 Te FAX (540722-9-528 22-9-d185 2015 Phase 1 Build -out Traffic Conditions Project # 2760GC 61:wavm i. 19nvira FAX (540) 722-9571! fo��ided in fffll O vatL�,9�l�,uyp1`n ! lW'_ I1 41" m r! ll9g�p9d� n SITE T.l 6� � fp ��LI�'�p�,61ls141 w �i g 9YD � . yBCI a�msb�i /�--yyy v k SITE J y591 11P I " l r s J` pikee cn •�y�t�(s`�'� PµlSg(� z �, N 4,�P N. pPap n 3 a e 0 �Ml� a�`Piµ �5 ri spy 4 "a • rr,r �a ro j �e # 6-yJ Q eq� '93J 00w i l `1w�o, �v 1,10En CU c� 9Q " nom 'm .40M 0(0) rv31� 10i t 3 e `' (28)136 rw O V0bgl��' (42)1991 ag `� v GREENWAY EMGINEERING,. . Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 8 151 W-6, [fig lam W hewer, Virr im, 22W2 Te FAX (540722-9-528 22-9-d185 2015 Phase 1 Build -out Traffic Conditions Project # 2760GC 61:wavm i. 19nvira FAX (540) 722-9571! fo��ided in fffll LEGEND 1 INTERSECTION # LANE CONFIGURATIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL E) STOP SIGN I A (,A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) !k DENOTES UNSIGNALIZEA CRITICAL MOVEMENT �( DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN P9' LOS 1P DENOTES CMANNE(-IZED RIGHT -TURN lARTERULL NB=C SB =D OSIGNALIZED f 4 I SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION — INTERSECTION Nm LOS= A (B) LOS= B (B) �q 3 OF° O � q SIGNALIZED Sy INTERSECTION LOS- 8 (C) UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Right WOWt Y �a Note: LOS only provided Ior cr)tiwl movements. 1l' 1� � 13 � r,•""a � � m RAMP DIVERGE LOS -B (B) RAMP MERGE u CLOS= C (C) m �p • O 3 @�C RAMPMERGE+� rA LOS= C (C) ' MP DIVER LOS-C(B) lD RGild rD roa e RTER/AL LOS l„f/m NB = A (A) SB=D(C) SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION af, LOS=A(CJ r� n ll IOTA ' d SITE 1'S � g u y SIGNALIZED 2 INTERSECTION LOS- D (FJ m c SAN P k6 SITE 11 si m O Q UNSIGNALQED INTERSECTION SIGNALIZED (�� Right WOul INTERSECTION A Only LOS- A (B) ?i � A n 6 Note: LOS only Provided for crlNcel movements. �0 O ,n UNSIGNALIZED 4 F?� INTERSECTION'o '`[l� [LOS= IGNALIZED q- TERSECTION �T0 n � B (C) J ` A A_ Ba,o UNSIGNALMED y UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION d INTERSECTION n 9 f{+j�l5nowden Brid a Blvd E) Ll� HREENlMAY ENGINEERING, PIG, im Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE h er, enlane Winchutq, Vbginfn 22602 w Telephon5(040)662aig5 2095 Phase 9 Build -out Lane Geometry &LOS Project#2760G( .,W ml Servrc Fivww (540)723-9528 .S,zr�o �ng.com Table 4 G is erstune $uxttt-SS Part: Louis of So -vice, DelaS wid Batek of Queue (9zi%) Results 201-5 Muse Y Background and Wild -out Condlitiuns ur Y iS..,h,...........i i"::u.i1t?nncI Ph.. I T1a611-oat <'ULL[YII(o6t Iwyattlaa ASi geaLlHar 17r1n �a[u LOS s (7a xwt) i (ia feed) FAfgsxt Hem - Delax A Qa+' LOS (]¢def) i ffti Peet) Ahl PaaA.Hwv b(dx� Xtaaa€ IAb 511 atij fm Ieet) PDL.FeatHm Ate' LOS ( ".6 ft rm) '2T$:Pxiknl:asP sR: l.`.x55a I,xuo 'It>fG((:`,aau oi::4f6u+fiitrflta TL"L TT 56:.. 1035€ 3445 D 49.- 76.19 � 17t69 F A If�t do 3i£+$ 236$ ss. dal$ A TB;,C'i5 A R A t0 $ t' 37 s. Ytti 5 tVB71 A 1s. 4r. 49 A Iz 8k h In 49 tTL£ Llys A C A ?£713.'fR C 33 s. t 1171 D 12. 428 b A. 4' $ t531to& C D C D 305 A SR KAM C ri C C 151TRAL.L A $ A C Mull: I's Rama It ti$ 1Se0waxittw.0 `7B:.Vma<a Laue (1� 71� ri aael: SiLUaiAixtuti Ewl j 66-s. 211$ F- 1'S c, x289 €133- a4#x, ER -3R R # 175r, 241 & (` 27 s. i 1419 R 13I 4f D i9x 3S2 $ Y%LAS C A C D Sd5 5711' D S4 x_ §S59 F 8%r. ; S13$ £� 3ck 5269 F 1 135.¢ 8369: S-IF71 A 5x ^-99 A 3:, 389 A I 3a. 159 - A I Sx $1$ US LOS A F C P s 7iRT7R .D 52.s.. 7 12411 F LIZ. ' 2149 D n. 12•tfl F 11Ss. 1928 �`R ii-li D F A P s&1 E -3x a Sfi59 F 159n. -: Sx65 F 8'>r. _'"`k. F itis. 5495 .'KR`Ik A 14.e. 62k C 2t r. ! 73tk' B 17c +619 A 9a �e MLOS D F D F 0.13it.1%L D F C F ER'S`R: X1,5' Roov t1 s0:i-ai swk-q. T -M Caatrai: Sfv.Aixmioa 1,MT A 4- 11 C 34 ER'k A 3s. T.A 1x i U5 A ?55 A Ix `A 45 ED LOS A At E Ti77r1 it i lis, 6dA D a"•}� I 3s49 R lie.. Wf9 D 13F 341.$ X9B'T A ; ie, 1938 A 1 4. ?'s5 A Sr. 1559. A 98. lift$ A. R A R SZ D 4,c e, I;a9 E 57 r, t 1409' slt:k A 1... 49 A 3x - 65 SR IAS A IT R l' ONTRALL A R A E ER11B:T'�STtamw 7l tilt: 7 -St RR OH--xt T'MCxae hSk-*.tine - ERT :'l 16r: 374 ti A S s W $ A 4 r, v 119: A 9. Sb:$ YR I.A35 A A A. 571sT A , ''-1:9 A Sc, 7%39 A .r. 7 WA A 3x 34k StR L106 .a A A A f 3 IVL A £ L`a, :038 A iT e:. _ 2455 b 35 E. 2445 D wx 2'95 NWX C 2-u. ldi9 D 4'r- i70$ D i6 a. `'_]I9 A 1 47x 1 303$ :iik 1,U5 C U b D 531 kiiAL]: R R 8 8 FR:ISR: X'S Rea£e I7 uR B; kaa RaA kd`t-Si 47t i:fa-llxMp T-fri t eeL sk-S..0 S6$ F 159 A. d d&%5 A 14.. 939 D 31c 3"5$ _ '(• 9 A 3 c 33 R l;.I,T A i l s.. 5" 5 A T j, I ER:`k A is.. �3If A C.2 A D A R Winks A XVbT -A 458 D 7'u-. 24T$ A 5 5617 R 76x 26I$ WIM A t5. 4$ A 1c. s$ A la 0$ A is It$ RB LOS A R A R 35 L'7K D 372, 66 E T: 6` `' a N C 33 5 1 69 k E '.^3 e. FS'_ ft AM1, tS C E C IF tat"FkiY Y, 8 C A R EStiS7t:t?S kaals it XB: Saa A Widgw Bird S$- Alec h- Steoet T -M C--kSpar.§wl- ER Ms: 1:15 Raxte 71 SRi Y1:.'tI,A She-lkfwu:V' _ T -M, C* .I; Sop 1lka - MFT G 208; [ b5R C. 12c 2139 C Z6. 1 92$ C 325 2049 ER? A 1a. 133$ A As, 1269 A 9s� 1 1959 Mt .i te, Id$ A ir. FRLAS .A It $ 71 WIVIL D 40, 1.99 D 34 r.. ( 159 D 655 D fda 299 Si31't` $ 207 1"65 C _ s 3139 Y' 21.5. ! 1495. D - i5 •, 311'9 SVWR ;;. 3e. SA AZ. 1-$ . 3z ? 2i tf A 2s 168 iiB lA5 R C t'- C ;VTf7. A �v,,�•_ 35 d A 4b x 105 $ h'R:T--"DD 36-x. lcy D dl a. a 13R t' 3E x. idit D d`s. f0ff 1i:9'k $ [ 1's: Lug D 1s[ Nams c C C' C SRT D - 44 s. 3 189 E Ad c- I 7014 D f 41s. 1 269 D 1- 9311 :;E 7' D 95.x. Va D i4x F 158 D ase 555 A 41.x265 �4 SR:Y R is a, 1.xIf R 7?x. 'S9 R 16e. 229 R I'c ".19 SBI.O% C [.� C c OYMALL 1it7..... t0,= 58 A 76 s.-45 R'; 5k A I4 ;kit: L ;::-A t N`,4 N A It, 5. a -� tti ,4 I«'A i:. a h: -A 7:2. 11:4 ER LOS S'a:A 7V,A .>. A. KA SX71:'1 7dfA N _r.. i x'A JVA NA t h'A I"s. � 7�� 7: `a 24' Ii; A ' ii'_A "(V'R�k H+A tl_4 ti..i Nba N:A .Tf« 145 4.x. -: x?"A h:�"A MA lona WSWS pYA ItA 'A Ida SR:2, C 15 . E 15 C f _ SR+k 3„R '11'A b1'A t± -;:A N.t 74'A til SR LOS C C r• t 5'B;(Ad flmles Tw.t R..d YM SM. Xit7 Aea(r li Tt.ww `. dral: tifyawFfatJaa SV712 T3 ` 15 a 164 5 E tib =. S" 9 C 2's. 219 9 F 94 c. 3SS b S5'FF. A_,•_ 4 E • :2 R A 9 �. - 3-$ A d ¢: _ ::7t A 14 t� i..9 R� TL'U'.t is 14T. 1659. B I.155 S. 45",5 R 16 s. t 13Ki9 B ifs bl.$ A`R:R d 4r, 259 C =25 1666h 4& 2w9 D A4 r... v96$ N1f tA35 11 R R C kR.i. R 16x. C _U11 I F i9:i ':' £ i519 R iF 1.-. ti1.9 F 63.5. 13S a T577T R 13 r. T"9 A 's. i 33b it R 15 s. 2?45 :l _.••t•••_,'x 17'9 SR LOS $ C R C L NTRALL; B C R C IN Graustone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study GREE AY1INGINE1ERING File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 19 PRASE 2 TRAFFIC ANALYSES (2022) The proposed Phase 2 development is to include 1,130,000 square feet of General Office / Research & Development and 370,000 square feet of Manufacturing / Warehousing with access provided via the intersection of US Route 11/Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Phase 2 is be built -out by Year 2022. 2022 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to determine the 2022 background traffic conditions, Greenway Engineering increased the existing traffic volumes, shown in Figure 2, using a rate of 0.5% per year through Year 2022. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were incorporated. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 5 to summarize the 2022 "other developments" trip generation. Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering utilized the following sources for establishing 2022 background trip generation: 1) the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri p Generation Report was utilized for Bishop -Amari, Rutherford Crossing (remaining parcel only), Adams Commercial and Easy Living Associates Commercial Property; 2) VDOT residential rates were applied to the Snowden Bridge development; and 3) Rates derived from a trip generation study (by Greenway Engineering) performed for the Fort Collier Industrial Park (approved by VDOT/County) were increased by 15% and applied to the North Stephenson Tract (Omps Property) development. The Fort Collier Industrial Park Trip Generation Study is provided in the Appendix section of this Study. Note: Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering has assumed the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp to intersect with US Route l I opposite the existing I-81 northbound on-ramp. In coordination with this improvement, Red Bud Road trips would be re-routed to Snowden Bridge Boulevard via the North Stephenson Tract (Omps). Figure 10 shows the 2022 background weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the key locations identified within the study area. Figure 11 shows the corresponding 2022 background lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Trajzc hnpact Studp iia Ciir M File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 20 Table 5 2022 Background "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary * Trips are based tyron rates derived from "actual" bac cowtts couthtcted at a similar site., tmese rates were wcreacen uv r :o Po, —Fu , ,.,.. Graystone ice & Industrial Park - Tra tc Impact Study GREEN AY.ENGIN N.. File Number:2760GC + August 24, 2009 Page 21 AM Peril HOW PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total DT North Stephenson Tract (Ornps Property) Lind Industrial * 800,000 SF 115 91 1--06 73 126 199 2.762 Sub -Total 115 91 206 73 126 199 2,762 10% reduction for trips interacting with RutherfordCrossing 11 9 21 7 13 20 276 Total Trips 103 82 185 65 114 179 2.486 Snowden Bridge (Formerly Stephenson Village) - - 210 Sinele-Family-Detached '_8811nis 53 158 211 175 103 278 2.837 220 Apartment (30%VD0T+20°61TE 220) 54 twits 3 28 36 38 21 59 569 230 Towrdrotusv Condo (80% VD0T+2MJTE 220) 53 twice 8 30 38 31 17 48 481 Total "Nest" Trips 69 217 286 244 141 385 3,92 - Bishop -Amari Parcels (Route 11,01d Charlestown Road) 814 Specialty Retail 15,000 SF 31 20 50 25 32 57 679 853 ConvaL Aunt l'opwnps 16 pu tups 137 137 275 154 154 30S 5.632 932 H-TRestattraut 5,000 SF 30 28 58 33 21 55 636 Sob -total 199 185 332 212 207 42_0 9,99- Pass -by Trips 40% (Code 853) 55 55 110 62 62 123 3,473 " Total "New" Trips 143 130 273 151 146 297 6.524 Rmtherloed Crossings (Remaining Development) S50 G rocery Store 50,000 SF 114 13 187 275 264 539 4.739 Total "New" Trip 114 73 187 275 264 539 4,739 Adams Commercial 150 Warehousing 120,000 runt' 78 1 95 19 57 75 792 151 Self-service Storage 130,000 twits 12 9 21 13 1'7 35 334 710 Office 120.000 twits 191 26 217 36 17.7 213 1,535 812 Buildinwlrunber Store 25,000 SF 44 21 65 59 67 126 1,024 860 Wholesale Market 150,000 surd_ 41 34 7514 17 32 1,010 Total 366 IV 473 146 334 431 4,695 Easy I-JAng Associates Commercial Property 151 Self -Sen --ice Storage 35;000 SF 3 2 5 4 4 S 82 710 Office 35.000 SF 71 10 81 20 98 118 594 820 Retail 45,000 SF 59 33 97 177 192 370 4,041 853 Cony, en. Matt ie-prmrps 16 puny[, 137 137 275 154 154 308 8,652 934 Fast Food w/ DT 5,000 SF 135 130 266 90 83 173 2.481 Stth-Tokt! 406 317 723 446 531 977 15,880 Pass -by Trips 25 % (Code 820) 12 12 24 46 46 92 1,010 Pass -by Trips 40% (Code 853) 55 55 110 62 62 123 3,473 Pass -by Trips 40% (Code 934) 53 53 106 35 35 69 992 Total Pass -by Trips 120 120 240 142 142 285 5,475 Total "New" Trip. 286 197 483 303 389 692 101405 * Trips are based tyron rates derived from "actual" bac cowtts couthtcted at a similar site., tmese rates were wcreacen uv r :o Po, —Fu , ,.,.. Graystone ice & Industrial Park - Tra tc Impact Study GREEN AY.ENGIN N.. File Number:2760GC + August 24, 2009 Page 21 LEGEND OINTERSECTIONS X (Y) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) 1QQ DENOTES WEEKDAYA�c','ZAGEDAILY TRIPS (AD'n -01 log� 19 111 �nPP�Pi 7 Oo 11 � � `vr m b 733 ,91 6��rfa�E Pj ltd g po sy; SITE�tl �ro�o 3�p 1188$ y°91t1�r�11 ta4e i. pNltry9lt0ryl '91a 4 9 o`o- m✓ 3 q9 e SbU M n tp10 13 14 1► 1y� N W SITE l m to t� Z m l g°A m °� REL OC , L IN ACTION St P µe WAP m P'`� m " •�- i 1107196 / �J 11 �tpe3 t `t°� 3 w Ors 9� �yl'y9�iid'�JO �r2 �r�JJ W � b A Q.9Jf� N 8 1 3 N/A GREENWAY EF'H.UL- RING, tN� Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE I5.! 1. HiR7 -- Wmchestn, Yogi.,ia 22602 la �� Tc FAX (5 (3140) 662-410 2022 Background Trak Conditions Project #27600 ,d5ahca FAX (540)722.9529 www, yreertwuyerlg.rom vat LEGEND 1 INTERSECTION: f� LANE CONFIGURATIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® STOP SIGN A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) * DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN I DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN ! ARTERIA, r�-.-✓ NB = C SS=A 10 Itries T �� bad o� 6 a4 RTERUIL LOS Q NB =A (B) SB=D(C) SIGNALIZED �riy Q INTERSECTION ery�y LDS= A (C) 9 yen ot„r `d ARTERIAL LOS b O & NB=C(C) SITE SB=C(F) ��Q- 01 0.1 " u, QSIGNALIZED �— INTERSECTION LOS= D (F) Wa (� 13' 14 d SITE warg1WWCRl�iirc- :.Q.a.A�.n..#,s� 3 SIGNALIZED rd Q UNSIGNALYED bi INTERSECTION �:. J INTF-RSE0770N m LOS=A (B) SIGNALIZED Right lnlOut m INTERSECTION. 0 c Only �'+ 17 Los= a (D) C�*A 3 11 RELOC m^a Il IN ECTIOI\I Note: LOS only provided for critical movemems- 07 O (1) ,p �� INTERSECTIONUNSIGNALIZED Q e jU � SIGNALIZED (pc5 INTERSECTION�/Jnfj �s 1 Tf NTE ON �9�1o`'�JI �^ �Qc LOS= B {F) V� [ � � oz`s LOS= B (C) �C+r INTERNALIZED �V Lj INTERSECTION Right Input (� Only e7o• 11 11 `e4 � mere 11 Note: LOS only provided for crltimf movements. WWun�aeaer r..� ga�_x:rra�:a� � .. � n.+c� revs=-¢*s5'=-+.•s:,n.. – _ _ @D4 1© RAMP DIVERGE ■ O - - - LOS- 9 (B) RAMP MERGE b - - B L05= C (C) NIA FC m RAMP MERGE ■ - W v QED LOS= C (C) A D O i RAMP OIVERG O� 0 LOS= C (B) v p1e: L03 only provided fo critical movements GREENWAY ENGINEERIINIG,mr- Graystone Office & Industria! Park 757 WuFIGURE 11 uiy Hilf Ione 7Paechen- 1/uglnin 22602 E �.S,�,�„ Telephone 0)722-95285 2022 Background Lane Geometry & LOSProject #276DGC En nml sm� PAX (540) 722-9528 Founded M 071—g-ennmyeng.com _ _. PHASE 2 TIT GENERATION Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering determined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using rates derived from trip generation studies (increased by 15%) performed for the following existing developments: 1) "Avion Business Park" located in Fairfax County, Virginia and 2) "Fort Collier Industrial Park" located in Frederick County, Virginia. 'fable 6 is provided to summarize the total trip generation associated with Phase 2 of the Graystone Office & Industrial Park. The Avion Business Park Trip Generation Study and the Fort Collier Industrial Park Trip Generation Study are provided in the Appendix section of this Report. Table 6 Proposed Development: Graystone Office & Industrial Park Pbase 2 Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total Office/R&D* 1, 130,000 SF 500 45 545 82 378 460Manufacturing F5�,412 / Warehousing * 370,000 SF 53 42 95 34 58 92 Sub -Total 553 87 640 115 437 552 6,689 10% reduction for trips interacting with Rutherford Crossing 55 9 64 12 44 55 669 Total Trips 497 79 576 104 393 497 6,020 - i rips are nasea upon rates derived trout "actual' trallre counts conducted at a similar sites., These rates were increased by 15% per Scoping Form_ PHASE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TIMI' ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 12 to assign the proposed Graystone Office & Industrial Park Phase 2 development trips (Table 6) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 13 shows the development -generated weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. PHASE 2 (2022) BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Phase 2 Graystone Office & Industrial Park assigned trips (Figure 13) were added to the 2022 background traffic volumes (Figure 10) to obtain 2022 build -out conditions. Figure 14 shows the 2022 Phase 2 build -out weekday ADT and AMIPM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the key locations identified within the study area. Figure 15 shows the corresponding build -out lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 7 to show the 2022 background and Phase 2 build -out levels of service, vehicle delay as well as the 95th percentile back of queue, by lane group/approach, for each of the study. area intersections. Grafi stone office & industriai Paris -Traffic Impaci Study GREENWAx ENGON -3f File Number: 2760GC r August 24, 2009 Page 24 Note: 10% of Graystone Office & Industrial Park trips would be distributed to/from Rutherford Crossing via Snowden Bridge Blvd L , Snowden/Merchant Street at Route 11. The percentages shown on this includes 10% trips its/from the S figure are based upon the remaining development (90%)• Bridge Residential Development GREERlWAY m4lwuEm1NG,,xG 157 Windy7fi!l Lene Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 12 W7nchv " Kgft. 226(72 .�. Te1AX (5 0)722-9529 Phase 2 Trip Distribution Percentages Project# 2760GC & FP ..dM 1. Sw 7',+lx (540) 722-9528 Pueded 1. 2971 �gten yPngfbm .�a� �,.•+-+'cf.+.e�..–.�-av gym.- �.�..�- +.�.ra s LEGEND g 9� Qf INTERSECTION 9 1.0 1 X m AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) 4� O,Hp kap' - I . , °ad 780 DENOTES WEEKDAYAVERAGE DAILY TRIPS(AD1J aCS•�O� N �a�� ti1g91 11 Il V3 RELOG D IN ECTION e�Ke � seg r1a � ltib�lti V� p 3 b �e �p bJ y,B O 11 `� e�4a 11 �611ti9� ® z y S A Y (46)221 IWO rI Sa J N �s�e ` sem} wj(1 ■ 0 `�ry5 (69)332 1 p N GREERWQY EENGINEERING,Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 93 Mr—h—,, Mg*10) k 12602 ,aswry„s Telephone:O72662-185 Phase 2 Developmen t- Generated Trips Project # 2760GC kEmvem,e,vnrsmam FAX (NO) 722-952E LEGEND O1 /NTERSEC X(Y) AM PFAK 1 10U DENOTES nowYO'wSYfC�]�"l 11� O -- D Q RRELOC D (J(��aJ v9��8i A`tr : D( INT ICTION �f �a •, (46)221 ( 0"'o 61`�A- Ms (69)332 k ].mqv �x �l ��b�� 5n� �g000 -^sit 9�141`9301 �µe r,s ON m� ro e m 1 `j A p ✓ � O Al 1A�M1,34.3) ��_ y � w U 9 U 9 l,�t�l0tio '' �,'Slt1 tilA9l Al 11g9�5� r� ''euJ w 1�g5�1ti1�'6�• .yov�1��01 #6l� �a c lie B�nsbar r 1155g11�5p�K�.",��G GREENWAYENGINEERIINIG,me Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 94 ]5] Wjr�y Hi1f,(nu Wirechrster, Vuginia 22602 TAX (5 0)7662-4185 2022 Phase 2 Build -out Traffic Conditions Project # 2760GC Fa &d m1971 ��H�_gp .0Rg, (J(��aJ v9��8i A`tr J to D( 21] �f �a •, (46)221 ( J F�1�5 Y5l (69)332 k ].mqv GREENWAYENGINEERIINIG,me Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 94 ]5] Wjr�y Hi1f,(nu Wirechrster, Vuginia 22602 TAX (5 0)7662-4185 2022 Phase 2 Build -out Traffic Conditions Project # 2760GC Fa &d m1971 ��H�_gp .0Rg, F END l8 INTERSECTION # ld Cb ) LANE CONFIGURATIONS Q;fie rr 8d S TRAFFIC SIGNAL q4 RTERIAL LOS ® STOP SIGN _A4 NS -A (B) A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) 1 mar k DENOTES UNS)GNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT d �� SIGNALli€CI jN ~ryp O INTERSECTON ®® DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN ARTERIAL LOS Nay LOS= A (C) rP IF DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN NS = D D !j E A=te SB=A{) �y°e Ot a m 1 ARTERIAL LOS �A 7� T,T NB = C (C) tf 6 ° m m . 1, SB = G (F) '0� U (D SIGNALIZED Cr 70 INTERSECTION D LOS= D (F) 9� u F Ke SITE O SIGNALIZED(�1 5 _ UNSiGNAL1ZED INTERSECTION L',/ O Q • INTERSECTION m LOS= B(B) SIGNALIZED Righl In/Out 0 INTERSECTION � �,,,,//j��j �Q� 1 Only Lf p'tl- LOS= B(0) 3 �� RELOC D 3 :'Nm 11 IN ECTION FQ� 9ron5V'% N� �a 11 m p w0 Note: LOS only provided for critical movement& ��;�,"✓.q'n�,n;J '. i�RHca.3�PVFE�"+®. rN - S ^tim a9Y:elnAt":4"aArB ..tYl' �9+i' _ ._, ._Z'II.'vb'�`:F+:`+1'iZYS�..�l�■ a UNSIGNALIZED `q1 t 'PG INTERSE0710N �e �✓//�/�G O tg SIGNALIZED /y G SIGNALIZED h m INTERSECTION INTERSECTION B (CroNthv�rSV (AJC /L% ��,D L05= C (F) Ljl'(V`I( �► UNSIGNALIZED �'�� CEJ �J INTERSECTION royn gyp' RightRq�• 11 only 10 Note: LDS only provided for critieai movements. R aavw,.�o�=ti 11 12 13`x" 5 �j ty UNSIGNALIZEO y � UNSIGNALIZED O d' INTERSECTION y INTERSECTION �+ a RAMP DIVERGE y m LOS= B (B) RAMP MERGE a A(A) m LOS= C (C) °e4 a L5 ®�+. ✓ Inc -den Bdd a Blvd +(A)A G' �G4 P.AMP MERGE ;.lE� � [� @• Z LOS= C (D) 50`�j y O� p RAMP DIVERG LOS= C(8) m rREENYdAYJMWL�- ENGINEERING,... 757 Windy fill lGra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE W Neste., i ,rginia z26g2 �"° Telepinne:(SPO,-95285 2422 Phase 2 Build -out Lane Geomet &LOS Project #2760Gf n�rxial5wim PAX.• (540) 722-9518 yvww.greenwayxng.rom "Table 7 Glaystone Business Fis k Levels of Selzic€, Delay and Bach of Queue (95%) Results 2022 Phase 2 Background and Build-imt Conditions Phase 2 Bidld-ottt Couttiiioes lalel'SReiiea L'st PRxi.l4xa WS (® it 1 i>a h'N) PAi Pe Nae LOS 11T�T CtBeYP {ta 3er1 (SI; H1 AM P..K:ff� DYIa1' ] Q9etre WS /1e _0 1 iW feel} Pitt3 ea41i m LA$ Det (tarn! t {19 tfRC� tm lrrtj EEIVS: t-6 R-1,11 '$B: ParlhRlaae s$: cx.w I- 1"txlBc C`nnttal: fiigaaliza€ioa M -L, E I- 14«a, 33'$ 1 69, 1 1;1$ F1v11t A 5s. 17611 A 5x. >fi1B # 5a, 1988 A Sc. 668 E$SXts A B LL"8.1. ll 4I �- .?8$ k 8x. 75 $_ <S i3-.6$ 13 :1'�r t8&'T A 6d, 569 �s.: 19;$ �:i 3 -'i9 .•�� 30x 16„H ?209 a4'$'!1 1s. d8 A. Qx O$ A tom. OR e1 Qu ' 01t \;'S LOS # c A ;YR:L`1R i"t ct. : t ➢J d<a. NB LOS D D �'L']R Y7 ..9.::,......5� 8 � ➢ _39 s. - LSS R C� 3a s. i9 $ U �. 33 c " 93 B s SU LOS D D C 11 OLB1C.aL1 A p "� � EBfR$: 13s R9atr tl S8: l}'e0toxx Rand SIB; Amor. L- T,.[& C',_J; Signatiznttaa EWL F 95 W, i 283 $ F H 233 c 460 7:77113 -4181 1«'d¢c kB-'1R C «4 s. 35.19 t. Zw a. 365 $ G EB LOS C D D D 44 8 taB:1. £ ?9x 1368 E ?!s 7158 E SLS x. 14S$ E '1 tC 1V B. aF7}T E n a- "$^ 9 F l09 c.T 3S3 743 $ F 1" x 1033 is Ll'i1,_ 7i A j : E. _ `- -Off 3_ 31. IIB LOS 0 xiY17R ➢ 53, 133 SS.B LOS b F SBl F 95s 3439 F las: 5439F 95x. 3.139 F 19ba 5998 S1Yii1 B I i s. ._ '3 $ 'r «3 a. 135 9 B its. '3 8 5B 1:4s D F :U F Oz'FIL.LI.I: F F D F £R'la}S:1S Rautr.li B: 1-5€.SB Ramps Tra1Be COMM: sic_ muzariae MTA 3 2R 11 10K -„iaA �!t•R9.L A ! 4 a. i 1?.'_ 8 A 1 s. o$ A d x, 111$ A 1 EB LVS A B _ B B aL1i'4 A -." Zlfi D _ ?0 e. «_T8 fi 2`s 1079 l 1.6?lr.& :`0$ _ lr. d8 ii Sx Y388 _ _a113'F WR LOS A B A Is SUIT U [ 3S x< i - t?4 E 4#' a ?33 B U 92 f. 201$ F 102x. 361 B ma :L ( 1& 0B A is Oit_ A Is OR A I . OB _ SnL S A C B 1; ONIRALL ?. B B FIRAM Vs Raate 11 %7R;l81hBRmxpx 7lxRlc C'outtrot: S€et phzmioah'BZ 9. ': 1158 F 1'S r. 4769 B 13x 432 F 1G:x 5098 EST �1 "ate g. 24&� j A £BLAS A U A D Ll l -f1' � 13�� ,-13_9 C z4 s: ,aOh B � 1i` 13 s�,.. +,�5 3i _ Soil LL`B�R '?s s38 .} 3s. UJ$ Cyd ?a. 0fl _xf bx #dB At 'Nm LOS R C S D G 34 s. Ina rs 58 s. v2 B D 54 n 37Y $ M -T U 1Ss. 119 C 31€ ?2f B 1`s li9 C 32c 218 �A1lR U13 - € 1018 ➢ Ab:. 3#3 8 ➢ 353. :.^_# $. k #1 x. ?rB LOS M C 11 _ 4619.. 4VERa€:- $ D 0 _i7.. -42a _.. £B -`ll'$: t:b Rnutr 11 :l`B: saowdesa Frieze Bh'O SB=1•tarrtraxtStmet rs1€11C 4`otilF91: siEsrdSzat€oe. 1.81. C ?.. ! 65R A d'x. 2?'B C 35x. - 61$ 2a48 E11:7 i 9s "2338 8 �i3 u. PB?. A 2x� € 16# A !x 1318 Ft tri ...-1� 13t> 113$ $1#e� Ax 5R .A 1s. 25dB m41 Y9 WS Be $ C - NMI - C,? :t, i ]h$ Ti 31 s. - 339 C 33 s, ••<8_ i<.. 63e 59fl Ll'B.T Bd E. f I -S $ 21 39 x. S3$ B 20 E. 1'b fl t7 42 k. J 38b R ...-tLB?R A Zr. +$ A ~ 3a. YSB A� 2s. 59 A 3s 178 Sa$1A1S B C - D Zsx C j ?#x 399 C 3G€, +58 25_ 1$$ F sss +418 ?�7-l'i' C_ �. 1= tl ➢_ 33 n. �C _ -,ll .:�5$ 999 m. .�.1t7t�R i€ its �2b�8. 9x � U x.6� 338 U 19x. NT. PASS C � - C, D SAl C " ?5a 16$ F '1 s. k no11 c 19. 548 7i 4b a. 1098 z3x x•~•„I.',�, U It x. 33b _Os.y son •v_B 11 s. «3+$ _L? 39a 33R ". B .13x. _ROB._ soft - -C OVERALL $ C C c EDINT: Us Rome 11 511: rr' NIA St[e-13tivRwas ffi3. B `• 10s. € 59 B to.. A9 U 11. GR 1 Ttv a:�..i.-h' ..I... k 9 x _3 ..... 34�°-. ,..'A .l Vim:, ld'e, . xq . NA AF'st \A vwf _._ PI 3 i ?3:,t � i3' hla Nil NA h?.a x A x:';1 IS.1. �. N` I 11.' A lC$:'1E- iz,.A x<4 € lv':; Ti!A a N!;A lliA x7? xiA 'N'4 . RB LADS R:+1 NA x`zi x:A , SUSC NA A MA, Y.A. ". N � A N`,'l ( Ak.l li%A .. x;A x .a ' ld.a _ NA SB L4$ c C`- t`- D la A: otd ['4aaie£town xond ":B'.SP.: I`s Iteuia 11 Tratlx. Coatmt: sixnnNza€taa `l'U?� C i 22 49 fi .. _..L.....1 $# 27 it 1). 4 _s. =?S H 6%.'. 2"it !.' �9 n.. _ 341$ ii i 4` £. .. A_.,,1„,.,..'x.. 359 B 43R ISR 1x)5 B e C D 1.'A:'fi A:. it! eq 11 _'lt3i s 1'B LOS ...a,.. B . C ySB3- 23 _ 94 $ pF C0� sa a54 R C _ 30 xY iB F �'t Shc c 6 65 ••P..•. •••' C £. 17611,,•.loe. _ib -9 2586l SS IA>S B F C' F F C F - t•3:'l:aeit.mma, Y i:'V' Yan.wn,3ws-T+4*l+nePnn::an-:n.,.ewow.a. a: a.x,.. +...,... ,�.^+Y^ Grayst me Office & Industrial Park -Trak Impact Study . GREEKWAY ENCHNE Enke File Number: 2760GC ` August 24, 2009 Page 29 Table 7 (c—t*-m Greystone Business Park Levels of Service, Delay and Back of Quenu (95%) Results 2022 Phase 2 Background and Build -out Conditions IMI n -1---d C—difl— I ph— I D-114 — Graysione Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study ONEENWAV ENGINIE'ERI NC Q File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 30 AIM lltok Hear I'M NA H¢w AMPoskMW Mr"kHow W. LOS "W'T 9-- IAX F-4�w QU— PRIM S.—d— Widp IM4 KM O'Ops Mt. Trow C401"hRop $40 T -Mt C -Ind; S4.P.&F, F:1i'r Tom_IMA IIAA X:A I -,A N?A MA WA IW-ANWIA I NaA N"A MA 18 TAS 11M LDS WA WA 1 NA MA MA X;A NA C, 20 C jar 1 VA L WA c C M& MA 7$ A WA N*I�hsA -2- IN U UO S NIVNS; G-ya.* sit-A—:tis I "Ilk Csinrw. swr N4,w I Ofi A 9-& Oft WA N!A xa NIA NA M -A MA NVA MA UM"r XfA MIA WA SFA WA MFA WA wlpR— FNB —LO S '-VA MA NA 13 it C- 22 NA f WA iZA MA RIA C c NIA MA, A NWA I -IIA LOS N,',k NWA t VA ONTRALL MA, NIA Graysione Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study ONEENWAV ENGINIE'ERI NC Q File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 30 PHASE 3 'I'ItAFFIC ANALYSES (2028) The proposed Phase 3 development is to include 1,749,000 square feet of General Office / Research & Development and 570,000 square feet of Manufacturing / Warehousing with access provided via the intersection of US Route 11/Snowden Bridge Boulevard. Phase 3 is be built -out by Year 2028. Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering has evaluated the following two (2) Phase 3 Scenarios: A) without the Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI); and B) with the Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 SPUI. 2028 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS In order to determine the 2028 background traffic conditions, Greenway Engineering increased the existing traffic volumes, shown in Figure 2, using a rate of 0.5% per year through Year 2028. Additionally, all trips relating to specific future "other developments" located within the vicinity of the site were incorporated. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 8 to summarize the 2028 "other developments" trip generation. Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering utilized the following sources for establishing 2028 background trip generation: 1) the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report was utilized for Bishop -Amari, Rutherford Crossing (remaining parcel only), Adams Commercial and Easy Living Associates Commercial Property; 2) VDOT residential rates were applied to the Snowden Bridge development; and 3) Rates derived from a trip generation study (by Greenway Engineering) performed for the Fort Collier Industrial Park (approved by VDOT/County) were increased by 15% and applied to the North Stephenson Tract (Omps Property) development. The Fort Collier Industrial Park Trip Generation Study is provided in the Appendix section of this Study. Note: Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering has assurned the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp to intersect with US Route 11 opposite the existing I-81 northbound on-ramp. In coordination with this improvement, Red Bud Road trips would be re-routed to Snowden Bridge Boulevard via the North Stephenson Tract (Omps). Figure 16 shows the 2028 background weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the key locations identified within the study area. Figure 17 shows the corresponding 2028 background lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 31 Table 8 2028 Background "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summar - wcr cnnw w Turps ae a based upon rates de;,cet 'our "actual" ff. ec cern:, con uc e aa sena . .- _ - . Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study a GR ENG- I yE IN File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 32 Am Peal: Hour PAI Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount I" out Total Irt Out Toud ADT North Stephenson Tract (Omps Property) Lidrt Industrial * 300,000 SF 115 91 206 73 126 199 2,',62 Sub -Total 115 91 206 73 126 199 1762 10% reduction for trips interacting with Rutherford Crossing 11 9 21 7 13 20 276 Total Trips 103 82 185 65 114 179 2,486 Snowden Bridge (Formerly Stephenson Village) 210 Sin"_le-Firmly Detached 432 mots 78 234 312 252 143 400 4,316 220 Ap:atnuent (30% %iD0T+20%nE 220) 91 units 12 41 53 51 28 30 7-8 230 ToNviihouse; Condo (804 o X -!)0T+209 oTI'E 220) 37 units 12 44 57 46 25 71 713 Total "Nerd' Trips 102 319 421 349 201 550 5.80- Bishop -Amari P.u•cels (Route 11/Old Clkmiestowu Road) 814 Specialty Retail 15,000 SF 31 20 50 25 32 57 679 853 Convey. Mart xvp m ps 16 pmnps 137 137 275 154 154 303 8,632 932 H -T Re tam -ant 5,000 SF 30 23 58 33 21 55 636 Sub -total 198 185 332 212 207 420 9,997 Pass -by Trips 40% (Cale 853) 55 55 110 62 62 123 3,473 Total "Nero" Trips 143 130 273 151 146 297 6,524 Rutherford Crossings (Remaining Development) 350 Grocery Store 50,000 SF 114 73 137 275 264 539 4,739 Total "New" Trip 114 73 187 275 264 539 4,739 Adams Commercial 150 Warehom ung LU,000 units 78 1' 95 19 57 75 792 151 Self-service Stora_ "e 140MO units 12 9 21 13 17 35 334 -10 Office 120-000umiL 191 26 217 36 177 213 1,535 812 Building-Ltmuber Store 25.000 SF 44 21 65 59 67 126 1.024 860 INIrolesale M—,uket 150,000 stud- 41 34 75 14 1'.• 32 1,010 Total 366 107 473 146 334 481 4.695 Easy- Living Associates Cormnerci:d Property 151 Self-Semee Storage 35,000 SF 3 _ 5 4 4 8 82 710 Office 35 000 SF 71 10 fit 20 98 113 594 320 Retail 45,000 SF 59 33 97 177 192 370 4,041 853 Com,en. Mailiv-pmnps 16 pemrps 137 137 275 154 153 303 8,682 934 Fast Food %m -'DT 5,000 SF 135 130 266 90 33 1-3 2.431 .5oh-Total 406 317 723 446 531 977 15,880 Pass -by Trips 25% (Code 820) 12 12 24 46 46 92 1,010 Pass -by Trips 40% (Code 853) 55 55 110 62 62 123 3,473 Pass -by Trips 40% (Cale 934) 53 53 106 35 35 69 992 Toi—1 rare-'v'v T::j;F 12-0 12l1 VA . 132 1:12 285 5,475 Total "New" Trip 286 19- 483 303 389 692 10.405 wcr cnnw w Turps ae a based upon rates de;,cet 'our "actual" ff. ec cern:, con uc e aa sena . .- _ - . Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study a GR ENG- I yE IN File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 32 LEGEND OINTERSECTION # XM AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) 9000 DENOTESWEEKDAYAVERAGEDAILYTRIPS(AD)7 11 119g"i SITE �ti �,tiit m 1�� iL I l Cy^M1�55�� S SITE m m sb1 � 11 $fir l �! Pie 9�1'f1111TP`i`g REL aC I] µam ��5 IN ECTION low 0 0 , e ON Sn �- 43' Safi° rar 7 r6J J2 AL S p v ll f;,� 11 `aro 11 NIA 0 3 � m � N GREENVNA7ENGINEERIlVG,00e ISI g. Cra.ystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 16 IYu�y Lune sv,�e>�,� >r�;.,. 22602 Te 0-4I85 l=—.14= PAX.(540)722-957B Project # 2760GC M11"I 2028 Background Trak Conditions LEGEND QI INTERSECTION # INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS i% TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® STOP SIGN A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) * DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT if DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN if DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN ( 1 NB=C(C) SB =C (F) NB=C SB=A SIGNALLED 4:� INTERSECTION wl- LOS=AJB) INTERSECTION i% 11',LC)C U IIID Btu TION plKe Fy �5 - 11 J SIGNALLED Fez (DCTiON INTERSEo UNSIGNALIZED ® INTERSECTION LOS- B (C) Q P Right IWOot Only.,e RAMP DIVERGE LOS- B (B) RAMP MERGE LOS- C (C) t E 5 0 Nate: LOS only provided lot Ctificel movements. RAMP MERG LOS= C (0) ©NALLED INTERSECTION LOS= B (D) ro *• 0 v arr2g% 'i DIY #ry rtoaid v .TERIALOSdL NB =A SB=E SITE SITE UNSIGNALIZED L INTERSECTION 4 V IMP DIVERGEIzNoro: LOS= C (B) only Provided for critical O , SIGNAL= INTERSECTION LOS= D (F) p4[ m O \ UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Right In/Out Only �p�Ke Nate: LOS only provided for cr(OCei movements. SIGNALLED Al INTERSECTION LOS= B (F) G�Rf GREENyVAY ENGINEERINIIS, .. Gray Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 17 Tsl wndysI NE I,ncheV— VeX w=W2 Te! s��9esX.y2028 Background Lane Geometry & LOS Project # 2760GC F.-d,d in IV71 can - .+�vecg�vmevper{q. Year�wwi�+-.n+-.-s�=a=s_=.r.=-r.•-rar�rx�revwa+a�.q�r wasr,a: �.-•—�*�amera�g-�,.a. r�� SIGNALLED O n INTERSECTION LOS= A (C) Cz plC) f A 11 J K O , SIGNAL= INTERSECTION LOS= D (F) p4[ m O \ UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Right In/Out Only �p�Ke Nate: LOS only provided for cr(OCei movements. SIGNALLED Al INTERSECTION LOS= B (F) G�Rf GREENyVAY ENGINEERINIIS, .. Gray Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 17 Tsl wndysI NE I,ncheV— VeX w=W2 Te! s��9esX.y2028 Background Lane Geometry & LOS Project # 2760GC F.-d,d in IV71 can - .+�vecg�vmevper{q. Year�wwi�+-.n+-.-s�=a=s_=.r.=-r.•-rar�rx�revwa+a�.q�r wasr,a: �.-•—�*�amera�g-�,.a. r�� PHASE 3 TRIP GENERATION Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering detennined the number of trips entering and exiting the site using rates derived from trip generation studies (increased by 15%) perforined for the following existing developments: 1) "Avion Business Park" located in Fairfax County, Virginia and 2) "Fort Collier Industrial Park" located in Frederick County, Virginia. Table 9 is provided to summarize the total trip generation associated with Phase 3 of the Graystone Office & Industrial Park. The Avion Business Park Trip Generation Study and the Fort Collier Industrial Park Trip Generation Study are provided in the Appendix section of this Report. Table 9 Proposed Development: Graystone Office & Industrial Park Phase 3 Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In ATA Peak Hour Out Total to PM Peak flour Out Total ADT Office/ R&D * 1,749,000 SF 773 70 844 i27 585 712 8,376 Manufacturing / Warehousing * 570,000 SF 82 65 147 52 90 142 1,968 I 'Sub -Total 855 135 990 179 676 854 10,344 - - 10% reduction for trips interacting with Rutherford Crossing 86 13 99 18 68 85 1,034 Total Trips 770 121 891 161 608 769 9,310 i rips are oases upon rates oerrveo tram _acmar tratnc counts conducted at a similar sites., I hese rates were increased by I M/o per Scoping Form. SCENARIO A PHASE 3, SCENARIO A, TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 18 to assign the proposed Graystone Office & Industrial Park Phase 3 -Scenario A, development trips (Table 9) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 19 shows the development -generated weekday ADT and AMIPM peak hour trip assignments. PHASE 3 (2028), SCENARIO A, BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Phase 3 Graystone Office & Industrial Park assigned trips (Figure 19) were added to the 2028 background traffic volumes (Figure 16) to obtain 2028 build -out conditions. Figure 20 shows the 2028 Phase 3 -Scenario A build -out weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the key locations identified within the study area. Figure 21 shows the corresponding build -out lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Graystone office & Industrial Park - Tra is Impact Study ,�r ; ■ 'GREE QY ENGIN ERfNt File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 35 01� Note: 10% of Graystone Office & Industrial Park trips would be distributed to/from Rutherford Crossing via Snowden Bridge Blvd /Merchant Street at Route 11. The percentages shown on this *Includes 10% trips to/from the Snowden figure are based upon the remaining development (90%)• Bridge Residential Development �s GREENWAYeNoItdEER11dG,ree. 757 w ey Gra stone Office & Industria! Park FIGURE 18 Md—w, ftia 2Md—w,r�gma .nsar Trl" (540 ?,22-9 28 Phase 3 -Scenario A Trip Distribution Percentages Project # 2760GC m 6F ..d d m P71 FAX. (540) 722-9518 Fowded a 1977 muw.greemwyrngtom LEGEND OINTERSECT.?ONa LANE CONFIGURATIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL - - _. - 80(1521 m� 521 STOP SIGN - Sbil� P tie 3a`l b, A (A) AIA PEAK HOUR (PFA PEAK HOUR) ��Myyya�'n �F DENOTES U14SIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT DENOTES FREE RIGHT TURN 11 ° 21 3 m c21 w- B0 2all.yS 1 361t ll %% r 31819 11 RELQC D _ tM1aInsbJ cs� iy �bns°ilr ria INT ECT1014' - r S �;mo MAOI a 7213 x *' s Lg m M ca bl nil�9 0 661 3s269 Fpe�n o�Pa �2a „sbJ .c �ti ��. P `lee, M ri� 6 ` Ql3J was 11 223�'ti �ti ' I 11 II 12 �-k 13 14 s� m 15 v N y y e A' 1jes 0 is �..,� v IBI( 07) h ry( AlmSft -owden (9 � ✓ � a 6r�� s (I34�G43aff 1© 14 L' s" � ry— G) m o n m 5 a gNd 54(270) m ggd Aden o' _ () (91a3 0' 'o r (71)342 G)'o i71 m s.r (54)257 Snowden Bridge Blvd ET (3 ,)171 MWI GFiEENYdAY ENGINEERING,... WISI ,BWL— Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE _h—r, TeFAX:)6674783 Phase 3 -Scenario .A f�evelopment-Generated Trips Project # 2760GI =IS— FAX (540)540) 7276528 1471—g--y—g— LEGEN INTERSECTION We LANE CONFIGURATIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL 3�Z1 y,Jil m STOP SIGN - v ✓-f y7�1� nsb� �n ,.' u• AM1a�� - A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) - DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN � r lI r� - llg9l�9� DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN - GREENWAY ENGINEERING, INC. 151 ff1.dyi &Lane Rrn h__,, 11,0nia 22602 Engv�em, Sm,ryon Telcpl_ (540) 662-1185 6 Enrvvrvnwnl Scwm FAX (540) 722-9528 F..�d m 1971 __grey ye g__ ky h� �� _ �- 11 - o 6 Mans 3 1 \FLGC Q J8 _ m -11ur ECTIOlNI bJ� _ t�SIX" 1'6° zio 09 ° �73O� 6ip,6lt° 'mss\°.y` �a�r op' a l nsb t a` ,~ a r o rJ a� r'3 Is t'76'?J.I 3J4 .s t�"�63 r112�jy� 86r J� ,Cha 0011 �j� SllyrrsJ,2J Ga es oynR�C �l � a 'Yl l 6 p `5 � 11 Lti9 3 rZ u(p) o S (n) (9)43 Snoµde b^ e 6GIJrsJ (134)64 n a d (30I71 a I 11 \ 1 29 m� 54(270) 14A 0 U(0) Snowden 6 (9)43 10 (71)342 o (54)257 Graystone Office & Industrial Park 2028 Phase 3 - Scenario A Build -out Traffic Conditions o X0(0) �000) Snowden (3171 (0)0 —4�. FIGURE 20 Project # 2760GC LEGEND F O/NTERSECTION# 141? LANE CONFIGURATIONS - .j _ SIGNALIZED O SIGNALIZED F�lTRAFFIC SIGNAL ? IITLOS=AC(N INTERSECTION (D) LOS= D (!] ® STOP SIGN - t A' Ke ,�✓�}y A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) n t' C lta�'nsbn� P1 J op Lfj�4a��rvsb� P1Ke V m rVf DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT'S (1�� DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN EIV[ DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN C$lA Gd X919 8 O SIGNALIZED - a _ O - © UNSIGNALIZED m INTERSECTION ® _ INTERSECTION LOS= B (C) Z Right !./Out SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Only `C 11 LOS= B (E) p sbJ` 3 Lt 11 RL LO C D 3 �a�`n INT ECTIO-N �15ye m � v UNSIGNALIZED �� UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION O INTERSECTION a 1Q INTERSECTION Right In10uf '1r,9 Q�` LOS= C (F) On,y SIGNALIZEDsb�AP` INTERSECTION LOS- C (C} < e II 11 p � ee 11 `G1 0 0@- UNSIGNALIZED �' jo UNSIGNALIZEDINTERSECTION INTERSECTION RAMP DIVERGE LOS= B (B) _ RAMP MERGE m ti3 �v n h LOS= C (C) L_ --Z] A(A)* Al agF9J. ' (A)q GS� �I��C S.°K'den Bndoe g1 d m� RAMP MERGE Q. z LOS=C(D) 0 m0 g' RAMP DIVERGE O.ell LOS= C (B) QSIGNALIZED 1S UNSIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED m INTERSECTION - L7 LOS=A (A) INTERSEC710M L7 INTERSECTION n � � m � m (A) A`Li�/� ASAI d V u� mN � Br1d e 8N ti olden 5n owden Bnd°e BNd y u ✓ N t (A)Ati Snowden Bridge 13Wd �m Graystone Office & Industrial Park 2028 Phase 3 - Scenario A Build -out Lane Geometry & LOS FIGURE 21 Project # 2760GC GREENWAY ENGINEERING, INC. 151 H',,dy Hill Lane 145—h —, I vgi..ia 22602 En cm, Survryors Telcph7Z (540) 662-4185 6 E�wov.�rnm1 Sawsl FAX (540) 772-9518 Fm nd�l m 1971 _gre__Y_t: — LOS= C (B) QSIGNALIZED 1S UNSIGNALIZED UNSIGNALIZED m INTERSECTION - L7 LOS=A (A) INTERSEC710M L7 INTERSECTION n � � m � m (A) A`Li�/� ASAI d V u� mN � Br1d e 8N ti olden 5n owden Bnd°e BNd y u ✓ N t (A)Ati Snowden Bridge 13Wd �m Graystone Office & Industrial Park 2028 Phase 3 - Scenario A Build -out Lane Geometry & LOS FIGURE 21 Project # 2760GC SCENARIO R PHASE 3, SCENARIO B, TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. Greenway Engineering utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 22 to assign the proposed Graystone Office & Industrial Park Phase 3 - Scenario A development trips (Table 9) throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 23 shows the development -generated weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour trip assignments. PHASE 3 (2028), SCENARIO B, BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Phase 3 Graystone Office & Industrial Park assigned trips (Figure 19) were added to the 2028 background traffic volumes (Figure 16) to obtain 2028 build -out conditions. Figure 24 shows the 2028 Phase 3 -Scenario A build -out weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at each of the key locations identified within the study area. Figure 25 shows the corresponding build -out lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro and TICS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 10 to show the 2028 background and Phase 3 build- out (Scenarios A and B) levels of service, vehicle delay as well as the 95th percentile back of queue, by lane group/approach, for each of the study area intersections. Graysione Office & Industrial Park - Tra(fc Impact Study EN13INFERIN File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 40 NTote: 10% of Graystone Office & Industrial Park trips would be distributed to/from Rutherford Crossing via Snowden Bridge Blvd /Merchant Street at Route 11 and 40% would be distributed to/fro Route 37 via the proposed SPUI. The percentages shown on this figure are based upon the remaining development (50%). Includes 10% trips to/from the Snowden Bridge Residential Development GREENWAY ENGINEERING,.. Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 22 .151 W—d,MY Lane ASnc;wM,, W W.ia 22602 � z Te"(5 n 528 Phase 3 -Scenario B Trip Distribution Percentages Project#2760GC Ir..&d 1.1971 wx�v,1(reemvaycng.can LEGEND OINTERSECTION #"9'e 4� LANE CONFIGURATIONS - - - z TRAFFICSIGNAL _ r bJr9 P�uo - VISO o vie bU P�uE ® STOP SrGN m Matins . Fada�ins A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) �F DENOTES UNSIGNALLZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT - __ DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN �yyll°� � Cyyll°� s DENOTES CHANNELRED RIGHT -TURN m Z� 3681 �1^`ill - II` od1y'j113� t Pµe do � QXe� �1°`S l I (lam C ' �} + an �J a m IN EGTIOitI - e = am r� 1p� ow m Main it Y II 1y5� �y71 0 p l A �L'311 'l SF `` 1hparcG Oma` 1S_ ns�,t ml �i� bac `qai `� y"a MaM1 (F,d� �2yfJI . � �, Ovd86(IgJ Alow 14p.ti'S `�v ma I 1 111s1y ,rya 5`1 II '1 L Il I 1 1 Z 13 14 16 m So N - m 41 7 � � 63(3I8) g� 43n ✓ 3 u, d`Y'ar' ;8� (84)q �6 noWdeBrid eB/v R a �o �a9 (18)86 y Q m 1�7 18 109 �_ g '• n m _ a s m y6C51 n a �z ��aQsa m sll� tm 117 0� 17( 4) N m '0 1yll givd N m Jf �'?r - <� r �d e N m (O8 n g m' 9i gd ng 99 2 ) _ y 43don r: Hyde 11 ti 128(2®" pow �, ._` _ no 7} w w 5 F`'. Snowden Bridge ""Ed u 257 — m (99) �4i135 m ✓ -- Snowden Bridge Blvd (27)128 (36)171 � Ci08iy1 0 �.7� e`s�34y� •. Wa 4 GREENWAY ENGINEERING, INC. 751 W dy RX Imine W ch—, Kugmia 22602 Engmecrs, Survgnrs Telryho (540) 662-4785 .F FavimMncrwaf Swim FAX (540) 722-9528 Founded m1971 www.greenwayrng— Graystone Office & Industrial Parr Phase 3 - Scenario S Development -Generated Trips FIGURE 23 Project # 2760GC LEGEND z INTERSECTION fi LANE CONFIGURATIONS Q O � 2 � TRAFFIC SIGNAL sgo z�ll `ylgll m4 y?4��SSG) ® STOP SIGN p - - Y 9 ' 11(16) �r9 P3 -e N o 13 0( , pi4 A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) - s m ya�nsb 9 o- 1pb�r9 u• � gyri w � � DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT - DENOTES FREE RIGHT TURN 11 ggl$g'"' l7'�A} DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN iy0 �1y1y6" 1g8p� m C= 1155s`g81`'4 o o r w A �1,Y5plAygl i1 - jr 1aG9Q3��Sbu[ PsK6 _ m em ql a113'q spec F�i`e REL O.v n L l r1a{rl mf �9n - In1T �CTIOnI ~` Jc9pke m nsb� p 9�n5b 63 m t1'9�81300 •' 0 3 - 9low � `13 `5116x6 oP - i1641gg5>� � `' i 1 11�31,,b O O D(10 �� 3yl ,°l �<9 P o btl q�l Ke ��- pry• 9�9 ��° �► ,tib rr6�s�PP 1�, thTc ¢3J ��a �Mo�n� BB E� l" 9 �aP ra��s�SA,..se zssrj6a b� (6�JJ� �o�a �z�(S�J s�o4�P'2p(3 b sT oil Rte' 11 a`y3ly� L1y9 � 11 17 IZ m y � r, o� a gggrrro a � y 17(4 o o. .f JjgSl�ea ` 1091347) 93(9) 3 A v9rY 3a (134)438 en nd e B1v� (18)86 m c� .n O Is 19 o� s: m y71 o N c� Q�� 17(4) H y y6(�1531 a 2 0 m g yb'1( Nd del is "' v ' .poi °' m 43(9 dd e B ;7 n d am 145(237) p en 6 m m co de 8/' v nowd m _ now 128271 :✓ N 5 _ .: Snowden $rid a Blvd (5)26, (159)294 ¢ C (4119 �'" u' GI o ✓ J 5 A Snowden Briage Blvd (27)128 p 0 'Po Jao(r�J y e o 0 1 (13314 ? Q 4J (36)171.0 GRE'ENWAY ENGINEERING, INC 151 R'v.dy Hill Lahr !V 1-1- Vi'rgm. 22602 Eny�necn, Su. 1nrs Telephone (540) 662-4185 6 E.vuon.+sunl5errvu FAX (540) 722-9528 F...&d m 1971 _6 (5 0) X528 Graystone Office & Industrial Park 2028 Phase 3 - Scenario B Build -out Traffic Conditions FIGURE 24 L Project # 2760GC LEGEND QfNTERSECTION# U�J? LANECONFIGURATIDNS I TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® STOP SIG.`.' A (A) AM PEAKHOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN - DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN U-1 GREENWAY ENGINEERING.,... ISI Wendy NilfLane W Telepho-chne(S40J s ; _540) 6 22602 Sury 662-0185 m )97711 Ennwonmcowl9FAX- (540) 722-9528 Fowd�d w�._�enw�ng�nm Graystone Office & Industrial Park 2028 Phase 3 - Scenario S Build -out Lane Geometry & LOS SIGNALIZED n 7NTERSECT:ON O SIGNALIZED LOS= A (C) INTERSECTION } LOS= O (FJ tr Ke n m � Njet�^SbUr9 P� � 6 i0) sbo� Prue �� cam✓ '� �,C.vjV7��7yr� $ . S,VV"77 V OUNSIGNALIZED Z - IGNALIZED INTERSECTION p Right INOut FRSECTIDN Q� J p"Ke Orly 1 � d � 14�P � 5b)t9' �`n S n �,a Note: LOS only p-Wded for-iti-I movements. UNSIGNALIZED SIGNALIZED T INTERSECTION a LQ INTERSECTION �9 ` 7 LOS= C (E7 c mN �J %aches PS crbJ �, nG v UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION UNSIGNALIZED m INTERSECTION me 1V( y m , I e ® g9Jx �(c)b .te m y 0 a y � : UNSIGNALIZED I INTERSECTION 20 73 � n SIGNAL D - SPUI LOS= A (A) ( `i Snowden Bridge Blvd FIGURE 25 Project # 2760GC Table 10 G A,'stoile Rm-doess Park. Levels of Senice; Delay and Back of Quvut (95%) ResWb 2028 Please 3 %wkground and Duild-out (S.elai ios A and B) Conditions 36231 Racks -fi r-lafnar 3 PBao x a:.•F»„w. A hrtri.:,�.{ D-4. AT D,.ed_.°..i 1 Pa.. 3 .new. It m ill, Rra.te.3�1 Rr�A.sef OF19EWMAY ENG lialkING F% n Ess9l.VR. V'nsf4n.mA, NB-N.Abnml. SB-tinM -J. L I.*MTV-,R FW GrUstone Q ice & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 45 ANI FeakHrr 1'AlFeak Hry ARI Tw,atlTao ... rMp.& II m' ARI FwtH.r i'i r.& ILv 7{aeire titap LM Drlay Qrw tN:rr) 1fa f." ON 1,1)8 %7% - (star) Qom` (91.xn4) iJUB 1 DClay. Qmeor i t7Mrrr) t(ib te.tl. I,f18 DeN,r '.. Qeeru tutrr{I %ttii i.N) LU8 Drllia Qary 13r v.0 firTrral LCRS DrkiF om' IQ- r&J- l tleieei3 kti?1. E d9a.. 131$ F 1 141 , ;'i2#. 3; SSa 6 ItIB F 126. M 3Atik % Wa 327.$ F 136. ' Aug FFf'TIt. A be,. 206$ A Sa 2$3$ A -.c 22'8 A #: -= 28Sk A da. 3WA Af RR LOS A it A 9 .A $ 41'91, E 36E- -'-49 E 1 SS r: 18# D da s; 24# C 33.._1 149 D SMI 2611 D a. x6$ FR'lVR: 4lti Rru+e.L 44'R.fl' A ds, d?:@ C 34r. 2038 A 33.9 R 6?e 3368 A ='a. .3;8 D AOc 3fAff N$:p-d'. I- R'IzIi ,S I.a p$ A 9x p$ A Ia O$ A I.a Oif A. la 63 A ps. 9$ SR: t3rwan l,aee: USLION A C A E A H Tialpr Ca -k S4..R.Aloa -N90k D 3i s; 53 $. Fr - 45 r.. Slff D 36. $ E 63- 1 64A D T433 492 D I Sia 66 fi NR L438 D D D x H D sB1TR C` '_'v. 639 D 39x.. SS 1t C 2'Y:_ 3'1`{ D 44s. 102 fi G 31e 359 D d3k - 939 ti LA5 c D G D c D G4Tk-ALL A D A D A Q EBL F 22Ir 308# F 212>v d($ F Y2S a. 333ff F mr. ' 4-111 F xA*. 313$ F w. ASIA ED 'M C SSa V: C 23a W. 8 193 336$ C. 26 F, 411ti9 C 203 3%$ C 2x3 4?SA YtB YAS D $ D D C B it'R.1. R 60:. 14 3 E a - 13611 F 165 r. ?99 % 6'a 1.169 R :7k 1820 E 73 >; 1419 FR AtiR:1�Fi Roatr 31 `9'FsT D Spa. -2 F 12,51 92?$: D Sia 68':9 F l:Sa Ix'6p D 33. 7323 F t4x s. 3 196'$ 5'It: t\':lOawa lCaaA WWR. A ?v. gaff A Sr, YI9 A ;ir *_19 A. ?a 629 A 3s. 249 A do 469 6'Bs:4maacr lure AFR LOS D F D F H F 3F.1.'M D Sia 133$ F 3993 f 2t4$ D 483. 316$ F 415. 23b$ D 32. 124$ F 41ba 2309 TfaJ#i C. M: ti9pi:at r ui- h8 Los D F D F D F SRfL F 493 3519 F 3883 56511 F' 433 31`ff F 18i;a 5u99 F 913 333$ F t88a wt, 8&TR. R 17. ,=3$ C 253 1^$ R lir. -2n R if.. 1100 R xi.a -1$ a 2aa. xE9E SB LOS D F D F H F 01MRALL D F D F D F Wr 1, I lay. 2531: C' 3d z,. 6x31} Ii 1-. Slsfl. 1: 1f•3a sb;.#. 8 x#a ii''# H A6 r. 'dtb F-ptit. A Ss. t6'$ A Ia 09' A 3v 69ft A la =. 99 A 3x. 368$ A la 1 69 F;%`t1'R: TLS Raatr it RRL(RS A C $ D A C 3383 R IS-. 9!11 D 43x: 293$ D 45s. -- 23.48 D spa1"It D 1 64$ D AT. 1634 SR: Ir81 f1R Ramps V46T A .4 a. -: 3339 A. Ar. 9"A }I :. s. 399 A SA 1 1009 A. Sa In A Sa 339$ WRIA)S A $ R % $. $ T!>9gr. Caasd: SlgarBialisa SR.tT D 3'. 1299 R Via. 2909 E 61. 339$ F 191 c [ 393 # 1, 1 F. 33'.9 F 823 3439 E. A le:. 09 A. I6. 69 A la 09 A 19, ' Off A It. 49 A I. 0;9 STf IAS A C'. C° D R C (1\MRAI:I. A R R C It C W.1 R - 183. 1448 F 1?p r, 4x64 {f 263 - iST$ F I- - 4W9C ?3 a. 273# F In. Ana [il"i A I. r. p$ A 3a. 219 A Iptff A 2. A 3s, MAF)k 4'S It wo 11 I'R IA)8 A 4` A. _ _21iA :11 A D 7SI 8469x349 D 41a 776gSI .139 ReaEr {t'R8 A. .xa. 19 A 5. AS A. 2. ff s A 4a ..•�19' A 39 A 4. 259 VV'R 1.45 A D R F$ - D Trn19t ('mmral: Slgandr xieai hB:T.. c 32v. - I&09 R ,6r. 414A D 3'x .td3# E 763. i 43€9 D d5a 'Sr'3A E 6Be APO ata, its C 23x- 168 D 35.x: 229I'-$ +. C Daa 229 Nt1zR % t6a I32ff E 0 bar, 4389. n 521: 3'89. F 84-a. <e;59 -- D ".i3r- Me £ 653 4,199 Mn I.x18 c x H € - D x IsY,lL C: 29. 638 Q Ala 21.49 E - 41. 3359 U 46 a. 7 3.349 D Air. 169 U Ab a. i 2729 FBT'- A =. Ips. x419 8 las. 202$ C 1Sa _ 2'*]9 R _ 76 1319 R i8 a, 1&Rg R IV. - x889 17WRR A I r. 29 A lx 18. % 2s 22.19 A. Is. _... 99. A 2r, 26'9 A_1 la IIli ER WS $ C C c • B c %B#L f I9& D 513 jilt 1) 1 SS r: 16.9 £ pi s: 1 ,1 A E 33 a 1031t E OF `4:8 P..R'IV°B: 4'11 Rswr+ll 'IYBT C 2t x. 19&9 D + 41 21 r'.. # 34IA D it a. t 41:39 C 2tr. 2St ff. D 433ili9 h$:. Saew6na RHAgn.RAW ATi,'S A. 2a SS .A 3a [E9 3 3a. ^99 A 3s, 1 Ing. A 3a. _ 23$ A lb# SU1.1/e h"I f.0 m u'R IAS $ D C D c D ivii2, C25 s. 40 F 88s. In c 383 ^•9ff D 51r. { x"6 ft _ D_ iS c. 699 R #tis 199# TfuW OW411% gwwkl-ld4* NR's (" r x I59 I59 I) I s. 09 249 )•&5`R % tl w, 399 C 2J s: 8^9 A 9r.. 6 3%# >v 23 n. 384fl. _ A 4a 339 % 193 809 bei& {.' 25 r: 1$# D 1 36>: - 1669 D 52.e• 399 E '5+e, f 324# D sir- 3I$ - D 46 AfiT c 3a s. 1'# C° 333 239 1"+ 39x W:9 Y' 33# "'6 .39 a. lYP9 D 4.0, 1989 119 L nit A 9a. $6# _ $ I 4r. -i 439 C _S'r. 21. 84 D 74. 458 D its 69$ hi 1.C�fi R c n n a c 1r°FRu:L $ c r c r c Lia. a 11L 39 $ 14v. ` O$ % 133 .9 R lir, Off: ° % 13< 68 $ iia 9A Fllfi Irril NfA WA NBA 4 12 LEA WA MA, WA. XA tzlk NIA i�G'A N:A N��i. A SI•A ifiiA 1;xI L91t NSA N'A WA MA. %1A WA I B:VI`l: 4'13 Rears It 44'RT N,A. i N:'A. L?."A NA i NIA N+`A NeA. A{rA 3 NIA N.'A NfA NI;1. 3i A: N!A ri°A :AlN, SI?A L1:A SR: FEMA SOt-lbivrmlr UTM LLA. N:A N:A N'•A. NA N'A WA LLA xLk NSA N'A d hiA N"A PT+A LtA LEiI hal tVt1IKxS N -A NIA NA. NfA. NA i'i:A Ttatlk ('ralraL•41ep .yi¢R St1 T 4 i$s I8 P 2'! 2:9 (`. Z3 e, I9 P 3?I dp:b c 23a 39 D F3r� :alb SR:tC. N�4 NSA Nr.I N+A N'.5 NSA \'A NA N's A LI`A h rt MA N:A NeA. N�>i SR IA)4 fi D C E C D .N, 3650 D 40r, 12429 D doe. 421S E 65.. ." ?96# C 3pr. 361:9 43%9 A 4a .31F 33 :- OUcloairc T."X..a 4VB Y.US G C H D C D NBT B <'+B S,ei: 3'S RaWr-tl 1DR, A. dr 329 A 1 's 8?9 A is, ;309 R 1..,�; :1w11 A =3 s. .4R C '�".. s. '.d?8 T,49c C.Wnf; Stpa9u44a NR LCIS. •' .. 'M IL C I 36 r,. - l2a # t ° 641 aI .2;411 D 45 s:. 141 fl: F -�Or, E 2069 U 41 r. 4aT9 .F 30.91 r 303 9 S11;T g t _n s. Sxd 9 & 71 r. - 1745 fi D 3S r 3#911 R 19x. ]4 # i` 24 a ii' fl. A 14 a. 242 # i7i'F.IFALL R F [" F x' Y OF19EWMAY ENG lialkING F% n Ess9l.VR. V'nsf4n.mA, NB-N.Abnml. SB-tinM -J. L I.*MTV-,R FW GrUstone Q ice & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 45 Table 10 g*ow--A m GxAystonc Businm Park L evdq of Senlee, Ddar and Ba&- of Queue (9i%) LtOMU 2028111ka. e 3 Background and 'Build -out (,Stena€ius A. and B) Outdirtions Graystone Office & Industrial Park - TraIc Impact Study File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 46 2.028 170r • ronpd t;npdtfiams PBase 3, Seeparib.A. fuiYLbuti2nu P ri ...ani€ AhfPe>,L1iem� PBiPr,d: tiasr A'S7 Pead:Hemr PA1Pa fir AMP -&U- F?4rmLIt- in . -ti- LOS D V - Los Ddw LnS tiwt«<) fta fes) LOS I fm ? 1 1 IAiX 'Qu E ( 1 i Fw teat) , ° i WA 3SA I IVA M I 2i.>A ° N WA NSA XA M.4 Nt4 32A tXT T,�I l SIA h"A EH'F. NrA 16 AIR: Sus»dmWar, RWd 17.B I'M; WIT '��L '- 1 i X?A hA 3+1'+i *:1$ DL'A NiA A ba 38 A 8Y< 98 -- N'A 13A NSik XIA h'0 xS l B k?8. 13'8 8°s. !SS&C 19x ''4 C 16 s: bS$ tJB T, r T' awes ,A; Sop Sip _ } Al%A S:`.e4 H::t. MAN<3. WA, t�F.-x N ei WA WA, WA 33'A i C - MA- 0ITF4Lt EPLi1=. 633 EI Sc 2p 8i 38 k T I_�.-- IVA RIA MA - [ 1 1i?A. 4t'et WA 'VIA 2irA Pt^,i. 3't�A YX _ Nfa VA , NA NtA F'A. A,vA NI'A XA H>A KA - LOS 14't'L _ 1 .: 32=:3 A;a I i2°A 2L'A N+`k N'.A A 9< d5 A Sr. t 68 I -_�f�..-�. I¢- �_ i 3d;A 3.71.1 HiA R?A j 3+'A HzA N,'A H`,.t iLlt N.`A MA h'�1t Fit'ttRs Sne+<desBsidga Bl+d LCt T- - FLEA WA- C3=A N'A 3&eS Hs'A Di°A H'_A KA _ _ f 2i e. lie C 1Sc 398 S 34s. 3B[ 8 1T_s 178 i\'it ItA HRL Tvtpe Come sI; S4^}Si _.Y_�.--.._.,_ _. _ ,.'_- +---. WA ill HA ?dii i7+A. E7ui N:0. Eliit H•�A 13ciY NA. IlA Ai*A NA # N'o1 RA t 3d A. R�4. 8 10- 18 R 9e. 38 SBL -M. l }q-_ _ 1---- KANA WA 'N:'A H:dL H,'A Atiei WA H•il ICAFi%A. WA _'a �1'. s�. --_ _ �.j,_r. KtA O1'FRAi.3. FMt ..-._ : v__ .,-._.` WA I I' NSA - 373338 ( � 3Si# A N:1 !r. i58 A Ma 6a 168 A A NSA t 6Y: 6�- 38 225 t A zti 9x130 1. A RIA hA iC., h�3 HA A bs. 4$ A brs.. 13.8 - FA>:S7S: %un«Ana B<7dge-pMA R3'i{.T� -- ,q A ss;. '.8 A 1.As d28 A is. Zd8 A Ba- 3.'.8 i WA ALA NC4 #rA Ns:4 MA A _a t9ff A «: 38 :4B 5B: bl<t-Aaeas i:2. CLETc UR Los - - .r- ... __i � �� a1 �}-I - A B A A 9 a IIA _ .6 A 11 it�!.tb� S3ra+a'd: 8¥R: +NzaYlap i 'te 6B A Qs. QS A 7.< @B PMLOS €T8 A 0 f"tR A 9c }8 it 11. r- 139 1 x 6 8 A 0. 49 A. 4 x Olt AL --M•.• A ` �, r 2:k .0 A. Sr:.- 18 A a A - kp't >,q,A NSA NSA `2A NA i N'A 14:A NA NtA A#A N'A h`.4 3i°A MAN'A /:A >F.A NA NA ?+A Nr�l I....,!....__ ' ... AitA 33 4 AtiA 'N AfftKA NA S c8A N°A Sx.3 $L"B`ttR: EB LOS ,�.� Ssnaden BHdge Bh'b C't3 IL tYE Y I- � N;A N 0. W -A :±=A N.4 N'A NA A A it'A NtA0N,-A _ WA N':A. w.,A KA HA NA 32A 1S°A 2<:�A ` 3S3t V%R WS W1iL At.l 9{ I...r_. B 17 ¢ A 8 S WA. B WA U k 48 B ti!A 19 a. 245 1'nt6r i.a¢aralf sxep- _N. K."A 3:A WA ` WA 12.A 12A x::A. 1bsA N1A L'A N:A WA I NA i MA 1v_4 I N`AtkA A It t4a L8 A B i3e. I 38 RIA N,,A I IVA WA N'A NiA NA° N t .W WA lick WIA sB Tk �l. MA WA. E B SRLOS _ _ �...__ r NA MA NIA Nti t C71T7.A1.1: ER.1 a A Ss, I 1437 A Ire. .8 A9 1G8 A t 25 7 72rA A MA NtA- k:lt N,A H3 2'IA i2,lA t 'M 78A At`A i.A MA _ - MA _ MA MU)s ___-._w ;u��l~ ••�,-•�-- N"A AA rA AGA I 7�'A # Nr4 12'A N=A N 7+d.A MA F P.'z4 insxdm8r&18e-BEwI \'p 3p: fifta-Axtas+t?i tt'RT 4R'BR. B .�--i .. ,_• I•y I -;A 12:33 A A 32£A .NiAK-A NrA 3&A " E>til 12dA HrA N.1 A4+A '32iA Imfric lbrii<at: SYsp Stgs _ RS11�A 7isA NA. _tJit N:.i N!A 3dA iv�A-_1S'A WAII XA N:A`i A WA N^A ICA N -A {{ I -,�, p{ _� ...J° .- T-•�-.- A 4x A_ .d8 - A A. Ss. 4x A 3p8 5H L'R'RR: Seo'ndea Rridrr BFY� iR 473: Ramo 3-- RauRx' tiRtL ti°P � i �. :.•- --- .�..^ .J'T - _.:L-�__ - ,.-..-11 { 1 1# �{ L 1 ��- ■ _'�'„ A A ^z s. ibt A d8 48 A A 7 ids Sa 3 88 -up 37771/05 to,L _- No LR1a 7rapi<t'.«seat; 81°t3[ „--. __ �.- .! .. .-._- _�_�� - .1 'F""'..'- A 8e. 4 l48 A , 8x A. '8 I ` 4 R' 44 & A ,i�.R„� t m 3 8 ,. SBL. # _ b A a 5B Los A A _.. _ O±FR432: a�-mow.-,7..,a..k r� s tvwma . SB �.Seadfi4aneA.. L� L<8.7 Tb. R, F Graystone Office & Industrial Park - TraIc Impact Study File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 46 CONCLUSION Each of the study area intersections were evaluated using Synchro 7.0 and HCS+ (merge/diverge analyses only) capacity analysis software. The following describes the results for the future traffic conditions analyzed in this Study: ➢ PHASE 1 (2018): Intersection Analyses 1. US Route 11 & Crown Lane: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The eastbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "F" during 2018 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 2. US Route 11 & Welltown Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "D" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour will maintain levels of service "F" during 2018 background AND build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 3. US Route 11 & 1-81 Southbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The southbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service `B" during 2018 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 4. US Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups maintain levels of service of "D" or better. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 5. US Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound On-Ramp/Red Bud Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the northbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The northbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" during 2018 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 6. US Route 11 & Merchant Street/Snowden Bridge Boulevard: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups maintain levels of service of "D" or better. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. GraVstone Of & Industrial Park -Trak _-pact Study OREENWO .ENGINEERING File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 47 7. US Route 11 & FEMA Entrance: Analyses revealed unsignalized levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups maintain levels of service of "C" or better. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 8. US Route 11 & Old Charles Town Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the westbound and southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and southbound left -turn movements will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" or worse during 2018 background AND build -out conditions. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. Ramp Analyses i. I-81 Mainline & Northbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recormnend improvements for this location. 2. 1-81 Mainline & Northbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 3. I-81 Mainline & Southbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 4. I-81 Mainline & Southbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. Arterial Analyses 1. US Route 11, South of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM and southbound AM peak hours. The southbound PM will maintain levels of service of "F" during 2018 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the sub -standard intersection spacing currently existing along this segment of US Route 11. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 2. US Route 11, North of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound AM and southbound PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 3. US Route 11, South of the Old Charles Town Road. Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound AM and southbound PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study GREENWAY ENGINEERING File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 48 9 PHASE 2 (2022): Intersection Analyses 1. US Route 11 & Crown Lane: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left and westbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The eastbound and westbound left -turn movements will yield a levels of service "E" or worse during 2022 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 2. US Route 11 & Welltown Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "D" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour will maintain levels of service "F" during 2022 background AND build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 3. US Route 11 & 1-81 Southbound Ra. ,p : Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The southbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" or worse during 2022 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 4. US Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound Off -Ramp: Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering has assumed the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp to intersect with US Route 11 opposite the existing I-81 northbound on-ramp. In coordination with this improvement, Red Bud Road trips would be re-routed to Snowden Bridge Boulevard via the North Stephenson Tract (Omps). 5. US Route 11 & I-81 Northbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The eastbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "F" during 2022 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 6. US Route 11 & Merchant Street/Snowden Bridge Boulevard: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the westbound and northbound left during the PM peak hours, will maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and northbound left - turn movements will maintain constrained levels of service of "E" during the PM peak hour build -out conditions. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. Graysione Office & Industrial Park -Traffic Impact Study Jr z ONE, ENWINEIERI G File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 49 7. US Route 11 & FEMA Entrance: Analyses revealed unsignalized levels of service of "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups maintain levels of service of "D" or better. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 8. US Route 11 & Old Charles Town Road. Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. All lane groups, except the westbound and southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and southbound left -turn movements will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" or worse during 2022 background AND build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. Ramp Analyses 1. I-81 Mainline & Northbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 2. I-81 Mainline & Northbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 3. I--81 Mainline & Southbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 4. 1-81 Mainline & Southbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. Arterial Analvses 1. US Route 11, South of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM and southbound AM peak hours. The southbound PM will maintain levels of service of "F" during 2022 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the sub -standard intersection spacing currently existing along this segment of US Route 11. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 2. US Route 11, North of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound AM and southbound PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 3. US Route 11, South of the Old Charles Town Road: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound PM peak hours. The southbound AM will maintain levels of service of "E" during 2022 build -out conditions. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Trafc Impact study GRIEWMAY mirmNEERnma File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 50 9 PRASE 3 (2028): Intersection Analyses 1. US Route 11 & Crown Lane: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left and westbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The eastbound and westbound left -turn movements will yield a levels of service "E" or worse during 2028 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 2. US Route 11 & Welhown Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "D" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. The PM peak hour will maintain levels of service "F" during 2028 background AND build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 3. US Route 11 & I-81 Southbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the eastbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The southbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" or worse during 2028 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. 4. US Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound Off -Ramp: Per the VDOT/County approved scoping document, Greenway Engineering has assumed the relocation of the I-81 northbound off -ramp to intersect with US Route 11 opposite the existing I-81 northbound on-ramp. In coordination with this improvement, Red Bud Road trips would be re-routed to Snowden Bridge Boulevard via the North Stephenson Tract (Omps). 5. US Route 11 & 1-81 Northbound Ramps: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "E" or better during the AM and PM peak hours under build -out Scenario A (without Route 37). The eastbound left -turn movement will yield a PM peak hour level of service "F" during 2028 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the "green -time" required to maintain proper progression for the synchronized traffic signal system along US Route 11. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. The overall levels of service would improve to "D" or better assuming the construction of the interchange (SPUI) of Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 (Scenario B). This improvement would be facilitated by the dedication of right-of-way that is being proffered as a condition of the Rezoning. Graystone Office & Industrial Park - TrakImpact Study + ► rjRvENWAY ENGINEERING File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 51 T 7 US Route 11 & Merchant Street/Snowden Bridge Boulevard: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. All lane groups, except the westbound and northbound left during the PM peak hours, will maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and northbound left - turn movements will maintain constrained levels of service of "E" during the PM peak hour build -out conditions. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this intersection. US Route 11 & FEMA Entrance: Analyses revealed unsignalized levels of service of "E" or better during the AM and PM peak hours under build -out Scenario A (without Route 37). . The levels of service would improve to "D" or better assuming the construction of the interchange (SPUD of Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 (Scenario B). This improvement would be facilitated by the dedication of right-of-way that is being proffered as a condition of the Rezoning. US Route 11 & Old Charles Town Road: Analyses revealed overall levels of service of "C" or better during the AM peak hour and "F" during the PM peak hour. All lane groups, except the westbound and southbound left during the PM peak hour, maintain levels of service of "D" or better. The westbound and southbound left -turn movements will yield a PM peak hour level of service "E" or worse during 2028 background AND build -out conditions. "Regional improvements" are recommended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. Ramp Analyses 1. 2. 3. 4. 1-81 Mainline & Northbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 1-81 Mainline & Northbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. 1-81 Mainline & Southbound On -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. I-81 Mainline & Southbound Off -Ramp: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better during the AM and PM peak hours. Greenway Engineering does not recommend improvements for this location. Graystone Office & Industria! Fork - 1 rattic impact 11uay A ENGINEERING File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 52 Arterial Analyses 1. US Route Il, South of the I-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM and southbound AM peak hours. The southbound PM will maintain levels of service of "F" during 2028 background AND build -out conditions. This is primarily due to the sub -standard intersection spacing currently existing along this segment of US Route 11. "Regional improvements" are reconnnended to facilitate acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour. 2. US Route 11, North of the 1-81 Interchange: Analyses revealed levels of service of "D" or better for the northbound PM, southbound AM and southbound PM peak hours. The northbound AM will maintain levels of service of "F" under build -out Scenario A (without Route 37). The levels of service would improve to "D" assuming the construction of the interchange (SPUI) of Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 (Scenario B). This improvement would be facilitated by the dedication of right-of-way that is being proffered as a condition of the Rezoning. 3. US Route 11, South of the Old Charles Town Road. Analyses revealed levels of service of "C" or better for the northbound AM, northbound PM, southbound PM peak hours. The southbound AM will maintain levels of service of "F" under build- out Scenario A (without Route 37). The levels of service would improve to "E" assuming the construction of the interchange (SPUI) of Snowden Bridge Boulevard/Route 37 (Scenario B). This improvement would be facilitated by the dedication of right-of-way that is being proffered as a condition of the Rezoning. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCOMODATIONS Per the Proffer Statement, the applicant has agreed to provide internal asphalt trails for the benefit of employees of the office and industrial park. These asphalt trails will be a minimum of six feet in width and will be designed to connect land uses throughout the four OM District land bay area identified in the Generalized Development Plan wherever possible. Graystone Office & Industrial Park - Traffic Impact Study GREIENWAY ENOWEERING File Number: 2760GC August 24, 2009 Page 53 APPEND.J Cl SK2 Document, (Located on CIS) Anchro Worksheets (Located on CD) SCS+ Worksheets (Located on CD) Traffic Counts (Located on CD) Generalized Development Plan (Located on CD) GREEINW AY ENraIN ERING _ 1.;,-'za7 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded to 1871 Winchester, Virginia 22602 Telephone 540-662-4185 Engineers FIAX 540-722-9528 ss: c rn urn Surveyors www.greenwayeng.com j' ice!SA1r� 1 a �tl To: Jerry Copp Organization/Company: Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) From: Michael Glickman, PE, PTOE Date: September 29, 2009 Addendum to: Project Name/Subject: Graystone O{fice and Industrial Park Traffic Impact Study Greenway Engineering File Number: 2760GC Per your request, Greenway Engineering has prepared this document as an addendum to the Graystone Office and Industrial Park Trak Lmact Siudy, dated August 24, 2009. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a supplemental study to evaluate the following transportation improvements, as proposed by VDOT, to improve traffic flow along southbound US Route 11, between I-81 and Crown Lane: 1) the extension of the US Route 11 southbound left -turn at the intersection of Route 11 /I-81 southbound ramps; 2) the extension of the US Route 11 southbound left -turn lane at the intersection of US Route 11 /Welltown Road; and 3) the addition of third southbound through lane from the 1-81 southbound ramps to Crown Lane. Weekday AM and PM peak hours analyses were performed for each of the development phases contemplated in the August 2009 submission. METHODOLOGY Other than the improvements described above, all methodology utilized for this addendum is consistent with the August 24, 2009 submission. 2015 BACKGROUND/PHASE 1 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Figure 1 shows the 2015 background weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of US Route 11/I-81 Southbound Ramps, US Route 11/Welltown Road and US Route 11 /Crown Lane. Figure 2 shows the corresponding 2015 background lane geometry and weekday AM /PM peak hour levels of service results. Figure 3 shows the 2015 Phase 1 build -out weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of US Route 11/I-81 Southbound Ramps, US Route 11 /Welltown Road and US Route 11 /Crown Lane. Figure 4 shows the corresponding 2015 Phase 1 build -out lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this memorandum. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 1 to show the 2015 background and Phase 1 build -out levels of service, vehicle delay as well as the 95"' percentile back of queue, by lane group/approach, for each of the study area intersections. Page. 1 of 22 LEGEND O(NTERSEC X(Y) AMPEAKI 100 DENOTES 0 7 NIA N/A NIA NIA A NIA ill/A NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA GREENWAY ENGINEERING,. Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 1 rsr Jim L— .�h-. >lgbi� .4 '`F :0, n2 2135 2015 Background Trak Conditions Project # 2760GC Fn dM k7977 �d� LEGEND OINTERSECTION # �� d C$g T �-" � [� Rid °" ;II LANE CONFIGURATIONS ,p0 TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® STOP SIGN A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) * DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN 0 NB=D SB=C INTERSECTION. LOS= A (B) Q1NTERSECTK2N LOS• A (A) Mss SITE>A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS= C (D) N/A I N/A I NIA im GREENWAYENGINEERING,w- Graystone Once & Industrial Park FIGURE 2 151 W.4 JIMLnne W -1—t-, Y�rginia 22602 F T FAX- (3.,54M-95 8 2015 Background Lane Geometry & LOSProject # 2760GC E Envw.vn�ra!&+.:ars FiLC (540) T22-9528 Fawded 67971 �vww.B��IB•�+ _ .__. ____ �m�wr LEGEND QINTERSEC x(Y),- AM PERI( 100 DENOTE: ktE� 4 m c� X199 4 NIA M htlfl NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA GREENwAY ENGINEERING,., - 251 Office & Industrial Park ISI.H�� FIGURE 3 wmclttsrc., 14.2V,.ra 226oz T �`'°�;0;°��2� 2015 Phase 1 Build -out Trak Conditions Project # 2760GC F.." ix 1971 xrx,.gcmx�yeng.cam LEGEND OI INTERSECTION # LANE CONFIGURATIONS TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® STOP SIGN A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) * DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT if DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN if DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN w SE-C(D) Y-. Id �� 4e ReadLa,; 5 ` e 4, SITE SITE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION INTERSECTION LOS= A(8) n p�lq � { V NIA NIA NIA N/A NIA NIA NIA OINTERSECTION LOS= A (A) Cpl A 0 0 15 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Loll C (D) NIA GREENINAY ENGINEERING, llla flrtndy Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 4 151 Hill Lone Ainchester, [�u8inia 12602 Telephnne:(540) 661-4185 2015 Phase 1 Build -out Lane Geometry & LOS Project # 2760GC AEnvuo..ne�ual Senses FAX(540)712-9528 Founded In 1971 wN 9: n"Yy 81e � � Memorandum To: Jerry Copp Page 6 of 22 Table 1 Gi-aystone Office and Industrial Paf-k Levels of Service, Delay and. Back of Queue (95%) Results 2015 Background and Phase 1 Build -out Conditions 2015.Background Conditions I Phase I Btdd-etut Ct ntli13nt1s Lrtetaectlan AM Peait 11-W LOS Delay 94—Dip 0- set) (- fcct) ^I PeA-Il"s LOSk QseueLAS (m sat) _ (ia feed i 11 Pack Nuts I) -b7 Q�ese (in sec} (in feet) JINX Feak Hoar S DeF Qnese see) (m Leet) FR Lt73: ITS Rome 11 MV Pncdve]Aute 513: Q.." Lase Tntfrtr. Costealt Sigtrelzaotnn FBlL I 41 s 90 8 D 56. 197 9 1i 41 s, 90A B 57. 212 8 . EB LOS —.,— A it R $ WEIL.. B 16 14-$ D 81L ,..1A$ C0228 C 29s:.. 15$ '"T" R. 3S- 50a 4 7c i 6611 1 2 x, :J59 A 7- n 0 WBSR A L a O ft A i s, 3 0 i! A 16. 02 A » s. 0$ w WS A A A A NBITR C 27.. 368 C 33s 4i8 C »5 s, 36>t C-7 31. 478 NO 110S C C C C 517.�I;TR C 21 s. 9? 11 C 30 . 70 9 .B _1 Ms, 420 C $1 s 69A SB LOS I C C $ C oYExAJ L A. A _: A En"1't71: US Route 11 .. SA: Wl t"w $nnd NR: Am -m l.aate 'r"Mc Cpntaals Slgtta48don 345$ D 976. 796$. F_ 1: rm B 15 6. 678 C 26 3i, ? ... 8 B 13 718 I C FAB WS B D B C W31. 1) 55,- n-9 8 D 49. 1. 117 A D AS 6, 123 8 F 61- 95 $ Ain C 39 s. 3118 D 51 s. i 446 $ C 27 s. 294 8 D 47>H 502 it ;tB+A — i 5 s, 3d A A S . { 2$ ti A 4 a. t$ 8 A 3 e, 15 H wa 1.03 C D C D NBILTR E 38s. 1268 F $9. 1698 E ;8 x. 1.6H F 118 v AB LOS $ i E 1' SB11.D 52 a. 27 it F 1319., i 42's fl D 50.. 2278 F 99x, 44.0 SRr1R A 9,. 578 B 110, us ft A 96. 57$ A 2& 6'18 SB 1.08 C E C E OVERALL C D C D rs76,1VA: ITS Rout. 11 SB, 1-81 S -Z R" ps T"flit VORUv1. Slattaltzation ._ ITif1' A 3s. GOS B 12 s, i 16-, it A Ss. 63$ $ 165.. 160H �A 3s. 1168 -V--T- Is. 0it A 3s. %8 A 1 0$ FR LOS A A A B B 15. i r$ D 46. i 31311 73 15x i 9'88 D sd .. 38d 8 A li A 8 P,,.LL D Ql s. 8 E 61 x. 214 H 13 94 s. 166 8 E 74 x. 259 it A 1s. ;,I OS A 1s. ! 0$ A 1u. OS A 1s. 0ft A 33 $ C A. A A B FA --E: �ibasesl, u$ �39cfHatnntE„t*B - Nordkolmd, SB Soot &md. L Wt. T;T#us. R: RiOA Memorandum To: Jerry Copp Page 7 of 22 2022 BACKGROUND/ PHASE 2 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Figure 5 shows the 2022 background weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of US Route 11/1-81 Southbound Ramps, US Route 11 /Welltown Road and US Route 11/Crown Lane. Figure 6 shows the corresponding 2022 background lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. Figure 7 shows the 2022 Phase 2 build -out weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of US Route 11/1-81 Southbound Ramps, US Route 11 /Welltown Road and US Route 11 /Crown Lane. Figure 8 shows the corresponding 2022 Phase 2 build -out lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 2 to show the 2022 background and Phase 2 build -out levels of service, vehicle delay as well as the 95`' percentile back of queue, by lane group/approach, for each of the study area intersections. 2028 BACKGROUND/PHASE 3 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS Figure 9 shows the 2028 background weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of US Route 11/1-81 Southbound Ramps, US Route 11 /Welltown Road and US Route 11 /Crown Lane. Figure 10 shows the corresponding 2028 background lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. Figure 11 shows the 2028 Phase 3 -Scenario A build -out weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of US Route 11/1-81 Southbound Ramps, US Route 11 /Welltown Road and US Route 11 /Crown Lane. Figure 12 shows the corresponding 2028 Phase 3 -Scenario A build -out lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. Figure 13 shows the 2028 Phase 3 -Scenario B build -out weekday ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at the intersections of US Route 11/1-81 Southbound Ramps, US Route 11 /Welltown Road and US Route 11 /Crown Lane. Figure 14 shows the corresponding 2028 Phase 3 -Scenario B build -out lane geometry and weekday AM/PM peak hour levels of service results. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this Report. Greenway Engineering has provided Table 3 to show the 2028 background and Phase 3 build -out (Scenarios A and B) levels of service, vehicle delay as well as the 95`'' percentile back of queue, by lane group/approach, for each of the study area intersections. a—-ti«as�s.�. ��,:x.as�..m-_*.► *r. u�.ua r;.erts.�arrss^a:Pae;u+a�;irnw_. rrsmwE<s+ LEGEND OI INTERSECTION #�� X (Y) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) Q� - opt o 100 IDENOTES WEEKDAY AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS (ADT) ��O a ®�Aroll 'O�Y Isb 11 e syrE • kvION11W �f ,��_ - I�o �fi C•b of Lie 2 NO 1866 D r '191#I�� ikto P9 II, ACD 61 1. �.. .p 11 —0 N °°��v SITE 11 ` 0. . 0 a c�� 11ti11110i - a 3 NIA NIA NIA.. y �e Ms'a�SbU P ti'�� 3 NIA NIA NIA N/A N/A I N/A � N/A I N/,4 GRE'"'"AY ENGINEERING,., JA W1, Gray stone Office & Industria! Park FIGURE 5 W rhureer, %OiL2e 540) 66126[11 T' X. Is -W),19528 2022 Background Trak Conditions Project # 2760GC n LEGEND 1 INTERSECTION # 'Alf LANE CONFIGURATIONS pat TRAFFIC SIGNAL ® STOP SIGN A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) it DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN f M NB so = NIA NIA C S'w 4J.SM:ted-L?�iF-'Y�.iLSfF�.wiRi'c`TQ`-41`. ••W;��IP! - . x* 1� �y� (j� �ALIZED W INTERSECTION ek, LOS= A (A) P 0�4Nk�rd r � AT r�,�OE S g" a� SITE NIA I IIIA NIA I NIA C9& NIA NIA . SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 105= C (D) �ql moo" GREENWAY ENGINEERING, Irc Graystone Ofce & Industrial Park FIGURE 6 I51 Windy Hill Lone Wv�chvler, Yuginia 22662 y gN Telephave: (54M) 95 8 2022 Background Lane Geometry & LO Project# 2760GC QEF..,, a♦ M 197F.9X• (5461 722.9528 - www.8rcenwayert8-eun' ��a�� 11 �Pa�4a SITE SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS=A (B) NIA NIA NIA I IIIA NIA I NIA C9& NIA NIA . SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION 105= C (D) �ql moo" GREENWAY ENGINEERING, Irc Graystone Ofce & Industrial Park FIGURE 6 I51 Windy Hill Lone Wv�chvler, Yuginia 22662 y gN Telephave: (54M) 95 8 2022 Background Lane Geometry & LO Project# 2760GC QEF..,, a♦ M 197F.9X• (5461 722.9528 - www.8rcenwayert8-eun' ��a�� LEGEND t :✓ 1NTERSEI X (Y) AM PEAK 100 DENOTE; 0 � Im epyl s 1's1tlti9l A. �' 3Fy'e 11NIA NIA Pi's m NIA I N/A I l\//A NIA I NIA I NIA MA NIA GREENWAY ENGINEERING, xle d E>n nsml Smnnr I W iALan Gray Wmhaem,;41n2262 stone Office &Industria! Park FIGURE 7 T&p1--0662-4J85 FAX (540) W.9528 2022 Phase 2 Build -out Trak Conditions Project # 2 Fov dei in 1971 —$--Y—g— �w _ -' ! v�w<�;t�a�u�«�-,.��.r�� - ._7. -�w+as _ . ,.-� ¢.r_m�: ��ferrl-+a.-!.r+a4i+•a+crl.��e...+z.� rrs'�w+ LEGEND of INTERSECTION# clad, l �Q (� LANE CONFIGURATIONS Road M TRAFFIC SIGNAL`' e STOP SIGN A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR)1 , ,. �� -- ry SIGNA1J7ED 1k DENOTES UNSIGNALMED CRITICAL MOVEMENT drf:� r O INTERSECTKNU Py, LOS= A (A) DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN �%' �� •1 DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN ' 1 � day � ® SIGNALIZED INTERSEC77ON LOS= A (0) 1 > 11 L)r Q,xe m NYA NIA NIA NIA NIA SITE [7) SITE NIA NIA NIA SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION ) LOS C (D) � � Q}yie o� Ma�� kq NIA i NIA NIA. GREENWAYENGINEERING,m Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE S ru Wmdy x�g � Winehnm, Irvgerua 11602 Te'FPAIX c(540)66b'855 2022 Phase 2 Build -out Lane Geometry & LO Project#2760GC danwmm i. 197J cer FiIX.• (540) 111-9528 F+undrd in l9ll www.8q)p+8•� � - _ - Memorandum To: Jerry Copp Page 12 of 22 'fable 2 Gras -stone Office and Industrial lark. bevels of 4enice, Debay and Back of Queue (95%) Res -quits 2022 Background and Phase 2 Budd -out Conditions 71172 B.Ato-1-1 Conditions I Phrtse2 Build -out Conditions lnlenetiton AMPeaEflour TAS �L)elay aema y� S"` sefj Axl 1'Net� I,tlS rulleal:.Ioar 1 Dt aene g ': i %et : (tA Iaet) Alit Peals Boar lAfi Delay Qaene � Eer.� tilt ieF:, rhi ea&liour LOS DOW a7uene yy xac)%e1y FR1S71:iiSRnaleII Ne., Poraw 1..4ae SB: Ctown L~ T"M Control: StpwVzatlon. F111L D 47o, 100 fl E ( 37 s_ t 212 $. D 41. e. 90 $ E 62 a 2292 C.Dr R A its 2168 A 6 s, ? 26811 A 7 s. 220 $ A f s 27011 FU LOS B B A - B tYI3.'L 11 20 t. 11 It 13 ' I 43 s. i 1511 A 19 s: 16 R C 33" 1611 1;&T A '1 g. _ SSR A ?a- i 69ft A 2 36$ A 82 _ FS It NqtJ A 1 s. $ A 1 s. 0 $ A I S. 0 $ A i S. 0 $ .._.0 R'B LOS A A A A. XWUR C- 31 s. -il fl47 $ C 29 s. 37 $ D 45 s Sl $ hLos C D C D S&'1.TR C� ?A s. � 44 $ C � 35 s. 1 79 & C 22 s. �, d3• $ D 39 s. SII1dSS C C C P 85 $ ONTRAI.1. ,A A A A. EB`"M: IIS Rnule If SB- tt'rinown Read NOZ Amoco Lane T**ftie Control: SigonHvation .. ID.n E Sys. 206fl F ! 98s. 9 378 ft E - 562. i 318ft F 113 s, 3972 ERt'1R B 16 a 27711 C 29.- 477 k $ 18 436 it 7 C . a 167 fl E8 LOS C' D _ t173f1... D 48 a. a 132A D I 54. ! I.27fi D 46e MA 'E �9s. 113A 1{Btr $ 30 s 2b7 $ D t Sf s S17 @ C 2G 8: ?44 $ D 49 s 5914— C5'Y3lR A 3 € 29 $ A 3 s. - ' 26 $ A 3 s. 9G fl A. 4$, 29t \I'll LOS BB C D 1v71'7 TR __ E '74 1. _ Yd' S . F 118 s. 192 fi E 58 s.._ .133 11 F 21d R NB LAS D F h P SAtL E 56s. $ 253 9 F log.. 3 4,5 $ D fie. 348 $ F 101. 503 $ SDnR A 9s 61$ C 10s 6 84$ A 9s. 73A A 8x 71 i1 5111 QS C E C E ONTRALL C D C' D EB'%N*B: 1.3S Route II. Sb; 1-81 S11 RampB Trnlllccontrol:Sigun&ation ]73E'!'-- A _ ds. 71 -ft ii 13 s. ! 195 $. A 20el---65$ B 17 s. 318$ FB✓K A 4 s. " 1318 . 41 1 s. 00 $ A 4 x. _Sii 8. A 1 a 0 $ _ EBLOS A A..V A R ... F1%& B 14%, 1 68 $ D 33L 1 145 ft C 27 s: 14811 E d s. Wit A 59 s. i s 244 It off R'BtF A 1 a li ii A 1- �� -1 0 kE A t1-- LOS A A A 8 SfnT 17 49s. 154$ E i 79s. t 279$ D 42 s. 2384 F 91s 33Z$ SwR A Ic. 0$ d 1s 0d A 1c 08 A 1s. 0$ SB LOS $ C $ C l NTRALL A B A R EB --Es iiosad,WB-Wcstbotod,NB--N-d&emtd. SB-S-afld-md. L-Ix11, T -Il .KF -W LEGEND Q1NTERSEC' X (Y) AM PEAK 1 100 DENOTES NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA OW" NIA NIA GREENWAYENGINEERING,. Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 9 151 W.41191Lane W hero• IV *1a2 2602 T FAXh 540)72 -932A83 2Q28 Background Trak Conditions Project# 2760GC 4F m+S s F.9X (S40) 722-9528 FoYided v+[977 raa® rs•.-iza�r.>eF��l�we�smarcns�e®rc.^moi m 5g51 ��1�a,yg6l Fsp � � U P�Ke �SOJt ' N �5B NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA OW" NIA NIA GREENWAYENGINEERING,. Gra stone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 9 151 W.41191Lane W hero• IV *1a2 2602 T FAXh 540)72 -932A83 2Q28 Background Trak Conditions Project# 2760GC 4F m+S s F.9X (S40) 722-9528 FoYided v+[977 raa® rs•.-iza�r.>eF��l�we�smarcns�e®rc.^moi !' �'t�]!,y��.wear.-...-.arapl�il•s��•�-¢ _ ... __. F ND INTERSECTION # � LANE CONFIGURATIONS 4 Road.:,.., A, TRAFFIC SIGNAL cs� STOP SIGN �Iti`p A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) I Z: k.•M a n-� �r fk DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT d SIGNALIZED (D INTERSECTION DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN ehey LOS --A (B) DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURN ' I 0 pxop , @f a � ARTERIAL LOS T SIGAL41 INTERSECTION LOS= C (D) a �C�l PyKe AFm SITE OSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION w 10S= A (B) NIA IIIA NIA M IPDA �� NIA I NIA I NIA I NIA NIA I NIA 1 NIA I NIA GREENWAY ENGINEERING, Ixa Graystone Office & Industrial Park fd vq, ; Ri— 22 FIGURE ? Winchesln, Yugilua J2602 N.— rFAX 540)n29528� 2028 Background Lane Geometry & LOS Project # 2760GC F...W u. 1071 www.girmw �cr�grom LEGEND OINTERSEC X (Y) AM PEAK 1 1 DENOTES J m 1,�p'I1 NIA NIA t Q,vg 0or m NIA I N/A I NIA NIA I N/A I NIA NIA NIA N/A FIGURE 11 Project # 2760GC GREENwAYENGINEERING,a+o. Graystone Office & Industrial Park ISI Wu+dy XJllnne Wirtchesre. fruRmiu 22(A2 � '85 2028 Phase 3 - A Build -out Traffic Conditions (5,10) Fauedrd In 1971 www.g�ccnwayer�ycun LEGEND 1NTERSECTION>R ¢ d Charl WI? LANE CONFIGURATIONS Qti� Road TO "TRAFFICSIGNAL V� ® STOP SIGN0 A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) Y Y �I DENOTES UNSI'GNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT frLr Q �� RSECTWN DENOTES FREE RIGHT TURN 0BJ, LOS=A (B) DENOTES CHANNELIZED RIGHT -TURN 7y rJ' a J✓�`J/ ARTERIAL LOS NB=D(CJ �� 1; m SITE '� � SB=a(Dp) O � 9A e s P a a�y�� W SIGNALIZED Cho 3 INTERSECTION C � L 0= C (D) 21 Wa SITE O tb SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS= B (C) �l NIA N/A NI t P`ke �j- en9^'�� NIA I NIA I NIA 1 N/A NIA I NIA If NIA 1 NIA GREENWdkY ENGINEERING, lNG, I51 Randy TfGraystone Office & Industrial Parr Wa�ches;er, 22602 FIGURE 'l Lane ' Yrginia I u 1w� S Ta F", (: (540) -0528 5 2028 Phase 3 - A Build -out Lane Geometry � & LOS Project # 276OGC w9ervirrJ F - (540) 7a2-9578 / y .green»aycggco o 93 3 �Sr°��py5d` IL NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA N/A I N/A GREENWAY ENGINEERING, n+e Gra stone 4ffiCe & Industrial Park FIGURE 13 -$- iso w,: xmt. w�n��,e., r,� zzsaz .A *. --.1= .sov� Te7FAX (5 (540) 662-41 40 =-952885 2028 Phase 3 - B Build -out Traffic Conditions Project # 2760GC F. -&d rn 1971 N+x�v gleEllwllFel�rnm lJCLti� ..... •��-� `r�T �.Zr,��g:�' _ L�af/a: �:+.�aP. _ LEGEND ��1 INTERSECTION#, (� LANE CONFICURAPORIS TRAFFIC SIGNAL a� ® STOP SIGN ° A (A) AM PEAK HOUR (PM PEAK HOUR) Y Y S: DENOTES UNSIGNALIZED CRITICAL MOVEMENT d� SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONINTERSECTION DENOTES FREE RIGHT -TURN yP��y ROS=A (B) DENOTES CHANNEI2ED RIGHT -TURN I. I. byPPr 2� a e r r ITE u a �P v V ep .y hQ a a AF HSIAL LOS 9 SIGNALIZED a INTERSECTION Cj-p 3. w LOS= C (D) Pyge SITE VVV m Q — SIGNALIZED - INTERSECTION m LOS= A(0) - r3 ` $ NIA NIA NIA f e n��PnStlu `�,A� @� N/A # NIA i iV1A I I NIA NIA I Nf 4 I NIA I NIA GREENWAY ENGINE- IMG, Graystone Office & Industrial Park FIGURE 7 ISIIr,; F .22 Wind�enc ,, Yvgirtra 22602 Telephorc: (5401 66i-4785 19,,x, 2028 Phase 3 �- B Build -out Lane Geometry & LOSProject # 2760GC Memorandum To: Jerry Copp Page 19 of 22 Tahle 3 Grarstone Otlice and Tndusiriii Pint T,evds ofServicr, Delay and Back of Queue (45610) Resiults 2.02.$ Backa-round and T1llase 3 Build -out (Sce1131rios 1 and B) Conditions 2428 RaH:�iouu�i GafxdIIIRI1s f`Lose 3. SrrHxrla A IH3fD1„fi 1lnnle 3'I f3WEr1"rwl. Pbsxe 3. Scrssl/R$ isHh RQUIr 37) RnDi-Rxf arlraticlx� rla AMP.&Hxe P.M 14ai,Hxm• Amr.&H— rhir—kn- 3aKwew: WH fi.3 L1115ImI ilE+) fdlS brz'i fia TaN) Dcbr �+j lleleeQ Oa)knt) 3.Q5 i E?w lice leM3 6r. sst! ISIM D I Vi* 1408 E Cris• 1 ?.F45. E Sar. 11?$ E G3 �. 23x14 E 37t. i1fA E R.Ft.EiEt A :14$ A 6e. :RSfl A 7c. 22'$ A 6:r, a#1S A 7z 2f4fl A 6. 7065 L7l LQS A D 309 7i iia 1;$ D Sic ]3$ it S6x Ifl$ NMI. ISS i'.' J2.4. I6$ .i&s 14S A 4x A Is ilF$ A ix i6:H EB AN -8z TK R.9i 11 &71T A 3r.. SW.1 A Sx. 9,it A # R$ A 1a. L$ .9 A t x 4fl A I. R$. yB:k-ND:— WO.R A I REE A. Ix 0S A Ix d SIFT CraHH Lacer F\B E:I]S _ A 304 D ibx. - i5$ D d'.x S1Ji D 3SIIx i;k D d3II4. Si S: 3B7.71C r 3.—x41 0 D 1Six - D 11 7-fsk C..h si*.V 4- RB 1.C?5 f. D !' i`.R YJ...Fµ YI$ +'. slii' C ijx S�5 C TIr 5 < B T D SDI#i5 C D f (17'3;.kAi,I. A .1'%d. F $ 1111E - SRR$ R A r :i$4 3_38 F 13?x 43S$ F Ial ■. 3.S R FI6E Al74 EB:L € 34 r,. ems$. C 3oe 3415 B Tic # $ L" 34EiM14. 5 C Gx 31"8 k �1X B ii s.. D 11D r, ED LOS r.. € i$2S E 65w WS N'6:t i?. I3.*. SS 2'�I9 D "I$ $ le, Ma D 34 f., 471t$ CD?tiI7t: 1"5 $e;ar 11 lt'ft.'Y` C` sTc.. 3315 F t, Ls t9$ A _tic 3x $4$ A .E 2.1$ A 3c ii$ SD-57'rBfwna Road ii:BS. :7 3:. 334 A ix. 14fl A D $ b h71: .lAwxe Iaae 7711 LOS c D i1F9 F 1fl6.=. :368 D 12i Iblff F 1§6c ?36fl 11AS D 4Sa. P D P 1tH14r. i`wwHl: SA A.A.o €+`OVIS P F D :dri. 31?e F 117x. 3&99 F 97c 313$ R 34S t. SSi fl: KDtL 1i ;3 a. ;`fSfl F 4ac 3915 !:' Sk.7R .�B3,d3fl A b r s. D D c II R6'YRALffi; - �• D c i6ifi+38$ F91! A Jx. 5;F A an. 1?3$ A to 4$ A .7. Sia, i4S$ A ASx »sy E i ^,-ic. 27$ -- JIS$ E 64 V. 7wff EDsiSD: ik'*" R— 11 i $ i9 r. _YsGfr_ D A ts: 39@ j'a. iB5 d. 6S A g 48 :3$:.i•811tD &aHyrxCl"PT A lc. 215 A. ix 45 D A 75'.B LOS A B 3d6 E $ lis. €+-ufl P i13 a. JR64 5 6Ix 2�?B R 3a s. 7665 U"affrrC'waral`.iaa;±4asNr'a &fx-'I' D 4&., 33FR ... F A ; Ir, 4S A Ir. R8 SBt&W A I,__Ra. A D $ SD 2d33 8 C C c A Q 'fD,.'_"_--' 7XD -WssRsxHi. AT �?iwMBaned: &B-.L-T.arf T:17ya. B:R1LC Memorandum To: Jerry Copp Page 20 of 22 CONCLUSION Each of the study area intersections were evaluated using Synchro 7.0 capacity analysis software. In addition to the Red Bud Road/I-81 Northbound Off -ramp improvements assumed under Phases 2 and 3 of the August 24, 2009 Traffic Impact Study, Greenway Engineering has included the following infrastructure improvements, as directed by VDOT, proposed to improve traffic flow along southbound Route 11, between I-81 and Crown Lane: 1) the extension of the Route 11 southbound left -turn at the intersection of Route 11/1-81 southbound ramps; 2) the extension of the Route 11 southbound left -turn lane at the intersection of Route 11 /Welltown Road; and 3) the addition of third southbound through lane from the I-81 southbound ramps to Crown Lane. The subsequent narratives describe the resultant impacts to the respective future build -out traffic conditions evaluated in this Addendum: > PHASE 1 (2015): Intersection Analyses 1. US Route 11 & Crown Lane.- The ane.The eastbound left -turn lane group level of service increased from "F" to "E" during the PM peak hour. 2. US Route 11 & Welltown Road.- * Overall levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The westbound thru lane group level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The westbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The southbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "E" during the PM peak hour. 3. US Route 11 & I-81 Southbound Ramps: • Not Applicable Arterial Analyses 1. US Route 11, South of the Welltown Road.- • Southbound "arterial" levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. Memorandum To: Jerry Copp Page 21 of 22 PHASE 2 (2022): Intersection Analyses 1. US Route 11 & Crown Lane: * The westbound left -turn lane group level of service increased from `B" to "D" during the AM peak hour. • The eastbound left -turn lane group level of service increased from "F" to "E" during the PM peak hour. 2. US Route 11 & Welltown Road: o Overall levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The westbound thru lane group level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The westbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The southbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "E" during the PM peak hour. 3. US Route 11 & 1-81 Southbound Ramps: a Not Applicable Arterial Analyses 1. US Route 11, South of the Welltown Road.- Southbound "arterial' levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. m,�emorandum To: Jerry Copp Page 22 of 22 ➢ PHASE 3 (2028): Intersection Analyses 1. US Route 11 & Crown Lane.- The ane:The northbound approach level of service increased from "E" to "D" during the PM peak hour. 2. US Route 11 & Welltowo Road.• • Overall levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The westbound thru lane group level of service increased from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. • The southbound approach level of service increased from "F" to "E" during the PM peak hour. 3. US Route 11 & 1-81 Southbound Ramps: • Not Applicable Arterial Analyses I. US Route 11, South of the Welltown Road.• • Southbound "arterial" levels of service improved from "F" to "D" during the PM peak hour. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completer) by Planning Staff- Fee Amount Paid )13 1� 14� �. 50 Zoning Amendment Number Date Receive 11 PC Hearing Date F t �`t. t��` ^ BOS Hearing Date fi j The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. 2. 3. Applicant: Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Graystone Corporation of Virginia Telephone: (540) 665-3212 Address: P.O. Box 2530 Winchester, VA 22604 Contact person if other than above Name: Evan Wyatt Telephone: (540) 662-4185 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map ® Agency Comments Plat ® Fees Deed to Property ® Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid ® Proffer Statement 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: J. Donald Shockey John P. Good, Jr. 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural Residential & Unimproved B) Proposed Use of the Property: Office & Industrial Park 7. Adjoining Property: Please refer to attached Adjoining Property Map & Property Owner Information Table ID 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): North side of Redbud Road (Route 661); East side of CSX Railroad; West side of Milburn Road (Route 662); and south side of McCanns Road (Route 838). Information to be Submitted for Capital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concen-iing the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 43-((A))-158, 44- ((A))-25, and 44-((A))-26 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service: 10. 11. Stonewall Clear Brook Clear Brook Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School James Wood High James Wood Middle Stonewall Elem. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 271.39+ RA District M1, Light Industrial District 271.39± Total Acreage to be rezoned The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: Townhome: Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: 1,749,000 Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: 570,000 Restaurant: Warehouse: * The square footage of proposed land uses is consistent with the Applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis; however, the square footage land use mix is not a proffered condition. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. 1 (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. C, Applicant(s): Date: �C) // l.... Date:,"� a Owner (s): Soo �j Graystone Corporation Property Adjoining Properties File 2760GG Tax Map Number 43 A 140 Owner WEBER MICHAEL S. Mailing Address 937 MARTINSBURG PIKE City & State WINCHESTER VA ZIP 22601 Acreage 35.31 Zoning Improvements RA $371,700.00 Land $358,300.00 Total Assessment Deed Book Page Inst Year Inst Number Legal Description 1 $730,000.00 673 623 0 0 35.31 ACRES Legal Description 2 43 A 146 K & J INVESTMENTS LLC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603 3.07 RP $0.00 $64,700.00 $64,700.00 0 2002 7399 3.07 ACRES 43 A 147 NORTH STEPHENSON INC. 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603 8.83 RP- $0.00 $72,900.00 $72,900.00 668 229 0 0 8.83 ACRES 43 A 151 K & J INVESTMENTS LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603 35.78 M7 $487,300.00 $1,252,300.00 $1,739,600.00 0 2005 9792 35.78 ACRES 43 A 152 K & J INVESTMENTS LC 1800 MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603 37.92 M1 $1,500.00 $1,327,200.00 $1,328,700.00 --- -0 - 2005 9792 37.92 ACRES -- - -- - ---- 43 A 153 0 0 $0.001 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 0 43 A 154 SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION PO BOX 897 NEWMARKET VA 22844 36.27 RA $0.001 $550,800.00 $550,800.00 01 2002 6215 36.27 ACRES 43 A 155 BRAGG DAVID PO BOX 174 CLEAR BROOK VA 22624 1 RA $5,400.00 $51,000.00 $56,400.00 855 259 0 0 1.00 ACRE 43 A 156 J J J A ASSOCIATES C/O DRIGGS ASSOC 8700 ASHWOOD DR CAPITOL HEIGHTS MD 20743 1.25 RA $5,000.00 $51,600.00 $56,600.00 548 333 0 0 1.25 ACRES 43 A 157 MCBRIDE RUTH B 506 REDBUD RD WINCHESTER VA 22603 1.1 RA $44,100.00 $51,000.00 $95,100.00 515 623 0 0 1.10 ACRES 43 A 159 R & J LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC 1631 REDBUD RD WINCHESTER VA 22603 2 RA $1,200.00 $62,900.00 $64,100.00 0 2005 17342 2.00 ACRES 43 44 A 8 159A 6 KIRBY JANICE MARIE CRIDER & SHOCKEY INC OF WVA 541 REDBUD RD PO BOX 2530 WINCHESTER VA WINCHESTER VA 22603 22604 5 5 RA RA $137,400.00 $0.00 $84,300.00 $79,000.00 $221,700.00 $79,000.00 0 0 2001 2002 16716 5.00 ACRES 11832 MILBURN SUBDIVISION LOT 6 5.00 ACRES 44 8 7 CRIDER & SHOCKEY INC OF WVA PO BOX 2530 WINCHESTER VA 22604 51 RA $0.001 $79,000.00 $79,000.00 0 2002 11832 MILBURN SUBDIVISION ILOT 7 5.00 ACRES 44 A 25B SLAUGHTER JUDITH MCCANN & MARSHALL ELLEN L TRUSTEES 562 MILBURN RD WINCHESTER VA 2260:3 601 RA $1,500.00 $315,600.00 $317,100.00 0 2002 470 60.00 ACRES 44 A 27 MBC LC 333 WOOD AVE WINCHESTER VA 22601 231. RA $0.00 $196,000.00 $196,000.00 0 0 13492 23.00 ACRES 44 A 28B UNGER KENNETH R. 288 MILBURN RD WINCHESTER VA 22603 251 RA $113,500.00 $226,400.00 $339,900.00 460 738 0 0 25.00 ACRES 44 A 28C BODEN ROBERT R. JR. & MARSHA 210 MILBURN RD WINCHESTER VA 22603 4.31 RA $147,800.00 $75,600.00 $223,400.00 494 51 20 4.30 ACRES 44 A 28G JOBE ALLEN B. & VELDA D_ 230 MILBURN RD WINCHESTER VA 22603 122603 51 RA $157,400.00 $79,800.00 $237,200.00 489 602 01 0 5.00 ACRES 44 A 28H HOLLIDAY MARTHA OMPS 130 MARQUIS CT WINCHESTER VA 5.55 RA $204,500.00 $83,100.00 $287,600.00 907 1441 01 0 5.55 ACRES 44 A 29 SLAUGHTER JUDITH MCCANN 562 MILBURN RD WINCHESTER VA 22603 150.15 RA $360,500.00 $554,100.00 $914,600.00 0 _ 2002 469 150.15 ACRES 44 A 31A STEPHENSON ASSOCIATES LC PO BOX 2530 WINCHESTER VA 22604 406.54 R4 $0.00 $3,299,100.00 $3,299,100.00 0 _ 2003 5765 406.54 ACRES 44 A 40 SLAUGHTER JUDITH MCCANN & MARSHALL ELLEN L TRUSTEES 562 MILBURN RD WINCHESTER VA 22603 98.05 RA $4,200.00 $618,800.00 $623,000.00 0 2001 12943 98.05 ACRES 440 3 8 JBIG O PARTNERSHIP to^u^v MARTINSBURG PIKE WINCHESTER VA 22603 1.46 RA $0.00 $52,100.00 $52,100.00 790 260 0 0 GRUBER L8 1.46 ACRES 54 A 88 ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRESERVATION OF CIVIL WAR SITES 305 CHARLOTTE ST FREDERICKSBURG VA 22401 181.03 RA $0.00 $2;856,500.00 $2,856,500.00 849 173 0 0 181.03 ACRES 55 A 3 C E HUNTSBERRY HEIRS LLC PO BOX 2298 WINCHESTER VA 226041 86.01 RA $0.00 $316,700.001 $316,700.00 0 2007 10636 86.01 ACRES Source: Frederick County GIS, May 2009 10-1-2009 1 of 1 Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va. GIS Department, May 2009 Data, Aerial Photos from March 2006 CIV t F 4 A 40 n .�...: �; Gr aystone Corporation _ property Adjoining Properties Map cb ..r {� • ;' 1 - ��T , , �� i i i` Ae i if ! aj a�44 f 44 A 25B /yam 4 • z m ! �� S t°gib E€ • s 4 SL _ i A -Z44 A 29 -- r s AN 44 A 25 w M 43 A 140 a \ rl r4j 43 A 146 \ Q U) � \ � w 662 z - � � o 3i LU \� / G \� 43 A 151 z / 0- � o0 O w a. o Of 0 U z 44 A 26 w Z_ 0 o y —s 44 A 3iA Q 43 A 152 } Q � Q -� 0 LLI J \ i O Qq 44 A -28G aZ 4C! \ \ U_ o if 43 A 158 \ FR w w ? / 7 44 A -28G �N,= w Q Z ?. 43 A 153 Q ! 44 A 28B O Q z U \. z Q > c� O 4- 661 / 44-A 28C \\Of FBaltimore;& Ohio•RRn— 44 A 2� Q w w REDBUD@RD ' :— 4y w F- z N c_n o 43 A X155 L 43�A 157 ' 28F/ 4` / 1 d I K 0 O H � 1 r U t 43 A 154 43 A' 156 - -— -_ 2 D Q U W ii 8 '</q O U` p o ! 44D 3 8 ' �G1dl U Z J U 0 g r / 1 q end � oOp w perty Gr y tone Corporation Pr 0 NFeet 55 3 Adjoining Property U (D 900 450 0 900 i - Parcel Boundary '` r c7 a oU) Map Data Source: Frederick County, Va- GIS Department, May 2009 Data O O W C1. rn (Y Ol O 0 N 0 a; Ci W z O W C) O N X W (.J C O N N Ctfrn (D O N _ 0) C C C CL U (D 0 N Q) N 01 9 D M MD KEY TO AJJO(hIING pROpER7Y OWNERS ® J� O 43-f&&159 M DR = Pi -a l UX 981 6h7M 43-j2gV f5M4 v JANICE £ KtREY ", 'AE-- u"Rr Na 010016776 SIE` 10/09/09 .AIS: N/A ?AWN By. IrAW 1Z N 72Q. 60GC,C K'7- I OF 1 TM 4.3-((!)}-158 NAIL ROUND IN CDAER OF Rav /"IRS 0 16.91' /! p0s] �j 27-2737" W. [ S 27 IRS z3 O S 1. NO TITLE REPORT FURNISHED. EASEMENTS OTHER RHAN SHOWN AIRY EXIST 2 THE BOUNDARY INF ORM 4770M SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT nELD SURVEY BY 7H ►. TM 271.3588 ACRES (TOTAL) P� IRS a 1/2' IRON RMW W/msSETs IRF = 1/2' IRON REEAR FOUND -X- = WRE FENCE f s CENTERLINE OF R04DWAY 1 IRS 18.00 RI� SEr IRs ® - laiD' II fAS Z-- IRS ITAA 44-((A)}-25 � N IO IS f7RA( 400 0 400 3 CURRENT OWNER OF RECORD: HK BE VMU, /it, 7RUSTEE (OF HARRY L AICCWN [AND TRUST} INSTRUMENT NO. 0 100 15 746 4 THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON LIES ENARF7 Y itimw �, g7gpllV SCALE (IN nTV ICIT PLUUU INSURANCE RA7E MAP COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 810063 O1c5 LMTED JULY 17, 1978. REZONING PLAT EXI'HIRIT TDATE OF THE LAND OF GRAYSTONE CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA STONEWALL MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA COUNTY of fWR DERXK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Michael T. Ruddy; AICP .�_ Deputy Director DATE: December 21, 2009 RE: Discussion: 2010-2011 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) On December 14, 2009, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (CPPC) Executive Committee met with County Department and Agency representatives to discuss their individual capital improvement project requests, including new projects and modifications to previous requests, associated with the 2010-2011 Capital improvements Plan (CIP). The role of the CPPC in the CIP process was to ensure that the various departmental project requests are in conformance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The evaluation and prioritization of departmental projects was presented by the individual County departments and agencies and staff._ Also provided was a projected cost for each project as required by the Code of Virginia. The CPPC discussion was typically thorough. Particular focus was once again placed on enhancing the connection between the CIP and potential proffered contributions made with rezoning projects. This effort was further reinforced through the effort of the Parks and Recreation Department and their identification of their comprehensively planned parks including community, neighborhood, and district parks. This year's CIP continues to include the individual Fire and Rescue Company requests as a subcomponent of the CIP. In addition, it should be noted that several CIP projects have been adjusted in recognition of current growth trends and to be generally reflective of the current economic Climate. No new projects have been requested for inclusion in this year's CIP. 107 North Kent Street, Smite 202 A Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Planning Commission Discussion: 2010-2011 CIP December 21, 2009 Page 2 Following the CPPC discussion, the CPPC Executive Committee endorsed the 2010-2011 CIP and endorsed its conformance with the County's Comprehensive Policy Plan. The CPPC Executive Committee forwarded the CIF to the Planning Commission for discussion. It is requested that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors consider the proposed 2010-2011 Capital Improvements Plan as a discussion item prior to the CIP's advertisement for public hearing. This discussion will provide a valuable opportunity for the collective review of proposed capital projects while also allowing the Commission and Board the ability to determine if additional information or analysis is needed in advance of final consideration of the CIP. It is the role of the Planning Commission to affirm that the 2010-2011 CIP is in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Please find attached with this agenda item: a summary of the proposed 2010-2011 CIP in table form, and a draft copy of the proposed 2010-2011 CIP maps illustrating the known locations of the CIP requests. An additional map prepared by Parks and Recreation is included this year. More detailed information regarding the individual department requests is available digitally and may be forwarded to you directly if requested. If adopted, the CIP and included maps will ultimately become a component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan, which would satisfy the review requirement of Section 15.2- 2232 of the Code of Virginia, which states that no public facility shall be constructed unless said facility is a "feature shown" within a jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions regarding this information. Attachments MTR/bad Department Prior Count Contribution Per Fiscal Year County Contributions Notes: 1 Total Project Costs 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014 - Projects 2010-2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Public Schools New Transportation Facility 19,000,0(JO 2,100;000 :. $21,100 000: X21,100,.000; Replacement Frederick County Middle School 1,700 000 Fourth High School 13 500,000 16,500 000 2,292,000 $33,992,000 $33,992,000 e1000A9,q , 1,604,Do0 21i000;OQ0' :• -3,500,000 3 1240 POO $55,260,000 :5;250,tlno Robert E. Aylor Middle School Addition and Renovation 7,975,000 7,725,000 3,375,000 2,925,000 $22,000,000 $22,000,000 Apple Pie Ridge Elementary. 'Phase 2 Renovation TSD TIED'. James Wood High School Renov. TBD TBD °Bass Hoover Elementary Addition and Renovation TBD TBp Fifth Middle School FCPS Office Expansion Ph 1 & 2 1,200,000 1,200,000 $33,992,000 D $33,992,000 Elementary School #12 500,000 $14,6f0,000 $14;810,000 Blementa School#13 2,400,000 $23,200,000 D $23,200,000 $23,200,000 D $23 200,000 Parks &Recreation $227,244,000 Clearbrook &Sherando Indoor Aquatic Facility 1$,163;000' Baseball Field Lighting 1,252,498 $15,163,000$1:5,163,000 Park Land Western Fred, Co, ' x,:367,728 $1,252,498 $3,367;7203,36;78;: $1,252,498 Clearbrook & Sherando Park Land Eastern Fred. Co. Water Slide/Spray Ground 4,490,510 $4,490,510 $4,490,510 Sherando Soccer/Multi Use Fields 1,51,208 ,.: $1,261.208 59,261,203 Sherando; Access Road w/Parking/Trails 1,121,998 1,.540,626 $1,121,998 $1,540,,626 $1,121,998 $1,640,.626. Sherando Clearbrook Maintenance Compound ripen Play Areas 374,310 $374,310 $374,310 Sherando Lake/Trails/Parking-2 Fields 478,565 $478,665 $478,565 Sherando Skateboard Park 1,360,610 $1,360,610 $1,360,610 Sherando Softball Complex 613T089' . Clearbrook Sherando Tennis/Basketball Complex 671,062 , 526,355, $671,062 , $526 368' $671,062 $526,365 Clearbrook Picnic Areas tSheltef Stage 804,243 $804,243 $804,243 Multi -Generational Center 508,402 ; $1508,402 $500.,402, Community Parks (5) 8,802,605 $8,802,605 = $8,802,605 Neighborhood Parks (3) 1,:347.,.153 $1,347,16$ $1,147,1'33 °District Parks Northeast and Southwestj :336,788 7,1358 ,238 $336,788 $7,868,238 $336,788 $7 858,236 $51,768,988 County Total Project iDe artment Priority County Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Noted Costs i $200 000 A B $1q,000000 Land Acquisition, Parcel 50 225,000 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- Land Acquisition, Parcels 51, 52 285.,000. ` Projects 2010-2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 200,000 .Regional Library $4,000 A,B $200,000 Land Acquisition, Paroel 54 .3:15,790: _ •Bowman Parking LottSidewlk 268,028, Construct T/W Reloc Sec 1 3,684,210 $73,684 Gainesboro Branch $3,684,210 202,516 1,989,180 $2,191,696. $2,191,696 A,F Senseny/Greenwood Branch Land Acquisition, Parcels 64,65 N/A. $5,263 NIA �.:'> $526,316 Route 522 Branch N/A N/A Transportation $2,449,724 Route 37 Engineering 300,000,000: $3dD,Ogd,40 $$00,00D,000 1-81 Exit 307 Relocation $60,000,000 E $60,000,000 W'ar�ior Drive. Extension r $23 20GiµUdD O.Oa`odo Channing Drive Extension $20,600,000 E $20,600,000 Widenrng of, Route 11 North $47,600r00d fr .'' 7,80D,pp0 BrucetownlHopewetl Realign. $3,000,000 E , 3,1 -7 , Senseny Road Widening ; ,000 East Tevis Street Extension $2,600,000 E $2,600,000 Inverlee Way . $1d,,20a,d00 $10,200,OQ0 Fox Drive $250,000 E $250,000 Rennaisance Drive . $2,0.00,000 E $2,000,004 Senseny Road Pike & Ped 150,000 150,000 150,000 1,550,000 $2,000,000 E $2,000,000 Revenue Sharing 5001.000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,0.00 $3,000,000. E $3,000,000 Eastern Road Plan Improvements TBD TBD Winchester Airport $497,450,000 County Administration Rehab RW14/32, Upgrade Airfield Ci 1,0,000,000 $200 000 A B $1q,000000 Land Acquisition, Parcel 50 225,000 $4 500A,B 225,000 Land Acquisition, Parcels 51, 52 285.,000. ` ; $5,940 ,; AF$ $255,000 Design T!W Reloc Sec 1 200,000 $4,000 A,B $200,000 Land Acquisition, Paroel 54 .3:15,790: $6,316 A,B Construct T/W Reloc Sec 1 3,684,210 $73,684 A,D $3,684,210 Land Acquisition, Pa:rael 67 : ; 283;-168 $1E4,626 A,F r $26��.IS Land Acquisition, Parcels 64,65 526,316 $5,263 A,B �.:'> $526,316 Relocation of Gainesboro Site ;1,000 449,625 $452,625 $452,625 Relocation/Expansion Gore Site 12,000 425,150 $437,150 $437,150 General Government Capital Expe 2g0,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 ?OO,o00 $1,000,000 E $1,o11b 004 $1,889,775 County Total Project Department Priority Co nty Contribution Per Fiscal Year Contributions Notes Costs 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- Projects 2010-2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Fire &Rescue A00;OQ0 Fire & Rescue Station #22 (277) 400,000 1,500;0610 1,500,000 $$,400,000$ Fire &Rescue Station #22 (277) Apparatus 100,000 700,000 $800,000 $800,000 Station 015 (Found Hili) Relocation I 494,000 . 3,787:696 $4,281,6.96= $4,g,01,6,96 Station #13 (Clearbrook) Relocation 33,000 213,000 4,275,000 $4,521,000 $4,521,000 Station #.23 (Crosspafnte) New Facility 530,000 1,250,00.0 1,000,000,$2,800,000 $2,800,000 Regional Training Center -Fire & Rescue Capital Equipment I. 200,000 75,000 200,000 1,250,000 . 200,000 10,000,000 200,000 6,500,000 200,000 $1,075,000 , $1,000,000 D $29,075,000 $.1,©00 See Wowing Fire & Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests ,000 $45,877,696 "rota:) $84,'189 ,65T Fire &Rescue Company Capital Equipment Requests I rechnleal Rescue !Equipment far Stephens C1ty Fire $ Rescue '<. $105,000 $105,OQ8 Groundwater Reduction Project for Greenwood. Vol 51rs,& Resc je Cis ': $5n 000 ; • $50,O;tJO'. Ambulance Replacement Project fdr Gxeenwoad Vol, Ftre.t Residue GO. $•15.0,000 Pumper/Tanker for Middletown Vol Fire & Rescue Co, $5521000 $652,000: Ambulance for Middletown Vol. Fire &Rescue Co. $200,000: $200,000 North Mtn. Fire &Rescue Station Modiflcatiorr $32,000" $32,000' North Mtn, Fire & Rescue Station Medic Unit Ac uisistlon $159 000 $156,.000 Total $1,248,000 A= Partial funding from VA Dept. of Aviation N/A= Not Available B= Partial funding from FAA TBD= To be Determined C= Partial funding from private donations D= Funding goes beyond displayed 5 years E= Partial funding anticipated through development & revenue.sources 2010-2011 2010-2011 0 Capita! Improvements il-k �'erck. ' ouin Specific or P pp T,• � „ � . �„ L .t.� A roxirnate Locations "-.'�� County Administration 1 Galnesboro Convenience Site Relocation 4 2 Gore Convenience Site Expansion 3 Annex Facility !Fire &Rescue Station 4 Round HillFire Station Relocation `` ! nt•, rC, 5 Clearbrook Fire Station Relocation 6 Fire & Rescue Station 23\A. Airport 17tH 1]3R _ Library f •• ! 1 Bowman Library -Parking Lot and Sidewalk Addition 2 Northern. Frederick County Library Branch 3 Library Branch - Senseny & Greenwood 4 Library Branch - Rt 522 South � 1V JA h i� h r 5 70 J ,N 5o _ L l 37 f FR_j f• f s,y. 50 i . t w r 26 j, �, N r.�_l Note Created by Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Map represents the Capital Improvment Requests submitted by various county departments. 12110/09 D 12,5D0 25,000 50,000 75,D00 0 2 4 Feet a 12 Miles 2910 - 2011 Existing Elementary Schools 11 "al , mn, rt-,)venie -"Ian n. f 41". 2 -� 7 � nts I Existing High Schools New School Locations I Existing Middle Schools Q Future School Bus Facility CO New School Location Alternatives Urban Development Area SVVSA 12 7 52 3 J/ Replacement FCMS r > 50 59 Z 4tft 7 i> 37 Elern School EleM School / 1�1 5r) School Note: Created by Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Map represents the Capital Improvment Requests submitted by Frederick County School Board 12/10/09 N W-0. E S 0 1 2 4 Miles #5 Middle School 50' 1#4 Hiah School I School Locations Are Most Appropriate Within the UDA Existing County Park.-, District Park Neighborhood Park Purposed Parks District Community Neighborhood IJDA * Please see attached Spreadsheet. c a -- 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mil Note: Created by Frederick County Department of Planning & Development Map represents the Capital Improvmernt Requests suhmitted by The Dept of Parks&Recreation 12/1 D/09 26110 - 2011 Frederick County Capital Innitprovenzent's Han -X, w Park & -IRee Locations Clearbrook 49 ° t,.a 7,r I J E /-)y V z, YEAST A - Sherando R Ro I'LL SAINT J= SAINT CLAIR RD BRUCEfOWN RD 77 o� f O - �/ e 41 i •- .. _ /'YDCgNNOCCON,R I i / \ r , 7 ,��i.` f Y 1 ��) moo , . s� � l - _ / ^i��•�' � ��".. i �`� fi-SA. _RD z ICL RD- PINE RD '/^ ROUND ILN ARD`^,.. ]��y, � / � t � I i 4¢4- + j' ---• � `i .. 4_ �� /� t'! I MILL RC DA J- Y A. 2010-2011 r� guy Capital Improvement Plan l f A'` 7 % RA Cie" �..� ri-r { _c. 37 , � ��•°�T fes,, transportation Projects CONTINUE RT37 PLANNING q<<FY� J ENGINEERING WORK 1-81 EXIT E7 oP b r � Q 307 RELOCATION y�Qo� �oP. 50 WARRIOR DR EXTENSION ^1600 TO NEW EXIT 307 K'PARKINS MILLRO k CHANNING DR EXTENSION TO RT50 RTI 1 N OF WINC WIDENING TO WV LINE ARMRD J BRUCETOWN RD/HOPEWELL RD 522 ---EL— I"r ALIGNMENTAND INTERSECTION -Stephens'Gity`; r< IZ r ',�/ �� T9s�F� R JSENSENY RD r'WIDENING EAST TEVIS EXTENSION TO RDWAY RUSSELL 150 & 181 INVERLEE WAY; CONNECTION FROM RT50 TO SENSENY RD J✓ ! . . .� ria FOX DR; INSTALL RT �I Frederick County Dept of TURN LANE ONTO RT522 iQo oOi. Planning & Development 107NKentStOVWkRENAISSANCE DR Winchester, VA 22601 �l P www.CO.FREDERICK.VA.US December 10, 2009 Senseny Rd Bike & Pedestrian Improvements .� u • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 1g 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 MrM0RANDl;M n TO: Planning Commission FROM: John A. Bishop AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation ISE: Northeast Land Use Plan Update — Transportation Component DATE: December 21, 2009 As you are aware, staff and the CPPC have been working to update the Northeast Land Use Plan. A significant portion of this update has been the upgrading of the transportation system to accommodate the planned land uses. As you review the plan, please note the following changes, which are just a sampling of the updates in the plan: A proposed parallel road system to Route 11 which includes additional connections back to Route 11. This road system is intended to help improve north/south connectivity without forcing vehicles trips back to Route 11. 2. Redesigning the I-81 Interchange at Hopewell Road into a split interchange connected by frontage roadways. This is intended to aid in better distributing interchange traffic by adding an additional way to access the interchange from Route 11. 3. Additional crossings of I-81. This is an improvement intended to better facilitate east/west travel across I-81. 4. Improved Access Management. Simply put, improved access management will allow the roadways to operate more safely and at an improved level of service with fewer lanes. A key component of the transportation section of this plan is to vet it out through modeling. This is an important step forward from past land use plan update efforts. Staff has been successful in adding a task to the Winfred MPO work program for local assistance in modeling. This is what is being used to model the improvements noted and is expected to give valuable information as to the benefits of the proposed improvements and what lane requirements will be. Based on the timeline given to us by the MPO, we hope to have preliminar, model results available at the retreat on January 30, 2010. JAB/bad 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 ® Winchester, V n-ginia 22601-5000