HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 11-03-99 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
NOVEMBER 3, 1999
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
TAB
1) Application Action Summary ........................................... A
2) Committee Reports ............................................... (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments.................................................(no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Conditional Use Permit #18-99 of Michael M. Milam for an expansion of his landscape
contractors' business and garden center (Ref previously approved C.U.P. #012-97). This
property is located at 2186 Northwestern Pike and is identified with Property Identification
Number 52 -A -B in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Mr.Cheran)........................................................B
5) Conditional Use Permit #24-99 of Rhoda Kriz, to establish a Bed and Breakfast as a
cottage occupation. This property is located at 547 Apple Pie Ridge Road and is identified
with Property Identification Number 42-A-206 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Ms.Lohr)......................................................... C
6) Conditional Use Permit #25-99 of Andrew Reh to establish a Cottage Occupation for
an Ice Sculpting business. This property is located at 8068 Valley Pike and is identified
with Property Identification Number 91-1-A in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
(Ms.Lohr)..........................................................D
7) Update of the 2000-2001 Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan.
(Mr. Ruddy) .........................................................E
pi
8) Rezoning #15-99 of Channing Drive, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone
354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance), and 22.0 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General). The property is located on the north side of
Senseny Road, on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village,
Apple Ridge, and Carlisle Heights subdivisions. This site is identified with Property
Identification Numbers: 55-A-206, 209, 211, 213 and 65-A-30,31, 39, 40 in the Stonewall
Magisterial District. This rezoning application incorporates (and is a continuance of) the
previous applications: Rezoning #05-99 of Giles Farm, Rezoning #06-99 of
Sheppard/Futral, and Rezoning #07-99 of Lynnehaven which were heard at the March 3,
1999 Planning Commission meeting.
(Mr. Wyatt)........................................................ F
PUBLIC MEETING
9) Request for a Reduction in the Entrance Spacing Ordinance Requirement, Section
165-29B(1), submitted by Painter -Lewis, P.L.C. on behalf of the Pruitt Corporation
for Airport Business Parc, Building A. This property is identified with Property
Identification Number 64-A-40 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
(Mr. Mohn)........................................................ G
10) Other
L, ) )//7 t.
APPLICATION ACTION SUMMARY
(printed October 22, 1999)
>` Application
n newly
submi tt e
d.
REZONINGS:
Jack K Wampler, Sr., et als
(REZ #15-98)
Stonewall
.69 ac. from B3 to RA & modification
of approved proffers �
Location:
W. side of Martinsburg Pk. (Rt. 11), about 0.5 mi. so. of the
intersection w/ Hopewell Rd. (Rt. 672)
Submitted:
07/09/99
PC Review:
08/04/99 - tabled; scheduled for 10/06/99; 10/06/99 - approved w/
revised proffers
BOS Review:
10/27/99
Manuel C. & Pearl A. DeHaven
& W.D. & Dorothy Orndorff
(REZ #10-99) "Mr. Fuel"
Stonewall
9.4382 acres from M2 to B3 and .8263
acres from RA to B3;
10.2645 ac. of IA Overlay District
Location:
500'+ so. of intersection of Rest Church Rd. (Rt. 669) & Martinsburg
Pk. (Rt. 11), bemn Rt. 11 & I-81, & continuing so. to Duncan Run.
Submitted:
04/13/99
PC Review:
05/05/99 - recommended approval with proffers
BOS Review:
05/26/99 -tabled
Channing Drive (REZ #15-99)
(Previously: Lynnhaven,
She ard/Futral, & Giles)
Stonewall
354.3 ac. from RA to RP for 846 homes;
22.0 ac. from RA to B2 for commercial
use
Location:
North side of Senseny Rd., on both sides of Beans Pond Lane, & at
the end of Eddy Lane
Submitted:
02/05/99; resubmitted 10/08/99
PC Review:
03/03/99 -tabled (applicant waived time req.); 11/03/99
BOS Review:
12/08/99 - tentatively scheduled
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Shenandoah University - Revision
to MDP #001-91
Shawnee
New 2,500 seat football stadium &
eliminate 500 -unit dormitory (HE)
Location:
East side of I-81 adjacent to College Park and Pembridge Heights
subdivisions
Submitted:
07/30/99
PC Review:
08/18/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
08/25/99 - approved
11 Admin. Approved:
Pending
Fairfax Court (MDP #04-99)
Lpequon
26 townhouse units & 3 urban single -
I family lots on 4.8635 ac. (RP)
Location:
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277)
Submitted:
07/14/99
PC Review:
not yet scheduled
BOS Review:
not yet scheduled
Admin. Approved:
Pendin
Oakdale HI, Raven Pointe, Raven
Oaks, Ravenwin (MDP #02-99)
Shawnee
1
668 residential dwelling units on 247
acres of RP -zoned land
Location:
North side of Rt. 50, East of Winchester
Submitted:
05/11/99
PC Review:
06/02/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
07/14/99 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999
SUBDIVISIONS:
Location: SE end of Park Center Dr. (Rt. 1323), approx. 0.15 mi. SE of the
Westbrooke Rd. (Rt. 1320) intersection
Submitted: 1 10/13/99
MDP #004-91 II MDP approved by BOS 10/09/91; MDP admim. approved 02/24/98
Subd. Admin.
Location: 11 Airport Business Center, Parcel 4, Airport Road
Submitted: 1 10/07/99
MDP #009-87 II last revision of MDP was admin. approved 06/22/99
Subd. Admin.
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999
RavenWing, Section 1
SUB #20-99)
Shawnee
80 single-family urban lots on 24.5711
acres (RP)
Location:
North side of Rt. 50 East of Winchester
Submitted:
08/27/99
MDP #02-99
NIDP Approved by BOS 07/14/99; Admin. Approval is Pending
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999
Thomas A. & Helen S. Grove
Subdivision (SUB #19-99)
NO MDP
Shawnee
Subdivision of 5.958 acres into 2 lots
(Ml)
Location:
South side of Airport Road (Rt. 645)
Submitted:
08/06/99
PC Review:
09/01/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
09/08/99 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Central Coca-Cola Bottling Co.,
Inc. (SUB #17-99)
Back Creel:
Subdivision of 63.51 ac. into 4 lots (Ml)
Location:
West of the intersection of Shady Elm Road (Rt. 65 1) & Apple Valley
Road (Rt. 652)
Submitted:
05/27/99
MDP #002-98
MDP approved by BOS 05/13/98; MDP approved admin. 05/20/98
Subd. Admin. Approved:
10/07/99
Merriman's Chase (SUB #13-99)
Back Creel:
Subdivision of 26.895 ac. into 48 single-
family residential lots (RP)
Location:
W. side of Merrimans Ln. (Rt. 621), along Rt. 37 at Abrams Creek
and Winchester & Western Railroad
Submitted:
04/26/99
MDP #006-98 (formerly known as
Willow Branch)
Approved by BOS 01/13/99; Admin. Approved 02/12/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999
Oakdale Crossing II
(SUB #12-99)
Shawnee
Subdivision of 50.52 ac. into 170 single -
1 family residential lots (RP)
Subdivision of 24.83 ac into 51 single -
family detached lots (RP)
Location:
So. of existing
Oakdale Crossing, off of Sensen Rd. (Rt. 656)
Submitted:
03/31/99
Subd. Admin. Approved:
MDP #01-99
Approved by BOS 03/10/99; Administrative Approval Pending
Subd. Admin. Approved:
10/20/99
The Camp/Tasker Rd. (JASBO, 11
Inc. /F. Glaize) (SUB #011-99)
Opequon
Subdivision of 50.52 ac. into 170 single -
1 family residential lots (RP)
Location:
So.west corner of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642) & White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636)
Submitted:
02/18/99
MDP #004-98 ('ranker Rd. Lana nays)MDP
approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP approved admin. 09/04/98
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pendin
Fort Collier - Lot 32
SUB #09-99)
Stonewall
Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 4.7374
acres (M1)
Location:
Property fronts the northwest corner of the intersection of Brooke Rd.
(Rt. 1322) & West Brooke Rd. (Rt. 1320)
Submitted:
01/29/99
MDP #004-91
MDP approved by BOS 10/09/91; admin. approved 11/22/91
Subd. Admin. A )proved:
Pending
[Stonewall Industrial Plc. - Lot 32
(SUB #06-99)
Gainesboro
Subdivision of 1 lot consisting of 5.4455
ac. (M1)
[Location:
Corner of Century Ln. (Rt. 862) & Lenoir Dr. (F-732)
Submitted:
01/27/99
MDP #006-93
P approved by BOS 07/14/93; MDP admin. approved 07/28/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
LPending
Appncat►ons Action aummary
Printed October 20, 1999
Canter Estates - Section I
(SUB #05-99)
Shawnee
Subdivision of 24.5524 ac. into 60 lots
1 for single-family det. traditional homes
Location:
Northwest corner of intersection of White Oak Rd. (Rt. 636) &
Macedonia Church Rd. (Old Rt. 642)
Submitted:
02/08/99
MDP #004-98 (Tasker Rd. Land Bays)
MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP admin. approved 09/04/98
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Tybrooke, L.C. (SUB #03-99)
NO MDP
Gainesboro
2 Lots; TI. Acreage 4.1277 (B2 & RA)
Location:
Front Royal Pk (Rt. 522) at Albin; 1 mile N. of Winch. B (Rt. 37)
Submitted:
01/22/99
PC Review:
03/17/99 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
04/12/99 - approved
Subd. Admin. Approved:
pending
Autumn Glen, Sect. I
SUB #015-98)
Opequon
1 1
21 lots - duplex & multiples (52
dwellings) on 14.8 ac. (RP)
Location:
South side of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642), 0.25 mi. East of Rt. 647
Submitted:
06/30/98
MDP#004-98 (Tasker Rd Land Bays)
MDP approved by BOS 07/08/98; MDP Pending Admin. Approval
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Phase I approved on 11/04/98 for 21 dwellings
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999
Mark & Rachelle Repine
SUB #004-98) NO MDP
Shawnee
Subdivision of 1.3719 ac, into 3 s.f. lots
(RP)
Location:
Heritage Hills Subd.; along the eastern portion of Idlewood Drive
Submitted:
01/26/98
PC Review:
02/18/98 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
03/11/98 - approved
Admin. Approved:
10/06/99
Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall
Indust. Pk. (SUB #007-97)
Gainesboro
Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (Ml)
Location:
McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection
Submitted:
07/28/97
MDP #006-93
Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97)
Stonewall
75 s.f. zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac.
(RP)
Location:
So.west corner of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322)
Submitted:
05/16/97
MDP #001-97
Approved by BOS 04/09/97; Admin. Approved 06/30/97
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Sect. 1 (25 lots) approved 06/02/98: Sect. 2 approved; Sect. 3 pendin
Winchester -Fred Co. IDC (SUB) 11
Back Creek
1 2 M1 Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres)
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09/08/95
MDP #003-87:
Approved by BOS 07/08/87; Admin. Approved 06/08/88
Pending Admin. Approval
Awaiting signed plats.
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999
---IrAbrams Point, Phase I (SUB)
Shawnee
1 230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots (RP)
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
06/13/90 - approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaitin deed of dedication, letter of credit, and si ned lat
Harry Stimpson (SUB)
O e uon
Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
PC Review:
10/19/94 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
10/26/94 - approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaitin signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
Location:�� Martinsburg Pike (Rt. 11), north of Old Charlestown Rd. (Rt. 761) &
south of Stephenson Rd. (Rt. 664)
Submitted: 11 10/14/99
roved:
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999
Jim Wilson Warehouse #2
SP #49-99
Stonewall Reconstruct 30,000 s.f. warehouse bldg.
On existing foundation (M1)
Location:
Kraft Foods Phase I Bldg.
Stonewall
8,573 s.f. office addition; 708 s.f. lobby;
Expansion (SP #50-99)
Pending
90 s.L vestibule; 1,334 s.L outdoor
employee break area (M1)
Location:
220 Park Center Drive
Submitted:
09/16/99
Approved: 1P
Pending
Jim Wilson Warehouse #2
SP #49-99
Stonewall Reconstruct 30,000 s.f. warehouse bldg.
On existing foundation (M1)
Location:
Lenoir Drive
Submitted:
08/31/99
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999 10
Irongate, Inc. (SP #48-99
Opequon
Addit. to exist. steel fabrication shop;
0.25 ac. develop. on 1.438 ac. site (M1)
Location:
201 Ridings Lane
Submitted:
08/30/99
Approved.
L Pending
Negley Construction Co.
SP #46-99)
Stonewall
1
Building Expansion on 3.5704 ac.
parcel (B3)
Location:
Between Welltown Pk. (Rt. 661) & 1-81
Submitted:
09/09/99
Approved:
10/08/99
Park Place Condominiums,
Section H (SP #44-99)
Shawnee
88 unit apartment complex; 9.52 ac. of 11 -
ac. parcel developed (RP)
Location:
S.E. corner of Valley Mill Rd. (Rt. 659) & Brookland Ln. (Rt. 658)
Submitted:
08/18/99
Approved:
Pending
Stonewall Industrial Park, Lots
26, 27, & 28 (SP #42-99)
Gainesboro
1
10,450 s.f. office/ 154,325 s.f.
warehouse; 12.08 ac. parcel (MI)
Location:
McGhee Road; Stonewall Industrial Park
Submitted:
07/30/99
11 Approved:
Pending
Omega Drywall, Ltd. (SP #41-99) 1
Gainesboro
1 34' X 60' storage bldg.; (M1)
Location:
Stonewall Industrial Park, Lot 15-A; 1671 Tyson Drive
Submitted:
07/19/99
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999 11
Shenandoah Valley Baptist
Church (SP #40-99)
Opequon
2- 756 s.f. additions to existing church
bld . for storage use (RA)
Location:
4699 Valley Pike
Submitted:
07/12/99
11 Approved: IPPending
Pending
Fairfax Court (SP #38-99)
Opequon
Single-family & Multi -family
Residential Use (RP)
Location:
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277)
Submitted:
07/14/99
Approved: 1p
Pending
Appleland Sports Center, Inc.
(SP #37-99)
Back Creek
Expansion of existing commercial
recreation area; (RA)
Location:
4490 Valley Pike
Submitted:
07/14/99
Approved:
Pending
Kim & Marietta Walls
SP #34-99)
Stonewall
office (B2); 1.58 ac. parcel (1.0 ac. in
City of Wine.; 0.58 ac. in Fred. Co.)
Location:
909 North Loudoun St.
Submitted:
06/22/99
Approved:
Pending
H.P. Hood (SP #30-99)
Back Creel:
ESL Milk Facility; 74.10 ac. developed
of a 83.21 ac. site (M2)
Location:
Rt. 11
Submitted:
06/24/99
Approved: IP10/19/99
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999 12
Greenwood Volunteer Fire Co.
SP #28-99)
Shawnee
1
11,400 sq.ft. addition to existing bldg.; 2.66
ac. developed of 4.00 ac. parcel (RA)
Location:
1366 Greenwood Road
Submitted:
06/08/99
Approved.
Pendia
Winc.-Fred. Co. Chptr. of the
American Red Cross (SP #23-99)
Stonewall
1
16,160 sq.ft. office facility on 2.0213 ac.
parcel (B2)
Location:
E. side N. Frederick Pk; approx.
1/4 mi. N. of Winc. Corp. limits
Submitted:
05/13/99
Pendia
Approved:
Pending
I
Burning Tree Apts. & Town-
houses (SP #19-99)
Shawnee
Multiplex development on 1.3 acres
(RP)
Location:
Williamson Road (Rt. 1213)
Submitted:
05/26/99
Approved:
Pendia
Airport Warehousing at Arbor
Court (SP #15-99)
Shawnee
7.5 ac. to be developed of a 7.8 ac. site
fora warehouse (M1)
Location:
321 Arbor Court
Submitted:
04/15/99
Approved:
10/20/99
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999 13
America House Assisted Living
(SP #073-98)
Opequon
Assisted living facility/4.6 ac. developed
on 73.4749 ac. site (RP)
Location:
South side of Tasker Rd. (Rt. 642); 1,100 feet east of Aylor Rd. (Rt.
647)
Submitted:
12/02/98
Approved:
Pendin
Kim Henry Property - Mini
Warehouse (SP #057-98)
Stonewall
1
7,504 s.f. warehouse; 4 ac. developed of
a 7.74 ac. site (133)
Location:
Intersection of Baker Lane & Fort Collier Road
Submitted:
08/26/98
Approved:
Pending
Moffett Property (SP #050-98)
Stonewall
Metal warehse. addition (4,800 g.s.f.);
1.392 ac. site; 0.465 disturbed (133)
Location:
1154 Martinsburg Pike
Submitted:
07/21/98
Approved:
Pending
T.P. & Susan Goodman
(SP #044-98)
Stonewall
Hackwood/ Minor Site Plan (RA)
Location:
534 Redbud Road
Submitted:
06/10/98
Approved:
Pendi n o
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999 14
Southeast Container (SP #001-98)
Stonewall District-
Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a
89.6 ac. Site (M1)
Location:
Ft. Collier Industrial Park
Submitted:
01/06/98
Approved:
Pending
Agape Christian Fellowship
Church Sanctuary (SP 9005-97)
Shawnee
Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be
developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA)
Location:
East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/I-81 Interchg.
Submitted:
02/12/97
Approved:
IL Pending
Shenandoah Bldg. Supply
(SP #056-96)
Gaineshoro
Warehouse on 5 acres (M1)
Location:
195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park)
Submitted:
12/16/96
Approved:
Pending
Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube
Service (SP #030-96)
Opequon
Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive -
Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2)
Location:
152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store)
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
Pending
AMOCO/House of Gifts
(SP #022-96)
Gainesboro
Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a
0.916 acre parcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 20, 1999 15
American Legion Post #021
(SP 11018-96)
Stonewall
Addition to lodge building on 3.4255
acre site (132)
Location:
1730 Berryville Pike
Submitted:
04/10/96
Approved:
Pending
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS:
CFW Intelos - VA PCS Alliance
(Cal. Ritter Prop.) (CUP #22-99)
Gainesboro
1
180' monopole telecommunications
facility (RA)
Location:
Rt. 50W to last driveway before Mahlon Dr.; proceed up drive to
quarry, site on right of hillside
Submitted:
09/10/99
PC Review:
10/06/99 - recommended approval with conditions & granting of
setback waiver request
BOS Review:
10/27/99
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 22, 1999 16
CFW Intelos - VA PCS Alliance
(Rnd. Hill U.M.C.) (CUP #21-99)
Gainesboro
140' monopole telecommunications
facility (RA)
Location:
161 Trinity Lane, off of Rt. 803
Submitted:
09/10/99
PC Review:
10/06/99 - recommended approval w/ conditions & granting of
setback waiver request
BOS Review:
10/27/99
CFW Intelos - VA PCS Alliance
(Jim Patton Prop.) (CUP #20-99)
Gainesboro
140' monopole telecommunications
facility (RA)
Location:
Footstone Lane, off of Rt. 522 North
Submitted:
09/10/99
PC Review:
10/06/99 - recommended approval xv/ conditions & granting of
setback waiver request
BOS Review:
10/27/99
Outreach to Asia Nationals
(OTAN) (CUP #19-99)
Gainesboro
Humanitarian Aid Organizational
Office (RA)
Location:
261 Bethany Hill Drive
Submitted:
08/25/99
PC Review:
10/06/99 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
10/27/99
Milam's Landscape
(CUP #18-99)
Gainesboro
landscape contractors business &
garden center; expansion of previously
approved CUP #012-97 (RA)
Location:
Round Hill Road
Submitted:
09/10/99
PC Review:
10/06/99; reschcduled for 11/03/99
BOS Review:
12/08/99 - tentatively scheduled
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 22, 1999 17
Garland L. Boyce, Sr.
CUP #17-99)
Back Creel:
Public Garage for Auto Repair (RA)
Location:
East side of McDonald Rd. (Rt. 616), approx. 1-1%2 mi. from
Wardensville Grade (Rt. 608)
Submitted:
09/07/99
PC Review:
10/06/99 - recommended denial
BOS Review:
10/27/99 if
Martha Tatum (CUP #16-99)
kopequon
Graphics Workshop (RA)
Location:
337 Mumau Lane, Stephens City
Submitted:
07/07/99
PC Review:
/06/99 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
L10/27/99
Glen & Natalie Miller
CUP #10-99)
Shawnee
Cottage Occupation - Limousine
Service (RP)
Location:
110 Front Royal Pk; 415' north of Westwood Dr., on the west side of
Rt. 522
Submitted:
0/24/99
PC Review:
07/07/99 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
08/2/99 - tabled; 10/11/99 - applicant withdrew CUP application
SBA, Inc. (Richard Miller Cooley
-Property) (CUP #03-99)
Opequon
Commercial Telecommun. Facility:
250' self-supporting lattice tower (RA)
Location:
173 Catlett Lane, Middletown
Submitted:
03/12/99
PC Review:
04/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request for 90 days to 07/07/99;
07/07/99 - tabled at the applicant's request for 30 days to 08/04/99
08/04/99 - tabled at the applicant's request indefinitely
BOS Review:
not vet scheduled
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 22, 1999 18
VARIANCES:
Karen B. Barrett (VAR #08-99)
Opequon
8' rear yard variance for an existing
deck (RP)
Location:
122 Ian Ct.; Village at Sherando, Lot 41, Sect. II
Submitted:
09/20/99
BZA Review:
10/19/99 - approved
Satian Enterprises, Inc.
AR #07-99)
Shawnee
1
3.8' front yd. setback var. for an
attached 2 -car garage (RP)
Location:
122 Aloka Drive; Lot 24 Saratoga Meadows Subdivision
Submitted:
08/23/99
BZA Review:
09/21/99 - tabled until 10/19/99; 10/19/99 - approved
Applications Action Summary
Printed October 22, 1999 19
PC REVIEW: 10/06/99 (not heard); 11/03/99
BOS REVIEW: 10/27/99
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #18-99
MICHAEL M. MILAM
Landscape Contractor's Business and Garden Center
(Expansion of Previously Approved CUP)
LOCATION: This property is located at 2186 Northwestern Pike.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 52 -A -B
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Landscape and Garden Center
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Orchard
PROPOSED USE: Expansion of previously approved conditional use permit (CUP 9012-97)
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property.
Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand to more
than three business vehicles in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT
minimum commercial standards.
Inspections Department: No comment is required, structures are exempt from building
permit under the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (horticultural use).
Fire Marshal: No comments. Plan approval recommended.
Health Department: No objection to proposal. Existing pump and haul system appears to
be adequate to support the business expansion.
Michael Milam CUP #18-99
Page 2
October 22, 1999
Planning and Zoning: This proposed Conditional Use Permit is for an expansion of a
previously approved landscape contracting and garden center (Ref: CUP # 012-97). The
expansion of this Conditional Use Permit is for an additional 9,600 square feet of open and
enclosed display areas, and outdoor storage areas located toward the front of the property
adjacent to Northwestern Pike (Route 50), to the rear of the existing house. The expansion
of the use includes additional topsoil and mulch piles; the relocation of a greenhouse from the
rear to the front of the property, the addition of a 10'x 10' storage building in the front of the
property; and the creation of an additional ten (10) parking spaces.
The existing (and proposed) business is adjacent to active agricultural and orchard uses, and
will have 100 -foot and 200 -foot setbacks as required in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District.
No buffers or screens are required for this proposed Conditional Use Permit. The applicant
proposes to add a business sign with the expansion of this proposed Conditional Use Permit.
The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan addresses development within the rural
community centers. A land use plan tailored to the Round Hill community has been
developed. This land use plan recommends that visual disruption to the Route 50 corridor be
minimized to controlling the size, location, and number of signs, and is identified as one
method of preventing a typical commercial strip along this route. In keeping with the rural
nature of the Round Hill Community Center, staff would recommend limiting the number of
business signs to one (1) and limiting a maximum of fifty (50) square feet in area to achieve
this objective.
An engineered site plan will be required for the expansion this proposed Conditional Use
Permit. This site plan will address all the requirements of the County of Frederick Zoning
Ordnance and the concerns of the various reviewing agencies.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11-03-99 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
All review agency comments must be complied with at all times.
2. An engineered site plan shall be approved by the County.
One (1) business sign shall be allowed along Northwestern Pike (Route 50); this sign shall be
limited to a maximum of fifty (50) square feet in area.
4. Any expansion of use or change of use would require a new Conditional Use Permit.
ur
Submittal Deadline
�C'*` CO P/C Meeting r -
p��'1, OF Pli�1��CidG�G'�'���QPi�4et�T Bos Meeting r7 -
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA.
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other)
NAME: Michael M. Milam
ADDRESS: 2186 Northwestern Pike, Winchester, VA 22603
TELEPHONE ( 540) 722-3004
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
WWW, LC (Mr. Frank Armstrong, Mr. Robert Solenberger, Mr. Jim Wilkins)
Michael M. Milam - Lessee
3. The property -is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
Route 50 West - rioht on Round Hill Roado
4. The property has a road frontage of 1896.6 feet and a
depth of 1572.85 feet and consists of 67.096 acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by WWW, LC as
evidenced by deed from C.L. Robinson Corp. recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no. 848 on page 1196 , as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 52 -A -B
Magisterial District Gainesboro District
Current Zoning RA
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North 53 -A -A RA
East 53-A-77,75,74,73 RA
* South 52-A-71 A thru 52A RA
West 52 -A -C RA
* See attached list
8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
f
9. It is proposed that the following buil6ings will be
constructed: no construction
30. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
Arid in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on .back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME Fruit Hill Orchard ADDRESS P0� Box 2368, Winchester, VA 2260-,
PROPERTY ID# 53 -A -A
NAME Renner Paul C. & Clara E. ADDRESS 118 Echo Lane
PROPERTY ID# 53-A-77 linchestery VA 22603.
NAME Huffman, Page F. & Elva ADDRESS 194 Echo Lane
PROPERTY IDI 53-A-73
Winchester, VA 22603
NAME Turner, Benard & Carolyn R. ADDRESS 2578 Northwestern Pike
PROPERTY ID# 53-A-74
Winchester, VA 22603
NAME Johnson, Nancy Renner ADDRESS 2054 Northwestern Pike
PROPERTY ID# 53-A-75
NAME Silver Lake, LC ADDRESS
PROPERTY IDI 52 -A -C
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
Winchester, VA 22603
13 South Loudoun Street
Winchester, VA 22601
'Attached list NAME Whitacre Preston R. & Anna ADDRESS 2131 Northwestern Pike
PROPERTY ID# 53--B-1-3,4 Winchester, VA 22603
NAME Sauder, Glen R. & Mary Ann ADDRESS 190 Robin Hood Circle
PROPERTY IDI 53-B-1-3,4 Winchester, VA 22603
NAME Fletcher, Robert N. & Lilly ADDRESS 2153 Northwestern Pike
PROPERTY iDif 53-B-1-7 Winchester, VA 22603
NAME Grim,_Mary
Russell F. & Renee
F.
ADDRESS 2161 Northwestern Pike
PROPERTY
IDI
53-8-1-8
Winchester, VA 22603
NAME Link, Junior L. & Dorothy E. ADDRESS 2177 Northwestern Pike
PROPERTY IDI 53B -1-9,9A,10,11 Winchester, VA 22603
RAME Halver,
Russell F. & Renee
ADDRESS 219 Cougar
Trail
PROPERTY ID#`
53-B-1-12
Winchester,
11
VA 22602
NAME Commonwealth of Virginia ADDRESS
PROPERTY IDI 52 -A -7/A
NAME Ashwood. Winfred R. & Mary V. ADDRESS 2255 Northwestern Pike
PROPERTY IDI 52-A-252 Winchester, VA 22603
NAME Larrick. R. M. & Elva J. ADDRESS 2243 Northwestern Pike
PROPERTY IDI - Winchester, VA 22603
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME
PROPERTY IDI
NAME
PROPERTY IDI
NAME
PROPERTY IDf
NAME
PROPERTY IDI
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
12. Additional comments, if any:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
Owners' Mailing Address
Owners' Telephone No.
2186 Northwestern Pike, Winchester, VA 22603
(540) 722-3004
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
PC REVIEW: 11/03/99
BOS REVIEW: 12/08/99
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #24-99
RHODA W. KRIZ
Cottage Occupation - Bed and Breakfast
LOCATION: This property is located at 547 Apple Pie Ridge Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 42-A-206
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential and Vacant
PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation - Bed and Breakfast
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property.
Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the
future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards.
Inspections Department: Existing structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform
Statewide Building Code and Section 310, Use Group R (Residential) of the BOCA National
Building Code/1996. Please submit a floor plan at the time of change of use permit
application.
Ei ire Marshal: An >>nobstr cted means of ingress for Fre DepartMent Apparatus to access
the building is required. Trees and undergrowth should be kept cut back to allow ingress and
egress of emergency vehicles. Plan approval is recommended.
Rhoda W. Kriz CUP #24-99
Page 2
October 22, 1999
Health DeRartment: Owners and operators must comply with the small waterworks policy.
The Health Department has no objections as long as the number of bedrooms does not exceed
five, including remaining bedrooms in house and the three rooms being rented. Each rental
room will be documented as using 130 gallons per day (actual water usage). Must file
application for bed and breakfast permit.
Planning and Zonin : The proposed use will take place in the existing house. The
applicant has identified that three (3) rooms would be rented in association with the bed and
breakfast operation. The scale of the proposed use is more intense than is generally
associated with a single-family dwelling unit. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider this
proposed bed and breakfast as a cottage occupation. Cottage occupations are permitted in
the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved conditional use permit.
In evaluating the site of the proposed bed and breakfast, it is evident that the dwelling in
which the business will occur is screened from all adjoining properties by mature vegetation.
Additionally, the dwelling is located approximately 800 feet from the Apple Pie Ridge Road
right-of-way. The proposed use is consistent with the surrounding land uses. Assuming
compliance with all review agency comments, it is staff's belief that the proposed use will not
impact the existing community in a negative manner.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11-03-99 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Approval of this conditional use permit would be appropriate with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. In accordance with Cottage Occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may
not exceed four (4) square feet in area.
No more than three bedrooms shall be utilized for the bed and breakfast operation.
4. Any expansion of the bed and breakfast shall require a new conditional use permit.
O: \Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\ 1999\RhodaKriz. CUP.wpd
gg
••
t
Fetter
is►
•
sx t.
Lewis�
as•
r
P
-Woodside
ace
i
s'
elm
W
liiiiii`i
MOMEN
i/iiiiiii\i
♦ <.
�l�
Iiiiiiii
eCiiiii�
i�iF�
[ilii/l
1i
Mama
Zr A -20t Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
��- �•�- fir.
1. Applicant (The applicant if the V' � owner other)
NAME: ' C el t'•m t v t 1"C l? °
r
ADDRESS: .54 7i' - 9 `� y f1 C�
TELEPHONE 4a — 6 % - 6 S
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
NJT I `� J, ce �.i:>a
3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
i f U Z.;;r d
z V1473
4. The property hp a read frontage of feet and a
depth of yo3,'j3- yi33,&feet and consists of � acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by 0? cof cc %t, ee rZ.5. as
evidenced by deed from CA recorded
(previous owner)
in deed book no . i? on page /9' as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County o�
Frederick. et not ef-eed 12c, rio. 632 6 11 7 2
� d���f 1 ''�a��/7 � • l�=cf/�'c� c� rr� !�'tt���: 4.!.' ���u �4� '�' � � toe � !�` , f�`c;�lcfc�
6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No.
Magisterial District of c"'$- C
Current Zoning
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING ', ^ ;North fir' E�� C� .� 4 � _ �' A �i � �« : � � � �_s:,
East f 9c "
South Verf Cn il"f" .. f�? f3� S LE P JOw
West
DEPT, OF PLA f'di�!litG�G`JELGr^i�4E(�!?'
8. The type of use proposed is (consuA with the Planning Dept.
before completing) 6-.� .c '&4 A i-� ,k 4xa-> �'flil
e! ��rr J a V'P. 1' 1 c. b1 �e- , rl Je7..i" 4_J?'- /P
9. It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed:
AZI f7 f-
10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME IFaa X &t4f1•c1e� ',1 11
ADDRESSs t�6-e,.F--� �
` i ald.C"4err
PROPERTY 4-ZA -- 207-
ft)j �tG�� �-�-J U'#
`ID#
NAME r'[:a �,, Sr
. �r 0
ADDRESS �' %P f �'-�si
PROPERTY ID# -4.'A 7—C5
NAME JTClt? e y
ADDRESS 41q:7— j?f ef" �'4 �F
PROPERTY ID# ��C%
��a
NAME
ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID# 42,4— " O .�;
� ' vtq
NAME
ADDRESS
�{. / "` 2
PROPERTY ID# O
NAME Fety-I a
ADDRESS 16 2f
PROPERTY ID
VIA
NAME . G.�. i^ �' C ° /:
ADDRESS qZ t'�'Joa J
PROPERTY ID# -12, 7
NAME We &.c' y--� , P-G'h'�' r
ADDRESS WA,:rcfC /IX 1,
PROPERTY ID#
f..� !-t 4-e,-` V
fVAIII A:—-1-`5-fv' ��� 0 A f n e 61:.6��6 r ..
A!J-�%� `
I
11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show
proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including
measurements to all property lines.
v
`7/
��'
7�.
V - i
V
1
i
t
1
i
VAS
o zoo 400
12. Additional comments, if any:
11"ke (r /
�7iJit�
r� �f
r:✓ �' 11
/<-e 4
v tj:5 I *5 ,
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant
Signature of Owner
11
s
Owners' Mailing Address -�7i �'-
owners' Telephone No. 5--%() —&&-7— 1 6
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
PC REVIEW: 11/03/99
BOS REVIEW: 12/08/99
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #25-99
ANDREW REH
Cottage Occupation - Ice Sculpting
LOCATION: This property is located at 8085 Valley Pike.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 91-1-A
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District; Land Use:
Residential and Vacant
PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation - Ice Sculpting Business
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to conditional use permit for this property.
Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the
future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards.
Inspections Department: Building shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code and Section 304, Use Group B (Business) of the BOCA National Building
Code/1996. Please submit a floor plan at the time of change of use permit application.
Plumbing facilities shall be located within 500' of work area.
Fire Marshal: Plan approval is recommended.
Health Department: The Health Department has no objection to the proposed conditional
use permit.
Andrew Reh CUP #25-99
Page 2
October 22, 1999
Planning and Zoning: This application is a request to allow a cottage occupation within an
accessory structure. Specifically, the permit will allow one (1) non-resident employee, the
applicant, to operate an ice sculpting business from an existing garage. The involvement of
an employee other than members of the immediate household in the operation of a home-
based business is permitted as a cottage occupation. A cottage occupation is permitted in the
RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Staff visited the property to evaluate the surrounding properties. The adjoining properties
appear to be adequately separated from the location of the proposed use. The property to the
west is vacant, while a large field lies between the garage and the adjoining property to the
north. The garage is located approximately forty (40) feet from the Route 11 right-of-way
and, therefore, has little impact on the property to the east. The residence on the subject
parcel lies between the garage and the property to the south. There will be no excessive noise
or odor as a result of this business. In addition, there will be no retail element on the site.
The applicant will deliver the finished product to the customer. Occasionally, a service truck
will deliver ice to the site.
Based upon the limited scale of the proposed business, staff feels that the business could
operate without significant impact on the adjoining properties.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11-03-99 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
Approval of this conditional use permit would be appropriate with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. In accordance with Cottage Occupation sign requirements, signage for the proposed use may
not exceed four (4) square feet in area.
3. No additional employees shall be permitted.
4. No retail sales shall occur on-site.
Any expansion ofthe approved cottage occupation shall require a new conditional use permit.
O;\Agendas\COMMENTS\CUP's\ 1999\AndrewReh.CUP.wpd
SPIN.,
ilk I
Pop. p
Lima
Fri 0
ammossom
BORDEN
mammas
mammas
MOMEM-i
M& &Gabon
Submittal Deadline
P/C Meeting
BOS Meeting
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other)
NAME: 1�,�; p; ZF/v
ADDRESS: `',�--t�;,/r=_"T
TELEPHONE
2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of
the property:
PAR 61d A AQ ,oho v2
At-- 4t ai ,LSI4
--� 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions and
include the route number of your road or street)
PASS .. 1 , t -F 0 VA-tiEV R►
4. The property has a road frontage of ,rtCOF �_ feet and a
depth of f '7X --Q feet and consists of ( acres.
(Please be exact)
5. The property is owned by )4.Agdci l�� r.��� as
evidenced by deed from `v��� (<-"57/5 % v recorded
(previous dwner)
in deed book no. fl on page as recorded in the
records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court, County of
Frederick.
14 -Digi p
oerty Identification No. - i -- A
\M erial District (jAClC
Current Zoning
7. Adjoining Property:
USE ZONING
North �� f.A
East E::,., RA
South . he n►�
West }(( R
The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept.
before completing)
�'°+� ' �"f" Sl J % l Cid � ri1 s=•J{ v � r ti c: �� ���i� =� '4�/, iI
e'
1 d
It is proposed that the following buildings will be
constructed: nlontq-.
The following are all of the individuals, firms, or
corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear
and in front of (across street from) the property where the
requested use will be conducted. (Continue on back if
necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this
application:
NAME ADDRESS a� � i/ i j � '-� F 1<C
✓ A
PROPERTY ID# '71 t - 1 - 6
NAME •- I ,-, hem. s 2l., &; 2hA, ADDRESS
v,,\
�,Lc1iE-' -�c.r � -
mss `'.Sy
PROPERTY ID# Q/ - � C c�
NAME r-,-l.�� w v !t:�, 5 fr?c:v v��•c ADDRESS �'� ^,,,4A41 11/
v
PROPERTY ID# `�/ -f1 '1 N,/ 14
NAME J��//� G� ��P �illil5%��' ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID# `l! -14 - %f vA
NAME i�idit� �i/}ii ���/ie::2 ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#Coir — % ' 1� c �' fv:i. %.�' CIA _-2:X,
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME ADDRESS
PROPERTY ID#
NAME AnnuF.qq
16
11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show
proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including
measurements to all property lines.
E]
i
-PI
12 . Additional comments, if any • i I
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application
and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to
allow the use described in this application. I understand that the
sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed
at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the
first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after
the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. Your application for a
Conditional Use Permit authorizes any member of the Frederick
County Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors or Planning and
Development Department to inspect your property where the proposed
use will be conducted.
Signature of Applicant _-" L y 4411, �
Signature of owner
1 ,`q
a �a`Owners' Mailing Address 2 -
Owners'
Owners' �
Telephone No. 1 ; -`U ) � 6 -/-- / 0 / &
TO BE COMPLETED BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
USE CODE:
RENEWAL DATE:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAY: 540/678-0682
ME1MIOj"NDUVB
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: 2000 - 2001 Secondary Road Improvement Plan Update
DATE: October 21, 1999
The Frederick County Transportation Committee reviewed the annual update of the Secondary Road
Improvement Plan at their October meeting and forwarded a recommendation of approval with some
minor changes to the Planning Commission. Key elements of this year's plan are identified in the
following summary. Staff has scheduled public hearings at both the Planning Commission and Board
levels to provide an opportunity for citizens to participate in this process. Ultimately, the Board of
Supervisors adopts a final plan which is forwarded to the VDOT District Office in Staunton for funding
allocations. Staffwould ask that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for consideration
by the Board of Supervisors.
Secondary Road Improvement Plan Summary
Major Road Improvement Projects:
• The proposed Jubal Early Drive Extension (Joint County/City/State Project) has been removed
from the plan.
• One new project was recommended by VDOT for inclusion into the 2000 - 2001 update. This
project is the Route 669 bridge over Interstate 81. The Board of Supervisors previously
recommended that funding available from the elimination of the Jubal Early project is to be
directed to the Route 669 project to initiate the preliminary engineering and design for the much
needed improvements. The inclusion of this project into the Secondary Road Plan will enable
VDOT to allocate the necessary funding. The Transportation Committee was reluctant to
include this project into the plan. It was their belief that this step was unnecessary as the Board
had already made this decision. However, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission
to include this project in the plan.
107 North Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Secondary Road Plan 2000-2001 Memo
Page 2
October 21, 1999
• The Rt. 655 and Rt. 656 projects are proposed for improvement as one project. The
interdependent nature of these heavily -traveled road sections has prompted this
recommendation. To facilitate such concurrent improvement, the Rt. 655 project has been
promoted from #29 on the 1999 - 2000 plan to #7 on the current update. This joint project has
been placed ahead of the Route 608 project. It should be noted that several incidental
construction projects have been scheduled for Route 608 that will occur within the next two
years.
Hardsurface Road Improvement Projects:
• No new projects qualified for the 2000 - 2001 update.
• Hardsurface improvement of Rt. 689 has been promoted to the plan from the unscheduled
project list. Such advancement was enabled due to completion of projects involving Rt. 695
and Rt. 692, respectively.
Incidental Construction:
• The proposed 2000 - 2001 update includes fourteen (14) new incidental construction projects.
Eleven (11) such projects were completed during Fiscal Year 99/00 as identified in the 1999 -
2000 plan.
l) \Mike\Common\Transportation\Roadplans\Secondary\plan000 Lmem
J"
2001/2002
Major road iwprovementproxcts command the reco-nstyucdon at'�ardsurfacedroads to enb'wce public sal&t-v-
,Tmprovem=ts teqzzimd for road width, road alignment, road svmgth, and road gmdienr are considered maidt
zoad k2pro vemenirsprojects.
* To be cows&nrtedf aa ortepz"ofecf-
0"
-VA
0
`-ALF'' --`
:7
"M
?
1)
656
Route 657
Route 569
4237
1.01 miles
SH/ST
7,300,000 03/00
7
9t 277•-
.::'77-7
0
000C1.".:.
3)•
652
Route 11 Winch. City Lim
4 .57 1
0.52 miles
BC
1,341,705 under
constr.
:!$VUCtu.reV61T6.
--:2,401
'07
5)
719,
Rotate 277
Route 642
n/a
1.55 miles
op
Revenue 03Y`00
Warrior Dr.
Sharing
",;L 56,*1�11:1.
-Route
.. ::.:. 1 -9
-
7;-,000- - UNISK.-
655
Route 656
Route 60
--4-,-282
0.78 miles
SH
5,056,000 UN/SH
1�7
452T*'-;83`77�71
.'UNISH!.'
659
Route 820 Route 7 401 0.2 mile ST
UN/SH
.. .. ... .. .. ... curb;.art . p m p n. s, "fo
An tep",,nl:
: q6tter. j m. .- '�o 'L -, .';';
-ro
.: *
11)
Towns
curb and gutter improvements for the Town of Middletown
UNISH
79— m I e!
WROS H
13)
650
Route 664 Route 7 East 1268 2.13 miles ST
UNISH
P
UA;
W.
W
UN/SH!,
1 5)
600
1.07 Mi N Rte. Route 684 942 1.93 miles GA
UN/SH
679
UN
17)
657
Winchester CL Route 656 9197 1.6 miles SH
UN/SH
739'.
NO n G A'
- SH
'UN/
19)
636
Route 277 Route 642 874 1.5 miles OP/SH
9H
UN/' H
/$
'64
lies;,,,.
NISH.
..U. .
21)
eel
Ratite 11 North Route 660 397 3.24 miles ST
UN/SH
.0 -Mi
,fR�0,.ut6,629 q:i.,
77
, /$H
23)
---
657
Tf�9— 2.07 miles
Route 666 Clarke Co. Line ST
Route
UN/SH
64T':, du 27
-UNISH
26)
761
Route 11 Nor . th Route 664 2239 1.13 miles•
RISH
U NIS
71-65'.7
7765,977
UNISH-
27)
636
Route 277 1.6 Wri. S. Rte, 277 522 1.5 miles OP
UNISH
57: mile
::UNI.89-
29)
600
Route 753 Route 614 1075 1.8 miles BG
UN/SH
102 Mi ;Routeb-1
N/SK
RW1010
31)
661
Route 663 Route 11 North -7729 1.21 miles ST/QA
UN/SH
:r,niles ': - .,': .:
7
Z., 7 NISH,-
11;�:-. U-.- �. .'
33)
627
Interstate81Route 11South 5187 0.49 mile OP
UN/SH
Route 'A83::.. �Amiles BC .
UN1SH
* To be cows&nrtedf aa ortepz"ofecf-
•
2001/2002
H"ardswface road improver aut projects provide Impemous resurfacing and reconstruccuoz, of non-
hardsrrrfaced secondary roads Hardswface improvements are couvdered pxmatlly by the average
daily trafrc coant for these secoodaryroads.
INCIDENTAL CONSTRUCTION
Incidental construction projects are defined as minor construction projects that cast less than $100,000.
Examples involve drainage improvements, site distance improvements, spot widening, replacing
overflow pipes with box culverts, and the application of cold mix on existing road suxfaces. 'Me
Virginia Department of Transportation determines if a proposed project qualifies for Incidental
Construction based on the overall scope of the improvement.
1
4
9)
13)
14)
15)
1
19)
21)
641
From: Route 636
Realign Road to South to Improve
UP
00/01
To: 0.15 Mi. E. Rte. 636
Sight Distance
70,000
661
From: Rte. 671
Widen Curve to Improve Sight
ST
00/01
To: 0.10 Mi. S. Rte. 671
Distance
54,000
664
0.10 Mi. I,. Rte_ 11
Improve Drainage; Remove Sox
ST
00/01
20,500
Culverts; Install Pipe
35.500
670
At 0.25 Mi. South Route
Install Sox Culvert to Improve
ST
669
Drainage
836
From: Route 11
Spot Widen & Improve Drainage
ST
To: 0.14 Mi. E. Rte. 11
1054
Fredericktowne Subd.
165 lbs. Plant Mix
dF
Improvements
692
From 0.01 Mi. S. Rte. 522
Replace Pipe; Install Sox Culvert;
GA
to 1.07 Mi. S. Rte, 522
Realign Road & Intersection
600
From:0.28 Mi_ N. Rte_ 689
Spat Widen to Improve Sight
GA
To: 0.35 Mi. N. Rte. 689
Distance
762
From:0.63 Mi. S. Rte. 705
Spot Widen
GA
To: 0.72 Mi. S. Rte. 705
608
Fram:0.02 Mi. E. Rte. 618
Spot Widen to Improve Sight
SC
To: 0.08 Mi. E. Rte. 618
Distance
800
County Wide
Install Guardrail
n/a
Improvement
608
At 0.12 Mi. S. Rte. 50
Install Flashing !rights
SC
600
From: 0.98 Mi. N Rte. 685
Widen slope and shoulder to
GA
To: 1.08 Mi, N_ Rte. 685 ..
im rove sight distance
608
At 0.04 Mi. N. Rte. 616
Replace bridge with concrete box
EC
culvert
645
From: 0.78 Mi, E. Rte 728
Construct bridge and approaches
SH
To: 0.85 K. E. Rte. 728
660
From: Int. Rte_ 661
Widen slope to improve sight
ST
To: 0.02 Mi, N. Rte. 661
distance
671
t'rom: 0.07 Mi, E_ Rte 669
Widen curve
GA
To: 0.10 Mi. E. Rte. 669
671
From: 1.30 Mi, N. Rte 690
Widen curve to improve sight
GA
To: 1.38 Mi_ N. Rte. 690
From: 0.11 Mi. W Rte 663
distance
Lower vertical curve to improve sight
ST
672
To: 0.19 Mi. W. Rte. 663
distance
673
From: 0.35 Mi. I-. Rte 522
Lower vertical curve to improve sight
GA
To: 0.45 Mi. F_ Rte. 522
distance
677
At 0.56 Mi. W Rte. 715
Construct tum around
GA
00/01 42,
00/01 7,c
01 /02 35,
01/02 74,
01/02 104
01102 12,
01/02 12,
01102 30,
01I[l2 100
01102 37,
01/02 10,
00/01
8,200
00101
70,000
00/01
53,000
00/01
60,000
00/01
35,000
00/01
54,000
00101
200,00(
00/01
100,00(
00/01
20,500
00/01
35.500
00/01 42,
00/01 7,c
01 /02 35,
01/02 74,
01/02 104
01102 12,
01/02 12,
01102 30,
01I[l2 100
01102 37,
01/02 10,
Frans: Int. Rte. 705 Widen to it
To: 0.15 Mi. S. Rte. 705
At 0.25 Mi. SW tete. 50 Widen box
Pembridge Helght5 165 lbs- plant Prix
$ubdivision Improvement
.....,.,. ,nr..j., - In�tatl r�u�rdrail at various IoCtICPIS MIA
140,
60
PC REVIEW DATE: 11/03/99
BOS REVIEW DATE: 12/08/99
REZONING APPLICATION 915-99
CHANNING DRIVE
To rezone 354.3 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District,
and 22.0 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to B2 (Business General) District
LOCATION: This property is located on the north side of Senseny Road (Route 657), on both sides
of Bean's Pond Lane, and adjacent to the Bedford Village, Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen, and Carlisle
Heights subdivisions.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 55-A-206,209,211,213 & 65-A-30, 39,40
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Cq
-MV
Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District
Land Use: Agricultural and Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Qj' bad or -PL,3,ej -Z.
North: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
Zoned RA (Rural Areas) District
South: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
RA (Rural Areas) District
East: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
RA (F ural Areas) District
West: Zoned RP (Residential Performance) District
RA (Rural Areas) District
Use: Vacant (Fieldstone Heights)
Residential and Vacant
Use: Residential (Burning Knolls,
Apple Ridge, Senseny Glen)
Residential
Use: Residential (Bedford Village,
Apple Ridge)
Residential and Vacant
Use: Residential (Carlisle Heights)
Residential and Vacant
Channing Drive REZ #15-99 -
Page 2
October 21, 1999
PROPOSED USE: Residential and Commercial
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Det. of Transportation: Please refer to E-mail correspondence from VDOT to Greenway
Engineering dated September 1, 1999, and letter .from VDOT to Mrs. Gina A. Forrester dated
September 2, 1999.
Fire Marshal: Plan approval recommended.
County Engineer: The submission of the revised traffic study adequately addresses the previous
review comments.
Sanitation Authority: No comment.
Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company: Please refer to minutes from Greenwood
Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company Special Board Meeting dated May 18, 1999.
Parks and Recreation: If the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model used for this development
reflects current information from the Planning Department, it would appear the proposed proffer will
meet the Parks and Recreational needs created by this development. Also, the Parks and Recreation
Department would recommend that the trail system be designed to accommodate bicycles and
connect with adjacent developments being considered.
Frederick County Public Schools: Please refer to three letters from Frederick County Public
Schools to Greenway Engineering dated June 7, 1999.
Countx Attorna: Proffer statement appears to be in proper form.
Planning c& Zoning:
Project Scope
The applicants have proposed to rezone eight parcels totaling 376.3 acres to establish 354.3 acres of
residential land use and 22 acres of commercial land use. This proposal calls for the development of
8 6 sidential lots excluding townhouse and apartment units); 220,000 square eet ot commercial
use, a community recreation ce_ t" that will be available to all area residents through members p,
.SF, and a pedestrian trail system which connects all land areas east of Channing Drive.
_2.
Channing Drive REZ #15-99
Page 3
October 21, 1999
Site History
The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U. S. G. S. Stephenson Quadrangle) depicts the zoning
for the eight parcels as A-2 (Agricultural General) District. This zoning classification was modified
to RA (Rural Areas) District on February 14, 1990 during the comprehensive amendment to the
county's Zoning Ordinance.
Location
The eight properties, totaling 376.3 acres, are located in the county's Urban Development Area
(UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area SWSA). This acreage is currently accessible from
Senseny Road (Route 657), Beans Pond Lane whic intersects Senseny Road (Route 657) near
Parkwood Circle (Route 123 5) and Sunset Drive (Route 812), and Eddy's Lane (Route 820) which
intersects Valley NO Road (Route 659) near Berryville Pike (Route 7). Surrounding properties are
primarily residential in nature or are planned for future residential development.
Site Suitability
The 376.3 acres does not contain areas of floodplain; however, areas of steep slope, woodlands,
wetlands, and prime agricultural soils exist on the property. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks
Survey identifies eight properties within the proximity of this acreage which contain historic
structures; however, none of these structures are identified as potentially significant historic
resources. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify potential historic
districts within the proximity of this site.
Issues Identified by Planning Commission
The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the rezoning of the eight parcels identified
in this staffreport on March 3, 1999. The a licant asked the Planning Commission to table action
on this request to allow for adequate time to address -tfie concerns that were raised urmg the
meeting. The following information is intended to identify the concerns and issues raised by the
Planning Commission and how the applicant has proposed to mitigate these issues through the
development of additional information and through the submission of a revised proffer statement:
1) The Planning Commission felt that a detailed traffic impact analysis statement needed to be
prepared which provided Level of Service (LOS) information for the existing road system
and LOS information for the road system based on the impacts of the proposed rezoning.
3
Channing Drive REZ #15-99
Page 4
October 21, 1999
The applicant has incorporated a detailed traffic impact analysis statement which was
prepared by Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC) ofMarshall, Virginia. The CTC traffic
analysis provides 1999 average daily traffic count (ADT) informationyvolumes for A.M. and
P.M. peak hour traffic at all interaec ions within proximity of this acreage; traffic volume
increase at all intersections throuM05 utilizing a 3.5% annual growth rate which accounts
for the acreage proposed for rezoning, as well as seven developments within this area that
have been approved but are not at build -out; trip generation information for the proposed
residential and commercial land use, trip distribution percentages for traffic movements from
this acreage onto the existing road systems; and LOS information for existing road systems
and intersections, as well as LOS information for build -out conditions of this acreage.
2) The
that
be reviewed by VDOT and that new comments needed to
the results of their review.
is statement needed to
to tto t�unty based on
The CTC traffic impact analysis statement was submitted to VDOT and reviewed by their
traffic engineering division in Staunton. The results of this review are provided in two
correspondences from the VDOT Edinburg Residency. Please refer to E-mail
correspondence from VDOT to Greenway Engineering dated September 1, 1999, and letter
from VDOT to Mrs. Gina A- Forrester dated September 2, 1999.
3) The Planning Commission felt that the method for providing access from Senseny Road
(Route 57) to Berryville Pike (Route 7) needed to be determined, and that the issue of
widening the existing single -lane bridge adjacent to the McHale property needed to be
addressed
The CTC traffic impact analysis provides information for the segment of Valley Mill Road
(Route 659) between Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Berryville Pike; however, it does
not state if this information is based on the current road alignment or for an alternative
alignment. Previous discussions between the applicant and staffindicate that the current road
alignment is proposed to be utilized, as the ability to provide an alternative alignment is not
feasible since the applicant does not own the property.
The applicant's proffer statement provides a monetary contribution of up to $84,600 that can
be utilized by VDOT for improvements to the existing single -lane bridge adjacent to the
McHale property. A monetary contribution of $100 is available on a per -lot basis as building
permits are issued by the County.. These funds are available as matching funds through
VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program should the County submit a request for this type of
project.
-4-
Channing Drive REZ #15-99 -_
Page 5
October 21, 1999
4) The Plannin Com scion felt that phasing for the residential and commercial land uses
would need to be associated with LOS impacts to the existing road system within the
proximity of this acreage.
The applicant's proffer statement provides a phasing schedule for the residential land use
which calls for the issuance of 79 building permits annually. This phasing program would
limit the build -out of the residential land use to a minimum of 11 years. Furthermore, the
applicant's proffer statement limits the issuance of building permits to a total of 475 until the
off-site portion of Channing Drive is developed to Valley Mill Road. The CTC traffic impact
analysis does not associate the LOS of the existing road system to the applicant's residential
phasing plan; however, it does state that appropriate turn lanes will need to be provided at the
Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection to adequately accommodate the build -out ofthe
residential component. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $30,000 to
be used towards the installation of two of the four turn lanes id ntified by the CTC traffic
impact analysis. oalttiIt, i
-C j .: r"L
The applicant has not proffered a phasing plan for the development ofthe 22 -acre commercial
land use; however, the proffer statement limits the development of this acreage to 220,000
square feet of floor area. The CTC traffic impact analysis identifies the need for Senseny
Road to be improved to a four -lane condition between Channing Drive and the Senseny
Road/Greenwood Road intersection to adequately accommodate the commercial component
of the proposed rezoning.
5) The Plannin Com felt that the applicant needed to revisit the proffer associated with
the provision of a new elementary school site to ensure that the County was not put in the
position of funding the difference between the cost of land and the per-unit impact that was
demonstrated by the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model.
The Frederick County Public Schools civil engineer determined that the proposed 15 -acre site
contained development constraints which would make it difficult to construct a new
elementary school facility. The applicant's proffer statement was revised to eliminate the
dedicated 15 -acre elementary school site and to provide a per-unit monetary contribution that
is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model.
6) The Planning Commission felt that the applicant needed to address solid waste issues which
may involve the provision of land to accommodate a new solid waste citizen's convenience
center.
The applicant's proffer statement was revised to provide a monetary contribution to the
-5-
Channing Drive REZ #15-99
Page 6
October 21, 1999
County to expand the existing solid waste citizen's convenience center located on the east
side of Greenwood Road (Route 656). This proposal satisfies the County Engineer and the
Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. Please refer to the minutes from the
Greenwood Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company Special Board Meeting dated May 18,
1999.
Issues Identified by Review Agencies
1) Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS):
FCPS has stated that the cumulative impact of the proposed rezoning and existing residential
subdivisions within close proximity of this acreage will require the County to construct new
school facilities to ensure that existing facilities do not exceed design capacities. FCPS
believes that it is very important to consider the impacts of the proposed rezoning on current
and future school needs.
The applicant has based the impacts to community facilities and services on the results of the
Frederick County Capital Facilities Impact Model as applied to this rezoning request. The
applicant has provided a building permit phasing schedule as a part of the proffer statement
which calls for the development of 79 new residential units on an annual basis. The following
table provides information for the impact that the building permit phasing schedule would
create for the public school system on average:
Proposed Building Permit Phasing Schedule
Year
Total Building
Permits Issued
Elementary School
Impact @ .39
Pupils/Dwelling
Middle School
Impact @. 14
Pupils/Dwelling
High School
Impact @ .17
Pupils/Dwelling
1999
79
31
12
14
2000
158
62
23
27
2001
237
93
34
41
2002
316
124
45
54
-6-
Channing Drive REZ #15-99
Page 7
October 21, 1999
Year
Total Building
Permits Issued
Elementary School
Impact @.39
Pupils/Dwelling
Middle School
Impact @. 14
Pupils/Dwelling
High School
Impact @..17
Pupds/Dwelling
2003
395
155
56
68
2004
474
185
67
81
2005
553
216
78
95
2006
632
247
89
108
2007
711
278
100
121
2008
790
309
111
135
2009
846
330
119
144
The attendance zones established by the Frederick County School Board depict Senseny Road
Elementary, James Wood Middle School, and James Wood High School as the current
facilities in which student enrollment would occur. The 1999-2000 School Capacity and
Enrollment data demonstrate that Senseny Road Elementary has a practical capacity of 570
students with a current enrollment of 537 students, or 98% capacity. James Wood Middle
School has a practical capacity of 1,000 students with a current enrollment of 960 students,
or 96% capacity. James Wood High School has a practical capacity of 1,670 students with
a current enrollment of 1,572 students, or 94% capacity. Therefore, the information in this %
table suggests that the practical capacity for student enrollment at all three school levels will
be exceeded prior to the build -out of these properties. The Frederick County School Board
has identified the need for a new element school and .new high gh school: in this area to
address the impacts from this proposal coupled with the existing developments that have not
achieved build -out at this time.
2) Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT):
The completion of the improvements on Greenwood Road (Route 656) between Senseny
Road (Route 657) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) are assumed to be in place as a
component of the CTC traffic impact analysis. This road improvement project is proposed
to be advertised for construction in March 2000 and is anticipated to be complete by March
2002. The Greenwood Road improvement project calls for the provision of traffic
signalization at the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection.
-7-
Charming Drive REZ #15-99
Page 8
October 21, 1999
VDOT has identified the need to construct Senseny Road b tween Channing Drive and the
Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection to a four-lanadmmditian with appropriate turn
lanes prior to the build -out ofthe proffered land uses in this rezoning proposal. Furthermore,
VDOT has identified the need for traffic signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road
and Valley Mill Road prior to the build -out of the residential component of this acreage. The
applicant's proffer statement provides a monetary contribution of $75,00 for traffic
signalization at the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection which maybe ansferred
to the Greenwood Road/Valley NO Road intersection if warranted by VDOT. fi
3) Frederick County Parks and Recreation (FCPR):
FCPR has recommended that the proposed trail system be developed to accommodate bicycle
travel and that this trail system connect to adjacent developments. The applicant's proffer
statement provides an exhibit which depicts a trail system which connects to the Senseny Glen
and Fieldstone Heights subdivisions; however, this tram system will not accommodate bicycle
travel if it is constructed with wood chips or mulch as proposed by the applicant.
Proffer Statement
The applicants have prepared a revised proffer statement that has been signed by all owners,
notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney. The revised proffer statement is divided into four
articles which reflect conditions that are applicable to the entire acreage, as well as conditions that
are specific to the 91.4 -acre Lynnhaven parcel, the 152.2 -acre Giles parcel, and the 132.7 -acre
Futral/Sheppard parcel. This is a very detailed and complex proffer statement; therefore, the
following information attempts to provide the essence of the proffered conditions based on category:
1) Residential Component
*
84q total permits on 354.3 acres creating an overall gross density of 2.4 units per acre.
* mai 79 building permits on an annual basis.
* Limitation of 475 building permits until Channing Drive is extended to connect with Valley
Mill Road.
* Prohibit the development of townhouse and apartment buildings on the entire acreage.
2) Commercial Component
Maximum of 240,000 square feet of development creating a Floor -to -Asea Ratio of 0.25.
JIq J W� It
Ord
8 _�,rhkti
Channing Drive REZ #15-99 =
Page 9
October 21, 1999
Prohibit specific commercial land uses that are allowed by -right in the B2 District.
Provide architectural requirements for three walls on all buildings.
3) Transportation Component
* Installation of traffic signalization at the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive.
* Turn lanes on Senseny Road at the intersection of Channing Drive.
* Boulevard design with deciduous tree landscaping along main entrance road within the
residential portion of this acreage owned by Giles.
* * $75,000 for traffic signalization at the intersection of Senseny
Road/Greenwood Road that is transferrable to the intersection of Greenwood Road/Valley
Mill Road.
* A monetary contribution of $100 per residential lot payable at the time of building permit
issuance to be earmarked for improvements to the one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road near
Berryville Pike. (84, 600)
* A $30,000 monetary contribution towards the installation of tum lanes at the Senseny
Road/Greenwood Road intersection.
4) Recreational Amenities Component
* Development of a membership -based community recreational center with a minimum floor
area of 3,000 square feet which will contain a pool and outdoor multi-purpose courts.
* Provision of a trail system to be constructed of wood chips or mulch which will link the
majority of this acreage and connect to Senseny Glen and Fieldstone Heights subdivisions.
5) Solid Waste Component
A monetary contribution of $3,600 per year for a maximum of 10 years to allow for the
expansion of the existing solid waste citizen's convenience center at the Greenwood
Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company on Greenwood Road.
6) Community Facilities and Services Component
A monetary contribution to -ligate the negative fiscal impacts associated with Frederick
County Public Schools, Frederick County Parks and Recreation, and Frederick County Fire
and Rescue Services that is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact
Model. The following table provides a summary of the monetary contributions that have been
proffered by the applicants to mitigate the negative fiscal impacts to community facilities and
services:
-9-
Channing Drive REZ #15-99 - -
Page 10
October 21, 1999
Proffered Monetary Contributions for Community Facilities and Services
@ 846 Residential Lots and 240,000 square feet of Commercial Use
Community Facility or Service
Total Monetary Contribution
Frederick County Public Schools
$ 2,628,183.77
Frederick County Parks & Recreation
$ 476,794.72
Frederick County Fire & Rescue Service
$ 45,324.26
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/03/99 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
VusEmesisi2�eral)i
4.3 acres to the RP (Residential Performance) District and 22 acres to B2
is consistent with the land use patterns for urban and suburban residential
development and commercial development identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The general
road network layout for the proposed development is consistent with the needs identified in the
Comprehensive Policy Plan's Eastern Road Plan Map. The overall gross density for residential
development is less than the densities identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance, and is consistent with the development patterns within surrounding developments. The
proffered commercial square footage is 25% of the allowable coverage identified within the Zoning
Ordinance.
'1 he FrederickC _ _ 'n� S�.ua�s�ie�-ta�led-thisr du ,
raeetin� and dirertPd the appli=ts ntow ey propose o rm iga e-�suea-and4oncerrig
nused duringfhe-meefiag. The applicants have provided additional information and have developed
a revised proffer statement in an attempt to address these issues and concerns. The revised proffer
statement mitigates the majority of the identified issues and concerns; however, some issues and
concerns remain unresolved. These involve the ability to provide access between Senseny Road and
Berryville Pike (other than by improvements to the existing road system); the establishment of a
residential and commercial development phasing plan that is related to Level of Service impacts to
the existing road system (other than limiting residential building permits to 475 lots until Channing
Drive is extended to Valley Mill Road); the ability to construct Senseny Road to a four -lane condition
between Channing Drive and the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection; and the provision of
a surface material that would allow for bicycle travel on the proposed trail system-
-10
Channing Drive REZ #15-99
Page 11
October 21, 1999
qThe language within the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Policy Plan states that new
evelopment should only be approved within the Urban Development Area (UDA) when roads and
other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been providedYeveral improvements to the existing
transportation system were identified through the Callow Transportation Consultants (CTC) traffic
impact analysis. Some of these improvements are proposed to be accomplished by the applicants,
while some would require improvements funded through the County's Secondary Road Improvement
Plan allocations. Ofthese, the most significant issue involves the four -lane improvements to Senseny
Road between Channing Drive and the Senseny Road/Greenwood Road intersection. Currently, this
segment of Senseny Road is the 23'd priority identified on the County's Secondary Road Improvement
Plan. The top five priorities are currently identified as receiving allocations from VDOT over the next
six years. Additionally, the Frederick County Public Schools comment identifies that the development
of this acreage, c u led with approved residential development within the area, will necessitate the
development of *W54Mft facilities. The County's Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) identifies land
acquisition for a new elementary school site and the construction of a third high school within the
proximity of this acreage to be funded through allocations made between the 1999-2000 and the
2001-2002 fiscal years; however, allocations for these capital facilities have not begun.
"mss --fes nvej
The applicants should the four -lane improvements to Senseny
R
pn4suw. The CTC traffic study identifies this road improvement need when the retail component is
realized, as this land use will attract 11,990 jy=ge daily vehicle trips at build -out. One method to
mitigate this impact is to delay construction of the commercial acreage until this segment of Senseny
Road is improved to a four -lane condition. Similarly, other improvements to the road network system
that are outside of the applicant's ability to complete, such as o$ -site turn lanes and bridge
improvements, could_ be tied into the residential building permit phasing schedule to ensure that
adequate Levels of Service are maintained on the road network system. The Planning Commission
should determine if the items proffered by the applicant reasonably mitigate the impacts to the
County's infrastructure, services and to adjoining properties when forwarding a recommendation to
the Board of Supervisors for final disposition of this matter.
C:�Agegdas\CCMMENTSIREMNINMSta 'Report\CharmijWDdve.REZapd
Page 1 of 2
Greenway Engineering =
From: Ziemer, Vega <VZIEMER @ VDOT.STATE.VA.US>
To: <greenway@visuallink.com>
Cc: Diamond, Jim <Diamond_JB @ VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; Harris, Clarence (C.B.)
<CHarris@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; Heironimus, David (Dave)
<Heironimus_D@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>; <ewyatt@co.frededck.va.us>;
<ktiemey@co.frederick.va.us>; Melnikoff, Steve <SMELNIKOFF@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>;
Funkhouser, Rhonda <Funkhouser_R@VDOT.STATE.VA.US>
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 9:08 AM
Subject: Traffic Analysis, Channing Drive Rezoning, Route 657, Frederick County
<<...>>
Commonwealth of Virginia -- Department of Transportation
Edinburg Residency
14031 Old Valley Pike
Edinburg, VA 22824
- (540) 984-5600 -- Fax (540) 984-5607
September 1, 1999
Mr. Mark Smith, P.E., L.S.
Greenway Engineering, Inc.
151 Windy Hill Lane Ref:
Traffic Analysis
Winchester, VA 22602 Channing
Drive Rezoning
Route 657, Frederick County
Dear Mr. Smith:
VDOT has completed the review of a traffic impact analysis prepared by
Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC) for the referenced development
rezonings.
Based on this review, we have the following comments and concerns:
1. This analysis is based on the assumption that Route 656 will be
constructed according to plan and additional lanes constructed at the
intersection of Routes 656 and 659.
2. The CTC study has determined that the Route 657 link east of the
Route 657/656 intersection will need to become a four -lane section to the
first project entrance with the retail component (Channing Drive).
The four-laning of Route 657 will need to be completed prior
to the build -out of the developments outlined in the Channing Drive
rezoning.
3. A traffic signal will be needed on Route 659 at the intersection of
Route 656 prior to build -out of the residential areas. VDOT will ask the
-13-
9/3/99
:developer to enter into a signal agreement at all locations in this CTC
study, along with those locations stipulated in the rezoning documents.
Based on our review of the CTC study, VDOT concurs that the traffic growth
associated with this rezoning will be acceptable and manageable with the
proposed improvements.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Steven A. Melnikoff
Steven A. Melnikoff
Transportation Engineer
SAM/vcz
Cy: Mr. J. B. Diamond
Mr. C. B. Harris
Mr. D. A. Heironimus
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Mr. Kris Tierney
-14-
Pagge 2 of 2
9/3/99
yo cage `
_ v
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG RESIDENCY
COMMISSIONER 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRYA COPP
RESIDENT ENGINE
P.O. BOX 278 TELE (540) 984-5600
EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278 FAX(540)984-5607
September 2, 1999
Mrs. Gina A. Forrester
c/o Friends of Frederick
P. 0. Box 3771
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Mrs, Forrester:
Ref: Channing Drive Rezoning
Traffic Impact Analysis
Route 657 — Frederick County
VDOT has just completed a review of the final traffic impact analysis prepared by
Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC). Based on our review, VDOT concurs that the
traffic growth associated with this rezoning will be acceptable and manageable with the
proposed improvement.
Please find attached herewith for your review and information a copy of the CTC
document.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to call.
SAM/v¢
Cy: Mr. D. A. Heironimus
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Sincerely,
r�
n
Steven A. Melnikoff
Transportation Engineer
_15_
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
a
�r5, 19 "3J'a
I�� �`;10,
�MENNT
,EFT. OF FL
01!14/1994 18:02
1540 72? 8 GREEN14AY EHGIh' ?IHG PAGE 02
Greenwood Volun.teer Fire & Rescue Company, Inc.
P 0 Box .3023
Winchester, Virginia 22604
Special Board Meeting
May 18, 1999
Meetis= was opened by President, Charlie Dunn
at 9: P.M.
Mary Smith of Greenway Engineering had a site
plan &nd land swap for the duzmpater site with
tine • County of Frederick after reviewing the
play Iddie Keeler made a motion to move the
dum► sten site according to the site plan, extend
lease -to County of Frederick until 2004 at
$300.00 dollars per month, seconded by .14a"I't
Cun,pingham, motion carried 10 yes, i no, and
I abet, president did not oast a vote.
MeetiAg adjourned
Milo Clime, Secretary
a/c to Mark Smith, Greenway Engineering
-11
Frederick County Public Schouls
1415 Amherst Street
Post Office Box 3508
Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546
Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent June 7 1999
Mr. Ralph Beeman
Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
REF: Rezoning Comments, Sheppard/Futral Parcel
Dear Mr. Beeman:
I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a parcel of land to be rezoned
from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance). It is my understanding the proposed rezoning from
RA to RP will allow the construction of approximately 293 single family homes. You have also indicated the
land to be rezoned is approximately 132.70 acres in size and is at the following location:
At the end of Eddy's Lane (Route 820) and adjacent to the Apple Ridge Subdivision.
The prior approval of a number of subdivisions in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in
the schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The
cumulative impact of this project, along with the potential for the development of approved residential lots
in this area, will necessitate the construction of additional school facilities requiring a significant expenditure
of financial resources to accommodate growth in student enrollment. In addition to the initial capital
expenditure needed for the construction of new school facilities, the process of providing educational
services to the students generated by this rezoning will result in an increase to the annual operating cost of
the school division. It is very important that the impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future
school needs be considered during the approval process.
Sincerely,
Thomas Sullivan
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent
p.c.: Dr. William C. Dean, Superintendent of Schools, Frederick County Public Schools
Mr. Robert Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration, Frederick County Public Schools
_19-
Frederick County Public Schouls
1415 Amherst Street
Post Office Box 3508
Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546
Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent June 7, 1999
Mr. Ralph Beeman, Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
REF: Rezoning Comments, Lynnehaven, L.C.
Dear Mr. Beeman:
I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a proposal to rezone a parcel of land
containing approximately 91.4 acres in the following manner:
(1) 81.4 acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP and B2 (Residential Performance and Business General);
and,
(2) 10.0 acres from RA (Rural Area) to B2 (Business General).
It is my understanding the proposed rezoning from RA to RP and B2 will allow the construction of
approximately 203 single family units and commercial development of a maximum of 100,000 square feet in the
areas designated RA and B2, respectively. You have also indicated the land to be rezoned is 91.4 acres in size
and is at the following location:
On the west side of Beans Pond Lane, 150' from the intersection with Senseny Road, and
adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision.
The prior approval of a number of subdivisions in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the
schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The cumulative
2mpar± --^_•f tl'..S proJevt, 4lvii5 lith the potciiii�ii Jr C'lie development or"approved residential lots in this area, will
necessitate the construction of additional school facilities requiring the expenditure of significant capital
resources to accommodate growth in student enrollment. In addition to the initial expenditures needed for the
construction of new school facilities, the process of providing educational services to the students generated by
this rezoning will result in an increase to the annual operating cost of the school division. It is very important
that the impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs be considered during the approval
process.
Sincerely,
Thomas Sullivan
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent
p.c.: Dr. William C. Dean, Superintendent of Schools, Frederick County Public Schools
Mr. Robert Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration, Frederick County Public Schools
-21-
T,-Jerick County Public ,Scht. _1s
1415 Amherst Street
Post Office Box 3508
Winchester, Virginia 22604-2546
Telephone: (540) 662-3888 — FAX (540) 722-2788
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent June 7 1999
W. Ralph Beeman, Greenway Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
REF: Rezoning Comments, Giles Farm
Dear Mr. Beeman:
I am in receipt of your request for rezoning comments concerning a proposal to rezone a parcel of land
containing approximately 152.2 acres in the following manner:
(1) 140.2 acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance); and,
(2) 12 acres from RA (Rural Area) to B2 (Business General).
It is my understanding the proposed rezoning from RA to RP and 132 will allow the construction of
approximately 350 single family units and commercial development of more than 120,000 square feet in the
.yeas designated RA and B2, respectively. You have also indicated the land to be rezoned is approximately
152.2 acres in size and is at the following location:
North side of Senseny Road, 650' east of Beans Pond Lane, across from the Burning Knolls
subdivision and adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ridge Subdivisions.
The prior approval of a number of subdivisions in this portion of Frederick County has resulted in the
schools serving this area having student enrollment near or exceeding their design capacity. The cumulative
impact of this project, along with the potential for the development of approved residential lots in this area, will
ne:,essitate the :,oust: a-cUU.i of additio-nal school f:.i.cilities requiring a significant expenditure of financial
resources to accommodate growth in student enrollment. In addition to the initial capital expenditure needed
for the construction of new school facilities, the process of providing educational services to the students
generated by this rezoning will result in an increase to the annual operating cost of the school division. It is very
important that the impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs be considered during the
approval process.
Sincerely,
Thomas Sullivan
Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent
p.c.: Dr. William C. Dean, Superintendent of Schools, Frederick County Public Schools
Mr. Robert Cleaver, Assistant Superintendent for Administration, Frederick County Public Schools
WISE
CIIAINNING DRIVE REZONING
REZONING APPLICATION FORM
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
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. Applicant:
Name: Greenway En . ineering_
Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
2. Property Owners (if different than above)
Name: Robert A. Giles, et als
2309 Senseny Road
Winchester, VA 22602
Name: Lynnehaven L. C.
112 N. Cameron Street
Winchester. VA 22601
Name: Fu-Shep Farm Partnership
309 S. Stewart Street
Winchester, VA 22601
3. Contact person if other than above
Name: Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S.,
Telephone: (540) 662-4185
DEE Of rLrliViVi'i�;'uEVtLGPuicPJl
Telephone: (540) 667-4460
Telephone: (540) 662-0323
Telephone: (540) 667-1359
Telephone: (540) 662-4185
4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application.
Location map X
Plat X
Deed to property X
Verification of taxes paid X
-25-
Agency Comments X
Fees X
Impact Analysis Statement X
Proffer Statement X
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:
Wanda G. High Janita Giles, Robert A. Giles, Richard F. Giles
John Scully Steve Bridgeforth
Dr. George Sheppard Dr. Allen Futral
6. A) Current Use of the Property: Agricultural, undeveloped
354.3 acres - Residential
B) Proposed Use of the Property: 22.0 acres Commercial
7. Adjoining Property: Please see attached
PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING
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):
North side of Senseny Road on both sides of Bean's Pond Lane and adjacent to the
Bedford Village Apple Ridge and Carlisle Heights subdivisions.
-26-
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 concerning 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: 55- A -206 209 211 213 & 65- A -30 31 39 40
Districts
Magisterial: Senseny Road High School: James Wood
Fire Service: Greenwood Vol. Fire Co. Middle School: James Wood
Rescue Service: Greenwood Vol. Fire Co. Elementary School: Senseny Road, Redbud
10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested.
Acres
Current Zoning
Zoning Requested
354.3
RA
RP
22.0
RA
B2
376.3
Total acreage to be rezoned
11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning
proposed:
Number of Units Proposed
Single Family homes: 846 Townhome: _
Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home:
Square Footage of Proposed Uses
Multi -Family:
Hotel Rooms:
Office: Service Station:
Retail: 220,000 Manufacturing:
Restaurant: Warehouse:
Other:
27
12. 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:A /kA
v �t
�] 11
Owner(s): (S
�I
-28-
Date: -7 /U
Date: n
Dater �-
Date: -
Date:�S
Date:
Date:
N
Grk ,ay Engineering
July 999
Channing Drive Rezoning App ion
Giles Farm - Adjoining Property Owners
Parcel First Name
Last Name
Addl
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Zone
Use
55-A-180,181 Eastern Frederick Development Co.
P.O. Box 2097
Winchester
VA
22601
RP
6
55-A-206 Lynnehaven, L.C.
112 N. Cameron Street
Winchester
VA
22601
RA
5
55-A-208 Martin
Bean
et ux
561 Beans Pond Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
55-A-209 Fu-Shep Farm Partnership
405 Briarmont Drive
Winchester
VA
22601
RA
6
65-A-30 Lynnehaven, L.C.
112 N. Cameron Street
Winchester
VA
22601
RA
2
65-A-34 Louella
Parsons
2239 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65-A-36 Margaret
Giles
2251 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65-A-37 Richard
Giles
et ux
2265 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65-A-38 Wanda
High
et als
2283 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65-A-40 Fu-Shep Farm Partnership
405 Briarmont Drive
Winchester
VA
22601
RA
6
65B -4-A-1 Robert
Emmons
et ux
2366 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B -4-A-2 Charles
Mellot
et ux
2360 Senseny Road
winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B -4-A-3 David
Adams
1408 28th street
Niceville
FL
32578
RP
2
65B -4-A-4,5 Benton
Heironimus
98 Dixie Belle Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
6513-4-A-6 Teresa
Bowers
2324 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B -4-A-7,9 Robert
See
et ux
2310 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B -4-A-8 Robert
See, Jr
2310 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B -4-A-10,11 Robert
Gilmer
et ux
2286 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
'' 2
6513-5-1 Irene
Jenkins
2374 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B-5-2 John
Keeler
2384 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B-5-3 Melvin
Kump
et ux
2303 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B-5-4 Charles
Nickleson
108 Boad Avenue
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B-5-5, 6 Edward
Snyder
et ux
125 Boad Street
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B-5-7 Zane
Kerns
et ux
401 Three Oaks Road
Winchester
VA
22603
RP
2
65B-5-8 Elizabeth
Mason
et al
2444 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65B-5-9, 10 Shirley
Lambert
P.O. Box 362
Berryville
VA
22611
RP
2
65E-1-31 Kenneth
Williams
et ux
428 Maple Avenue lWaukesha
1WI
53188
RA
2
Greenway Engineering July 13, 1999 Channing Drive Rezoning Application -
Lynnehaven, L.C. - Adjoining Property Owners
Parcel
First Name
Last Name
Add?
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Zone
Use
55-((A))-181
Eastern Frederick
P.O. Box 2097
Winchester
VA
22604
6
RP
55 -((A)) -184A
Greenwood Road
P.O. Box 2097
Winchester
VA
22604
5
RP
55 -((A)) -184C
Eugene
Grove
et ux
340 W. Parkins Mill Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
5
RA
55-((A))-201
Orrick Cemetery Co., Inc
501 S. Braddock
Winchester
VA
22601
5
RA
r5 -((A))-208
Martin
Bean
et ux
561 Beans Pond Lane
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RA
-31-((1))-4-186
Gordon
Greer
et ux
308 Woodrow Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RP
551-((1))-4-187
Rex
Pugh
et ux
307 Woodrow Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RP
551-((1))-4-188
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-189
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I -((l))-4-190
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-191
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-192
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-193
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
5I-((1))-4-194
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-195
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-196
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
551-((1))-4-197
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
-I-((1))-4-198
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-199
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-200
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-201
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
55I-((1))-4-202
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
551-((1))-4-203
C. C. Longerbeam Inc.
P.O. Box 3276
Winchester
VA
22604
2
RP
65-((A))-23
Russell
Moreland
et ux
2105 Senseny Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RA
65-((A))-24
Sharley
Morris
2123 Senseny Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RA
65-((A))-25
Gary
Baker
et ux
2135 Senseny Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RA
Gre, ay Engineering Jury , 999 Channing Drive Rezoning Appl oil
Lynnehaven, L.C. - Adjoining Property Owners
Parcel
First Name
Last Name
Addl
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Zone
Use
65 -((A)) -25A
Skip
Baker
P.O. Box 174
Stephenson
VA
22656
2
RA
65 -((A)) -25B
Robert
Byers
et ux
2159 Senseny Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RA
65-((A))-27
Douglas
Clark
et ux
2044 Senseny Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RA
65-((A))-28
Douglas
Clark
et ux
2044 Senseny Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
2
RA
65-((A))-30
Lynnehaven L. C.
112 N. Cameron St
Winchester
VA
22601
2
RA
-((A))-39
Wanda
High
et als
2283 Senseny Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
6
RA
w
N
Greenway Engineering
July 13, 1999 Channing Drive Rezoning Application -
Shepparffutral - Adjoining Property Owners
Parcel
First Name
Last Name
Addl
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Zone
Use
55-((A))-181
Eastern Frederick
;
P.O. Box 2097
Winchester
VA
22604
RP
6
55-((A))-210
Linden
Adams
et us
310 Eddys Lane
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
5
55-((A))-212
John
Haggerty
et al
5 Partridge Lane
Lincoln
MA
01773
RA
6
65-((A))-39
Wanda
High
et als
2283 Senseny Rd
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
6
65-((A))-41
Jasbo Inc. & Fred Glaize III
P.O. Box 888
Winchester
VA
22604
RP
5
65-((A))-195
Forest
Riggleman
et ux
2737 Senseny Road
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
5
65D-((1))-(3)-22
Lewis
Strother, Sr.
101 Edgewood Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65E-((1))-13
David
Critchley
et ux
105 Wayfaring Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E -((I))-14
Franklin
Sholes
et ux
102 Wayfaring Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-16
Charles
Dawson
et ux
129 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-17
Dennis
Conner
et ux
131 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-18
Scott
Straub
et ux
133 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-19
Troy
Bingman
et ux
135 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-20
John
Ham, Jr.
et ux
137 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-21
Steven
Jones
139 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-22
Michael
Brown
et ux
141 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E -((I))-23
Edward
Fawns
et ux
143 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-24
Marilyn
Harold
145 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-25
Anne
Sendecke
147 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-26
Timothy
Schock
et ux
149 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-27
David
Hyman
et ux
151 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E -((I))-28, 29
William
Machardy
et ux
155 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
Va
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-30
Paul
Nelson
et ux
157 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-31
Kenneth
Williams
et ux
428 Maple Avenue
Waukesha
WI
53188
RA
2
65E-((1))-32
Ronald
Ladesic
et ux
158 Morning Glory Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-33
Melco Inc.
609A Cedar Creek Grade
Winchester
VA
22601
RA
2
w
Gre._ _ ,✓ay Engineering July _ _999 Channing Drive Rezoning Appi oil
SheppardlFutral - Adjoining Property Owners
Parcel
First Name
Last Name
Addl
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Zone
Use
65E-((1))-34
John
Swigart
et ux
105 Primrose Place
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-35
Leonard
Williamson
et ux
107 Primrose Place
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2I
65E-((1))-36
Bonnie
Martin
109 Primrose Place
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-37
Bruce
Everett
et ux
i l l Primrose Place
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((1))-38
Michael
Wade
et ux
113 Primrose Place
Winchester
VA
22602
RA
2
65E-((2))-10
Howard
Dunn
et ux
115 Bedford Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65E-((2))-11
Mary
Coston
113 Bedford Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65E-((2))-12
Betty
Mullen
111 Bedford Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65E-((2))-13
Dennis
Grubbs
109 Bedford Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65E-((2))-14
Leslie
Hubbard
107 Bedford Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
65E-((2))-15
Paul
Miller
3203 Patterson Avenue
Richmond
VA
23221
RP
2
65E-((2))-16
Michael
Swedberg
et ux
103 Bedford Drive
Winchester
VA
22602
RP
2
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 ,anraing Drive Rezoning
C ANNIN=
D_ bIV
REZONING
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS
55-((A))-206,209, 211, 213
& 65-((A))-30.,31.,39.,40
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 #IT -11 for the rezoning of approximately
354.3 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district to the Residential Performance (RP) zoning
district, and the rezoning of 22.0 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district to the Business
General (B2) zoning 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 said code and zoning ordinance. In the event that such
rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever.
These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors, heirs, or assigns.
ARTICLE I. PHASED CONSTRUCTION PLAN
This article shall apply to the following parcels:
Lynnehaven, L.C.: 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-30, 31
Giles Farm: 65-((A))-39
Sheppard/Futral: 55-((A))-209, 211, 213 and 65-((A))-40
The total number of residential building permits that may be issued for any parcel within the subject
property in combination with all other above -referenced parcels shall not exceed the following
phasing schedule:
-33-
Greenway Engineering dilly 2, 1999
Year Permits Issued to Date
1999
79
2000
158
2001
237
2002
316
2003
395
2004
474
2005
553
2006
632
2007
711
2008
790
2009
846
ARTICLE II: LYNNEHAVEN, L. C.
_anning Drive Rezoning
This article shall apply only to those properties currently owned by Lynnehaven, L.C., property
identification numbers 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-30,31. The subject properties are more
particularly described as all of the land owned by Lynnehaven, L.C. as recorded in Deed Book 843
at Pages 415, 418, and 424 and reported to collectively contain 91.4 acres.
The conditions proffered are as follows:
A) AREA ZONED RP - 81.4 ACRES
1. MAXIMUM DENSITY
The total number of lots shall be limited so as not to exceed a 2.5 unit per acre density for the
entire subject area.
2. PROHIBITED UNIT TYPES
Townhouses, weak -link townhouses, and garden apartments, as defined in the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted.
3. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in the master development plan in addition to required
sidewalks. Nature trails shall be constructed by the applicant in open space areas, in dedicated
easements, and in tandem with the regional stormwater management network. Said trails shah
also link to similar trail systems in adjacent housing developments, and shall be six feet wide
with a wood chip or mulched surface. See Exhibit A attached.
2
BEE
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 anning Drive Rezoning
4. SOLID WASTE
The owners of the subject property shall pay $100.00/mo. to Frederick County for the use of the
solid waste facility located on the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company property and serving the
Greenwood/Senseny Road area. Said payment shall be made from the time Frederick County
encumbers and signs a new lease for the expansion of said facility, or acquires another facility
serving this general area, and shall continue for a period of ten years, or the term of said lease,
whichever is less.
B) AREA ZONED B2 -10.0 ACRES
1. PROHIBITED USES
The following uses shall not be permitted on the subject property:
Description SIC
Automotive dealers
55
Hotels and motels
701
Organization hotels and lodging
704
Golf driving ranges & miniature golf courses
7999
Self-service storage facilities
---
Commercial batting cages operated outdoors
---
2. MAXIMUM BUILDOUT
In the B2 area established by this rezoning, the maximum cumulative floor area of all buildings
in said B2 area shall not exceed 100,000 square feet.
3. BUILDING FACADES
Commercial structures within the proposed B2 area shall be faced with brick, drivet, or
architectural block on three (3) sides.
C) ENTIRE PARCEL,
1. MANNING DRIVE
Channing Drive is a new major collector which will be constructed along the eastern boundary
of the subject property. Channing Drive shall consist of an 80' dedicated right-of-way with two
12' lanes, along with any associated turn lanes required by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. This thoroughfare will be built in sections as warranted by adjacent
development. The following criteria establish when the property owner is required to extend
Channing Drive:
3
-37-
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 anning Drive Rezoning
a) Each subdivision plan for residential housing adjacent to a portion of Channing Drive that has
not yet been constructed shall include the construction of the adjacent portion of said drive in
the subdivision plan.
b) The construction of the first section of Channing Drive, from Senseny Road to the proposed
B2 area, shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area if said road section
has not yet been constructed.
c) All of Channing Drive from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road shall be constructed, open for
traffic and dedicated to Frederick County before the 475th residential building permit is
issued for any of the parcels listed in Article I of this proffer.
2. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
a) The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive
shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if a traffic signal has not yet
been installed at said intersection should residential traffic meet signalization warrants. The
developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final site plan approval.
b) The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657). This
contribution shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request
and upon approval by said department for the installation of this traffic signal. In the event a
traffic signal is installed at said intersection before this contribution is made, the Virginia
Department of Transportation may request the transfer of said contribution towards
signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road
(Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final
subdivision and/or site plan approval.
3. BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
There is currently a one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road where it crosses Abrams Creek. The
owners of the subject property shall pay towards feasibility studies, engineering, or construction
of improvements to this crossing. These monies, paid to Frederick County, VA, are to be set
aside for said improvements, and may be considered by the county for matching funds. Said
payments shall be $100.00 per residential lot, at the time the initial building permit is issued for
said lot. The owner of the subject property shall be required to pay said monies until the
Virginia Department of Transportation awards a contract for a two lane expansion and
construction of these improvements on said bridge.
4. TURN LANES AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION
a) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Senseny Road at the intersection with
Channing Drive. Said lanes shall be constructed by the applicant at the time Channing
Drive is connected to Senseny Road.
b) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Channing Drive at the intersection with the
main entrance road into the Lynnehaven subdivision.
4
-38-
Greenway Engineering ,July 2, 1999 panning .Drive Rezoning
c) The installation of a total of two turn lanes at the intersection of Senseny Road and
Greenwood Road shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if two turn
lanes have not yet been installed at said intersection. The necessity of said turn lanes, and
their configuration will be subject to later review by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. The owners of the subject property shall install said turn lanes or pay to the
Virginia Department of Transportation up to $15,000 per turn lane towards the installation
of said turn lanes.
d) This paragraph shall apply to parcels 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-39:
The first site plan submitted for either of these parcels which will result in more than
120,000 sf of commercial area for both parcels collectively shall result in an updated traffic
study to determine if additional offsite improvements are required. Said traffic study shall
require approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
5. DRAINAGE AND WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT
Sediment forebays shall be constructed upstream of Twin Lakes in order to decrease the
siltation of said lake and settle out man-made impurities. These sediment forebays shall be
constructed in such a way as to encourage their development into a wetland with locally
indigenous vegetation and wildlife.
6. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION
a) Residential. In the event rezoning application # is approved for rezoning, the owners of
the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3,278.31 per
residential lot prior to the initial building permit being issued for said lot.
This per lot monetary proffer provides for:
$2,694.11 for Frederick County Public Schools
$539.07 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation
$45.13 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue
These payments are intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an
increased demand on public services.
b) Commercial. In the event rezoning application # is approved for rezoning, the owners of
the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3,245.60 prior
to the initial building permit being issued within the B2 zoned area. This monetary
contribution is intended to offset the additional capital costs to Frederick County for fire and
rescue services.
5
-39-
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 anning Drive Rezoning
ARTICLE III: ROBERT A. GILES, et ads
This article shall apply only to that property currently owned by Robert A. Giles, et als, property
identification number 65-((A))-39. The subject property is more particularly described as all of the
land owned jointly by Wanda G. High, Janita Giles, Robert A. Giles, and Richard F. Giles as
recorded in Will Book 79, page 317, and in Deed Book 889 at Page 741 and further described by a
survey by Curtis L. McAllister dated February 13, 1990 and reported to contain 152.20 acres.
The conditions proffered are as follows:
A) AREA ZONED RP -140.2 ACRES
1. MAXIMUM DENSITY
The total number of lots shall be limited so as not to exceed a 2.5 unit per acre density for the
entire subject area.
2. PROHIBITED UNIT TYPES
Townhouses, weak -link townhouses, and garden apartments, as defined in the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted.
3. RECREATION CENTER
A community recreation center shall be included in the master development of the subject site.
This recreation center shall have a floor area of at least 3,000 square feet and shall include a
pool and an outdoor multi-purpose playing court; the facade shall be constructed of brick, wood
product, masonry, or drivet. Said facility shall be open for membership by residents of all
subdivisions resulting from this Channing Drive Rezoning and shall also be open for
membership to all other area residents.
Ulu* 913=199 fflI
Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in the master development plan in addition to required
sidewalks. Nature trails shall be constructed by the applicant in open space areas, in dedicated
easements, and in tandem with the regional stormwater management network. Said trails shall
also link to similar trail systems in adjacent housing developments, and shall be six feet wide
with a wood chip or mulched surface. See Exhibit A attached.
5. SOLID WASTE
The owners of the subject property shall pay $100.00/mo. to Frederick County for the use of the
solid waste facility located on the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company property and serving the
Greenwood/Senseny Road area. Said payment shall be made from the time Frederick County
encumbers and signs a new lease for the expansion of said facility, or acquires another facility
serving this general area, and shall continue_ for a period of ten years, or the term of said lease,
whichever is less.
6
-40-
Green way Engineering July 2, 1999
B) AREA ZONED B2 -12.0 ACRES
The following uses shall not be permitted on the subject property:
Description SIC
Automotive dealers
55
Hotels and motels
701
Organization hotels and lodging
704
Golf driving ranges & miniature golf courses
7999
Self-service storage facilities
---
Commercial batting cages operated outdoors
---
Banning Drive Rezoning
In the B2 area established by this rezoning, the maximum cumulative floor area of all buildings
in said B2 area shall not exceed 120,000 square feet.
3. BUILDING FACADES
Commercial structures within the proposed B2 area shall be faced with brick, drivet, or
architectural block on three (3) sides.
C) ENTIRE PARCEL
L MANNING DRIVE
Channing Drive is a new major collector which will be constructed along the western boundary
of the subject property. Channing Drive shall consist of an 80' dedicated right-of-way with two
12' lanes, along with any associated turn lanes required by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. This thoroughfare will be built in sections as warranted by adjacent
development. The following criteria establish when the property owner is required to extend
Channing Drive:
a) Each subdivision plan for residential housing adjacent to a portion of Channing Drive that has
not yet been constructed shall include the construction of the adjacent portion of said drive in
the subdivision plan.
b) 'T' le constiticuou of die first section of Channing Drive, from Senseny Road to the proposed
B2 area, shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area if said road section
has not yet been constructed.
7
41-
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 anning Drive Rezoning
c) All of Channing Drive from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road shall be constructed, open for
traffic and dedicated to Frederick County before the 475th residential building permit is
issued for any of the parcels listed in Article I of this proffer.
2. STREETSCAPE
The main entrance road into the residential subdivision established on the Giles Farm property
shall have four travel lanes, and shall have a median strip at least 10 feet wide. Said roadway
shall be streetscaped with deciduous trees (at least one tree per 80 lineal feet), ground cover and
shrubbery as allowed by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
3. TRAFFIC SIGNALS
a) The installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Senseny Road and Channing Drive
shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if a traffic signal has not yet
been installed at said intersection should residential traffic meet signalization warrants. The
developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final site plan approval.
b) The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657). This
contribution shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request
and upon approval by said department for the installation of this traffic signal. In the event a
traffic signal is installed at said intersection before this contribution is made, the Virginia
Department of Transportation may request the transfer of said contribution towards
signalization at the intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road
(Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal agreement with VDOT prior to final
subdivision and/or site plan approval.
4. BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
There is currently a one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road where it crosses Abrams Creek. The
owners of the subject property shall pay towards feasibility studies, engineering, or construction
of improvements to this crossing. These monies, paid to Frederick County, VA, are to be set
aside for said improvements, and may be considered by the county for matching funds. Said
payments shall be $100.00 per residential lot, at the time the initial building permit is issued for
said lot. The owner of the subject property shall be required to pay said monies until the
Virginia Department of Transportation awards a contract for a two lane expansion and
construction of these improvements on said bridge.
5. TURN LANES AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION
a) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Senseny Road at the intersection with
Channing Drive. Said lanes shall be constructed by the applicant at the time Channing
Drive is connected to Senseny Road.
b) Right and left turn lanes shall be constructed on Senseny Road at the intersection with the
main entrance road into the Giles Farm subdivision.
42-
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 anning Drive Rezoning
c) Right-of-way shall be dedicated to the Commonwealth of Virginia along the entire frontage
of Senseny Road. Said right-of-way shall extend 40' from the existing road centerline.
d) The installation of a total of two turn lanes at the intersection of Senseny Road and
Greenwood Road shall be included in the first site plan submitted for the B2 area, if two turn
lanes have not yet been installed at said intersection. The necessity of said turn lanes, and
their configuration will be subject to later review by the Virginia Department of
Transportation. The owners of the subject property shall install said turn lanes or pay to the
Virginia Department of Transportation up to $15,000 per turn lane towards the installation
of said turn lanes.
e) This paragraph shall apply to parcels 55-((A))-206, and 65-((A))-39:
The first site plan submitted for either of these parcels which will result in more than
120,000 sf of commercial area for both parcels collectively shall result in an updated traffic
study to determine if additional offsite improvements are required. Said traffic study shall
require approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation.
6. DRAINAGE AND WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT
Sediment forebays shall be constructed upstream of Twin Lakes in order to decrease the
siltation of said lake and to settle out man-made impurities. These sediment forebays shall be
constructed in such a way as to encourage their development into a wetland with locally
indigenous vegetation and wildlife.
7. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO OFFSET IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT
a) Residential: In the event rezoning application # is approved for rezoning, the owners of
the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3,558.73 per
residential lot prior to the initial building permit being issued for said lot
This per lot monetary contribution provides for:
$2,958.80 for Frederick County Public Schools
$554.80 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation
$45.13 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue
These payments are intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an
increased demand on public services.
b) Commercial: In the event rezoning application # is approved for rezoning, the owners of
the subject property will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County, Virginia, $3,898.68 prior
to the initial building permit being issued within the B2 zoned area. This monetary
contribution is intended to offset the additional capital costs to Frederick County for fire and
rescue services.
43-
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 ianning Drive Rezoning
ARTICLE IV. DIES. GEORGE SHEPPARD & ALLEN FUTWAL
This article shall apply only to those properties currently owned by Drs. George Sheppard & Allen
Futral, property identification numbers 55-((A))-209, 211, 213, and 65-((A))-40. The subject
property is more particularly described as all of the land owned by Fu-Shep Farm Partnership as
recorded in Deed Book 789 at Page 1022 and further described by a survey by Curtis L. McAllister
dated February 13, 1990.
The conditions proffered are as follows:
1. MAXEVRJM DENSITY
The total number of parcels shall be limited so as not to exceed a 2.2 unit per acre density for the
entire collective area for parcels 55-((A))-209, 211, and 213, and a 2.5 unit per acre density for
parcel 65-((A))-40.
2. PROHIBITED UNIT TYPES
Townhouses, weak -link townhouses, and garden apartments, as defined in the Frederick County
Zoning Ordinance, shall not be permitted.
3. PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
Pedestrian walkways shall be provided in the master development plan in addition to required
sidewalks. Nature trails shall be constructed by the applicant in open space areas, in dedicated
easements, and in tandem with the regional stormwater management network. Said trails shall also
link to similar trail systems in adjacent housing developments, and shall be six feet wide with a
wood chip or mulched surface. See Exhibit A attached.
4. SOLID WASTE
The owners of the subject property shall pay $100.00/mo. to Frederick County for the use of the
solid waste facility located on the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company property and serving the
Greenwood/Senseny Road area. Said payment shall be made from the time Frederick County
encumbers and signs a new lease for the expansion of said facility, or acquires another facility
serving this general area, and shall continue for a period of ten years, or the term of said lease,
whichever is less.
5. CHANNING DRIVE
All of Channing Drive from Valley Mill Road to Senseny Road shall be constructed, open for traffic
and dedicated to Frederick County before the 475th residential building permit is issued for any of
the parcels listed in Article I of this proffer.
10
-44-
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 fanning Drive Rezoning
6. TRAFFIC SIGNAL
The owners shall make a $25,000 cash contribution towards the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Senseny Road (Route 657). This contribution
shall be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation upon their request and upon approval by
said department for the installation of this traffic signal. In the event a traffic signal is installed at
said intersection before this contribution is made, the Virginia Department of Transportation may
request the transfer of said contribution towards signalization at the intersection of Greenwood
Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659). The developer agrees to enter into a signal
agreement with VDOT prior to final subdivision and/or site plan approval.
7. BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS
There is currently a one -lane bridge on Valley Mill Road where it crosses Abrams Creek. The
owners of the subject property shall pay towards feasibility studies, engineering, or construction of
improvements to this crossing. These monies, paid to Frederick County, VA, are to be set aside for
said improvements, and may be considered by the county for matching funds. Said payments shall
be $100.00 per residential lot, at the time the initial building permit is issued for said lot. The
owner of the subject property shall be required to pay said monies until the Virginia Department of
Transportation awards a contract for a two lane expansion and construction of these improvements
on said bridge.
8. DRAINAGE AND WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT
Sediment forebays shall be constructed upstream of Twin Lakes in order to decrease the siltation of
said lake and to settle out man-made impurities. These sediment forebays shall be constructed in
such a way as to encourage their development into a wetland with locally indigenous vegetation and
wildlife.
9. MONETARY CONTRIBUTION TO OFFSET IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT
In the event rezoning application # is approved, and the property is subsequently
developed within an RP zone, the undersigned will pay to the Treasurer of Frederick County,
Virginia $4,205.14 per residential lot prior to the initial building permit being issued for said lot.
This per lot monetary contribution provides for:
$3,568.94 for Frederick County Public Schools
$591.07 for Frederick County Parks and Recreation
$45.13 for Frederick County Fire and Rescue
This payment is intended to offset the additional cost to Frederick County due to an increased
demand on public services.
11
-45-
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 ianning Drive Rezoning
ARTICLE V:• SIGNATURES
The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns
and successors in the interest of the applicant and owner. 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.
Respectfully Submitted:
Robert A. Giles, Executor, Giles Farm
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Uf
Cit /County of a ;�?�_ ►• L To Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this r day of %_�'_ � v. -l- 1999 by
M
% Notary Public
My Commission Expires ,
An Scully, ynhehave X
Commonwealth of Virginia,
{� v
City o of'� ) _ , To Wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
NO
day of n A) ::�l 999 by
61
Notary Public
My Comrriiccinn Expires 4 in
' % ,A r
c
12
-46-
Greenway Engineering July 2, 1999 canning Drive Rezoning
Dr. George Sheppdrd
Commonwealth of Virginia,
CitX%Coun , f To Wit:
Margie Sheppard !�
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 5 ,�1 day of t . kA 10 1, 1999 by
rc�i Cvn ? 1L\ ? C)F�€ !\.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires c: ��. --a� t , --)r-- Or,
Dr. Allen Futral
Commonwealth of Virginia,
U
City(- ounty f _� s �� n n To Wit:
1 j1
y` ttty Futrall
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this }k
day of a,u�� a �� , 1999 by
llnn. . — I _ _ J
Notary Public
My Commission Expires 4\fl(-,ArI "-2,1,
i
13
-47-
IMPACT STATEIMENT
FOR THE LAND OF
PROPER 7T ID NUMBERS
55-((A))-209.9 211,213
and
65-((A))-40
ZOA7 G APPLICATION
January % 1999
Greenway Engumeen ng
151 Windy Hill Lane
Rncheskr, 8114 22602
_51_
Greenway EngineeFing January 7, 1999 mep ard/. al I'rpad st-wo ae t
MRODUCTION
The subject property, tax map nos. 55-((A))-209, 211, 213, and 65-((A))-40, is a contiguous
group of parcels located between Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Senseny Road (Route 657).
Eddy's Lane (Route 320) terminates on the subject site, and the Apple Ridge subdivision borders
the property. The total acreage for these parcels is 132.70 acres. The current zoning is Rural
Areas (RA), and the proposed zoning is Residential Performance (RP). This report has been
prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by this rezoning.
SITE SUITABILM
The subject property is located within the "Urban Development Area" as defined within the
Frederick County Com rehensive Policy Plan. This designation reflects the intention of
Frederick County to allow for more intensive development on the subject site. The purpose of
this area designation is to direct the expansion and improvement of public utilities and
infrastructure to areas that will be intensively developed.
Flood Plains
The subject site is located on FEMANFIP map # 510063-0120-13. The site is located within a
"ZONE C" area. No portion of the subject site is in a 100 yr. flood plain. The site does include
intermittent streams, as well as a natural impoundment known as Twin Lakes.
Wetlands
Twin Lakes is listed in the National Wetlands Inventory Map as a wetland.
Mature Woodlands
Approximately 35%of the subject site is wooded. This estimate is based on aerial mapping, and
has not been conclusively verified on the ground.
Soil Types
Information for soil types on this site has been obtained from the Soil Survey of Frederick
County, Vir inia, by the USDS Soil Conservation Service.
Prime Agricultural Soils
Only 10% of the subject property contains soils that are suited to cultivated crops or hay.
Approximately 35% of the site could be used for pasture.
52-
Greenway E as meerwb Jaxuaiy 7, 1999 sheppc?d/ 1 -ad hop ad state ent
Steep Slopes
Approximately 40% of the subject property includes slopes greater than 15%. These areas are
located along the intermittent streams, and along established drainways. The site will be graded
to insure its usability for residential housing, while leaving intact the areas of steep slopes nearest
the established drainways, and meeting all zoning requirements.
Construction Concerns
There are several aspects of the soils and the geology of the subject site that will need to be
addressed in order to establish a residential community on this property.
The depth to shale bedrock ranges fiom 15 to 30 inches. This will present some grading
difficulties, requiring more fill to be placed than cut. Some of the shale can be reused as fill,
since it is generally friable.
There is a seasonal high water table on roughly 5 acres of the subject site. Between October and
April, the water table in these areas is within six inches of the surface. This feature will present
only a minor obstacle, which can be surmounted with proper grading and sound geotechnical
design.
Steep slope is also listed as a limitation to development, but by ordinance only 25% can be
developed.
In conclusion, proper design and construction techniques will be used so that the soil and
geology of the subject property will not interfere with the proposed development.
SUR.ROINDING PROPERTIES
All of the properties adjoining the subject site are either undeveloped or are single-family homes,
and are zoned either Rural Areas (RA) or Residential Performance (ISP). The homes on the
adjoining lots in the Apple Ridge subdivision are within 50' of the subject property. All other
homes on adjoining parcels are greater than 100' of the adjoining boundary.
BASIS FOR DETERMINING EUPACT
IM
The subject property is currently zoned "RA". It is expected that the 132.70 acre site could be
developed under an RA zone to include 25 dwelling units.
2
53 -
G6remBBNay.f ng-h3ee1 p. January 7,1999 999 sheppgr i .rat /Iiapaef 2ademerd
The density of parcels 55-((A))-209, 211, & 213, having a total area of 128.76 acres, have been
limited by proffer to 2.2 dwelling units per acre. The density of parcel 65-((A))-40, with 3.94
acres has been limited by proffer to 2.5 dwelling units per acre This works out to a maximum
potential of 293 units.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Traffic Data
The existing traffic data was supplied by VDOT Office Services Specialist, Vega Ziemer
(Edinburg office):
EXISTING TRAFFIC COATS
Date of
ADT
Road
Stud
(vehicles/day)
Route 655
1993
2,522
between Winchester and 656
Route 656
1995
2,376
between Rte 6595 & Rte 7W
Route 656
1995
4,237
between Rte 657 & Rte 659S
Route 656
1995
3,041
between Rte 655 & Rte 657
Route 657
1993
8,027
between Winchester and 656
Route 657
1995
4,779
between Routes 656 and 736
Route 657
1995
1,231
between Rte 736 and Clarke Co.
Route 659
1995
4,524
between 658 and 656N.
Route 659
1993
401
between Rte 656N & Rte 7
Route 7
1996
17,000
between Winchester and Clarke Co.
U. S. Route 50
1996
18,000
between Rte 522 & Rte 723W
VDOT has classified Route 657 (Senseny Road), Route 659 (Valley Mill Road), Route 656
(Greenwood Road), and Route 655 (Sulphur Springs Road) as major collectors.
3
54-
Greenway Engineek*ag Jaanuaasy 7, d 9'99 Shepparrdl� .-Pal Impact Matteme a4
Trip Generation
The following table is based on trip data taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6t' Edition:
TRIP GENERATION DATA
Zone
Use
Density
PEAK HOUR TRIPS
AM
PM
ADT
Entering
Exiting
Entering
Exiting
(vehicles/day)
Existing
RA
Single Family
Detached
26
5
15
17
10
249
RP
Single Family
Detached
293
56
169
191
108
2,804
Increase: 2,555
The development of the rezoned site at the maximum density could therefore generate a traffic
increase of approximately 2,550 trips per day.
Traffic Im act
Traffic impacts were determined using the following estimated traffic split:
5% will travel through Carlisle Heights and the other minor collector road
to Rte 656.
40% of the increased traffic will travel Rte 657 into the City of Winchester.
20% will travel Rte 657 to Rte 656, then south to Route 50.
5% will travel Rte 657 east into Clarke County.
5% will travel Rte 659 east to Route 7.
12% will travel Rte 659 west to Rte 656, and then north on Rte 656-
13% will travel Rte 659 west to Route 7, and & I-81.
The following table shows the increase in traffic on the local road network as compared to
current traffic counts and expected traffic volumes on these roads in 2010.
.19
55-
Gre-emery Engifieerhq January 7, 1999 Sheppardl- ural Impact Sifateme nt
TRAFMC IMPACT ON LCAT, ROADS
Road
Traffic Impact from Site
Traffic - 1999*
Traffic - 201
(vehicles/day)
(vehicles/day)
(vehicles/day)
Route 655 (Saulpher Spr. Rd)
511
3,100
4,530
between Winchester & Rte 656
Route 656 (Greenwood Rd)
307
2,726
3,980
between Rte 659S & Rte 7W
Route 656 (Greenwood Rd)
128
4,862
7,098
between Rte 657 & Rte 6595
Route 656 (Greenwood Rd)
511
3,490
5,095
between Rte 655 & Rte 657
Route 657 (Senseny lad)
1,022
9,870
14,400
Winchester & Rte 656
Route 657 (Senseny Rd)
1,533
5,484
8,006
from site west to Rte 656
Route 657 (Senseny lad)
128
1,413
2,062
from site east to Clarke County
Route 659 (Valley MUI Road)
332
5,190
7,580
between late 658 & 656
Route 659 (Valley MHI Road)
639
460
720
from site west to Rte 656
Route 659 (Valley bili Road)
128
460
720
from site east to Rte 7
Route 7
434
18,850
27,520
between Winchester & Clarke Co.
U.S. Route 50
511
19,960
29,140
between Rte 522 & Rte 723W
* Projected traffic counts (both year 1999 and year 2010) were calculated using a 3.5% growth rate.
Trak Summar
The traffic increases are fairly substantial on Senseny Road. Although there is a fairly
significant increase on Valley Mill Road, from the site west to Greenwood Road, the existing
and projected traffic counts are quite low. The owner has limited the density of dwelling units
on the subject property, resulting in a maximum buildout of 293 units. The unproffered potential
of this property is 530 dwelling units, which would create 81% more traffic from the subject site
than the proffered density. Additionally, The proffered construction phasing plan will reduce the
rate of traffic increases on the local road network_
Therefore, while the traffic increases are substantial, the proffers that the owner has trade will
lessen the impact of this neer development on the local road network.
5
-56-
Greenway E',agintee�ing January 7, 1999 sheppat-&- �;'a/ hnpaef Matemen¢t
WATER SUPPLE'
The impact of this proposed development on water supply systems is based on design volumes
supplied by the FCSA, and on maximum dwelling units in the proffered zoning. The total design
consumption can be determined by the following formula:
Consumption per dwelling unit = 275 gpd
Number of units = 293
Total Residential Consumption = 293 units x 275 gpd
= 50,575 gpd
Therefore, the total water consumption for the subject property at maximum buildout is
approximately 50,600 gpd. There is currently an 5" water main located along Senseny Road, as
well as an available connection to an 5" line near the Apple Ridge subdivision. According to
IN&. John Whitacre of the FCSA, a water main will have to be looped through the site.
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
Based on our water consumption, the proposed proffered zoning will add 50,600 gpd to the
sewage conveyance system at maximum buildout.
1�&. John Whitacre of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority was consulted regarding sewer
design criteria for a sewer system serving the subject site and the neighboring Giles Farm and
Lynnehaven properties. The ultimate sewering of the three project area win be by a regional
pump station that is proposed adjacent to Twin Lakes. By this regional concept, gravity sewer
lines will follow the roads and ravines to the proposed pump station.
As agreed with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, construction of the proposed pump
station will be the sole responsibility of the parties involved in the three project development.
Once in operation and accepted by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the ownership and
maintenance of the pump station will become the responsibility of said agency. With the
completion of the proposed pump station, several other projects will have the ability to connect
by gravity into this system, allowing some smaller pump stations, such as the Apple Ridge
station, to come off-line.
m
57-
Gree naysy En. nem n'-, Januapy 7, 1999 5;FCFVQ'r&,
DRAINAGE
There are four intermittent streams on the subject property — three feeding into and one exiting
TIIvin Lakes. Stormwater runoff from the entire site flows into this lake via established swales,
drainways, and these intermittent streams- The flow exiting Twin Lakes empties into the
®pequon Creek.
Twin Lakes will become the backbone of a new, regional stormwater management system. A
series of smaller, dry detention basins, along with sediment forebays will be developed upstream
of Twin Lakes to reduce peak flows and control water quality. The stormwater management
network will be developed in tandem with the nature trail system.. The trail crossings of small
tributaries will act as embankments for the sediment forebays. In time, wetlands should develop
in these areas which will serve dual purposes of sediment removal and adding a natural wetland
that can be observed through the trail system. The majority of the three -project area (Giles Farm,
Sheppard/Futral, & Lynnehaven properties) naturally drains to the Twin Lakes facility. However,
there is a small area adjacent to Senseny Load and the Apple Midge Subdivision, and also an area
near the Carlisle Heights subdivision, that will require a separate peak reduction as it releases
through the storm sewer networks of the these subdivisions. With this regional approach,
stormwater management for the three -project area will be adequately satisfied.
SLID WASTE DISP®SAI..
The following calculations were trade to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated
on the subject site, using design criteria from the Civil Engineering Manual, 4t' Edition. The
design factors are standard for residential units.
generation rate in cu yds = (population size)X(vraste in lbm/capita-daylX(loadin f� actor
day compacted density in lbm/cu yd
population size = (2.75 persons/household) X (293 dwelling units)
= 806 persons
waste = 51bm/capita-day
loading factor =1.25
density = 1000 lbm/cu yd
Total residential volume = 5 cu yds
day
Annually, the generated solid waste volume will be:
Total residential volume = 5 cu yds X 365 days = 1,825 cu yds
day yr yr
Therefore, the total solid waste generated by the subject site is estimated to be 1,825 cubic yards
annually.
7
_58-
Gree.n-way Emm a--vThzg Jarreamy 7, 1999 999 Shc
HISTORIC SSS AND STRUCTURES
The Carter-Lee-Damron house is located on the subject property at the end of Route 820. The
historic home identified as Tick Hill is located on adjoining parcel 65-((.A))-195, approy mately
550' from the adjoining boundary. Adams Farm is to the north of the subject property, and is
around 400' from the adjoining boundary. The Haggerty house is approydniately 600' west of
the subject site. There are also some structures on adjoining parcel 65-((A))-39, that are listed in
the Rural Landmarks Survey Report simply as "Outbuildings, Rte 657." None of these structures
are "potentially significant" as defined by said report. There are no homes nearby that are
potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. There are also no
potential historic districts nearby.
The impact on the utilities and infrastructure near the site will be estimated by the Frederick
County Capital Facilities Impact Model.
No additional impacts are forseen by the development of the subject property at the proffered
density.
STIZ
-1 SI a ll7'25 "W
PATTON A ESKRIDGE
ro 0� OtD ROAD_ '6 r
���Hos a ue ARTR/P
�lopr, 3AC.rrc fP
3 i
az
j 42 3 7 W
11 v N'
a h
b
1 2 457.95'~. 9
20 S12'ra'Z5"w
HAGGERTY
LAND ,OF
PAUL G/LES
/21. // A CRUS
LOCATED ABOUT 3 M/L£S EAST
OF WINCHESTER, IN SHAWNEE
DISTRICT. FREDERICK COUNTY,
VIRGINIA.
S RV yIEDe JAIy. /,S, 1971
RICHARD U. GOODE
CERTIFIED SURVEYOR
8£RRYVILLE. VIRGINIA
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
6J3 -
eer .372 rut- M-
"
�91� 400' 100'' O
400• a00,
G5
1
SCALE 1N
F££T
PSN
GEORGE
W. G/LES'
BROWN
j5--FR--o- W
K29'10'01"f 1360. e/' I
4' N10'/0' /d
5
2
NSB
471.44
00
p
a
PAUL- GIL3S to
14
DR. PUT:tAL & DR. SHEPPARD
X
121.11 AC SS
W
Q
O
-
tl AC .t
=
'PEEDEO e00/r -101
e
- ISI
N
VPAGE
96 AC. A /9 P.
I
-1 SI a ll7'25 "W
PATTON A ESKRIDGE
ro 0� OtD ROAD_ '6 r
���Hos a ue ARTR/P
�lopr, 3AC.rrc fP
3 i
az
j 42 3 7 W
11 v N'
a h
b
1 2 457.95'~. 9
20 S12'ra'Z5"w
HAGGERTY
LAND ,OF
PAUL G/LES
/21. // A CRUS
LOCATED ABOUT 3 M/L£S EAST
OF WINCHESTER, IN SHAWNEE
DISTRICT. FREDERICK COUNTY,
VIRGINIA.
S RV yIEDe JAIy. /,S, 1971
RICHARD U. GOODE
CERTIFIED SURVEYOR
8£RRYVILLE. VIRGINIA
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
6J3 -
t9i�lel .rr. 372 i.•._ 627
L$
G�Ett 400' 200' O 400' BOO,
5"L£ /N FEET
4-
0'b GEORGE W. G/LES
.'N2B'3J'ZS"E ZZ91.73' 4 561' 00
:6:'30'00"W 75 '1----SZB 75'R-
2S W w 2288.37 75,00
!2 S
MRS. DE HAVEN sl �� PAUL
O I GIL£S
O
PORT:, OF LAM) GF Gi.(':C.i: G -L S 3.943 W' .t -
A 4!:.i-_ CF ,AT FA; 13. :5 i c:7 ::. ii) WuAi:::U. 057)
TO a} u Ln:.L CF PAUL Gil.•.3
The above. LracL of l:c+d, loca.,!d on th•! i;orth siuu of 3oad l.o. 057
aiwut 3 miles :;:c:.L of :7inrlmst�1•, :+nd situate in ohawnee ::agisL•!rial
District, Frederick :;ou.my, lir�inia, is Lnunum aL follows:
Beginning at (1) the point, of intersection ofLhe :forth line of toad
No. 657 with the :lest line o: the lana of Ers. Lerinven; thence with
the North line of ao:+u I:o. 057 for the foliaan7, 2 cours•!s
N 04 deg. 30 min. OU sec. W 47.75 feet to (t) a C+.ncr•!t.! hithway
1•.arlmr; thence I: 63 dar;. O.'. :i n. OG sec. 0' 25.32 f•!et, to (3) a
point on the ;:ort;: side of ito¢ci ::o. b57; thence with 2 nur division
lines throurh tht: land of Georr,. 'l. 1;ilex 11 21; del;*. 33 min. 25 sec.;;
2291.73 feet to (4) thrnce : ul d r. 26 nin. 35 Svc. E 75.0C feet
to (5) a.point 75.0 f+!t ::ortl:east of a sPt stone at n fence corner,
said stone wins: Lhe 1;,rU!c.. c!rmr o: ti:e ucii!.vcn l:.nd; thance with
Paul 'Giles and tlh!n with ;•:rs. Dehavnn S 2P d•_e. 33 min. 25 sec. 1.1
228$.37 feet to the poi of b•e.-in:.inti, cont:dninr 3.943 Acres more .
or less.
•ficl-ard U. t;uoc:e, . Ccm; lied Surveyor,
Janu •ry 11, 1971.
• V.;;�IN+�i F3��3.1iC.{ CJ:J.iii, SCP.
T.' trurx of wnlcag was producer:; to no on tb rn
�
d .q Q at�
aid wdil codi.i j of ac ca, l.dgmant thcrab anne cad was
.+d..t.n1 to r..co:d. T.2= :):i al Sic. .id•.r;.I of
i
and 5 -Z--1 lu va been pzii, i( aao.s.+blo.
I (
Clerk.
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
2 -64-
m
Wl' 372\ICS
fool 50. o fool zooSCALE IN )rzrr
NAGNEf
PAUL G/LES
i'-4 fQO•
• . _ ; I ' moo, s9'Jo"
f
STREAM 470,
POHT_,'R OF LAND OF
th ry PATTOL- k 3SKA111GE
n
.1 1.033 AILZ
2
V 3 • . N72'41 35 W 407.0
Q
' Q W
p,4rrolv ESKRlDGE
The above tract of land, located about 3,000 feet Plorth of the
Senseney Road, about 31 miles Fast of Winchester, and situate in
Shawnee kagisterial Listrict, Frederick County, Virginia, is
bounded as follows: ,
Beginning at (1) an iron peg by a set stone at a fence corner, scorner
between Paul Giles and Haggerty; thence with 2 new division lines
through Ute land of Patton & Eskridge S 23 deg. 00 min. 00 sec. W
101.53 feet to (2) an iron peg; thence 11 72 dee. 41 min. 35 sec. W
482.05 fee t to (3) an i ran pe g in th a East line o f the la nd of
Paul Giles; thence with the land of Paul Giles far the ibllowing
2 courses R 26 deg. 17 rain. 25 sec. E 198.94 feet to (4) a point
in the center of a spring a short distance Morth of a stream;
thence S 60 deg. 59 min. 38 sec. 3 470.85 feet to the point of
beginning, eo rt aining 1.633 'A`ccr�es more or less.
itich rn U. Gooue, Certified Surveyor,
January 11, 1971.
V-83LN-A F.1_ZDZi1CC CCU.ITY, SCT.
T frarier. wriling was prod to me on the
and wadr d y
of 13 at 1 m
ccrl�i_ of ack10 dg -neat lheral� anne c31 pis
.rdmitted to r --cord. fa. +;n J,;:1 of 5:e- 1s.a4.1 of
$ a '�_, and 5 S-1 have been paid, if ase -sable,
1zLS1'1_A_ Clerk.
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
-A-
e5• I
..+ ?, f,
C3
0
b tu
to
6 2
t- QC
The above tract of land, located about 3,000 feet Plorth of the
Senseney Road, about 31 miles Fast of Winchester, and situate in
Shawnee kagisterial Listrict, Frederick County, Virginia, is
bounded as follows: ,
Beginning at (1) an iron peg by a set stone at a fence corner, scorner
between Paul Giles and Haggerty; thence with 2 new division lines
through Ute land of Patton & Eskridge S 23 deg. 00 min. 00 sec. W
101.53 feet to (2) an iron peg; thence 11 72 dee. 41 min. 35 sec. W
482.05 fee t to (3) an i ran pe g in th a East line o f the la nd of
Paul Giles; thence with the land of Paul Giles far the ibllowing
2 courses R 26 deg. 17 rain. 25 sec. E 198.94 feet to (4) a point
in the center of a spring a short distance Morth of a stream;
thence S 60 deg. 59 min. 38 sec. 3 470.85 feet to the point of
beginning, eo rt aining 1.633 'A`ccr�es more or less.
itich rn U. Gooue, Certified Surveyor,
January 11, 1971.
V-83LN-A F.1_ZDZi1CC CCU.ITY, SCT.
T frarier. wriling was prod to me on the
and wadr d y
of 13 at 1 m
ccrl�i_ of ack10 dg -neat lheral� anne c31 pis
.rdmitted to r --cord. fa. +;n J,;:1 of 5:e- 1s.a4.1 of
$ a '�_, and 5 S-1 have been paid, if ase -sable,
1zLS1'1_A_ Clerk.
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
-A-
O(J7PUT P.,1CCULE
yrs Department
,fescue Department
Elementary Schools
Middle Schools
High Schools
Parks and Recreation
FIRE AND RESCUE AODENDUM
New/ Capital Costs Not $12,817.67
Covered by County
Contributions
NOTES: Model Run Dale 12111198 EA`fN
P.I.N. 55-A-209: 211; 8 213 Rezoning: Aasumas 264 SFO on 128.78 acres of RP.
DUG to changing conditions Mccleted with development in the County, to resulb of els
Output Module may not be valid beygr:d a period of 90 days from the model run date.
Capital Facilities
1VIW
Appendix 3
1
diet
CFO-dit for
-_-_--�
Fscai
Taxes to
Captal
Impact
Capital
Net
lmr
$790
$5,635
$0
$'1,4:7
,$378,239
$119,070
$130,876
$1,013,579
$46.82$
87.782
TOTAL $1,322,017
$0
$143,972
$1,178,044
FIRE AND RESCUE AODENDUM
New/ Capital Costs Not $12,817.67
Covered by County
Contributions
NOTES: Model Run Dale 12111198 EA`fN
P.I.N. 55-A-209: 211; 8 213 Rezoning: Aasumas 264 SFO on 128.78 acres of RP.
DUG to changing conditions Mccleted with development in the County, to resulb of els
Output Module may not be valid beygr:d a period of 90 days from the model run date.
Capital Facilities
1VIW
Appendix 3
1
FIRE Alli, RESCUE ADDENDUM
Now Capital Gods Not
Covered by County
Contribugons
N09TES: Model Run Date 12/11/98 EAW
P.I.N. 65-A-40 Rezoning: Assumes 10 SFD on 3.94 acres of RP.
$44948
Due to .-ftiging =rdWcns moclated with dente+oprnent in the County, the results of this
Output Module may not be valid boyand a period of 90 day's from the model rust date.
Capital Facilities
Modet
Appendix
2
Not
Credit for
01-ITPUT -MODULE
Fiwat
Taxes to
Capel
Impact
Capflal
Net
Fire Department
$27
$0
Rescue Department
$51
Elementary Schools
;x13,319
Diddle Schools
$4,193
$4.59a
$35,689
High Schcols
$22,776
Parks and Racr eanon
salm
Izza
S5,911
TOTAL
$46,550
$0
$5,069
$41,460
FIRE Alli, RESCUE ADDENDUM
Now Capital Gods Not
Covered by County
Contribugons
N09TES: Model Run Date 12/11/98 EAW
P.I.N. 65-A-40 Rezoning: Assumes 10 SFD on 3.94 acres of RP.
$44948
Due to .-ftiging =rdWcns moclated with dente+oprnent in the County, the results of this
Output Module may not be valid boyand a period of 90 day's from the model rust date.
Capital Facilities
Modet
Appendix
2
IMPACT STATEMENT
GILES FARM
PROPERTY ID NUMBER
65-((A))-39
REZONING APPLICATION
January 7, 1999
Greenivay Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, _VA 22602
-69-
Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 :des Farm Impact Statement
INTP.ODTJCTION
The subject property, tax map no. 65-((A))-39, is located on the north side of Senseny Road, and is
650' east of Beans Pond Lane. Said property is across from the Burning Knolls and C.M. Lockhart
subdivisions, and is adjacent to the Bedford Village and Apple Ridge subdivisions. This site
consists of a 152.2 acre parcel and is currently located within a Rural Areas (RA) zoning district.
The owners propose to rezone 140.2 acres of this parcel to Residential Performance (RP). The
remaining 12.0 acres are proposed to be rezoned to the Business General (B2) zoning district. This
report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Frederick County by this
rezoning.
This impact statement will refer to the proposed residential area as "Parcel A". The area proposed
for commercial purposes will be designated "Parcel B".
SITE SUITABILITY
The subject property is located within the "Urban Development Area" as defined within the.
Frederick County Comprehensive Polices Plan. This designation reflects the intention of Frederick
County to allow for more intensive development on the subject site. The purpose of this area
designation is to direct the expansion and improvement of public utilities and infrastructure to areas
that will be intensively developed.
Flood Plains
The subject site is located on FEMA NFIP map 9 510063-0120-B. The site is located within a
"ZONE C" area. No portion of the subject site is in a 100 yr. flood plain. The site does include an
intermittent stream, as well as a pond.
Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory Map lists two wetland areas on the subject property. These
wetlands, cumulatively less than an acre, join the pond on the southwest corner of the property
Mature Woodlands
Approximately 30% of the 152.2 acre tract is wooded. This estimate is based on aerial mapping,
and has not been conclusively verified on the ground.
Soil Types
Information for soil types on this site has been obtained from the Soil Survey of Frederick County,
Virginia, by the USDS Soil Conservation Service.
The subject site is located on map sheet no. 37, and contains eight different soil types. These are
Berks, Blairton, Clearbrook, and Weikert-Berks soils at various slopes.
I
-71-
Greenway Engineering Jtwuary 7, 1999 kes Farm Impact Statement
Prime Agricultural Soils
The Weikert-Berks soil type, which covers approximately 50% of the subject property, is listed as
"not suited" or "poorly suited" to cultivated crops, hay or pasture. The remainder of the site is
composed of soils that are listed as "moderately well suited" to "fairly well suited" to these
agricultural purposes.
Steep Slopes
The terrain over approximately one third of the site includes slopes greater than 15%. These areas
are located along the intermittent stream, and along established drainways. The site will be graded
to insure its usability for residential housing, while leaving intact the areas of steep slopes nearest
the established drainways, and meeting all zoning requirements..
Construction Concerns
There are several aspects of the soils and the geology of the subject site that will need to be
addressed in order to establish a residential community on this property.
The depth to shale bedrock ranges from 12 to 40 inches. This will present some grading difficulties,
requiring more fill to be placed than cut. Some of the shale can be reused as fill, since it is
generally friable.
The Clearbrook and Blairton soils have seasonal high water tables. Between October and April.,
the water table in these soils is within two feet of the surface. These soils cover about 10-15% of
the subject site. This feature will present only a minor obstacle, which can be surmounted with
proper grading and sound geotechnical design.
The Weikert-Berks soil type is listed as being a severe erosion hazard. This soil type covers
approximately one half of the subject site. All construction on this site, however, will conform to
the standards within the ` iirainia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. This will include the
placement of silt screens and sediment traps. It will also require reseeding of all disturbed areas
after grading has been completed.
In conclusion, proper design and construction techniques will be used so that the soil and geology of
the subject property will not interfere with the proposed development.
SURROUNDING PROPER'T'IES
All of the properties adjoining the subject site are either undeveloped or are single-family homes.
Homes on these adjoining lots are generally within 100'-200' of the boundary with the subject site.
Rezoning the subject site to "RP" will harmonize well with the surrounding properties, all of which
are zoned either "RA" or "RP". The proposed rezoning of a portion of the subject site to B-2 will
have the desirable result of allowing for retail stores, grocery stores, service stations, offices, or
similar uses within close proximity to residential units.
2
_72_
Greenway Engineering January 7,1999 es Farm Impad Stafeanewt
BASIS FOR DETERN G FACT
i
The existing "RA" zoning for the 152.2 acre site will allow for a maximum residential density of
30 single family detached units.
WW
The density of Parcel A has been limited by proffer to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. This works out
to a maximum potential of 3 50 units.
The cumulative total floor area of all primary -use buildings within the proposed B2 zone has been
limited by proffer to 120,000 square feet. All impacts created by the proposed B2 zone have been
calculated using this proffered maximum area.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Traffic Data
The existing traffic data was supplied by VDOT Office Services Specialist, Vega Ziemer (Edinburg
office):
3
-73-
Greenway Engw-eruwg January 7, 1999 es Farm Impact Statement
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
Zone
Date of
ADT
Road
Stud
vehicles/da
Route 655
1993
2,522
between Winchester and 656
Exiting
Existing
RA
Route 656
1995
2,376
between Rte 659S & Rte 7W
20
11
Route 636
1995
4,237
between Rte 657 & Rte 659S
67
202
Route 656
1995
3,041
between Rte 655 & Rte 657
Retail
120,000
Route 657
1993
8,027
between Winchester and 656
150
Route 657
1995
4,779
between Routes 656 and 736
Route 657
1995
1,231
between Rte 736 and Clarke Co.
Route 659
1995
4,524
between 658 and 656N.
Route 659
1993
401
between Rte 656N & Rte 7
Route 7
1996
17,000
between Winchester and Clarke Co.
U. S. Route 50
1996
18,000
between Rte 522 & Rte 723W
VDOT has classified Route 657 (Senseny Road), Route 659 (Valley Mill Road), Route 656
(Greenwood Road), and Route 655 (Sulpher Springs Road) as major collectors.
Trip Generation
The following table is based on trip data taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, e Edition:
TRIP GENERATION DATA
Zone
Use
Density
PEAK HOUR TRIPS
ADT
(vehicles/day)
AM
PM
Entering
Exiting
Entering
Exiting
Existing
RA
Single Family
Detached
30
6
17
20
11
287
RP
Single Family
Detached
350
67
202
228
129
3,350
E2
Retail
120,000
75
481
21511
150
Total Tncrease: 8,213
4
-74-
Greenway Engineering January 7,1999 Les Farm Impact Statement
The development of the rezoned site at the maximum density could therefore generate a traffic
increase of approximately 8,200 trips per day.
Traffic Impact
Traffic impacts were determined using the following estimated traffic split:
5% will travel through Carlisle Heights and the other minor collector road
to Rte 656-
40% of the increased traffic will travel Rte 657 into the City of Winchester.
20% will travel Rte 657 to Rte 656, then south to Route 50.
5% will travel Rte 657 east into Clarke County.
5% will travel Rte 659 east to Route 7.
12% will travel Rte 659 west to Rte 656, and then north on Rte 656.
13% will travel Rte 659 west to Route 7, and & I-81.
The following table shows the increase in traffic on the local road network as compared to current
traffic counts and expected traffic volumes on these roads in 2010.
5
-75-
Greenaway Engineering January 7, 1999 es Farm linpact Statement
TIZAMC FACT ON LOCAL. ROADS
Road
Traffic Impact from Site
Traffic - 1999*
Traffic - 2010*
(vehicles/day)
(vehicles/day)
(vehicles/day)
Route 655 (Sulpher Springs Rd)
1,643
3,100
4,530
between Winchester & Rte 656
Route 656 (Greenwood Rd)
986
2,726
3,980
between Rte 6595 & Rte 7W
Route 656 (Greenwood Rd)
411
4,862
7,098
between Rte 657 & Rte 6595
Route 656 (Greenwood Rd)
1,643
3,490
5,095
between Rte 655 & Rte 657
Route 657 (Senseny Rd)
3,285
9,870
14,400
Winchester & Rte 656
Route 657 (Senseny Rd)
4,928
5,484
8,006
from site west to Rte 656
Route 657 (Senseny Rd)
411
1,413
2,062
from site east to Clarke County
Route 659 (Valley Mall Road)
1,068
5,190
7,580
between Rte 658 & 656
Route 659 (Valley Mill Road)
2,053
460
720
from site west to Rte 656
Route 659 (Valley Mill Road)
411
460
720
from site east to Rte 7
Route 7
1,396
18,850
27,520
between Winchester & Clarke Co.
U.S. Route 50
1,643
19,960
29,140
between Rte 522 & Rte 723W
* Projected traffic counts (both year 1999 and year 2010) were calculated using a 3.5% growth rate.
The increases are substantial on Senseny, Greenwood, and Valley Mill, and Sulpher Springs Roads.
It is worthy to note, however, that the current traffic count is fairly sparse on Valley Mill Road
between Greenwood Road and Route 7.
Transportation Improvements
The owners of the subject property have made several proffers that will improve traffic flow in the
subject area:
Channing Drive, a new major collector that will travel along the western border of the subject
property, will be built by the owner of the subject property and the adjacent property owner.
A Traffic Signal will be installed at the intersection of Channing Drive and Senseny Road.
6
76-
Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 es Farm Impact Statement
$25,000 will be contributed by the owner toward a traffic signal at the intersection of Greenwood
Road and Senseny Road.
Right And Left Turn Lanes will be constructed on Senseny Road and on Channing Drive.
The Main Entrance into the Giles Farm subdivision will be a four -lane boulevard.
In addition to these proffers, which have a direct impact on improving traffic flow, the owners of
the subject property have proffered a 2.5 unit per acre density for the residential area and a 120,000
sf maximum buildout for the commercial area. These proffered reductions substantially reduce the
the maximum amount of traffic that could be generated by the subject site. Another bonus for
traffic flow is the proffered construction phasing plan. In this proffer, the owners have agreed to
limit the number of building permits that will be issued in any one year, which will reduce the rate
of traffic increases on the affected roads.
Traffic Summary
While the increases in traffic are substantial, the concessions that the owners have made to aid
traffic flow have been generous, and these concessions are more than is normally proffered, and
more than the Virginia Department of Transportation expected.
WATER SUPPLY
The impact of this proposed development on water supply systems is based on design volumes
supplied by the FCSA The total design consumption can be determined by the following formula:
Consumption per Dwelling Unit = 275 gpd
Number of Units = 350
Total Residential Consumption = 350 units x 275 gpd
= 96,250 gpd
Im
Design Consumption = 2502nd
1000 sf
Proffered Maximum Buildout = 120,000 sf
Total Commercial Consumption = 120,000 sf x 250gpd
1000 sf
-77-
Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 es Farm Impact Silatement
Total Commercial Consumption = 30,000 gpd
Entire Parcel
Total Consumption = 96,250 gpd
+ 30,000 gpd
=126,250 gpd
Therefore, the total water consumption for the subject property at maximum buildout is 126,250
gpd. There is currently an 8" water main located along Senseny Road, as well as an available
connection to an 8" line near the Apple Ridge subdivision. According to Mr. John Whitacre of the
FCSA, a water main will have to be looped through the site.
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
Based on our water consumption, the proposed proffered zoning will add 126,250 gpd to the sewage
conveyance system at maximum buildout.
Mr. John Whitacre of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority was consulted regarding the sewer
design criteria and capacities for the existing sewer system serving this subject site and the
neighboring Lynnehaven and Sheppard/Futral properties. The Giles Farm and Lynnehaven
properties will be served in two phases. The first phase will be utilization of the existing pump
station on Beans Pond Lane. Areas that will naturally flow to this pump station can be developed as
long as capacity exists in the pump station. The ultimate phase two sewering of the three project
area will be by a regional pump station that is proposed adjacent to Twin Lakes. By this regional
concept, gravity sewer lines will drain along the roads and ravines to the proposed pump station.
As agreed with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, construction of the proposed pump
station will be the sole responsibility of the parries involved in the three project development. Once
in operation and accepted by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the ownership and
maintenance of the pump station will become the responsibility of said agency. With the
completion of the proposed pump station, several other projects will have the ability to connect by
gravity into this system, allowing some smaller pump stations, such as the Apple Ridge station, to
come off-line.
DRAINAGE
An unnamed intermittent stream flows along the Northwestern and the Northern portions of the
subject property and feeds into Twin Lakes. The overflow from this lake drains into the Opequon
Creek. Approximately 87 acres of the subject site flows directly into this stream via established
swales and drainways. Storinwater on the remaining portion of the site (approximately 65 acres)
flows into one of three drainways that continue into the neighboring Apple Ridge and Bedford
Village subdivisions, and empties into another tributary of the Opequon.
8
-78-
Greemvay Engineering January 7,1999 rs Farm Impact ,Statemeed
Regional stormwater management will be provided by a stormwater management network This
network will include the existing wet pond known as Twin Lakes_ By utilizing this wet pond as the
backbone of the stormwater management system, we will then move upstream and develop a series
of smaller, dry detention basins, along with sediment forebays to control water quality. The
stormwater management network will be developed in tandem with our natural walking trail
system. The trail crossings of small tributaries will act as embankments for the sediment forebays.
In. time, wetlands should develop in these areas which will serve dual purposes of sediment removal
and adding a natural wetland that can be observed through the trail system. The majority of the
three -project area (Giles Farm, Sheppard/Futral, & Lynnehaven properties) naturally drains to the
Twin Lakes facility. However, there is a small area adjacent to Senseny Road and Apple Ridge
Subdivision that will require a separate peak reduction as it releases through the storm sewer
network of the Apple Ridge Subdivision. With this regional approach, stormwater management for
the three -project area will be adequately satisfied.
SOL]® WASTE DISPOSAL
The following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated on
the subject site:
The impact created by the residential units on Parcel A has been estimated using design criteria in
the Civil Engineering Manual, 4h Edition- The design factors are standard for residential units.
generation rate in cu yds = (population size)Xlwaste in lbm/capita-day)X(loading factor
day compacted density in lbm/cu yd
population size = (2.75 persons/household) X (350 dwelling units)
= 962 persons
waste = 51bm/capita-day
loading factor = 1.25
density = 1000 lbm/cu yd
Total residential volume = 6.0 cu yds
day
Annually, the generated solid waste volume will be:
Total residential volume = 6.0 cu yds X 365 days = 2,200 cu yds
day yr yr
Therefore the maximum waste generated by Parcel A will be 2,200 cu yds per year.
The solid waste impact for Parcel B has been estimated using the following Fairfax County design
requirements.
9
_79_
Greenway Fjrs neering January 7, 1999 -,s Farm Impact ,Statement
Taste generation rate = 11,440 lbs - -
1000 sf/yr
total solid waste = 120,000 sf x 11,440 lbs
1000 sf/yr
=1,372,800 lbs/yr
compaction = 400 lbs/cy
total volume =1,372,800 lbs/vr
400 lbs/cy
= 3,430 cy/yr
Entire Parcel
Total waste = 2,200 gpd
+ 3.430 Spd
= 5,630 gpd
Therefore, the total solid waste generated by the subject site is estimated to be 5,630 cubic yards
annually.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia reveals the presence of some
historic structures on the subject property. These structures are listed in said survey simply as
"Outbuildings, Rte 657." The Braithwaite house is located at the end of Beans Pond Lane on
adjoining parcel 55-((A))- 208, and is within 100' of the adjoining boundary. Also, the Carter-Lee-
Damron house is on adjoining parcel 55-((A))-209, but is approximately 2,200' from the adjoining
boundary. None of these buildings are "potentially significant" as defined by said report. There are
no homes nearby that are potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places.
There are also no potential historic districts nearby.
COMMU1dtITY FACILIMS
The impact on the utilities and infrastructure near the site will be estimated by the Frederick County
Capital Facilities Impact Model.
10
80-
Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 s Farm InTad Statement
Al ®'HER ACTS
No additional impacts are forseen by the development of the subject property at the proffered
density.
11
_81_
Given under my hand this ^ day of November, I9.13.
MY commission expires Yarch 28, I944.
_ VIIIi II`Ir_ RITTL•Ii
o ary un is
�iD`{ `eta Jar J,.•'Y
� os
�e 7Y•A'2R-/Z :�A. ry
;V
x�
15. tt
G
o�
CMCJ �
AC
SCJ'
e
i
The followings is a survey of a portion of the Mary L.
Braithwaite lands, situate and lying* in Shawnee L'aristerial District, Frederick County,)
State of Virginia, about four miles south e!:st of the City, of 'hinchester bounded on the
north b4 a line of the Tom^y Brown Estate lands, on the east by a line of the Carter
estate lands, on the south by a line of George 1.. Giles former rurchase of a portion j
of the Mary E. Braithwaite lands, an the west by lines of the said Braithwaite's other lax
lands and is more rarticularly described by a survey vi7.-
BeCirminr at a cost corner to the Giles former purchase
running throuCh the Braithwaites lands by the two following; courses and distances R '
i
G5 I/2 E 2.1. P-4 rods to a post corner; thence N 58 E IU0.'I rods to a walnut tree a
corner to the said Braithwaite's other lands in the Brown estate line;nthence with the
last mentioned line S. 67 E 82.0 rods to a set stone a corner to the Brown estate lands
and also a corner to the Carter estate lands; thence rith a line of the latter S 25 1/2:IXxi29x93xao
T, I30.03 rods to triprle oaks a corner to the Uiles former rurchase in Holmes Carper's '
line; thence with a line of the Giles former rurchase 11 59 I/2 :7 I20 rods to the point
of beginning containing 74 acres - 2 Roods - I2 Sq. Po.
Surveyed II -2-43
VITrUNIA
FRrD'_RICK C0g'i.',, (SCT.
By WALKER MCC. BOND I
This instrument of writing was produced to me an the
9th dap of Dec. IU44 at I:00 P. L!. and with certificate of acknowledEment thereto
annexed was admitted to record.
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
-85-
i
4=- Esc
5� f
C�
i D—kld S/b.te Oak
i
The following is a survey of a portion of the George C.
Braithwaite farm land fronting on the north side of the S_nseney Road about 4 miles
east of Winchester, Frederick County, Virginia and is more particularly described as
i follows: Beginning at a white oak on the north side of the said road running with the
north property line of the Senseney road S 68'20' E 2625 ft. to a double white oak a
i corner to the Holmes Carper land in s aid highway boundary line; thence with a line
of said Carper N 27 55' E 1535 £t. to at"iple white oak a corner to Braithwaite's
other land in the said Carper!s line; thence by two division lines through the other j
i lands of Braithwaite N 60'W 1957 ft. to a stake corner to the other land of the said
iBraithwaite near the east side of the private road leading from Braithwaite'.s
mansion house to the Seaseney road; thence S 47' W 2000 ft. to the point of beginning
!
containing i__ong 88.8 acres. '
I
Survey made August 202 1940:
WALKER MCC13011D.
i
VIRGINIA
FREDERICK COUNTY SCT:
= This Instrument of writing was produced to me on the 4th
dap of Nov. 1940 at 2115pand with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was
• admitted to record.
I ,CLERK. {{'
I i
i
0
Boundary Survey
Appen� 2
FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM
New Capital Costs Not
Covered by County
Contributions
$19,739.28
NOTES: Model Run Date 12/30/98 EAW
P.I.N. 65-A-39 Rezoning: Assumes 351 SFD & 120,000 sq.ft retail on 1422 acres of RP & 10 acres of B2.
r' le to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this
.put Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.
Capital Facilities
Model
Appendix 3
-87-
OUTPUT MODULE
Net
Credit R
Fiscal
Taxes to
Capital
Costs
Impact
Credit
Capital
Costs
Net
Imta
r Department
$1,095
$7,551
$0
.cue Department
Elementary Schools
$2,369
$467,496
Middle Schools
$147,160
$375,539
$1,038,540
High Schools
$799,422
Parks and Recreation
$217.058
$22,323
$194.735
TOTAL
$1,634,600
$2,791,290
$405,412
$0
FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM
New Capital Costs Not
Covered by County
Contributions
$19,739.28
NOTES: Model Run Date 12/30/98 EAW
P.I.N. 65-A-39 Rezoning: Assumes 351 SFD & 120,000 sq.ft retail on 1422 acres of RP & 10 acres of B2.
r' le to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this
.put Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.
Capital Facilities
Model
Appendix 3
-87-
IMPACT STATEI4ENT
YNNEILA VEN, L. C.
PROPERTY ID A7MBERS
55-((A))-206 & 65-((A))-30.,31
REZONING APPLICATION
January 7,1999
are -en -way Engineering
151 Windy Hill Lane
Winchester, VA 22602
-89-
Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 anchaven Impa& Stateme7d
INTRODUCTION
The subject property, tax map nos. 55-((A))-206 and 65-((A))-30, 31 is a contiguous group of
parcels located on the west side of Beans Pond Lane, 150' from the intersection with Senseny
Road. Said property is adjacent to the Carlisle Heights subdivision. This 91.4 acre site is
currently located within a Rural Areas (RA) zoning district. The owners propose to rezone 81.4
acres of this parcel to Residential Performance (RP), and the remaining 10.0 acres to Business
General (B2). This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on
Frederick County by this rezoning.
This impact statement will refer to the proposed residential area as "Parcel A". The area
proposed for commercial purposes will be designated "Parcel B".
SITE SUITABILITY
The subject property is located within the "Urban Development Area" as defined within the
Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. This designation reflects the intention of
Frederick County to allow for more intensive development on the subject site. The purpose of
this area designation is to direct the expansion and improvement of public utilities and
infrastructure to areas that will be intensively developed.
Flood Plains
The subject site is located on FEMA NFIP map nos. 510063-0115-B and 510063-0120-B. The
site is located within a "ZONE C" area. No portion of the subject site is in a 100 yr. flood
plain. The site does include four drainage ways with intermittent flow, and also a pond.
Wetlands
The National Wetlands Inventory Map lists the small pond on the western edge of the subject
property as a wetland. This pond covers approximately 1 acre.
Mature Woodlands
Approximately 70% of the 91.4 acre tract is wooded. This estimate is based on aerial mapping,
and has not been conclusively verified on the ground.
Soil Types
Information for soil types on this site has been obtained from the Soil Survey of Frederick
County, Virginia, by the USDS Soil Conservation Service. The subject site is located on map
sheet nos. 36, and 37
INS
Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 ..y,nnehaven .Impact Stater w7d
Prime Agricultural Soils -
The soils over approximately one-third of the subject property range from being "fairly well
suited" to "well suited" to cultivated crops, hay and pasture. The remaining two-thirds of the site
is classified as "poorly suited" or "not suited" for these agricultural purposes.
Steep Slopes
Approximately 30 acres of the subject property includes slopes greater than 15%. These areas
are located along the intermittent streams. The site will be graded to insure its usability for
residential housing, while leaving intact the areas of steep slopes nearest the established
drainways, and meeting all zoning requirements.
Construction Concerns
There are several aspects of the soils and the geology of the subject site that will need to be
addressed in order to establish a residential community on this property.
The depth to shale bedrock ranges from 12 to 40 inches. This will present some grading
difficulties, requiring more fill to be placed than cut. Some of the shale can be reused as fill,
since it is generally friable.
There is a seasonal high water table on roughly 2 acres of the subject site. Between October and
April, the water table in these areas is within six inches of the surface. This area of seasonal high
water is relatively small, however, compared to the overall site, and proper grading and sound
geotechnical design will make this area suitable for construction.
In conclusion, proper design and construction techniques will be used so that the soil and
geology of the subject property will not interfere with the proposed development.
SURROUNDE'qG PROPERTIES
All of the properties adjoining the subject site are either undeveloped or are single-family homes,
and are zoned either Rural Areas (RA) or Residential Performance (RP). The adjoining lots in
the Carlisle Heights subdivision have homes that are within 50' of the subject property.
Additionally, the homes on 55-((A))-20$, and on 65-((A))-30 are within 50-100' feet of the
adjoining boundary with the subject property. All other homes on adjoining properties are
greater than 150' of the adjoining boundary.
Rezoning the subject site to "RP" will harmonize well with the surrounding properties, which are
all either zoned "RA", or "RP". The proposed rezoning of a portion of the subject site to B-2
will have the desirable result of allowing for retail stores, grocery stores, service stations, offices,
or similar uses within close proximity to residential units.
2
_9p-
Greenway Engineering January 7,1999 , ,anehaven Impa& Statement
BASIS FOR DETERIVIPCNG SACT —
RA
The subject property is currently zoned "RA". It is expected that Parcel A, with 81.4 acres, could
be developed under an RA zone to include 16 dwelling units.
RP
The density of Parcel A has been limited by proffer to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. This works
out to a maximum potential of 203 units.
B-2
The cumulative total floor area of all primary -use buildings within the proposed B2 zone has
been limited by proffer to 100,000 square feet. All impacts created by the proposed B2 zone
have been calculated using this proffered maximum area.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
Traffic Data
The existing traffic data was supplied by VDOT Office Services Specialist, Vega Ziemer
(Edinburg office):
3
-93-
Green way Ewgiaaee ing Jaywary 7, 1999 Ls _inehaaven Impact Sta teMent
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
Date of
ADT
Road
Study
vehicles/da
Route 655
1993
2,522
between Winchester and 656
Route 656
1995
2,376
between Rte 659S & Rte 7W
Route 656
1995
4,237
between Rte 657 & Rte 659S
Route 656
1995
3,041
between Rte 655 & Rte 657
Route 657
1993
8,027
between Winchester and 656
Route 657
1995
4,779
between Routes 656 and 736
Route 657
1995
1,231
between Rte 736 and Clarke Co.
Route 659
1995
4,524
between 658 and 656N.
Route 659
1993
401
between Rte 656N & Rte 7
Route 7
1996
17,000
between Winchester and Clarke Co.
U. S. Route 50
1996
182000
between Rte 522 & Rte 723W
VDGT has classified Route 657 (Senseny Road), Route 659 (Valley Mill Road), Route 656
(Greenwood Road), and Route 655 (Sulpher Springs Road) as major collectors.
Trip Generation
The following table is based on trip data taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, e Edition:
il
-94-
Greenway Engineering January 7,1999 , anehaven Impact Sta6mient
TRIP GENERATION DATA
Zone
Use
Density
PEAK HOUR TRIPS
AM
PM
ADT
Entering
Exiting
Entering
Exiting
(vehicles/day)
Existing
RA
Single Family
Detached
18
3
10
12
7
172
RP
Single Family
Detached
203
39
117
133
75
1,943
B2
Retail
100,000
63
40
180
194
4,292
Total Increase: 6,062
The development of the rezoned site at the maximum density could therefore generate a traffic
increase of approximately 6,060 trips per day.
Traffic Impact
Traffic impacts were determined using the following estimated traffic split:
Tra c Zit
5% will travel through Carlisle Heights and the other minor collector road
to Rte 656.
40% of the increased traffic will travel Rte 657 into the City of Winchester.
20% will travel Rte 657 to Rte 656, then south to Route 50.
5% will travel Rte 657 east into Clarke County.
5% will travel Rte 659 east to Route 7.
12% will travel Rte 659 west to Rte 656, and then north on Rte 656.
13% will travel Rte 659 west to Route 7, and & I-81.
The following table shows the increase in traffic on the local road network as compared to
current traffic counts and expected traffic volumes on these roads in 2010.
-95-
Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 .Mehaven Impact StaLement
TRAFFIC 11 MTACT ON LOCAL ROADS
Road
Traffic Impact from Site
Traffic - 1999*
Trak - 2010*
(vehicles/day)
(vehicles/day)
(vehicles/day)
Route 655 (Sulpher Spr. Rd)
1,212
3,100
4,530
between Winchester & Rte 656
Route 656 (Greenwood Rai)
727
2,726
3,980
between Rte 6595 & Rte 7W
Route 656 (Greenwood Rd)
303
4,862
7,098
between Rte 657 & Rte 6595
Route 656 (Greenwood Rd)
1,212
3,490
5,095
between Rte 655 & Rte 657
Route 657 (Senseny Rd)
2,425
9,870
14,400
Winchester & Rte 656
Route 657 (Senseny Rd)
3,637
5,484
8,006
from site west to Rte 656
Route 657 (Senseny Rd)
303
1,413
2,062
from site east to Clarke County
Route 659 (Valley Mill Road)
788
5,190
7,580
between Rte 658 & 656
Route 659 (Valley Mill Road)
1,516
460
720
from site west to Rte 656
Route 659 (Valley Mill Road)
303
460
720
from site east to Rte 7
Route 7
1,031
18,850
27,520
between Winchester & Clarke Co.
T.S. Route 50
1,212
19,960
29,140
between Rte 522 & Rte 723W
* Projected traffic counts (both year 1999 and year 20 10) were calculated using a 3.5% growth rate.
Transportation Improvements
Channing Drive, a new major collector that will travel along the eastern border of the subject
property, will be built by the owner of the subject property and the adjacent property owner.
This road will improve traffic flow in the region, making it easier to travel between Senseny
Road and Valley Mill Road. The owners of the subject property have proffered a 2.5 unit per
acre density for the residential area and a 100,000 sf maximum buildout for the commercial area.
These proffered reductions substantially reduce the the maximum amount of traffic that could be
generated by the subject site. Another bonus for traffic flow is the proffered construction
phasing plan. In this proffer, the owners have agreed to limit the number osfbuilding permits that
will be issued in any one year, which will reduce the rate of traffic increases on the affected
roads.
n.
-96-
Greenway Engineering Jannary 7, 1999 - _ .aiaekaven Impact Statement
Traffic Summary
Although the increases are substantial on Senseny, Greenwood, Valley Mill, and Sulpher Springs
Roads, the proffers that the owner has made will lessen the impact of this new development on
the local road network-
WATER
etwork
WATER SUPPLY
The impact of this proposed development on water supply systems is based on design volumes
supplied by the FCSA, and on maximum dwelling units in the proffered zoning. The total design
consumption can be determined by the following calculations:
IM
Consumption per dwelling unit = 275 gpd
Number of units
= 203
Total Residential Consumption = 203 units x 275 gpd
= 55,825 gpd
M:
Design consumption = 250gpd
1000 sf
Maximum possible buildout =100,000 sf
Total Commercial Consumption = 25,000 gpd
Entire Parcel
Total Consumption = 55,825 gpd
+ 25,000 gpd
= 80,825 gpd
Therefore, the total water consumption for the subject property at maximum buildout is
approximately 80,825 gpd. There is currently an 8" water main located along Senseny Road.
According to Mr. John Whitacre of the FCSA, a water main will have to be looped through the
site.
h
-97-
Greemway Engineering January 7, 1999 .1.1nehaven Impact SWenrent
SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT
Based on our water consumption, the proposed rezoning will add 80,825 gpd to the sewage
conveyance system at maximum buildout.
Mr. John Whitacre of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority was consulted regarding the
sewer design criteria and capacities for the existing sewer system serving this subject site and the
neighboring Giles Farm property. The Giles Farm and Lynnehaven properties will be served in
two phases. The first phase will be utilization of the existing pump station on Beans Pond Lane.
Areas that will naturally flow to this pump station can be developed as long as capacity exists in
the pump station. The ultimate phase two sewering of the three project area (Giles Farm,
Sheppard/Futral, and Lynnehaven properties) will.be by a regional pump station that is proposed
adjacent to Twin Lakes. By this regional concept, gravity sewer lines will follow the roads and
ravines to the proposed pump station.
As agreed with the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, construction of the proposed pump
station will be the sole responsibility of the parties involved in the three project development.
Once in operation and accepted by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority, the ownership and
maintenance of the pump station will become the responsibility of said agency. With the
completion of the proposed pump station, several other projects will have the ability to connect
by gravity into this system, allowing some smaller pump stations, such as the Apple Ridge
station, to come off-line.
DRAINAGE
The are four drainage ways with intermittent flow on the subject property, and there is also a
pond. The runoff from approximately 86 acres of the subject site flows through these drainage
ways and into nearby Twin Lakes. The overflow from this lake drains into the Opequon Creek.
Stormwater on the remaining 5 acres, at the northwest comer of the property, drains through the
Carlisle Heights subdivision, and empties into a tributary of Abrams Creek.
Regional stormwater management will be provided by a stormwater management network This
network will include the existing wet pond known as Twin Lakes. By utilizing this wet pond as
the backbone of the stormwater management system, we will then move upstream and develop a
series of smaller, dry detention basins, along with sediment forebays to control water quality.
The stormwater management network, will be developed in tandem with our natural walking trail
system. The trail crossings of small tributaries will act as embankments for the sediment
forebays. In time, wetlands should develop in these areas which will serve dual purposes of
sediment removal and adding a natural wetland that can be observed through the trail system.
The majority of the three -project area (Giles Farm, Sheppard/Futral, & Lynnehaven properties)
naturally drains to the Twin Lakes facility. However, there is a small area adjacent to Senseny
Road and Apple Ridge Subdivision, and also an area near the Carlisle Heights subdivision, that
will require a separate peak reduction as it releases through the storm sewer network of
subdivisions. With this regional approach, stormwater management for the three -project area
will be adequately satisfied.
_98_
Greenway Engineering January 7, 1999 i,,..nehavem Impad Statement
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
The following calculations were made to estimate the maximum impact of solid waste generated
on the subject site.
The impact created by the residential units on Parcel A has been estimated using design criteria
in the Civil Engineering Manual, 4h Edition. The design factors are standard for residential
units.
generation rate in cu yds = (population size)X(waste - lbm/capita-day)X loadin fact
actor
day compacted density - Ibm/cu yd
population size = (2.75 persons/household) X (203 dwelling units)
= 558 persons
waste = 5 lbm/capita-day
loading factor = 1.25
density = 1000 Ibm/cu yd
Total residential volume = 3.5 cu yds
day
Annually, the generated solid waste volume will be:
Total residential volume = 3.5 cu yds X 365 day = 1,270 cu yds
day yr yr
Therefore the maximum waste generated by Parcel A will be 1,270 cu yds per year.
VN
The impact created by all businesses on Parcel B, within the proposed B-2 zone, has been
estimated using using Fairfax County design requirements.
Waste generation rate= 11,440 lbs
1000 sf/yr
total solid waste = 100,000 sf x 11,440 lbs
1000 sflyr
= 1,144,000 lbs/yr
compaction = 400 lbslcy
0
-99-
Greem.�vay Engineering January 7, 1999 A„ _.nehaven Impact Statement
total volume = 1, 144,000 lbs_/yr
400 lbs/cy
= 2,860 cy/yr
Entire Parcel
Total waste = 1,270 gpd
+ 2.860 and
= 4,130 gpd
Therefore, the total solid waste generated by the subject site is estimated to be 4,130 cubic yards
annually.
HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES
The Rural Landmarks Survey Report for Frederick County, Virginia reveals the presence of two
historic structures near the subject property. The Braithwaite house is located at the end of
Beans Pond Lane on adjoining parcel 55-((A))-208, and is within 100' of the adjoining
boundary. There are also some structures on adjoining parcel 65-((A))-39, that are listed in the
Rural Landmarks Survey Report simply as "Outbuildings, Rte 657." Neither these buildings nor
the Braithwaite house are "potentially significant" as defined by said report. There are no homes
nearby that are potentially eligible for the state and national register of historic places. There are
also no potential historic districts nearby.
COMNiYTNITY FACILITIES
The impact on the utilities and infrastructure near the site will be estimated by the Frederick
County Capital Facilities Impact Model.
OTHER EWPACTS
No additional impacts are forseen by the development of the subject property at the proffered
density.
10
100-
M43PG042
3 N/F
ELLIOTT DELIVERY SERVICE. 06.
S63.44'42"E - 151.20-
0.902
S1.20'0.902 ACRES �1
OB 339 • P 649 2 �y
SO
46
o /
`O
v
�o
N/F
ICFnNs +w /
ryb
a
0
4$
C. LEGGE
H W.
LAN*
NOTES:.
1. No Title Report furnished.
2. The property shown hereon Is
delineated Qn Frsderla: County
Tax Map e8 ® as Parcel 30.
3. The property Is subject to
®asernents of record.
/ BOUNDARY SURVEY AND COMPOSITE PLAT
/
OF
/ 0.902 ACRES
/ STANDING W THE NAME CF
A6 CLL3`'l r .:iia :'F�O1:'OCES Fi.Llt]T:
SHAWNEE U46MTMML DMTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
MAY 18,1990 SCALER --SO'
NBr•sL2p";y
-- -- `llbert w. ell (for aaeoclatas, tae.
Br,NSENY MAD (VARIABLE WIDTII WM
srATE ROUTE 657
X—Yn
YROnalk"Wor mComm Ser.
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
-101-
N
Get 8 4 3 PG 0 4} 1 Ht (TERN FIIfiRlcx OSV6 A6iNP CrJ.
am TPIS WALNUT T1U
• � --- ®3.13'28'E 9 87G�31�sE
l
wfCo
LELTM
1113. Iron 11od Sni �tQ Ina (LF
I11r " hon rtod round
oILES
IPF� bnn I'aw round ��/° I%
990 841? t . tau aze
�90, jY
pIRs 6410 o
Q 17 W41TARY /
Z.
SEWER aMEMENT / /Rs 888.13'28®W
GHEE rC j — X05.25'
RN�b Rb. � / sEr aryls
�M)NER3HIP 2y 3axw /
fal57q LIFP 3TATICN
SITE EASEMeg
f
\ O)JRiC7( /
1 �GO IHC.Y ' Q GILES
\181 36)
�
\\\Z3 179 C� 10 BAAiTARY
\ SEWEn EmEmEw f Ea' R/W
IMJIVOLTACIE•-� ` \ {Fr} /
OVEMEAD \ � 0
:�/
rower Hie / t !Elliott AND S3A111I
_\ 818.72' , p � % +�: j'2) MIALD_KEIINS
MST P188°27'49'W
POST 7z a C2
f /o / k599.16,
_
�ENnb (11TE 657) ��s sir G
Ins arml,rewucrr,EE — . 4'
8ENsY
15 Net•51'20'W O{ ��
89.88'
(l
Cl
0. 1.E6GE'j
Cl TIPICAt�E jNO, 11lk-t
COMPOSITE'
60UNDARY SURVEY
LIND S ¢
OF THE LAND OF
ELLIOTT DELIVERY SERVICE, INC.
DEED BOOK 487 -PAGE 431
SI FAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK -COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: i".600' SURVEYED: APRIL 26 1991
�
Vuwiw:rmmlia`COUNTY. ser.
iln taVwlwlA d vrN�'�'o-s--�^
�dA rrumd
•d "Abaltlrnla d ilNrdo
rNf abdl� icvd Tu iapoad b► Sar_ SdS5654Ad
pilbts, M. cl1(TOr c associates. Inc.
s2.LV vldon565+flsw U.' 4. w&> —W
Fy4Har� • 44d
CLL"
1wra,.ar�
.
I...uY." na 1r.YY I.NI IHH 1H HI III HI lH.
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
2104-
M43PG0430
I WF '
f ELLIOT-r
I '
S41 °66'42"E 132.58°
;a J
to ?
t� _�
V
tr LUT 4 0 Ir
>
1
Q 0.276 ACRES
W1 DB 384 - P 481 ,t�v
>
o _� @in
3 � y }}0..
Y to I F-
¢j3r.Q3W�
p I 7
LOT 3I R33°16,a8 I
WF
N/F ( KERNS
KEMS
NOTES:
1. No Title Report furnislied.
2. The property, shown hereon Is
delineated on Frederick County
Tax Map BS `) as Parcel 3t.
3. The property Is subject to
ensernonts Of record.
BOUNDARY SURVEY AND PLAT
OF
/ 0.276 ACHES
STANDING IN THE NAME OF
LESTER A. ELLIOTT and CARLIN L.
Avw-D A-FRMER=Ct7UP ff scr StiAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
-Mm wss vred+cod to ma on the F
SMIT1 i
s, �e 1� 35',. REDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
.nd.Whnnitr<,tea MAY 18, 1990 SCP.LE:t•�4o•
.rawMWOW•nne=d
. clad a r.co.a. Tu Ynpmad by S«. ws+.l d
ad 58.54 how been pad. 9 assessable.
flibat w. cliffal associates. Inc.
i [�!
CLERK �� wr.... s...a ►w....
Boundary Survey
Appendix 2
-101-
DOUGLAS C. LEGGE
CUTIFFCATE NO.
NOTES: Model Run Date 12/30/98 EAW
P.I.N. 55-A-206 Rezoning: Assumes 204 SFD & 100,000 sq.ft retail orr 18 t.' acres of RI' & 10 acres of B2.
I to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this
Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.
Capital Facilities
el
Appendix 3
OUTPUT MODULE
Net
Credit fo.
"
Fiscal
Taxes to
Capital
!rl-=
Impact
Credit
Capital
S,os5
Net
lmpe
F )epartment
$670
$4,536
$0
Rescue Department
$1,519
Elementary Schools
$271,707
Middle Schools
$85,529
$272,259
$549,599
High Schools
$464,621
Parks and Recreation
$126.153
$16.184
$109.970
TOTAL
$950,200
$2,431,521
$292,979
$0
FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM
New Capital Costs Not
$12,452.40
Covered by County
Contributions
NOTES: Model Run Date 12/30/98 EAW
P.I.N. 55-A-206 Rezoning: Assumes 204 SFD & 100,000 sq.ft retail orr 18 t.' acres of RI' & 10 acres of B2.
I to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this
Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date.
Capital Facilities
el
Appendix 3
01/,29/1994 11:13 15407229525 GPEEHIXI" ! ENGIHEEPI[IG -GE 0?
CALLOW TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING
7633 Riverside Farm Road
ManhaR, Vir&ia 20115
(703) 4313812 F= (703) 4813726
October 5, 1999
S=mwy of RemmmendsOms
VDOT is currently planning to install a traffic signal at Senseny Road and Route
657. Also, VDO'T is going to reconstruct the intersection of Route 656 and Route 657
along with associated approach roadway sections. One additional lane will be added to
each of the four (4) approaches to the new intersection. These road and traffic signal
hnprovements will support the proposed development in the Channing Drive rezoning
d=ugh the build -out of the residential phase. These traffic improvements will also
support the other known but not built residential developments that will use the same
road system as the proposed Chatazzing Drive development.
As the retail development on the Channing Drive development approaches
completion, Route 657 from Route 655 to Channing Drive will need to be improved to a
foto-Ime section.
-109-
CALLOW TRANSPORTATION CONSULTING
7633 Riverside Farre Road
Marshall, Virginia 20115
(703) 4813812 Fax (703) 4813726
August 6, 1999
Memorandum
To: Marr Smith,
Greenway Engineering
By: John F. Callow
Subject: Channing Drive Rezoning
OVERVIEW
Report Summary
Per your request Callow Transportation Consulting (CTC) has revised the traffic
implications of the build -out of the Channing Drive rezoning located in the east part of
Frederick County, Virginia. The property is located north of Senseny Road (Route 657)
and west of the Frederick County/Clark County boundary line.
The Channing Drive rezoning is proposed as a residential/retail development with
846 single family detached homes and a proposed retail center with 120,000 square feet.
This report addresses the proposed land uses with any coinciding transportation
improvements.
This report was prepared following discussions with VDOT and you. VDOT
supplied the traffic counts used in this study and Frederick County gave CTC the
approved but not yet built homes within the study area.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The VDOT supplied traffic counts were summarized at all key intersections and
road links including the intersections of Routes 657 and Route 656, Route 659 and Route
656 as well as the road links Route 659 south of Route 7 and Route 655 east of Route 50.
Figure 1 shows existing (1999) ADT (Average Daily Trips) and A.M. and P.M peak
hour traffic volumes at the key intersections and links that VDOT wished to be analyzed
This represents the road network that the Channing Drive property proposed development
will impact. Figure 2 illustrates all respective existing lane geometry and A -M. and P.M
peak hour levels of service. A detailed description of level of service is found in the
Appendix section of this report.
METHODOLOGY
The traffic impacts for the Channing Drive rezoning were established through a
sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document:
• Calculation of trip generation for the Channing Drive rezoning,
0 Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of
impact,
® Distribution and assignment of Channing Drive generated trips onto the completed
road network,
S Analysis of capacity and level of service for future build -out conditions for the
residential portion and the residential plus the retail parts of the planned development.
2005 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC
The existing traffic volumes were increased to account for area growth through
Year 2005. CTC grew the existing traffic volumes utilizing the growth rate of 3.5 percent
per year. In addition, CTC calculated the trips associated with seven developments not
yet completed in the study area. These developments, representing 700 homes, include:
1. Fieldstone Heights
2. Carlisle Heights
3. Briarwood
4_ Coventry Courts
5- Saratoga Meadows
6. Abrams Point
7. Oakdale Crossing H.
The proposed improvements by VDOT at the intersections of Route 659/656 were
incorporated into the future network analyses_
TRIP GENERATION
The number of trips produced by and attracted to this Channing Drive rezoning
site were established using ITE ?rip Generation Manual, 6th Edition rates. Table 1
shows the trip generation results for the Channing Drive rezoning. It was assumed that at
full build -out that 15 percent of the retail trips would come from the Channing Drive
property.
Table 1
Channing Drive
Trip Generation Summary
AM Peals Hour
PM Peak Hour
Code Land Use Amount
In
Out
Total
In
Out
'Total
ADT
210 Single family Detach 846 units
150
451
601
471
265
736
8,460
820 Retail 120,000 SF
109
69
178
340
368
708
7,665
Total Trips
259
520
779
811
553
1,444
16,125
s
Figure I Giles - Existing Conditions
N 8/6/99
*denotes eritirai movement
- 113 -
N
�
Vl
e1
CTC
��l�ppi
302(284)
�9 16609.
C
�3l
r� gtil
eery �,
b N
Route 659
a �n
;z t-- 311(322))
v;
y
7
O
C.'
F'
56(59)
180(132)
Route 657
e. 1(1.)
(158)82
) i r
(220)75
M=*
G
jj
so
223(131)
Route 655
(249)103 woo*
.
AiNI(PIVI)
no scale
s
Figure I Giles - Existing Conditions
N 8/6/99
*denotes eritirai movement
- 113 -
Figure 2 Giles - Emisting Lane Geometry and Level of Service a
8/6/99
*denotes critical movement
- 114 -
N
CTC
0
A(A)
6=9
C(C)
&�)
A(A)*
A(A)*
Route 659
/ c(C)
0
t(A)* Route 657
`'(A)*
C
U
;sem
Route 655
B(B)
Ari(PM)
no scale
Figure 2 Giles - Emisting Lane Geometry and Level of Service a
8/6/99
*denotes critical movement
- 114 -
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIIGNNT MNT
The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the road network
surrounding the Channing Drive rezoning site. Figure 3 represents the trip distribution
percentages into and out of the Channing Drive rezoning development. These distribution
percentages were also used for the other development assignments.
2005 TRAFFIC LMPACTS-RESIDENTIAL DUMD-OUT
The Channing Drive rezoning assigned residential trips were added to the 2005
background traffic. ;Figure 4 shows 2005 residential build -out A.M. and P.M peak hour
traffic volumes at the key intersections and links within the road network surrounding the
Channing Drive rezoning. Figure 5 shows the respective 2005 build -out lane geometry
and A.M. and P.M peak hour levels of service. Additional turn lanes would need to be
constructed with the implementation of the full residential component, as shown on
Figure 5, in order to maintain acceptable levels of service. A detailed description of level
of service is found in the Appendix section of this report.
CONCLUSION
The traffic impacts associated with the Channing Drive rezoning development are
acceptable and manageable. All intersections maintain acceptable overall levels of
service `C' or better for 2005 build -out conditions.
The intersections of the Route 657/Route 656 and Route 656/oute 659 would need
to be signalized.
2005 TRAFFIC FACTS-FL1-LL BUILD -OUT
The Channing Drive rezoning full build -out assigned trips were then added to the
2005 background traffic volumes. Figure 6 shows build -out A.M. and P.M peak hour
traffic volumes at the key intersections and links within the road network surrounding
Channing Drive rezoning. Figure 7 shows the respective lane geometry and A.M. and
P.M peak hour levels of service. The Route 657 link east of the Route 657/656
intersection will need to become a 4 -lane section to the first project entrance with the
M retail component. A detailed description of level of service is found in the Appendix
section of this report.
Figure 33 GHes - 'drip Distribution Percentages
8!6/99
-116-
N
-41O11
fP CTC
l�yel22ol
26(20 -
109(164) .. c
� ego
v
v
a
�i
a,
kgp�us(96) Route 557
163(364)
64(93) '%
en
°G
�3
so
�® 789(271) Route 655
(429)165
AM(PM)
no scale
Figure 4 Gales - 2005 Residential Bufld-lout Conditions
8/6/99
'denotes enti t movement
- 117 -
N
CTC
Signalized Intersection (0)
LOS B(B) goUte Vic)
BB) B(B)
Route 559 *j4L
$B)
IF
C(C)
Signalized Intersection
LOS = B(B)
C(C) i
B($)
Route 657
B)$ -►
C(C)
�o
C(C) Route 655
4—
A-M(PM)
no scale
Figure 5 GRes - 2005 Residenti2l Bufld-O at Lane Geometry and Level of Service
_ 8/6/99
*denotes critical movement
-118-
�M
- AaV k
to CTC
�a�ltia9>
VOW�1�9 1Gall�al�
T
�l
AL
26(23) moo
13(94) IIS'
l�
114(179)
7
.+ n
m v I•
113(127)
*� 416(374)
e-36(47) Route 557
19o(sso> �
64(93)
m � �
xT�
�Rr
J)
so
397(278) Route 655
(467)179
AM(PM)
no scale
Figure S Giles - 2005 FuH Build -Ont Conditions
8/6/99
*denotes critical movement
-119-
Signalized intersection
LOS B(B)
WC)
am
B(B)
C(C)
0—
MEMO
x,59
1.0
tn
y Signalized Intersection
LOS = B(C)
C(C)
am I B(C)
Route 657
�)� -ji r
C(C)
Route 655
B(c)
CTC
AM(PM)
no scale
Figure 7 GUe5 - 2005 FuH BuHd-Out Lane GeometU and Lural of Service
8/6/99
denotes critical movement
-120-
Appendix
- 121 -
INTERSECTION CAIPACM ANALYSIS
and
LEVEL OF SERVICE
The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were
developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is
represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCNI).
Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the
methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted
from the HCM.
UNS1GNALI ZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC
At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous
right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles
exiting the side street and crossing or tuning into the main street flow must wait for "acpeptable
gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of lett-turning traffic from the main street that
must cross the opposing flow.
The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability
and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is
modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the
traffic Dow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.).
In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless
additional information was available. These defaults include the. estimated percentage of trucks
(single unit and tractor -sailer), buses and motorcycles.
The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for
the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed gime from when a vehicle
stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time
required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue Iposition to the first -in -queue position.
Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections
Average Total Delay
Level of Service sec/veh
A !!�5
B >5 and <_10
C >10 and X20
D >20 and :!�30
E >30 and <_45
F >45
-122-
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact
that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use
the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of
the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well_
In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c)
and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the
physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g.
trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c
ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each
approach.
En this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific
information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are
observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional'
signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes.
The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for
the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by
the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the
upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe
the full range of level of service:
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Stopped Delay
per Vehicle (sec)
<_5.0
>5.0 and _:15.0
>15.0 and <7.5.0
>25.0 and _:40.0
>40.0 and :560.0
>60.0
LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
Description
A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to
5 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is
extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green
phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may
also contribute to low delay.
B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 5
and up to 15 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good
progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than
for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 15
and up to 25 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from
fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycie
failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles
stopping is signincant at this level, though many still pass though
the intersection without stopping.
D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 25
and up to 40 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion
becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some
combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or
high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles
not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 40
and up to 60 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many
agencies to be thelimit of acceptable delay. These high delay
values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and
high We ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.
>F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60
sec per vehicle_ This level, considered to be unacceptable to most
drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow
rates exceed the capacity of the intersection_ It may also occur at
high v/c ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor
progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing
causes to such delay levels.
-124-
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-7A.HC0 Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
_512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
------------------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656
(E -W) Route 657
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
Other Information ......... Existing Conditions AM PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
----------------------------------
EastboundWestbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's (o)
SU/RV'S (o}
CV's (a)
PCE's
------------
1 1 < 0
N
82 75 52
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
1 1 < 0
N
7 180 56
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
0 > 1 1
53 30 10
.95 .95 .95'
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
0 > 1. 1
26 54 119
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
--------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-uz)
Maneuver
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through. Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-125-
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-7A.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
106
218
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
1224
1074
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
1224
1074
Prob. of Queue -Free
State:
0.99
0.87
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major
Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
134
248
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
1480
1306
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
1480
1306
Prob. of Queue -Free
State:
0.99
0.93
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 3: TH from Minor
Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
448
446
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
635
636
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.92
0.92
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
586
587
Prob. of Queue -Free
State:
0.94
0.89
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor
Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
509
440
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
537
589
Major LT, Minor Tri
Impedance Factor:
SB
0.82
0.87
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
0.86
0.90
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
EB
L
due to Impeding Movements
0.75
0.89
Movement Capacity:
--------------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
404
524
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
950
Flow
Move
Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate
Cap
Cap
Delay
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement
(pcph)
(pcph)
(pcph)(sec/veh)
(veh)
-------
-----
(sec/veh)
---------
--------
NB
L
------
62
------
404
------
> 455
-------
10.1
0.9
C
NB
T
35
586
>
9.3
NB
R
12
1224
3.0
0.0
A
SB
L
30
524
> 565
7.6
0.6
B
SB
T
63
587
>
5.4
SB
R
138
1074
3.8
0.5
A
EB
L
95
1306
- 3.0 3.0
0.1
A
1.2
WB
L
8
1480
2.4
0.0
A
0.1
Intersection Delayl26=
2.9 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-7P.HC0 Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
TTniversity of Florida
,12 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 (E -W) Route 657
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst.... ............. CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
Other Information ......... Existing Conditions PM PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EastboundWestbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
----
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIS (a)
SU/RV's ( o )
Cv's (a)
PCE' S
------------
1 1 < 0
N
158 220 76
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
1 1 < 0
N
14 132 54
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
0 > 1 1
65 69 16
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
0 > 1 1
47 55 182
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
---------------
vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-121-
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-7P.HC0 Page 2
-- ------------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
272
168
Potential Capacity:: (pcph)
1008
1138
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1008
1138
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
---------------------------------------------------------
0.98
0.81
Step 2: LT from Major Street
-------------------.-------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
312
196
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1217
1383
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1217
1383
Prob. of Queue -Free: State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.99
0.87
Step 3: TH from Minor Street
---------------------------------------------------------
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
649
660
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
498
491
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.86
0.86
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
426
420
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
---------------------------------------------------------
0.81
0.85
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
NB
SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
746
666
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
392
436
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.73
0.69
Adjusted impedance Factor:
0.79
0.76
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.64
0.75
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
252
327
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------
(veh)
(sec/veh)
------
NB L 75 252 > 319
-------
21.8
------- -----
2.9
D
---------
NB T 80 426 >
19.9
NB R 19 1008
3.6
0.0
A
SB L 54 327 > 372
14.2
1.5
C
SB T 64 420 >
7.6
SB R 211 1138
3.9
0.8
A
EB L 183 1383
3.0
0.5
A
1.0
WB L 17 1217
3.0
0.0
A
0.2
Intersection Delay
-12&-
5.2 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g ESTH656P.HC0 Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
12 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
----------------------------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 SOUTH (E -W) Route 659
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst. .................. CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
Other Information ......... Existing Conditions AM PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
EastboundWestbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's ( o)
SU/RV's (%)
CV's (o)
PCE's
------------
0 1 < 0
N
51 99
.95 .95
0
---------------
0 > 1 0
N
94 51
.95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
0 > 0 < 0
99 106
.9 .95
0
1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-129-
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g ESTH656P.HC0 page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
106
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1224
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1224
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------..___--------------------------------------
0.90
Step 2: LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
158
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1441
Movement Capacity: (pcphy
1441
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.92
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.'"
of Queue -Free State:
0.92
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB
SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
259
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
750
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.92
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.92
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.92
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
691
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
950
Flow Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh)
-------- ------
(veh)
(sec/veh)
------ -------------
N,B L 1.21 691 >
------- -----
---------
885
5.6
1.3 B
5.6
NB R 123 1224 >
WB L 109 1441
2.7
0.2 A
1.8
Intersection Delay =
-130-
2.8 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g ESTH656-.HCO Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
,12 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 SOUTH (E -W) Route 659
Major Street Direction.... EW
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
Other Information ......... Existing Conditions PM PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
------ ---- - -----
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's ( e)
SU/RV's ( %)
CV's (o)
PCE's
------------
0 1 < 0
N
51 99
.95 .95
0
---------------
0 > 1 0
N
106 42
.95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
0 > 0 < 0
78 94i
.9 .95
0
1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap ( tg )
Time ( t f )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lef t Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-131-
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.lg ESTH656-.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street NB SB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
106
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1224
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1224
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.91
Step 2: LT from Major Street
---------------------------------------------------------
WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
158
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1441
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1441
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.91
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
0.91
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
NB SB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
262
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
747
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.91
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.91
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.91
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
682
Flow
Rate
Movement (pcph)
NB L 96
NB R 109
WB L 123
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg. 95
Move Shared Total Queue Approach
Cap Cap Delay Length LOS Delay
(pcph} (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh) (sec/veh)
682 >
1224 >
1441
892 5.2
1.0
B
5.2
2.7
0.2
A
2.0
Intersection Delay
-132
2.5 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-9A.HC0 Page 1
----------------------------
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
;12 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
--- - ---------
-----------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 North (E -W) Route 659
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
Other Information ......... Existing Conditions AM PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
----------------------------------
NorthboundSouthbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's ( o)
SU/RV's (o)
CV's ( o)
PCE's
------------
0 1 < 0
N
96 52
.95 .95
0
---------------
0 > 1 0
N
3 71
.95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
0 > 0 < 0
74 2
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gap (tg)
Time (tom)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-133-
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1.g E656-9A.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
128
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1193
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1193
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
1.00
Step 2: LT from Major Street
--------------------------------------------------------
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
156
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1445
Movement Capacity: (pcph).
1445
Prob. of Oueue-Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation. Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
of Queue -Free State:
1.00
---------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflictirg Flows: (vph)
206
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
805
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
803
Intersection Performance Summary
Avg.
950
Flow Move Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap Delay
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh) (veh)
-------- ------ ------ --------------------
(sec/veh)
WB L 86 803 >
-----
---------
809 5.0
0.3 A
5.0
WB R 2 1193 >
SB L 3 1445 2.5
0.0 A
0.1
Intersection Delay =
134
1.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-9P.HC0 Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
T7niversity of Florida
,12 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
- -----------------
--------------------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 North (E -W) Route 659
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
other Information ......... Existing Conditions PM PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
-------------------------------
NorthboundSouthbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's ( a)
SU/RV's (OU
)
CV's (%)
PCE's
------------
0 1 < 0
N
71 74
.95 .95
0
---------------
0 > 1 0
N
2 96
.95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
0 > 0 < 0
52 3
.95 .95
0
1.10 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gap (tg)
Time (til-)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2 .10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-135-
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g E656-9P.HC0 Page 2
-------------------------
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
114
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1212
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1212
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
153
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1449
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1449
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
1.00
TH Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
1700
RT Saturation Flow Rate: (pcphpl)
Major LT Shared Lane Prob.
(sec/veh)
of Queue -Free State:
1.00
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
217
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
793
Major LT, Minor TH
4.9
Impedance Factor:
1.00
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
1.00
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
1.00
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
792
intersection Performance Summary
intersection Delay =
-136-
0.9 sec/veh
Avg.
95a
Flow
Move
Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate
Cap
Cap
Delay
Length
LOS Delay
Movement (pcph)
(pcph)
(pcph)(sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
-------- ------
WB L 61
------
792
------
>
-------
-------
----- ---------
805
4.9
0.2
A 4.9
WB R 3
1212
>
SB L 2
1449
2.5
0.0
A 0.1
intersection Delay =
-136-
0.9 sec/veh
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 south of Route 7
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... Existing Conditions
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES. ......................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
41 / 59
LANE WID'T'H(FT).............................
10
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E f
f
f
LOS T B R w
d
HV
A 2 1.8 2.2 1
.9
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 147
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 155
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
A 99 .04
B 394 .16 _
C 788 .32
D 1408 .57
E 2471 1
-137-
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B
- 13 8-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 south of Route 7
ANALYST..............n CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS .... 4AM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION..._ Existing Conditions
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR............
..............
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
41 / 59
LANE WIDTH (FT)....... ....................
10
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG.
WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E
f
f
f
LOS T B R
w
d
HV
--- ----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2
-----
.84
----- -----
.95
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5
.84
.95
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5
.84
.95
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6
.84
.95
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6
.87
.95
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 171
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 180
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
A 87 .04
B 348 .16
C 695 .32
D 1243 .57
E 2259 1
139-
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B
-140-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ...................
2---- ------
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
32 / 68
LANE WIDTH(FT).............................
12
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E f
f
f
LOS T B R w
--- -----
d
HV
----- ----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2 1
-----
.9
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 326
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 343
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
A 99 .04
B 394 .16
C 788 .32
D 1408 .57
E 2471 1
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: -'Hl-
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C
-142-
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Version 2.4g
08-05-1999
Center For Microcomputers
In Transportation
Streets: (E -W) Route 657
(N -S) Route 656
Analyst: CTC
File Name: RB656-7A.HC9
Area Type: Other
8-5-99 AM PEAK
Comment: 2005 Residential
Build -out
Eastbound
Westbound Northbound
Southbound
L T R
---- ---- ----
L T
----
R
L T R
I L T R
No. Lanes
1 1 1
----
1 1
----
1
---- ---- ----
0 > 1 1
---- ---- ----
0 > 1 1
Volumes
158 163 64
118 398
33
65 44 21
48 88 215
PHF or PK15
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.95 0.95
0.95
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W (ft)
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
Grade
0
0
0
0
a Heavy Veh
2 2 2
2 2
2
2 2 2
2 2 2
Parking
N N
N N
N N
N N
Bus Stops
0
0
0
0
Con. Peds
0
0
0
0
Ped Button
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
Arr Type
3 3 3
3 3
3
3 3
3 3
RTOR Vols
13
6
4
43
Lost Time
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5
6 7 8
EB Left *
NB Left
Thru *
Thru
Right *
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left *
SB Left
Thru *
Thru
Right *
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green 74.OA
Green 38.OP
Yellow/AR 4.0
Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: ##1 ##5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
v Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
----- -----------
Ratio
Ratio Delay LOS
Delay LOS
EB L 357 571
-----
0.465
----- ----- ---
0.625 8.4 B
----- ---
7.0 B
T 1164 1863
0.148
0.625 6.0 B
R 990 1583
0.054
0.625 5.6 B
WB L 707 1131
0.175
0.625 6.1 B
6.8 B
T 1164 1863
0.360
0.625 7.1 B
R 990 1583
0.029
0.625 5.6 B
NB LT 444 1365
0.257
0.325 19.3 C
i9.1 C
R 515 1583
0.035
0.325 17.9 C
SB LT 521 1602
0.277
0.325 19.5 C
19.8 C
R 515 1583
0.352
0.325 20.1 C
Intersection
Delay = 11.0
sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0
sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.426
-143
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-05-1999
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E -W) Route 657 (N -S) Route 656
Analyst: CTC File Name: RB656-7P.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-5-99 pM PEAK
Comment: 2005 Residential Build -out
Eastbound Westbound NorthboundSouthbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Prase Combi
n
1 1 1
285 464 93'.
0.95 0.95 0.95.
12.0 12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3 3
19
3.00 3.00 3.00
ation 1 2
1 1 1
96 280 32
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3 3
6
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
Signal Operatic
3 4
0 > 1 1
80 110 46
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3
9
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
)ns
5
0 > 1 1
110 82 304
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3
61
3.00 3.00 3.00
---------------
6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 74.OA Green 38 -OP
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ----
EB L 505 808 0.594 0.625 10.1 B 8.2 B
T 1164 1863 0.419 0.625 7.5 B
R 990 1583 0.079 0.625 5.7 B
r"nn A-1� n 7 ! �!1 C 7 5 R 6 7 B
WB L G/V YAG V.3, V.62 5
T 1164 1863 0.253 0.625 6.5 B
R 990 1583 0.028 0.625 5.5 B
NB LT 392 1208 0.510 0.325 22.1 C 21.4 C
R 515 1583 0.076 0.325 18.1 C
SB LT 325 1001 0.621 0.325 24.7 C 23.0 C
R 515 1583 0.497 0.325 21.7 C
Intersection Delay = 12.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec CfAtical v/c (x) = 0.603
1 1 1
96 280 32
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3 3
6
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
Signal Operatic
3 4
0 > 1 1
80 110 46
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3
9
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
)ns
5
0 > 1 1
110 82 304
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3
61
3.00 3.00 3.00
---------------
6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 74.OA Green 38 -OP
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ----
EB L 505 808 0.594 0.625 10.1 B 8.2 B
T 1164 1863 0.419 0.625 7.5 B
R 990 1583 0.079 0.625 5.7 B
r"nn A-1� n 7 ! �!1 C 7 5 R 6 7 B
WB L G/V YAG V.3, V.62 5
T 1164 1863 0.253 0.625 6.5 B
R 990 1583 0.028 0.625 5.5 B
NB LT 392 1208 0.510 0.325 22.1 C 21.4 C
R 515 1583 0.076 0.325 18.1 C
SB LT 325 1001 0.621 0.325 24.7 C 23.0 C
R 515 1583 0.497 0.325 21.7 C
Intersection Delay = 12.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec CfAtical v/c (x) = 0.603
0 > 1 1
80 110 46
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3
9
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
)ns
5
0 > 1 1
110 82 304
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(Y/N) N
3 3
61
3.00 3.00 3.00
---------------
6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 74.OA Green 38 -OP
Yellow/AR 4.0 Yellow/AR 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ---- ----
EB L 505 808 0.594 0.625 10.1 B 8.2 B
T 1164 1863 0.419 0.625 7.5 B
R 990 1583 0.079 0.625 5.7 B
r"nn A-1� n 7 ! �!1 C 7 5 R 6 7 B
WB L G/V YAG V.3, V.62 5
T 1164 1863 0.253 0.625 6.5 B
R 990 1583 0.028 0.625 5.5 B
NB LT 392 1208 0.510 0.325 22.1 C 21.4 C
R 515 1583 0.076 0.325 18.1 C
SB LT 325 1001 0.621 0.325 24.7 C 23.0 C
R 515 1583 0.497 0.325 21.7 C
Intersection Delay = 12.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec CfAtical v/c (x) = 0.603
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY version 2.4g 08-05-1999
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-- ------------------------------
atreets: (E -W) Route 659 (N -S) Route 656
Analyst: CTC File Name: RB656-9A.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-5-99 AM PEAK
Comment: 2005 Residential Build -Out
No. Lanes
volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combi
r_
--------------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R I L T R I L T R
1 1 < 0
26 38 109
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2'
N N
01
0
(YIN) N
3 3
12
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
ation 1 2
1 1 < 0
73 76 101
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
221
3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operatic
3 4
1 1 < 0
161 172 70
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2'
N N
O
0'
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
)ns
5
1 1 < 0
31 106 14
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
--------------
6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left
Thru * * Thru
Right * * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.OA 50.OA Green 4.OA 47.OA
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:.
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ----------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ---
EB L 554 1770 0.049 0.517 9.3 B 9.8 B
TR 859 1662 0.165 0.517 9.9 B
WB L 510 1177 0.151 0.433 13.3 B 13.6 B
TR 745 1720 0.219 0.433 13.8 B
NB L 488 1220 0.346 0.400 16.4 C 16.4 C
TR 713 1782 0.358 0.400 16.4 C
SB L 289 1770 0.114 0.433 14.1 B 13.5 B
TR 793 1830 0.160 0.433 13.4 B
Intersection Delay = 14.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.291
145
1 1 < 0
73 76 101
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
221
3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operatic
3 4
1 1 < 0
161 172 70
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2'
N N
O
0'
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
)ns
5
1 1 < 0
31 106 14
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
--------------
6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left
Thru * * Thru
Right * * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.OA 50.OA Green 4.OA 47.OA
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:.
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ----------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ---
EB L 554 1770 0.049 0.517 9.3 B 9.8 B
TR 859 1662 0.165 0.517 9.9 B
WB L 510 1177 0.151 0.433 13.3 B 13.6 B
TR 745 1720 0.219 0.433 13.8 B
NB L 488 1220 0.346 0.400 16.4 C 16.4 C
TR 713 1782 0.358 0.400 16.4 C
SB L 289 1770 0.114 0.433 14.1 B 13.5 B
TR 793 1830 0.160 0.433 13.4 B
Intersection Delay = 14.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.291
145
1 1 < 0
161 172 70
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2'
N N
O
0'
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
)ns
5
1 1 < 0
31 106 14
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
--------------
6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left
Thru * * Thru
Right * * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.OA 50.OA Green 4.OA 47.OA
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:.
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ----------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ---
EB L 554 1770 0.049 0.517 9.3 B 9.8 B
TR 859 1662 0.165 0.517 9.9 B
WB L 510 1177 0.151 0.433 13.3 B 13.6 B
TR 745 1720 0.219 0.433 13.8 B
NB L 488 1220 0.346 0.400 16.4 C 16.4 C
TR 713 1782 0.358 0.400 16.4 C
SB L 289 1770 0.114 0.433 14.1 B 13.5 B
TR 793 1830 0.160 0.433 13.4 B
Intersection Delay = 14.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.291
145
1 1 < 0
31 106 14
0.95 0.95 0.95
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
--------------
6 7 8
EB Left * * NB Left
Thru * * Thru
Right * * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.OA 50.OA Green 4.OA 47.OA
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:.
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ----------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ---
EB L 554 1770 0.049 0.517 9.3 B 9.8 B
TR 859 1662 0.165 0.517 9.9 B
WB L 510 1177 0.151 0.433 13.3 B 13.6 B
TR 745 1720 0.219 0.433 13.8 B
NB L 488 1220 0.346 0.400 16.4 C 16.4 C
TR 713 1782 0.358 0.400 16.4 C
SB L 289 1770 0.114 0.433 14.1 B 13.5 B
TR 793 1830 0.160 0.433 13.4 B
Intersection Delay = 14.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.291
145
EB Left * * NB Left
Thru * * Thru
Right * * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left * SB Left
Thru * Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.OA 50.OA Green 4.OA 47.OA
Yellow/AR 0.0 5.0 Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:.
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
----- ----------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ---
EB L 554 1770 0.049 0.517 9.3 B 9.8 B
TR 859 1662 0.165 0.517 9.9 B
WB L 510 1177 0.151 0.433 13.3 B 13.6 B
TR 745 1720 0.219 0.433 13.8 B
NB L 488 1220 0.346 0.400 16.4 C 16.4 C
TR 713 1782 0.358 0.400 16.4 C
SB L 289 1770 0.114 0.433 14.1 B 13.5 B
TR 793 1830 0.160 0.433 13.4 B
Intersection Delay = 14.2 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle, L = 12.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.291
145
145
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY version 2.4g 08-05-1999
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
-------------------- ----
Streets: (E -W) Route 659 (N -S) Route 656
Analyst: CTC File Name: RB656-9P.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-5-99 PM PEAK
Comment: 2005 Residential Build -Out
-----------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
----
No, Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combi
1
1 <
0
23
79
164
0.95
0.95
0.95
12.0
12.0
*
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
*
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
12
3.00
3.00
3.00
----------------
nation 1
2
1
1 <
0
77
48
63
0.95
0.95
0.95!
12.0
12.0
*
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
*
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
22
3.00
3.00
3.00
----------------
Signal Operatic
3
4
5
1
1 <
0
120
116
84'
0.95
0.95
0.95
12.0
12.0
*
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
*
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
3.00
3,00
----------------
)ns
7
8
5
1
1 <
0
49
228
38
0.95
0.95
0.95
12.0
12.0
*
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
*
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
�I
3.00
3.00
---------------
6
7
8
EB Left
*
*
NB Left
Thru
*
*
Thru
Right
*
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
*
SB Left
Thea.
*
Thru
Right
g
*
Right
Peds
eds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
g
WB Right
g
Green
10.OA
50.OA
Green 4.OA
47.OA
Yellow/AR
0.0
5.0
(Yellow/AR 0.0
4.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs
Phase combination
order: #1 #2
#5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance
Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
---
Delav
-----
LOS
--
-----
EB L
----
671
-------
1770
-----
0.036
----- -----
0.517 9.2
B
10.5
B
TR
867
1679
0.280
0.517 10.6
B
WB L
380
878
0.213
0.433 13.8
B
13.4
B
TR
752
1735
0.125
0.433 13.2
B
NB L
275
687
0.459
0.400 18.0
C
16.7
C
TR
698
1746
0.301
0.400 15.9
C
SB L
358
1770
0.145
0.433 15.1
C
14.9
B
TR
790
1823
0.354
0.433 14.8
B
Intersection
Delay-
14.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS
= B
Lost Time/Cycle, L
---------------------------------------------------------------
= 9.0
sec Critical
v/c(x) =
0.364
-146-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
65 / 35
LANE WIDTH(FT)............................
12
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E f
f
f
LOS T B R w
d
HV
A 2 1.8 2.2 1
.9
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 375
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 395
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
A 99 .04
B 394 .16
C 788 .32
D 1408 .57
E 2471 1
-147
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g RB656-9A.HC0 Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 (E -W) Route 659
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
Other Information ......... 2005 Residential Build -Out AM PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
----------------------------------------------------- -
NorthboundSouthbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's ( a)
SU/RV's (o)
CV's ( o)
PCE IS
------------
1 1 < 0
N
161 172 70
.9 .95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
1 1 < 0
N
31 106 14
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
1 1 < 0
26 38 109'
.9 .95 .95!
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
1 1 < 0
73 76 101
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
--------------
vehicle
Critical
Follo,a-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-348-
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g RB656-9A.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
218
120
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1074
1204
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1074
1204
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.89
0.89
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
255
127
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1296
1491
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1296
1491
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.97
0.87
Step 3: TH from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
557
586
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
557
537
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.84
0.84
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
470
453
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
-----------------------------------------------------=--
0.81
0.90
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
627
642
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
459
450
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.76
0.69
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.82
0.76
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.73
0.67
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
335
303
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg.
950
Flow Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------
(veh)
(sec/veh)
------
EB L 32 303
-------
13.3
-------
0.3
-----
C
---------
EB T 44 453 >
6.5
EB R 127 1204 > 844
5.3
0.9
B
WB L 85 335
14.4
1.1
C
WB T 88 470 >
9.4
WB R 117 1074 > 692
7.4
1.4
B
NB L 197 1491
2.8
0.5
A
1.1
SB L 36 1296
2.9
0.0
A
0.6
Intersection Dela&49=
4.1 sec/veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g RB656-9P.HC0 Page 1
`Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
------------------------------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 (E -W) Route 659
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
other Information ......... 2005 Residential Build -out PM PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
-L-- T R -L-- T R L T R -L-- T -R--
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIs (o)
SU/RV's (%)
CV's (o)
PCE'S
------------
1 1 < 0
N
120 116 84!
.9 .95 .95'
0
1.10
--------------
1 1 < 0
N
49 228 38
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
1 1 < 0
i
23 79 164
.9 .95 .95,
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
1 1 < 0
77 48 63
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
--------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf )
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-150-
It HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g RB656-9P_HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
-------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
166
260
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1141
1022
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1141
1022
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
-----------------------------------------------
0.94
0.81
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
----------------------
210
280
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1361
1261
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1361
1261
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.96
0.88
Step 3: TH from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
631
655
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
509
494
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.85
0.85
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
431
419
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.87
0.78
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
--------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflictina Flows: (vph)
739
670
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
395
433
Major LT, Minor TrI
Impedance Factor:
0.66
0.74
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.74
0.80
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.60
0.75
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
238
323
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg.
95-0.
Flow Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------
(veh)
(sec/veh)
EB L 29 323
-------
12.2
-------
0.2
-----
C
---------
EB T 91 419 >
9.0
EB R 190 1022 > 697
8.6
2.2
B
WB L 89 238
24.1
1.9
D
WB T 56 431 >
13.8
WB R 73 1141 > 665
6.7
0.8
B
NB L 146 1261
3.2
0.4
A
1.2
SB L 57 1361
2.8
0.0
A
0.4
Intersection Delay151= 5.1 sec/veh
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 south of Route 7
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM Peak
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 7-3-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential Build
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
46 / 54
LANE WIDTH (FT) ......................... ...
10
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E f
f
f
LOS T B R w
d
----- -----
HV
--- ----- ----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2 .84
.98
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5 .84
.98
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5 .84
.98
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6 .84
.98
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6 .87
.98
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 300
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 316
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
A 90 .04
B 359 .16
C 717 .32
D 1283 .57
E 2331 1
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS:_ 52-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 South of Route 7
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS.._.. 7-3-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential. Build
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
---
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR. FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
49 / 51
LANE WIDTH(FT).............................
10
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E f
f
f
LOS T B R w
---
d
HV
----- ----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2 1
-----
.9
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98.
C 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 363
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 382
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
------------ -----
A 99 .04
B 394 .16
C 788 .32
D 1408 .57
E 2471 1
- 153 -
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B
-154-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM Peak
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 07-05-99
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential Build
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES ..................
---
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
68 / 32
LANE WIDTH(FT).............................
12
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG.
WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E
f
f
f
LOS T B R
w
d
HV
--- ----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2
-----
1
-----
.9
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5
1
.9
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5
1
.9
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6
1
.9
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6
1
.9
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 326
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 343
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
------------ -----
A 99 .04
B 394 .16
C 788 .32 -
D 1408 .57
E 2471 1
-155-
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B
-156-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential Build
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
--------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
65 / 35
LANE WIDTH(FT).............................
12
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG.
WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E
f
f
f
LOS T B R
---
w
d
HV
----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2
-----
1
----- -----
.9
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5
1
.9
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5
1
.9
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6
1
.9
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6
1
.9
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME (vph) : 655
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 689
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
------------ -----
A 99 .04
B 394 .16
C 788 .32 -
D 1408 .57
E 2471 1
-157-
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: C
-158-
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-05-1999
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
---------------------------
--reets: (E -W) Route 657 (N -S) Route 656
Analyst: CTC File Name: FB656-7A.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-5-99 AM PEAK
Comment: 2005 Residential + Retail Build -Out
Eastbound
L T R
-------------------------
Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R I L T R
No. Lanes
----
1
---- ---- I
1 1
---- ----
1 1
----
1
--------
0 > 1
----
1
---- ---- ----
0 > 1 1
Volumes
158
190 64
36 416
124
65 44
25
58 88 215
PHF or PK15
0.95
0.95 0.95
0.95 0.95
0.95
0.95 0.95
0.95
0.95 0.95 0.95
Lane W (ft)
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
Grade
0
0
0
0
. Heavy Veh
2
2 2
2 2
2
2 2
2
2 2 2
Parking
N
N
N N
N N
N N
Bus Stops
0
0
0
0
Con. Peds
0
0
0
0
Ped Button
(YIN)
N
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
Arr Type
3
3 3
3 3
3
3
3
3 3
RTOR Vols
13
25
5
43
Lost Time
3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
Pron. Share
Prop. Prot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
,base Combination
1 2
3 4
5
6 7 8
EB Left
* *
NB Left
Thru
* *
Thru
Right
* *
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
*
SB Left
Thru
*
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
10.0A
53.OA
Green 4.OA 44.OA
Yellow/AR
0.0
5.0
Yellow/AR 0.0
4.0
Cycle Length: 120
secs Phase combination order: #1
#2 #5
#6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
-----
EB L
----
240
-------
1770
-----
0.692
----- -----
0.542 16.5
---
C
-----
11.9 B
T
1009
1863
0.198
0.542 9.1
B
R
857
1583
0.062
0.542 8.4
B
WB L
474
1035
0.080
0.458 11.8
B
14.5 B
T
854
1863
0.513
0.458 15.3
C
R
726
1583
0.145
0.458 12.2
B
NB LT
482
1285
0.237
0.375 16.7
C
16.5 C
R
594
1583
0.035
0.375 15.3
C
SB LT
697
1706
0.22-1
0.408 14.9
B
15.2 C
R
646
1583
0.280
0.408 15.4
C
Intersection
Delay =
14.1 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time/Cycle,
L = 9.0
sec Ctical v/c(x)
= 0.441
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g
08-05-1999
Center For Microcomputers
In Transportation
Streets (E
-W) Route
657
(N -S) Route 656
Analyst: CTC
File Name: FB656-7P.HC9
Area Type: Other
8-5-99 PM PEAK
Comment: 2005 Residential
+
Retail Build -Out
---------------------------------------------------------
Eastbound
Westbound Northbound
Southbound
L T
R
L T R
L T R
L T
---- ----
R
----
No. Lanes
---- ----
1 1
----
1
---- ---- ----
1 1 1
---- ---- ----
0 > 1 1
0 > 1
1
Volumes
285 550
93
47 374 127
80 110
60
139 82
304
PHF or PK15
0.95 0.95
0.95
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.95 0.95
0.95
Lane W (ft)
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
Grade
0
0
0
0
, Heavy Veh
2 2
2
2 2 2
2 2
2
2 2
2
Parking
N N
N N
N N
N N
Bus Stops
0
0
0
0
Con. Peds
0
0
0
0
Ped Button
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
Arr Type
3 3
3
3 3 3
3
3
3
3
RTOR Vols
19
25
12
51
Lost Time
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1
2
3 4
5
6 7
8
EB Left
*
*
NB Left
Thru
*
*
Thru
Right
*
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
*
SB Left
Thru
*
Thru
Right
g
*
Right
eds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
19.OA
49.OA
Green 4.OA
40.OA
Yellow/AR
0.0
4.0
Yellow/AR 0.0
4.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2
#5 #6
---------------------------------------------------------------
'
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane
Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio Ratio Delay
LOS Delay
LOS
EB L
395
1770
0.759 0.575 16.3
C 12.1
B
T
1071
1863
0.541 0.575 10.6
B
R
910
1583
0.086 0.575 7.4
B
WB L
97
232
0.507 0.417 20.2
C 16.9
C
T
776
1863
0.508 0.417 17.2
C
R
660
1583
0.164 0.417 14.2
B
NB LT
397
1162
0.504 0.342 21.2
C 20.4
C
R
541
1583
0.092 0.342 17.3
C
SB LT
588
1568
0.395 0.375 18.0
C 18.2
C
R
594
1583
0.431 0.375 18.4
C
Intersection Delay = 15.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS
= C
Lost Time/Cycle, L =
9.0
sec _9Wtical v/c(x) =
0.548
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g
08-05-1999
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
Streets: (E
-----------------=====____________
-W) Route 659
(N -S) Route 656
Analyst: CTC
File Name: FB656-9P.HC9
Area Type:
Other
8-5-99 PM PEAK
Comment: 2005
Residential + Retail Build -Out
Eastbound
-------------------------------------
Westbound Northbound
Southbound
L T R
---- ---- --------
L T R
L T R
L T
R
No. Lanes
1 1 < 0
---- ----
1 1 < 0
---- ---- ----
1 1 < 0
---- ----
1 1
----
< 0
Volumes
23 94 179
77 64 110
135 131 84
64 271
38
PHF or PK15
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.95 0.95 0.95
0.95 0.95
0.95
Lane W (ft)
12.0 12.0
12.0 12,.0
12.0 12.0
12.0 12.0
Grade
0
0
0
0
. Heavy Veh
2 2 2
2 2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2
Parking
N N
N N
N N
N N
Bus Stops
0
0
0
0
Con. Peds
0
0
0
0
Ped Button
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
Arr Type
3 3
3 3
3 3
3 3
RTOR Vols
12
22
0
0
Lost Time
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00 3.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5
6 7
8
EB Left
* *
NB Left
Thea.
* *
Thru
Right
* *
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
*
SB Left
Thru
*
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
10.OA 50.OA
Green 4.OA 47.OA
Yellow/AR
0.0 5.0
Yellow/AR 0.0 4.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
#6
v
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
v/c g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
-----
Cap Flow
----
Ratio Ratio Delay LOS
Delay
LOS
EB L
-------
558 1770
----- ----- ----- ---
0.043 0.517 9.3 B
-----
10.8
B
TR
870 1684
0.315 0.517 10.9 B
WB L
343 791
0.236 0.433 13.9 B
13.8
B
TR
737 1700
0.217 0.433 13.8 B
NB L
227 567
0.626 0.400 22.3 C
18.5
C
TR
702 1754
0.322 0.400 16.1 C
SB L
331 1770
0.202 0.433 16.0 C
15.5
C
TR
792 1828
0.410 0.433 15.3 C
Intersection
Delay = 14.9 sec/veh Intersection LOS
= B
Lost Time/Cycle,
L = 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.456
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g FB656-9A.HC0 Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida -
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 (E -W) Route 659
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99
other Information......... 2005 Residential + Retail Build -Out A
M PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
NorthboundSouthbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- --
No. Lanes 0
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s (%)
SU/RV's (%)
Cv's (a)
PCE's
------------
1 1 < 0
N
164 175 70
.9 .95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
1 1 < 0
NI
35 119 14
.95 .95 .95'
0
1.10
----------------
1 1 < o
26 43 1,14
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
1 1 <
73 76 110
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
--------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
-162-
It HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g FB656-9A.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
BB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
-----------------------
221
132
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1070
1187
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1070
1187
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.88
0.89
Step 2: LT from Major Street
------------ -------------------------------------------
------------------
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
258
140
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1292
1470
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1292
1470
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
-----------------------------------------------------
0.97
0.86
Step 3: TH from Minor Street
- -----------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
580
610
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
541
522
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.84
0.84
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
453
437
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
--------------------------------------------------------
0.81
0.89
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
---------------------------------------------------------
WB
EB
Confli.cti ng Flows: (vph)
655
670
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
442
433
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.74
0167
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.80
0.75
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.71
0.66
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------------
314
285
intersection
Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec/veh)
-------- ------ ------ ------
(veh)
(sec/veh)
EB L 30 285
-------
14.1
-------
0.3
-----
C
---------
EB T 50 437 >
6.9
EB R 132 1187 > 807
5.8
1.0
B
WB L 85 314
15.7
1.2
C
WB T 88 453 >
9.9
WB R 128 1070 > 688
7.6
1.6
B
NB L 200 1470
2.8
0.5
A
1.1
SB L 41 1292
2.9
0.0
A
0.6
Intersection Delay163= 4.3 sec/veh
HCS: Unsi.gnalized Intersections Release 2.1g FB656-9P.HC0 Page 1
Center For Microcomputers In Transportation
University of Florida
512 Weil Hall
Gainesville, FL 32611-2083
Ph: (904) 392-0378
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Streets: (N -S) Route 656 (E -W) Route 659
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... CTC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/5/99•
other Information......... P005 Residential + Retail Build -Out P
M PEAK
Two-way Stop -controlled Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------------
NorthboundSouthbound Eastbound westbound
L T R L T R L T R -L-- T R
No. Lanes
Stop/Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIs (o)
SU/RV's (o)
CV's ( o)
PCE Is
------------
1 1 < 0
N
135 131 84
.9 .95 .95
0
1.10
---------------
1 1 < 0
N
64 271 38
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10
----------------
1 1 < 0
23 94 179
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
----------------
Adjustment Factors
1 1 < 0
77 64 110
.95 .95 .95
0
1.10 1.10 1.10
---------------
Vehicle
Critical
Follow-up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
164v
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g FB656-9P.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
182
305
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
1120
970
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
1120
970
Prob. of Oueue-Free
State:
0.89
0.79
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major
Street
SB
NB
------------_--------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
226
325
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
1338
1200
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
1338
1200
Prob. of Oueue-Free
State:
0.94
0.86
-------------------•--------------------------------------
Step 3: TH from Minor
Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
724
748
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
455
442
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.81
0.81
Movement Capacity:
(pcph)
371
360
Prob. of Queue -Free
State:
0.80
0.70
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows:
(vph)
848
796
Potential Capacity:
(pcph)
342
366
Major LT, Minor TH
>
Impedance Factor:
17.9
0.57
0.65
Adjusted Impedance
Factor:
0.66
0.73
Capacity Adjustment
Factor
NB
due to Impeding Movements
0.52
0.65
Movement Capacity:
--------------------------------------------------------
(pcph)
178
237
Intersection Performance Summary
Intersection Dela165� 7.0 sec/veh
Avg.
95o
r
Flow
Move
Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate
Cap
Cap
Delay
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement
(pcph)
(pcph)
(pcph)
( sec/veh)
(veh)
(sec/veh)
--------
EB
L
------
26
------
237
------
-------
17.1
-------
0.3
-----
C
---------
EB
T
109
360
>
12.5
EB
R
207
970
> 612
12.1
3.4
C
WB
L
89
178
40.0
2.9
E
WB
T
74
371
>
17.9
WB
R
128
1120
> 644
8.1
1.5
B
NB
L
165
1200
3.5
0.5
A
1.3
SB
L
74
1338
2.8
0.0
A
0.5
Intersection Dela165� 7.0 sec/veh
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS .... ,PM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS...... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential + Retail Build
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
63 / 37
LANE WIDTH(FT).............................
12
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG.
WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E
f
f
f
LOS T B R
w
d
HV
--- ----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2
-----
1
----- -----
.9
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5
1
.9
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5
1
.9
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6
1
.9
-98
E 2 1.6 1.6
1
.9
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 576
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 606
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
A 99 .04
B 394 .16
C 788 .32 -
D 1408 .57
E 2471 i
-166-
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS
-167-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 655 west of Route 656
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... PM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential + Retail Build
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
63 / 37
LANE WID'T'H(FT)............................1
12
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG.
WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E
f
f
f
LOS T B R
w
d
----- -----
HV
--- ----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2
-----
.84
.95
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5
.84
.95
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5
.84
.95
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6
.84
.95
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6
.87
.95
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph): 745
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 784
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
------------ -----
A 88 .04
B 349 .16
C 698 .32 -
D 1249 .57
E 2269 1
-168-
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: D
-169-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 south of Route 7
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005 Residential + Retail Build
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL
VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
48 / 52
LANE WIDTH(FT).............................
10
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG.
WIDTH IN
FT.)...
6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E
f
f
f
LOS T B R
w
d
----- -----
HV
--- ----- ----- -----
A 2. 1.8 2.2
-----
.84
.95
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5
.84
.95
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5
.84
.95
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6
.84
.95
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6
.87
.95
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
---------------------------------------------------------
INPUT VOLUME(vph) 315
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 332
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
A 88 .04
B 349 .16
C 698 .32 -
D 1249 .57
E 2269 1
-170-
LOS FOR GIVEN CONDITIONS: B
-171-
1985 HCM:TWO-LANE HIGHWAYS
FACILITY LOCATION.... Route 659 south of Route 7
ANALYST .............. CTC
TIME OF ANALYSIS..... AM PEAK
DATE OF ANALYSIS..... 04-29-1999
OTHER INFORMATION.... 2005,Residential + Retail Build
A)
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
PERCENTAGE OF TRUCKS ........................
2
PERCENTAGE OF BUSES .........................
0
PERCENTAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.........
0
DESIGN SPEED (MPH) ..........................
50
PEAK HOUR FACTOR ............................
.95
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION (UP/DOWN)..........
48 / 52
LANE WIDTH(FT).............................
10
USABLE SHOULDER WIDTH (AVG. WIDTH IN
FT.)...
.6
PERCENT NO PASSING ZONES ....................
100
B)
CORRECTION FACTORS
-------------------------------------------------------------
LEVEL TERRAIN
E E E f
f
f
LOS T B R w
d
HV
--- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
A 2 1.8 2.2 1
-----
.9
.98
B 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
C 2.2 2 2.5 1
.9
.98
D 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
E 2 1.6 1.6 1
.9
.98
C)
LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS
-----------
-------------------------------------
INPUI' VOLUME (vph) : 423
-------
------
ACTUAL FLOW RATE: 445
SERVICE
LOS FLOW RATE V/C
------------ -----
A 99 .04
B 394 .16
C 788 .32 -
D 1408 .57
E 2471 1
-172-
COUNTY of FREDEi 112K
Department of Planning and Development
5401665-5651
FAX: 5401673-0632
MEMORANDUM
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Christopher M. Mohn; Flanner R
Subject: Pruitt Corporation, Airport Business Parc, Building A:
Entrance Spacing Reduction Request
Date: October 22, 1999
Nature of Request:
The Planning Commission has received a request from Mr. John Lewis, on behalf of the above
referenced development, to permit a reduction in the entrance spacing requirements. A site plan was
approved for this project on August 20, 1999, and construction commenced immediately thereafter.
The approved site plan delineates two (2) entrances to the facility, which occur from Airport Road and
Admiral Byrd Drive, respectively. As approved, the Airport Road entrance would be located 150' to
the east of the existing entrance to the Children's Services of Virginia, Inc. office complex. The
minimum driveway spacing along major collector roads with a posted speed limit of 35 mph or less
is 150. The applicant is seeking a waiver of this requirement to facilitate revision of the approved site
plan to locate the Airport Road entrance 100' from the driveway serving the Children's Services of
Virginia, Inc. facility.
Planning Commission Authority:
Pursuant to Section 165-29B(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission may allow other
means of motor vehicle access which do not meet the minimum entrance spacing requirement. Such
means may involve the use of entrances which physically limit or restrict left turns, methods which
ensure one-way travel, or other methods.
Method of Alternative Means of Access:
Access through the proposed entrance has not been designed to limit or restrict left turn movement
or ensure one-way travel. Furthermore, the applicant has not identified any circulation controls
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Entrance Spacing Reduction Request
Page 2
October 22, 1999
intended to separate employee and customer vehicles from heavy truck traffic. The proximity of the
proposed entrance to the Children's Services of Virginia, Inc. complex creates an opportunity for more
vehicles to enter the roadway within a shorter distance, arguably compromising the safety and
efficiency of the traffic flow on Airport Road.
Staff Conclusion:
The Planning Commission has the authority to reduce the distance between entrances when methods
of controlling motor vehicle access that promote safe and convenient access to and from the site are
implemented. The applicant has not proposed an alternative design which controls access, advances
safe and convenient access to and from the site, and promotes efficient travel along Airport Road. Due
to the absence of such alternatives, the criteria established by the Zoning Ordinance to enable a waiver
of the entrance spacing requirements applicable to this project have not been satisfied.
Design Recommendation:
In accordance with the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance, it may be appropriate to favorably consider
this waiver request should the applicant choose to implement the following alternative methods of
access:
• Limit access via the proposed entrance to truck traffic only. Such restriction will directly
improve the safety of the entrance by eliminating the conflict possible between vehicle types,
prohibiting diving movements into the parking lot, and reducing the volume of traffic
accessing the site in close proximity to the Children's Services of Virginia, Inc. complex.
Install a second entrance to the facility from Airport Road dedicated exclusively to car access.
This entrance should be aligned directly with either of the existing entrances to Pegasus
Business Center. The provision of such an entrance would ensure that car access to the facility
would not be limited to Admiral Byrd Drive upon restriction of the proposed entrance to truck
traffic.
Attachments
CN M/ch
U: IChrislcommonlPC Memoslpruitt ent waiver.mem.wpd
PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.0
CONSULTING ENGINEERS tel.: (540)662-5792
302 South Braddock Street, Suite 200 fax.: (540)662-5793
Winchester, VA 22601 email: paintlew@mnsinc.com
13 OCTOBER 1999
Mr. Mike Ruddy, Zoning Administrator
Frederick County
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF DRIVEWAY SPACING
Dear Mike:
Enclosed you will find 10 copies of a site plan for Airport Business Parc Building A at the
Winchester Regional Airport. We currently have an approved Site Plan and the facility is under
construction. The enclosed site plan shows a variation of the access drive location from Airport
Road. As shown on this plan, the access drive does not meet the minimum spacing for access on
major collector roads for industrial entrances of 150'. The driveway into Virginia Children's
Services on the opposite side of the road is 100' west. This condition is an apparent violation of
Section 165-29.A.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
I request a reduction of the 150' requirement to 100' for this drive for the following reasons:
1. This entrance is designed to accommodate semi -truck and trailer traffic. Trucks will enter
the drive and proceed to the loading area at the rear of the building. The straight alignment
of the drive aisle to the point of access allows for the best truck maneuvering into the site.
It will also promote the shortest amount of time required for trucks to move from Airport
Road.
2. Truck traffic departing the loading area. will generally use the Admiral Byrd Drive access.
Trucks leaving Bays M, N and O will not be able to turn out to the western entrance sue to
a lack of maneuvering space. As this area continues to develop, there will be a traffic signal
installed at the intersection of Admiral Byrd Drive and Airport Road. The signal will
encourage west bound traffic to use the Admiral Byrd Drive access.
3. This entrance configuration was reviewed and approved by VDOT prior to final revisions.
Please put this item on the Agenda for November 3,
P.E., C.L.A.
cc:/ C. Pruitt
file: 9805025
PAINTER-LEWIS, P.L.C.
PROJECT HOPEa-•--
'HILDREN'S SERVICE_ THE PEOPLE- TO- TIIE-
PEOPLE
OF VIRGINIA, INC. HEALTH FOUNDATION
ZONED H-2 p
USE: OFFICE USE: ZONED M-1
1.50 ACRES U,E. WAREHOUSE/DISTR(QUTION
64-A=45G 4.62 ACRES
64-A
ADAMS LOT 40A
ZONED U6-2/FLEX-TECH
7� 64 ' AOFi)AE
PARCEL 19
64-A-45-19
CRUM ELECTRIC
ZONED M-1
USE: VACANT
3.0027 ACRES
s �
i
r� CORRIDOR
PARCEL. 4
64-A-45
ADAMS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
ZONED M-1/F(_EX-TECH
USE: VACANT
26.4476 ACRES
q i
C.
t
PROPOSED BUILDING
150,000 SF
rF ` = 7;75,30
CORRIDOR
i3
�3
f
i
7
111 .
I PARCEL A
I 64-A-40
ADAMS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
ZONED M-1 /FLEX- TECH
USE: VACANT
,i
23.6972 ACRES
100 0 100
A=528,72' ♦ < � i �t- x-;,��_�,,_ �T � I � k��<.: i
R=380.00' ♦ ,.��
4�/ Scale 1" _ 200
®R
PARCEL D
za�
64-A-40
A=219.96
Site Layout (reduced) Showing Approved R=430.00'
Entrance (Site Plan #31-99)
7 -- B U FFL I CK WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT
ROAD ZONED RA
USE: AIRPORT
.- G4 -A-78
A=54.9b'. t iii � �� •:'� - -;�
R 35, _ C�1 F'OAD1
S46 -51-36"W
25.00'
A=101.52'
R-370.00'
LAND USE: 150 -WAREHOUSING
PROPOSED GFA = 75,000 SF
TRIPS BASED ON 1000 SF GFA:
WEEKDAY: 4.96 X 75 = 372 TRIPS
AM PEAK HOUR: 0.57 X 75 = 42.7 TRIPS
PM PEAK HOUR: 0.60 X 75 = 45 TRIPS
TRUCKS WEEKDAY (5%): .05 X 366 = I6.3 TRIPS
TRUCKS PEAK HOLIR(51): 0.05 X 45 = 2.3 TRIPS
POSTED SPEED LIMIT= 45 MPH— 450+
ISTAhd 50 + SfGNT DIS1AIICE
J
r *INSTALL CG -12 RAMPS AS —_
DIRECTED B( VDOT ..�_-----�-'--
y — ----' — 7 _ —---
V_ 001 -HTRIS 1995 TRAFFIC: 1 � Rj'\1 I� L) -- ---
11 = At t'Q'RT RQAI 8� -w R - -LI I J_ _ — —
�'-
/ 411
-STORM SEWER AS REO'D STRIPE AS iS pWN
"bA7Cti E:i. )F "STOI. _
F -X. 1_+_',
/
IS' CMP ELEC. Box
/722 7b �{. -- --
TRAI _ !TION FROM / p
L To cc -s
T ,
3.56
L
R
bTtLLrHG RESTRICTION LINE5'R-
r
r i' ��• n 39.34'— -9 5'R
i
IaLLLL'
--
I MCH !il'HT
4U'R ,ri 6
SDR 21 WL
55.84'�—_----
/ 0 PVC
o SEE AR;
FOR AIa
m a SIDEWAIR u
c
P N�
A
m
N V{
I0 Z
v I Z
IN+ rn BAY O
z) I BAY N BAY M BAY L BAY K BAY J BAY I SAf M BAY C B„
PROPOSED BUILDING
I
C/
It I m I . 31 n1/� 1n or-
APPROVED
r
APPROVED ENTRANCE
(Site Plan #31-99)
LAND USE: 150—WAREHOUSING
PROPO`I'D GFA = 75,000 SF
TRIPE -EO Oto 1000 SF GFA: 0
WEEK. 4.86 X 75 _ 366 TRIPS
AM PL— HOUR: 0.57 X 75 = 42.7 TRIPS
PM PEAK HOUR: 0.60 X 75 = 45 TRIPS I I
TRUCKS WEEKDAY (57): .05 X 366 = 18.3 TRIPS I '
-- TRUCKS PEAK HOUR(5%): 0.05 X 45 = 2.3 TRIPS
I
TED SPEED LIMIT= 45 MPIl
— "-- -- �i
OS
SIGHT DISTAL CE = 4501+ SIGHT DISTANCE --
t j;'v1
MATCEijEX, PVMT, -
CMP
LIDt
IN . 725.111
CLEC. B0
It,V _ 722.7a
— k-
TkAN5iTIG
_ _.
_ Jam. r — -- —-- —-' — —-
gp ROW
- , AIRPORT ROAD_ - - -
.,TOP STOP" Iftl_
_� r -••`-c:.._.... .'.-.. ... _ t?l.�@ Fill;' -- --- - ^_ -
+fin -
75
Yll \1
['-[1- T�i
5n. to
SEE AA—
FOR AGGiIu31rAi.
SSDEWALK IhfJkhiAllGir
BAT O BAT N BAT YI MAI L 6A1 K BA1 J BAY I MAY N -
PROPOSED BUILDING
150,000 SF
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
5'k
2600
it
12—
�
e
v�
Y
1
N
U
Y
1z
3
Z
7
1)
1�
Iz
z
+fin -
75
Yll \1
['-[1- T�i
5n. to
SEE AA—
FOR AGGiIu31rAi.
SSDEWALK IhfJkhiAllGir
BAT O BAT N BAT YI MAI L 6A1 K BA1 J BAY I MAY N -
PROPOSED BUILDING
150,000 SF
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL