Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 03-04-98 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia MARCH 4, 1998 7.00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) January 7, 1998 Minutes ............................................. A 2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................. B 3) Committee Reports ................................................. C 4) Citizen Comments .................................................. D PUBLIC HEARING 5) REZONING #001-98, EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER, by Wrights Run, L.P. to rezone 82.1723 acres currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Industrial Light). This property is located on the south side of Tasker Road (relocated Rt. 642), and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 76-A-53 and 87-A-17 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... E 6) REZONING #002-98, TASKER ROAD AND WARRIOR ROAD COMMERCIAL, by Fred L. Glaize, H; Jasbo, Inc.; to rezone 38.1979 acres currently zoned RP (Residential Performance) to 132 (Business General). This property is located at the intersection of Tasker Road (relocated Rt. 642) and proposed Warrior Road, and approximately 1,000'+ east of the Tasker Road and Warrior Road intersection along the north side of Tasker Road; and is identified with Property Identification Numbers 75-A-104, 105 and 117 in the Opequon Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... F 2 7) REZONING #003-98, BRIARWOOD ESTATES, by SHIHO, Inc. to rezone 50.53 acres currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located on the east side of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656) between Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659) and Senseny Road (Rt. 657), and adjoins the existing Briarwood Estates subdivision and Carlisle Heights subdivision. It is identified with Property Identification Numbers 55 -A - 184B and 55-A-1 84C in the Stonewall Magisterial District. (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... G DISCUSSION ITEMS 8) Warrior Drive Revenue Sharing Application (Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... H 9) Other 0:WGENDAS\98C0VERS\PC3 4.AGN MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the the Frederick County- Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on January 7, 1998. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison, and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tiemey, Planning Director, Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, Planner H; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 1997 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of November 19, 1997 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 143 -2 - PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #017-96 of Denise McClearen for a Cottage Occupation to operate a dog grooming business. This property is located at 4784 Front Royal Pike and is identified with P.I.N. 94A-1- 11-4 through -9 in the Opequon Magisterial District. No Action Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner H, said that the applicant failed to post on her property the public hearing sign provided to him; therefore, advertising requirements have not been properly met and the Planning Commission will not be able to address this conditional use permit this evening. Chairman DeHaven asked if there was anyone in the audience who had come specifically to comment on this conditional use permit application. No one came forward to speak. Chairman DeHaven said that this conditional use permit will be readvertised and heard at a later date. Conditional Use Permit #020-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 125 -foot commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by the Estate of Charles K. Poole. This property is known as the Bowling Green Site, is located approximately 0.25 miles east on Route 688 from the intersection with Route 50, and is identified with P.I.N. 28-A-165 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, stated that the County adopted an amendment to the zoning ordinance in April of 1997 allowing commercial telecommunication facilities with an approved conditional use permit (CUP). Mr. Ruddy said that this amendment specified that the telecommunication facilities CUPS could be approved provided that residential properties, land use patterns, scenic areas, and properties of significant historic value were not negatively impacted. Mr. Willie Purtell, Vice President of Shenandoah Telecommunications Company (also known as Shentel) and Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager of Shenandoah Mobile Company, a subsidiary of Shentel, were present to represent the five CUP applications on the agenda. Mr. Purtell said that they are requesting five towers at five separate sites, two of which are monopole towers, and three lattice -type towers. Mr. Purtell said that all five towers will be built for one use initially; however, one tower will have two uses the day it goes into service, and all the towers will have available space for additional leasees. Beginning with the Bowling Green site, Mr. Ruddy stated that this will be a 125' monopole tower meeting all the required setbacks and he proceeded to review the background information and review agency comments. As there are no comparable facilities in existence within this search area, Mr. Ruddy said that it will be acceptable for this facility to be permitted with the understanding that other comparable service providers be Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 144 -3 - allowed to co -locate on the tower. Mr. Ruddy next read the staff's recommended conditions for approval. In order to alleviate the possible future abandonment of telecommunication facilities. the ordinance requires that procedures for guaranteeing the removal of such towers be established during the CUP process. In addressing this issue, Mr. Greisz requested that the County not require a monetary guarantee, but accept Shentel's business practice as the guarantee --he said that it was Shentel's accepted and understood business practice to remove any tower that no longer serves a purpose. Mr. Greisz said that they preferred not to deposit a monetary guarantee because they are a small company and this would tie up their operating assets. Addressing other matters, Mr. Greisz said that the landowner in this particular application has requested that Shentel provide a separate site access to the tower. Continuing with the discussion on tower abandonment, Chairman DeHaven stated that the ordinance requires a guarantee, but it does not specify what form the guarantee should take. Jay Cook, the Planning Commission's legal counsel, stated that the applicant should make an offer of the guarantee and the deciding body would determine if it was acceptable. The staff believed that in the absence of a monetary guarantee, whether it be a letter of credit, a bond, etc., the County did not have a guarantee that the tower will be removed. Mr. Purtell stated that towers are valuable assets and they do not anticipate taking them down. Mr. Purtell said that Shentel would give the county a written guarantee in the form of a letter stating that the tower will be removed, and they would also accept a condition on their conditional use permit; however, if the county was not satisfied with those guarantees, they would post a bond or a sinking fund. Mr. Purtell said that the cost estimate they were quoted for removal of a tower was $100.00 per foot; he said the average 250' tower also has about 30' of steel below ground as well. Mr. Greisz had also raised the issue of a landowner wanting to keep a tower up, for his personal use. Members of the Commission suggested that the property owner be required to apply for a conditional use permit, however, it was pointed out that there is no ordinance in place to cover the use of private antennaes. Mr. Sager stated that the County is progressing with its Emergency Management System. He inquired if the County would be able to use the tower service and at what cost, if there was a need to expand the communications effort. Mr. Purtell said that there are government rates available to various agencies such as fire and rescue, police, etc. that are substantially discounted off normal commercial rates. The question of liability was raised and Mr. Purtell said that his company would be liable and does carry insurance for that purpose. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Isaac Luttrell, adjoining property owner, stated that both he and his wife, who is a realtor, were very much concerned about the obtrusiveness of viewing the tower from their home and they were also concerned that the proposed tower location would affect their property value. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 145 -4 - BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #020-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a commercial telecommunications facility, consisting of a 125' monopole tower equipped for operation of a wireless communication services system, at the Bowling Green Ridge Site, with the following conditions: All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 4. A minor site plan is approved by the County. A shared entrance onto Route 688 is to be utilized. This will eliminate the additional entrance onto Route 688 that is within close proximity to the existing entrance. Conditional Use Permit #021-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 100' commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by Norman and Pansy Anderson. This property is known as the Little Timber Ridge Site and is located on Route 610, approximately 0.38 miles south of the intersection of Routes 50 and 610, and is identified with P.I.N. 27-A-8 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, read the background report and review agency comments. Mr. Ruddy explained that the zoning ordinance requires that towers of 100' in height be placed a minimum of 125' from any road right-of-way and 115' from adjoining properties used for purposes other than agriculture or orchard. He continued, stating that the applicant has proposed two alternative tower locations on this site: Option 2 complies with the setback requirements for a tower of the size proposed; Option 1, the applicant's preferred option, locates the tower directly adjacent to the adjoining Potomac Edison Company property. Mr. Ruddy stated that the Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance, if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or less impact. Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager for Shentel, the applicant, was representing this application. Mr. Greisz said that the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Norman Anderson, have requested that the tower be placed next to the electrical substation, rather than in the middle of their open field. Mr. Greisz felt that the location next to the electrical substation would mitigate the view of the tower somewhat by absorbing it into the substation. Mr. Greisz requested that they not be required to provide screening. He said that vegetative screening would probably be eaten because the site is within a pasture and board and fence screening would not be worthwhile. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 146 -5 - There were no public comments. Commission members were in favor of reducing the setbacks under Option #I in order for the tower to be placed next to the electrical substaion, rather than in the middle of the open field. Upon motion made by Mr. Moms and seconded by Mr. Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #021-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company for a commercial telecommunications facility, consisting of a 100' monopole tower equipped for operation of a wireless communications services system, and does also recommend reducing the required setbacks using Option #1, which places the tower directly adjacent to the adjoining Potomac Edison Company's electrical substation. This permit is recommended for approval with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. An acceptable guarantee shall be established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 4. A minor site plan shall be approved by the County. Screening any proposed accessory structures from the adjoining road right-of-way, as required by the Zoning Ordinance, is provided. Conditional Use Permit #022-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 350' commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by Thomas and Nina Guthridge. This property is known as the Hunting Ridge Site and is located on Turtle Drive, approximately 0.5 miles past the intersection with Route 616, and is identified with P.I.N. 51-A-67 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, read the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Ruddy also gave the following information: the proposed tower location will be in compliance with all of the setback requirements for the proposed facility; the opportunity for co -location was not available; the applicant is proposing a 350' three -sided , self-supporting galvanized steel tower (lattice -type tower) equipped for the operation of a personal communication system; the tower will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use; and, an identified rural landmark, 34-913, the Paul A. Sweeney Barn, is in the vicinity of this site, however, the staff believes that the impact to this site is limited. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 147 S. Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager for Shentel, was present to represent the application. Mr. Greisz explained that their choice of a lattice -type tower over a monopole tower at this site was two -fold: He said that the cost differential was $45,000 more for a monopole tower of this height and secondly, the lattice -type tower would easily accomodate three or more providers. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. James Clark, representing his Uncle Paul A. Sweeney, an adjoining property owner, stated that they are concerned about aesthetics, the effect on property values, and more importantly, access to the tower site. Mr. Clark said that it was his understanding that the only access to this tower site was directly across his uncle's property; and his uncle has granted access in writing to only one individual. Mr. David Campbell had questions on the applicant's attempts at co -locating on an existing tower. Chairman DeHaven explained that the ordinance requires the applicant show evidence of their attempts to co -locate on existing facilities within their search area; however, in all of the applications but one, there were no existing towers. With regard to property access, Mr. Greisz said that a title search was done when they entered the lease agreement with the property owner and they were assured of an adequate easement. Chairman DeHaven stated that resolution of the conflict may be a civil matter. Mr. Purtell said that they would prefer to lease space on an existing tower rather than build a new tower because of the large capital expenditure required to erect a tower. He stated that when construction of a new tower is required, they will pay the additional expense to make it strong enough to accommodate other users. Members of the Commission asked if water tanks or power transmission towers, etc. were considered as possible sites within the search area. Mr. Purtell said that they are requesting five tower sites within Frederick County; however, they will probably end up with three times that number of sites, but they won't all be towers. He said that they are already co -located on other company's towers and water tanks. Members of the Commission expressed dissatisfaction with the construction of a lattice -type pole in this location rather than a monopole --they preferred a monopole tower because it would be less obtrusive on the landscape. The issue debated was whether it would be better to have one lattice -type tower, accommodating several users, or two or more monopole towers, accommodating just one or two users on each tower. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 9022-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 350' commercial telecommunications facility, with a waiver of the monopole -type construction requirement, on property owned by Thomas and Nina Guthridge, known as the Hunting Ridge Site. A 350' lattice -type tower is recommended for approval with the following conditions: Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 148 -7 - All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. 3. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 4. A minor site plan is approved by the County. This CUP was recommended for approval by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Thomas, Romine, Marker, Light, Morris, Copenhaver NO: Stone, Ours, DeHaven (Note: Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.) Conditional Use Permit #023-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 300' commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by Linwood and Elizabeth Ritter. This property is known as the Sherando Site and is located approximately 3/4 mile south of the intersection of Routes 277 and 636, and is identified with P.I.N. 86-A-209 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, read the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Ruddy stated that the proposed tower will be in compliance with setback requirements; no other comparable FCC license holders in the search area have existing facilities constructed. He said that the proposed structure is a 300' three -sided, self-supporting galvanized steel tower equipped for operation of a personal communication system. Mr. Ruddy said that the tower will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. He added that it was the applicant's contention that the height of the proposed tower would make monopole construction cost -prohibitive. Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager for Shentel, stated that two services will be installed on this tower immediately, making it a co -located site. Mr. Greisz said that they are building the tower to accomodate numerous other providers because this is a fast-growing area within Frederick County. Commission members inquired if the water tower at Kernstown was considered as a site. Mr. Greisz said the Kernstown tower was not available for use during a previous search and, as a result, they constructed a tower on the Hockman property. He stated that the Hock -man tower will not serve the area they are Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 149 immediately seeking. Mr. Griesz said that they are currently negotiating to use the nearby CFW tower site, but they will need this additional site as well. Commission members raised the issue of constructing a lattice -type tower so close to the park. The applicants explained that marry more users could be accommodated on a lattice pole; and since this was such a rapidly growing area, it may be better to use the lattice tower and, hopefully, reduce the number of towers that would be placed in this area. Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. David Campbell stated that he was in the engineering field and he believed a monopole tower could be structurally built to accommodate as many users as required. Mr. Campbell said that telecommunications businesses were making more than enough profit to build structurally sound monopole towers to hold as many users as needed. Ms. Virginia Burns introduced herself and her mother. Ms. Burns said that they own property across from Sherando Park, which they were planning to develop for residential use. She felt the tower would be an eyesore and would be detrimental to their plans for their property. Ms. Burns said that Shentel asked about putting the tower on her property about a year ago; they did not want it because they were concerned how the tower would affect the aesthetics of the area and people's desire to buy land here and build. Members of the Commission had several concerns about this tower location: 1) the safety issue of a lattice -type tower in close proximity to the park because the tower was climbable from its base; 2) their belief that monopoles could be engineered to accommodate additional service; and, 3) because this area of the county is rapidly growing, the preference was for monopole construction. Other members of the Commission stated that given the choice of one lattice -type tower or three to four monopoles, they would prefer looking at only one tower. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Morris, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval to erect a 300' commercial telecommunications facility, using monopole -type constuction, on property owned by Linwood and Elizabeth Ritter, with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co -locating comparable communication service providers, at reasonable rates. An acceptable guarantee is established with the County for the removal of the tower within one year of tower abandonment. 4. A minor site plan is approved by the County. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 150 !Q The vote on approval of this CUP was by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Moms, Marker, Romme; Ours; DeHaven, Copenhaver NO: Light, Thomas, Stone (Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.) Conditional Use Permit #024-97 of Shenandoah Mobile Company to erect a 200' commercial telecommunications facility on property owned by Wayne and Julie Smith. This land is known as the Parkins Mills site and is located off Route 642, approximately 3/10 mile past the intersection of Squire Lane and Knight Drive, and is identified with P.I.N. 76-A-98 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Conditions Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, Planner II, read the background information and review agency comments. Mr. Ruddy stated that the ordinance requires that towers 200' in height be placed a minimum of 215' from adjoining residential or vacant properties and 225' from any road right-of-way. He said that as presented by the applicant, the proposed tower location does not comply with the setback requirements because a setback is required along the 30' road right-of-way access easement running through the property. Of the eight comparable license holders in this area, none have constructed telecommunication facilities within the search area. He said that the tower will be provided with a dual lighting system which provides red lights for nighttime and medium intensity flashing white lights for daytime and twilight use. Mr. Ruddy said that the applicant is requesting a waiver of the monopole -type construction requirement for a lattice -type tower. He added that an identified rural landmark, the Clem -Haines House, is in the vicinity of this site; however, the staff believes that the impact to this site is limited. Mr. Leonard L. Greisz, Project Manager for Shentel, stated that the height of the tower, in addition to their interest in constructing a tower that is readily modifiable for subleasing, would be best accomplished with a lattice -type structure. It was also the applicant's contention that the height of the proposed tower would make monopole -type construction cost -prohibitive. Regarding the issue of setbacks, Mr. Greisz said that the property consists of a large 98 -acre parcel which contains a small subdivided five -acre section with an access road. Mr. Greisz said that both parcels are owned by Mr. Wayne A. Smith and his wife, Julie C. Smith. He explained that Mr. Smith has requested that Shentel locate the tower as close to his access road as possible, and not place the tower in the middle of the field. Mr. Greisz said that Mr. Smith would lose about 200' X 12' of pasture area, if the tower was placed further toward the center of the property, because of the road that would need to be constructed to the tower. Mr. Greisz believed that both the site and the landowner would be better served by placing the tower near the existing access road. Mr. Greisz said that the other disadvantage of moving the tower back toward the center of the larger tract is that the terrain drops off roughly 18'-20', lowering the overall height of the tower. He said that at some point going down the tower, the signal will be lost and that movement in itself may cause them to lose a potential user site. In addition, if they extend the tower an additional foot, the airport will require the tower to be lighted. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 151 -10 - Chairman DeHaven called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Christopher A. Bunker, adjoining property owner, believed the cost differential between a lattice tower and a monopole tower was minimal and he recommended the applicant use a monople-type structure. Mr. Bunker was concerned whether or not the air waves produced would interfere with his television reception because the service in his area was already limited. He asked what type of guarantee would be required specifically to remove the tower after it was no longer in use. Mr. Bunker said that the applicant stated there were no available sites in the "search" area, and Mr. Bunker wanted to know if sites in the "general" area had been considered by the applicants. Mr. Bunker was also concerned about the long-term aesthetics of the area. Mr. David Campbell, area resident, stated that he received notice of the public hearing on December 26, 1997 and he didn't feel this was enough time to review the proposal. Mr. Campbell also felt that a number of area residents were not given notice of the public meeting. He stated that Shentel's proposed tower access is a private road serving 12 families; he was concerned about maintenance of the road, which the residents had built and maintained for their own private use. Other issues raised by Mr. Campbell were: 1) a monopole - type tower should be constructed because it was visually less obtrusive in a residential area; 2) use of the "search" area as compared to the "general" area; 3) assurances concerning the removal of the tower; and 4) request for some vegetative buffering and screening. Mrs. Christine L. Bunker, adjoining property owner, inquired how it is determined when a tower has been abandoned and if the company using the tower goes bankrupt, how will they be responsible for taking the tower down. Mr. and Mrs. F. Wayne Wright, adjoining property owners, were opposed to the tower for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Donald Strosnider, adjoining property owner, stated that the road to the proposed tower has only a 20' easement to a certain point and then goes into a 30' easement. Mr. Strosnider inquired if the applicant would participate in the upkeep of the road. He also had questions about the removal of an abandoned tower. Mr. Ted Hagen, adjoining property owner, recommended the use of a lattice tower; he said that he would rather see one lattice tower than a proliferation of monopole towers. Mr. Hagen said that the residents along the road contribute to its maintenance and he inquired if Shentel would provide some support to maintaining the road. Mr. Leonard Greisz returned to the podium to address some of the concerns raised. Regarding the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) issues, Mr. Greisz said that their signal is sanctioned and controlled by the FCC; they are required to use radios that do not interfere with other airwaves and if there is interference, they need to correct the interference. As far as television signals, he said that they can co -locate on a cable T.V. tower and there is no interference. Regarding the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) notification, Mr. Greisz said that all five sites are currently being reviewed for height, whether they pose an obstruction to an airport facility, or whether they present flight path interference. The local Winchester Regional Airport has also looked at all five sites. Mr. Greisz said that after they get FAA certification, the site is then registered with the FCC. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 152 -11 - Proceeding to the issue of the search area, Mr. Greisz said that their first and foremost concern is providing radio and wireless signals to their customers; therefore, they place sites where a signal is needed --this creates their "search area." He said that because they need to have a signal at a certain location and because of the cost involved when a tower needs to be constructed, they will try to get additional revenue off the tower by structurally engineering it to hold other users. He also explained that if any part of the tower or antennae exceeds 200', the FAA requires the structure to be lighted. Regarding the road, Mr. Greisz said that when they have finished building at the site, the road will be in better shape than it exists in now. Mr. Greisz said that this is a fairly rough road and it will be leveled and the potholes will be filled. He said that Shentel will only visit the site about once or twice a month by way of a van -type truck. He added that their title search has not encountered any restrictive covenants on the rights of the landowner to enter the site. Mr. Morris said that he was willing to waive the setback requirement based on the use of a monopole antennae. Mr. Thomas moved to recommend approval of the application with conditions as stipulated, a waiver of the setbacks, and a waiver of the monopole requirement. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine, but failed by the following vote: YES (FOR APPROVAL): Thomas, Romine, Light, NO: Stone, Ours, Marker, Copenhaver, Morris, DeHaven Mr. Morris next moved to recommend approval with conditions as stipulated and a waiver of the setback requirement only. This motion was seconded by Mr. Marker, but failed by the following vote: YES (FOR APPROVAL): Marker, Morris, DeHaven, Copenhaver NO: Stone, Ours, Thomas, Romine, Light Commission members stated they would rather see one lattice tower rather than several monopole towers. Other Commissioners believed that using a lattice tower would not make a difference as far as how many towers would eventually be placed in an area and that a monopole was not nearly as obtrusive visually as a lattice tower. Other Commissioners believed that the issue here was the quality of life for the residents of the area. It was also noted that towers can't be isolated and they need to be placed in populated areas, where the customers are. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit 4024-97 with conditions as stipulated, with monopole -type tower construction, and waiver of the setbacks. YES (TO APPROVE): Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Morris Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 153 -12 - NO: Stone, Ours, Thomas (Note: Mr. Wilson was absent from the meeting.) ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 1998 Election of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Chairman. The nomination of Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. for Chairman was made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas. Motion was made by Mrs. Copenhaver, seconded by Mr. Thomas, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year of 1998. Election of John R Marker, Vice Chairman Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Vice Chairman. The nomination of John R. Marker for Vice Chairman was made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Ours. Motion was made by Mrs. Copenhaver, seconded by Mr. Thomas, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Vice Chairman. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect John R. Marker as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for the year of 1998. Election of Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Chairman DeHaven declared nominations open for Secretary. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 154 -13 - The nomination of Kris C, Tierney fnr SPvcretan, juas :Wade by ^'r. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker. Motion was made by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Stone, and unanimously passed to close nominations for Secretary. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously elect Mr. Kris C. Tierney as Secretary of the Planning Commission for 1998. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned by unanimous vote at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kris C. Tierney, Secretary Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of January 7, 1998 Page 155 BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS (printed February 20, 1995) Application lication uewlY su bmi tted REZONING: Location: South of relocated Tasker Dr. (Rt. 642) & west of Front Royal Pk. 11 (Rt. 522 So.) 11 Submitted: 11 02/06/98 11 PC Review: 11 03/04/98 BOS Review: X13/25/98 - tentatively scheduled C. L. Robinson Ice & Cold Storage Corp. (REZ #005-97) Back Creek 26.895 ac. from RA to RP for 54 S.F. residential dwellings Location: -- W side of Merriman Lane (Rt. 621) at Winc./Western R.R. crossing & E of Rt. 37. Approx. 1,100' south of Breckenridge Lane. Submitted: 11/12/97 PC Review: 12/03/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 01/14/98 - no action; 02/11/98 - approved MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Autumn Wind Apartments (MDP #008-97) Gainesboro 104 Garden Apts. on 19.04 ac. (RP/B2) Adjacent to the Westridge Subd. (Sec. I & II) w/ access from West View Lane via Middle Road (Rt. 628) in the City. Location: No. Frederick Pk. (Rt. 522N); 1/4 mi. north of Winchester City Limits, behind Adelphia Cable Office Submitted: 11/24/97 PC Review: 12/17/97 - tabled for 30 days to 01/21/98; 01/21/98 - rec. approval BOS Review: 02/11/98 - denied; to be reconsidered on 03/03/98 Admin. Approved: Pending Westridge III (MDP #006-97) Back Creek 19 S.F. Detached Urban Residential Lots on 9.81 ac. (RP) Location: Adjacent to the Westridge Subd. (Sec. I & II) w/ access from West View Lane via Middle Road (Rt. 628) in the City. Submitted: 09/22/97 PC Review: 10/15/97 - recommended approval BOS Review: 11/12/97 - approved Admin. Approved: Pending completion of review agency comments. SUBDIVISIONS: 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 - tentatively scheduled Admin. Approved: Pending Woodbrook Village (SUB#016-97) Back Creek 81 multi- lex lots on 19.56 ac. (RP) Location: So. side of O e uon Church Lane (Rt. 706) Submitted: 12/02/97 MDP #004-97: MDP approved by BOS 09/24/97; Admin. approved 12/10/97 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Wythe Ave. Ext. (SUB #015-97) No MDP Opequon 4 S.F. lots on 1.4065 ac. (RP) Location: End of existing Wythe Ave. in Stephens City Submitted: 11/20/97 PC Review: 02/18/98 - rec. approval w/ no entrances onto Caroline Ave. BOS Review: if 03/11/98 Admin. Approved: Pending Chapel Hill S::bdivisior, (SUB #014-97) S :awnre 34 S.F. Det. Urban Lots on 14.4214 acres (RP) Location: East side of Rt. 522, 0.15 mi. south of Lon croft Rd. (Rt. 785) Submitted: 10/30/97 MDP #006-96: Approved by BOS 08/14/96; Admin. Approved on 09/17/96 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Dr. Raymond L. Fish (SUB #012-97) Stonewall Subdivision of one lot (1.4962 ac.) (B2) off a 16.00 ac. parent tract (B2 & B3) Location: Hopewell Rd. & new proposed street, Clearbrook Ln; 160' NW of existing Winchester & Western 60' right-of-way Submitted: 10/09/97 MDP #005-95: Approved by BOS on 01/24/96; Admin. Approved on 07/15/96 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending IIBriarwood Estates (SUB #011-97) Stonewall Subdivision of 9.79 acres for 20 S.F. Det. Traditional Lots (RP) Location: East side of Greenwood Rd.(Rt. 656) Submitted: 09/26/97 (Replaces Subdiv. #001-94) MDP #005-93 Approved by BOS on 12/8/93 Subd. Admin. Approved: Pending Star Fort, Sect. H (SUB #010-97) Stonewall Subdivision of 11.6182 ac. for 26 s.f. detached traditional lots Location: U.S. Rt. 522 and VA Rt. 832 Submitted: 09/16/97 MDP #004-94 Approved by BOS 09/14/94; Admin. Approved 04/10/95 Subd. Admin. Approved. Pending 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: 07128/9 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 comer 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: PendinLy Lenoir City Co. of Virginia (SUB #003-97)Location: [Gainesboro 1 Ml Lot (2.000 acres) Location: onewall Industrial Pk.; McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861), approx. 700' west of the McGhee Rd. and Tyson Dr. intersection. Submitted: 05/15/97 MDP #006-93: Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93 Admin. Approved: Pending Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB) Back Creek 2 Ml 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. RT&T Partnership (SUB) Back Creek --F Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2) Location: Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.) Submitted: 05/17/95 MDP #003-91 Approved by BOS 07/10/91; Admin. Approved 09/03/91 Pending Admin. Approval: Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication Abrams 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: Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat Harry Stimpson (SUB) Opeguon 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: Awaiting signed plat. SITE PLANS: Location: J1 Rt. 522N., 0.8+ mi. southeast of Rt. 37, behind Adelphia Cable Co. Submitted: 11 02/02/98 Westminster -Canterbury (SP 006-98) Gainesboro 48 -unit assisted living facility; 1.6 ac. disturbed on a 49.35 ac, parcel (RP) Location: 300 Westminster Drive Submitted: 01/29/98 Approved: Pending VA DMK Properties (SP #005-98) Shawnee District 15,135 s.f. office bldg. on 4.0 acres for general office use (M1) Location: Independence Drive; Lot 6, Westview Business Center Submitted: 01/13/98 Pending Approved: Pack It Inn Mini Storage Warehouse (SP #004-98) Stonewall Self -Storage facility; 3 ac. disturbed on a 3.1083 ac. site (MI) Location: Baker Lane Industrial Park, Lot 13 Submitted: OU09/98 Approved: Pending Insulated Bldg. Systems (SP #003-98) Stonewall 50' X 100' lean-to addition to existing facility(MI) Location: 326 McGhee Road Submitted: 01/09/98 A roved: Pending Valley Biomedical Prod. & Serv. (SP #002-98) Back Creek Office & Processing Facility; 2.0 ac. disturbed on 3.204 ac. site (MI) Location: 110-A Industrial Drive Submitted: 01/05/98 Approved: Pending 11 Southeast Container (SP #001-98) Stonewall District Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a 89.6 ac. Site (MI) Location: Ft. Collier Industrial Park Submitted: 01/06/98 Approved: Pending Carlyle & Anderson Tractor Sales & Service (SP #048-97) Stonewall Truck office & repair; & tractor sales & service; 20'X20' addit.; 1.0659 ac. disturbed on 3.2647 ac. site (M2) Location: 1603 Berryville Pike Submitted: Submitted: 12/02/97 11 Approved: 1 02/09/98 Middletown Elementary School Addition (SP #047-97) Opequon 2+ disturbed ac. on a 15.0 ac. site (RA) Location: 190 Mustang Lane Submitted: 11/18/97 Approved: Pending Trex Outdoor Storage (SP #035-97) Back Creek Outdoor Storage; 173,416 S.F. (M2) Location: 158 Capitol Lane Submitted: 10-01-97 Approved: 02/06/98 Valley Cycle Center (SP #033-97) --1 Shawnee 16,000 s.f. bldg. for retail sales; 2 ac. disturbed on a 2.0579 ac. site (B2) Location: Location: Westview Business Center; Lot A; Approx. 2 miles east of I-81 on Rt. 50 at Independence Drive Submitted: 09/23/97 Approved: Pending Dr. Fairman Veterinary Office (SP #029-97) Stonewall 4,272 sq ft Veterinary Office on 1.4962 ac. parcel (B2) Location: 1092 Hopewell Road Submitted: 07/25/97 Approved: Pending Mobil-Wendys Rt. 50W Conven. Center (SP #026-97) Back Creek Gas-Conven. Cntr.; 3,783 sq ft floor area; 1.072 ac. site disturbed (RA) Location: Rt. 50 West ubmilted: 07/23/97 [S roved: Pendin Seo Property (SP #025-97) Shawnee Video Store in existing bldg.; 2.04 ac. (Bl) Location: Front Royal Pike Submitted: 07/23/97 Approved: Pending Ellis Self -Storage (SP #024-97) Stonewall 3 additional self -storage bldgs; 9.211 ac. parcel disturbed; (Ml) Location: Intersection of Routes 761 & 664 Submitted: 07/03/97 Approved: Pending Agape Christian Fellowship Church Sanctus (SP #005-97) 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 Interch . Submitted: 02/12/97 Approved: Pending Shenandoah Bldg. Supply (SP #056-96) Gainesboro Warehouse on 5 acres (M1) Location: 195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park) Submitted: 12/16/96 Approved: Pending 10 Service (SP #030-96) Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube ][15P2 inesboro [35,48 Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive - Thru on 2.97 ac. (132) Location: Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store) Submitted: 07/03/96 Approved: Pending AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP #022-96) inesboro [35,48 Gas Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a 0.916 acre parcel (RA) Location: North Frederick Pike Submitted: 05/08/96 A roved: Pending American Legion Post #021 (SP #018-96) Stonewall Addition to lodge building on 3.4255 acre site (B2) Location: 1730 Berryville Pike Submitted: 04/10/96 Approved: Pending D.K. Erectors & Maintenance, Inc. (SP #051-95) Gainesboro ust Sery/Steel Fabrication on a 10 - Tacresite (M2) Location: 4530 Northwestern Pike Submitted: 12/28/95 Approved: Pending Wheatlands Wastewater Facility (SP #047-89) Opequon Treatment Facility on 5 Acres (115) Location: So. West of Double Tollgate; adj. & west of Rt. 522 Submitted: 09/12/89 Note: LBeuig held at applicant's request. 11 Flex Tech (SP #057-90) Stonewall MI Use on 11 Ac. (M1) Location: East side of Ft. Collier Rd. Submitted: 10/25/90 Note: Being held atapplicant's request. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Shenandoah Mobile Cod Parkins Mills (CUP #024-97) Shawnee commercial telecommunications 1 facilities (RA) Location: Knight Drive (private gravel road), off Rt. 642 Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of monopole tower w/ conditions and waiver of setbacks 11 BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 04/08/98 Shenandoah Mobile Co./ Sherando (CUP #023-97) Opequon commercial telecommunications facilities (RA) Location: 0.25 mi. off Rt. 636, 0.4 mi. from Rt. 636/277 intersection Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of monopole tower w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 04/08/98 11 Shenandoah Mobile Cod Hunting Ridge (CUP #022-97) Back Creek commercial telecommunications facilities (RA) Location: 0.5 mi. on Turtle Meadow Drive from Rt. 616 Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of lattice tower w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 04/08/98 12 Shenandoah Mobile Co./ Little Timber Ride (CUP #021-97) Back Creek commercial telecommunications facilities (RA) Location: 0.38 miles off of Rt. 610 Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of monopole tower (Option #1) w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 04/08/98 Shenandoah Mobile Co./ Bowling Green Ridge (CUP #020-97) Gainesboro commercial telecommunications facilities (RA) Cottage Occup. - Pet Grooming (RA) Location: 0.13 miles off Rt. 688 Submitted: 12/12/97 PC Review: 01/07/98 - recommended approval of monopole tower w/ conditions BOS Review: 01/28/98; Tabled until 04/08/98 Denise McClearen (CUP #019-97) Opeguon Cottage Occup. - Pet Grooming (RA) Location: 4784 Front Royal Pike Submitted: 12/11/97 PC Review: 02/18/98 - recommended approval BOS Review: 03/03/98 T. P. & Susan Goodman (CUP #010-97) Stonewall Social Center, Outdoor Recreation Center, Catered Functions, Tours, Meetings, Etc. (RA) Location: 534 Redbud Road Submitted: 06/09/97 PC Review: 09/03/97 - recommended approval with conditions BOS Review: 10/07/97 tabled until 11/12/97; 11/12/97 - temporary approval until 12/31/97; subject to renewal and/or disposition on 01/14/98 - tabled for 60 days to 03/25/98 13 VARIANCES: Fairview Lutheran Church (VAR #001-98) Gainesboro 41.2' front yd. setbk var. for addition to church for bathrooms/ storage (RA) Location: 3/4 mile from Rt. 50 West on Fairview Road (Rt. 733) Submitted: 01/23/98 BZA Review: 02/17/98 - approved 14 PC REVIEW DATE: 03/04/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 03/25/98 REZONING APPLICATION #001-98 EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER To Rezone 82.1723 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to M1 (Industrial Light) LOCATION: This property is located at the intersection of Tasker Road (relocated Route 642) and Route 522 South (Front Royal Pike). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 76-A-53 and 87-A-17 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) District Land Use: Vacant and Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: (North): Zoned: (South): Zoned (East): Zoned: (West): Zoned: B2, Business General; B3, Industrial Transition; M1, Light Industrial RA, Rural Areas RA, Rural Areas RA, Rural Areas PROPOSED USE: Industrial & Manufacturing REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Use: Eastgate Commerce Center Use: Residential (Wrights Run Acres) Use: Residential Use: Vacant Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letters dated Feb. 2, 1998 from Barry J. Sweitzer, Dec 2, 1997 and Sept. 22, 1997 from Robert Childres& Eastgate Commerce Center, REZ 4001-98 Page 2 February 20, 1998 Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority: No comment. Public Works: See attached letter dated Oct 15, 1997from Ed Strawsnyder. Fire and Rescue: Will address on site plans. Stephens City Fire and Rescue: The Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company has no objection to the rezoning request. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment. County Attorney: Language of the proffer is acceptable. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #006-91 for Wrights Run L.P. on August 14, 1991 with proffers. This approved application rezoned 115 acres of a 235 acre parcel from RA, Rural Areas District to create 25 acres of B-2, Business General District, 20 acres of B-3, Industrial Transition District, and 70 acres of M-1, Light Industrial District. An additional five acres was dedicated for the relocation of Tasker Road (Route 642). The relocation of Tasker Road was completed and is open for public use. The final design of this road required additional dedication by the property owner, totaling 11.1 acres. The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #002-97 for Wrights Run L.P. on August 13, 1997 with proffers. This application rezoned property within the Eastgate Commerce Center that was zoned RA, Rural Areas District, as well as land that was rezoned as a part of Rezoning Application #006-91. The approval of Rezoning Application #002-97 created 51.96 acres of B2 (Business General) zoned land, 2 1. 10 acres of B3 (Industrial Transition) zoned land, and 51.83 acres of M1 (Industrial Light) zoned land. The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #004-97 for Wrights Run L.P. on October 22, 1997 with proffers. This application rezoned 2.5927 acres of property. acquired by Wrights Run L.P., from RA, Rural Areas District to M-1, Light Industrial District. This property was severed from a larger tract to the north as a result of the final location and design of the Tasker Road Revenue Sharing Project. Eastgate Commerce Center, REZ 4001-98 Page 3 February 20, 1998 To date, three properties within the Eastgate Commerce Center have been planned for development. Construction of the Jouan, Inc., facility is complete and is operational. Construction is currently underway for the Special Made, Inc., facility, and planning is underway for the development of storage facilities by White Properties. A portion of the original 235.75 acre tract owned by Wrights Run L.P_, is currently zoned RA, Rural Areas District. This acreage, coupled with the Rockland and Elizabeth See tract total 82.1723 acres. A joint rezoning application has been filed with Frederick County to rezone this acreage to M-1, Light Industrial District. If this application is successful, the entire 235.75 acre tract owned by Wrights Run L.P., will be zoned for commercial and industrial use and dedicated for state road maintenance. 2) Location The remaining 82.1723 acres is located on the south side of Tasker Road, to the southeast of the approved Eastgate Commerce Center Master Development Plan. This acreage does not have frontage along Tasker Road, and is accessible through two local streets that are planned for construction. The property has been interpreted to be located within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is designated as an industrial area on the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. 3) Site Suitability a) Environmental Features: The following features are present on the 82.1723 acre portion of the 235 acre site that is proposed to be rezoned: A small amount of flood plain is located along the southern boundary of this acreage along Wrights Run. (Community Panel #510063-0200-B) The 1990 National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies one feature located to the northeast of the See residence. This feature is identified as PUBHh, or Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Diked or Impounded. This feature is shown on the approved master development plan as a storm water management facility. Areas of steep slope (15% or greater) exist along the four natural drainage areas throughout this acreage to Wrights Run. Eastgate Commerce Center, REZ 9001-98 Page 4 February 20, 1998 areas throughout this acreage to Wrights Run. Evergreen and deciduous woodlands exist throughout the 82.1723 acres, primarily along the western and southern portions of this site. Historical: The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any structures of historic significance, nor does it list the property as potentially significant or recommend that it be included as part of a historic district. Water & Sewer: Public water and sewer service is currently provided to the Eastgate Commerce Center. Transportation: The Eastgate Commerce Center property is located on the west side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 ) and Tasker Road. Front Royal Pike has been improved to a four -lane condition, and Tasker Road has been improved as a two-lane major collector road. Access to the 82.1723 acres is proposed to occur through two local streets within Eastgate Commerce Center. One of these streets intersects with Tasker Road. 4) Potential Impacts. a) Traffic - The applicant has prepared a detailed traffic analysis which takes into account trip generation estimates, traffic volumes for pm peak provided for 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm, traffic volumes at various intersections along Front Royal Pike and Tasker Road, and level of service determination at the Front Royal Pike/Tasker Road intersection, and the Tasker Road/Rainsville Road intersection. The applicant has prepared the traffic impact analysis based on the development of 57 acres of the 82.1723 site. The applicant has factored out the acreage that is within steep slopes and flood plains to attain this total; however, it should be noted that a minimum of 25% of this acreage is permitted to be disturbed for development purposes. Typically, the impact analysis accounts for the total acreage to be rezoned unless a proffer is provided by the applicant which limits the overall acreage to be developed. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, estimates an average daily two-way trip volume . of 51.80 vehicles per day per acre of light industrial zoning, and a Eastgate Commerce Center, REZ 9001-98 Page 5 February 20, 1998 maximum trip rate of 159.37 vehicles per day per acre of light industrial zoning. Therefore, the proposal to rezone 82.1723 acres of land would generate an average of 4,257 trips per day with a maximum of 13,096 trips per day. The applicant has estimated trip distributions (assigned traffic splits) to Tasker Road, and Front Royal Pike, both northbound and southbound traffic. The estimated trip generation suggests that 40% of the trips will be assigned to Tasker Road, 15% to Front Royal Pike northbound, and 45% to Front Royal Pike southbound. Applying the maximum trips per day to the estimated trip generations for this rezoning has the following impact to the transportation system in this area: Trips Per Day Trips Per Day Percent Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Increase Rt. 642 4,643 9,881 113% Rt. 522 (1) 18,659 20,623 11% Rt. 522 (S) 20,135 26,028 29% Total 43,437 56,133 30% The applicant has provided Level Of Service (LOS) information for the Tasker Road/Front Royal Pike intersection, as well as the Tasker Road/Rainsville Road intersection. Rainsville Road will be the primary access route to the 82.1723 acre development. The LOS study assumes that each intersection is signalized and recommends the following for each intersection: Tasker Road/Front Royal Pike Intersection: LOS C Tasker Road/Rainsville Road Intersection: LOS B The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that a LOS C should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments in the County. A LOS C is defined within the Comprehensive Policy Plan as stable flow, operating below speed limit, some lines of vehicles at intersections and turns, 10% to 30% of cycles loaded at signals. Eastgate Commerce Center, REZ #001-98 Page 6 February 20, 1998 b) Emergency Services - The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this rezoning application assuming the development of 1,980,000 square feet of office space on 80 acres (or 24,750 square feet of office space per acre). The model demonstrated a negative fiscal impact of $24,462.71 for fire and rescue services. 5) Impact Statement/Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement that has been signed, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney. This proffer statement proposes methods to mitigate the negative impacts to the transportation system and to fire and rescue services. The applicant has proffered to prepare traffic impact studies during the site plan review for each developed lot, and has proffered to construct all improvements required by VDOT. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to mitigate the negative impacts to the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company. This proffer calls for a $0.02 per square foot contribution for each structure built within the 82.1723 acres, to be paid at the time of the building permit application and approval for each structure. The proffered per square foot amount is 62% greater than the per square foot amount demonstrated by the model run. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 03/04/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed application is consistent with the policies stated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff recommends that the applicant prepare a comprehensive proffer statement document and map which depicts the entire acreage of the Eastgate Commerce Center and provides a relational data description for each area that has been rezoned since 1991. This information is necessary to ensure that staff is able to track the various proffers that have been approved for the three previous rezoning applications, as well as this application should it receive approval by the Board of Supervisors. Staff believes that the applicant has adequately mitigated the proposed impacts associated with this rezoning and would recommend approval of this application contingent upon receipt of the comprehensive proffer statement document and map. A y� r 6 ,�rjftWF.a. COMMONWEALTH of'VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R. GENR EDINBURG RESIDENCY COMh11SSICNGR 14031 OLD VALLEY NIKE JERRY A. COPP P.O. EOX 278 TF�E °aC1 ba.;.cg_ EDINUURG.VA22624-0274;,- February• 2, 1998 Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E., V.P. Ref: Eastgate Commerce Center G. W. Clifford & associates. Inc. Route 522/6=12 200 North Cameron Street Frederick Count -v Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Ron: We have received comments dated January 29, 1998 for the referenced project from our District Traffic Engineer. The response comments follow and are the accepted basis for our concerns relative to this proposed development. The comments also address the recently rezoned 87 additional acres. We concur with: 1. Signalization of the intersection of Route 522/Route 642 (new Tasker Road) 2. Signalization of the intersection of Route 642/Rainesville Road - Bear Cat Circle 3. Signalization of the intersection of Route 642/Rams Head Road - Armel Circle 4. Double left tum lanes from Route 522 north bound onto Route 642 and exclusive :iglu turn lanes at the intersection Iocations as indicated in the analysis It is our suggestion the roadway plans as required to upgrade the existiuig road%vay to accommodate intersection configurations as indicated un the analysis, be submitted to 'DOT for review. Based upon our interpretation of the analysis we anticipate.- 1) nticipate: 1) The consttuctiorr of a second Ieft turn lane on the northbound lane of Route 522 at rile neNv Route 642 (Tasker Road) intersection crossover. 2) Two left turn lanes from northbound Route 522 onto Route 642 will necessitate the provision of two west bound moving lanes on Route 642. Exclusive left turn lane anU exciusive riglit turn lane are noted for eastbound Route 642 onto Route 522. Exclusive left turn lanes, through lanes, and right turn lanes are indicated at the Route 642/Rauiesville Road intersection and the Route 642/ Rams Head Road intersection. Tr rs approxiinately 1000' benveen the Route 522!642 intersection and the Route 642;'Rainsville Road uitersectiori and approximately 840' bev%veer. the Route 642/ Rams Head Road intersection. all of which should provide adequate stor;rrc lengii Tor dt laved vehicles. Mr. Ronald A. Mlsiuwsky Ref: Eastgate Commerce Center February 2, 1998 Pace 2 3) Considering all the above, we envision a Route 642 (Tasker Road) pavement width consisting of five 12' lanes (60') with right turn lanes and tapers at the proposed intersections. The center lane would function as a left turn lane where appropriate. 4) The full 60' pavement width should be provided from the Route 522/642 intersection to approximately 125' west of the Marcel Drive intersection. Signalization of the Route 642/Marcel Drive intersection has been addressed in the land use permit issued to the Specialmade site developer at the intersection. We suggest a phase plan be drafted, agreed upon and adopted under which roadway improvements to accommodate the projected future volumes of traffic become required as an integral part of the permit process. Signalization agreements will be necessary to cover all costs incurred for signalization at all the above listed 'intersections. Any additional rights-of-way to facilitate the proposed roadway improvements should be dedicated to «'OT as part of any/ all site plans submitted for review. If there are any questions or additional information is needed, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Bari? 11.1 SweitzeI Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Norman K. Sparks Trans. Asst. Resident Engineer B.1S/rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond. Atm: fir_ K. B. Do«ms Transportation Engineer Mr. S. A. Melnik -off Mr. Kris Tierney COMMONWEALTH of VIRCgINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG RESIDENCY COMMISSIONER 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278 December 2, 1997 Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Ron: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984.550,0 FAX (540) 984.5607 Ref: Eastgate Commerce Center Route 642 Frederick Countv We have reviewed the traffic impact analysis you submitted on July 21. 1997 for the referenced project. It appears you have prepared a plan which is reasonable. However, on September 22, 1997 we received a rezoning application for an additional 84.01 acre tract which will have a tremendous impact on the existing and proposed intersections on Route 642 and Route 522. The traffic impact analysis will need to be revised to include the additional anticipated traffic from the development of these additional 84.01 acres. The intersection of Routes 522 and 642 is anticipated to operate at a level of Service "C" based on the original development. Therefore. it would be reasonable to expect the level of service will be much less when the anticipated traffic from the 84 acres is added. You will also need to provide an anticipated time table for the proposed road improvements so that the necessary improvements will be in place when needed. Once a revised analysis is provided for review and approval, we should be able to finalize our comments on the rezoning application for the additional 84.01 acres. I apologize for the length of time taken for this review. If you have any questions, please let me kno,,v. Sincerely, 6ZUY4 4�&— Robert B. Childress Transportation Engineer I'ZBC! rf \11-. S. A. Mchilk-off %1r. Kns rJ� J•1> �F'.1pp\nc�wr�i �y. ���... 7a 7 1- CC'MMONWE.4L` H of 3VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE CO:?-!ISSIONER P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, VA 22824.0278 September 72, 1997 Mr. Steve Gyurisin C; O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Steve: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE ;c -p7 984 560'J FAx i!40198-1-5657 Ref: Eastgate Commerce Center Route 642 Frederick County We have received your rezoning application for the remaining 84.01 acre tract in the referenced project. Since we are currently reviewing a traffic impact analysis for the original portion of the development, we have forwarded the rezoning application to our District Traffic Engineer's Office for review. Once I receive any comments I'll forward them to you. In the meantime if you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Robert B. Childress Transportation Engineer RBC/rf xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. Kris Tiernev 5 October 15, 1997 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Eastgate Commerce Center Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Steve: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 5401665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 Your memorandum dated September 16, 1997, proposes a rezoning of approximately 80 acres from RA to M-1 at the Eastgate Commerce Center. This acreage conflicts with the 85.01 acres referenced in the proffer statement and the 84.01 referenced in the impact analysis statement. This issue needs to be resolved before resubmitting your revised master development plan. In addition to the above issue, we have the following comments: 1. Sheet 1 of 2 Revise the existing and proposed zoning maps to reflect the actual rezoning request and proposed master development plan. These revisions should also be reflected in the summary table. 2. Sheet 1 of 2 It appears that the correct acreage in the rezoning request should be 84.01 acres. We are assuming that the 5.01 acres owned by R. A. & E. See is included in the request. 3. Sheet 2 of 2 Revise the environmental features to reflect the actual conditions existing within the rezoned RA property. It appears that there are additional flood plain areas as well as wetlands adjacent to Wrights Run. These areas need to be delineated and included in the tabulation of environmental features. 107 North Event Street • Winchester. Vir-inin 17601.:nnn Eastgate Commerce Center Page 2 October 15, 1447 4. Sheet 2 of 2 Indicate potential sites for stormwater management facilities. Please provide us with revised plans for our review. Sincerely, Harve1EE- trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES : rls cc: Planning and Zoning file Rezoning #001-98 PINS: 76—A-53 Eastgate Commerce Center PINS: 87—A-17 U�v 4im REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff. REZONING ,Zoning Amendment. Number D2L-a D2--aDate Received -Sr qg BOS Hearing Date '9 9 PC Hearing Date 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, 23 Court Square, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: —Wrights Run, L.P. Name: Rockland A. & Elizabeth See Telephone: 703-820-2500 Telephone: 540-869-2140 Address: 2800 Shirlington Rd, Address: 437 See Lane Suite 803, Arlington, Va. 22206 Winchester, Va. 22601 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Stephen M. Gyurisin Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X J ' , ,'\ Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X `' FEB 1993 Verifying taxes paid X Proffer Statement ED � AEEL 4t �r�r�►rtG „tel 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: Allan Hudson Richard Peterson Frank Maranto Sidney Lesowitz Rockland A. & Elizabeth See 6. Current Use of the Property: Eastgate Commerce Center _ Proposed Use of the Property: same 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE 76 -A -48A & 5K Vacant (AG) 76 -A -51B & 52 Residential 76-A-57 57A 56 55 54 60B Residential 87-A-1 87-(4)-9, 10 11 Residential 76-A-42 Vacant (AG) 76-A-47 Vacant (AG) ZONING I.1 RA RA RA RA RA S. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): 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: Parcel Identification #: _76-((A))-53 & 87-((A))-17 Districts Magisterial District: Shawnee High School: Sherando Fire Service: _ Stephens City Middle School: Aylor Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Armel 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 82.1723 RA M-1 Total acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed N/A Single Family Homes: Townhomes: Multi -Family: Non -Residential Lots: Mobile Home: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Service Station: Retail: Manufacturing: X Restaurant: Warehouse: X Other: 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 +o change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorve Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) when this application is submitted n ilst be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to th' I'la"'ng Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors publiE hea[ing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing - I (we) herehv certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true i-nci ac,_lirate to the best of my (our) knowledge. CApplf:':.t[lt(>)�Date: O� ._. rt W. Tiff r As 'ates Inc. Date: Aa i Owner(sY Date: Date: Date: Date: j- �o U w CLIFFORD & ASSOC 12. Signature: PAGE ©5 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 :nap of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorise Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) 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(; ) Date: Gilbert W.Cl' ord & A socia es In . Date: Owner(s): Dane: Date: Date: r- REZON' TG REQUEST PROFFER Property Identifica,lon Numbers 76-((A))-53 and 87-((A„-17 Shawnee Magisterial District EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER WRIGHTS RUN, L.P. ROCKLAND A. & ELIZABETH SEE Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et. seq., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of 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 # UOl - 98 for the rezoning of 82.1723 acres from the present Rural Area (RA) Zoning District to the Industrial (M-1) 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 Virginia law. 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 successor or assigns. Transportation Improvements to Offset Impacts of Development A traffic impact study will be conducted using VDOT procedures for each site development use proposed within the Eastgate Commerce Center at the time of site plan review. Improvements will be constructed by the undersigned as required by VDOT regulations for the predicted traffic impacts based upon the specific use proposed. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 82.1723 acre tract, lying on the east side of U.S. Route 522 South along Route 642 in the Shawnee Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to M-1, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County for the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company, 0.02¢ per square foot for each structure constructed by the 82.1723 acres zoned to M-1, to be paid at the time of building permit application and approval. REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Numbers 76-((A))-53 and 87-((A))-17 EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER Page 2 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PROPERTY OWNERS: MMM MUM IMM MM -ir 110 M M. 00.1 -,. By: _ Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �_ day of :�P.�Zct .ec 1998, by l-t-e-[iQrn cG�46i') of W " Rim, LP. STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of .1998, 0 My Commission expires FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1MPAC T AjNA LYSIS STATEMENT AND REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE Wrights Run Limited Partnership and Rockland A. See & Elizabeth See PROPERTY Shawnee Magisterial District January, 1998 EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street 0 Winchester, Virgizzia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2139 0 Fax: 540-665-0493 • E-mail: gzvclif f@mrtsiric.com 150C Olde Greezzzvich Drive • Fredericksburg, Virgizzia 22401 Phone: 540-898-2115 • Fax. 540-662-1331 0 E-mail: clifford@lbigred.com Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement Table of Contents Summary Project Background Introduction Location and Access Site Suitability Development Plan Impact Analysis Introduction Planning Analysis • Site Suitability • Adjoining Properties Traffic Impacts Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts Water Supply Impacts Drainage Facility Impacts Solid Waste Cost Historic Impacts Community Impacts • Education • Parks and Recreation • Emergency Services Environmental Impacts Other Fiscal Impacts Fiscal Impact Appendix Summary Eastgate Commerce Center SUMMARY Impact Analysis Statement The following Impact Analysis Statement has been prepared for the property know as Eastgate Commerce Center. The property consists of 226.9420 acres of Wrights Run, LP and 5.01 acres of Rockland A. & Elizabeth See. The total remaining acreage for this property is 231.9520 acres and consists of four types of zoning. Eastgate Commerce Center is currently zoned Rural Area (RA); Business General (B-2); Industrial Transition (B-3); and, Light Industrial (M-1). The requested change of zoning comes as a result of the final design and construction of relocated VA Route 642 now known as Tasker Drive; and, the completion of US Route 522 South known as the Front Royal Pike. The location of these rights-of-way and crossovers changed since the initial design of Eastgate was proposed and zoned. The area to be rezoned consists of 82.1723 acres. The Impact Analysis Statement for Eastgate Commerce Center is prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. A positive fiscal impact is projected. There are no residential units proposed as part of this rezoning. The property is planned as a business and industrial park with a mix of B-2, B-3 and M-1 zoning to accommodate a variety of uses. No specific uses are proposed at this time. The development is divided by relocated VA Route 642 (Tasker Drive) that traverses the site it's entire length connecting with US Route 522. This primary access route is to be controlled by a traffic signal located at the intersection of US Route 522 and VA Route 642. A network of cul-de-sac roads and interparcel connecting roads are proposed to provide access via VA Route 642. US Route 522 and VA Route 642 are constructed to the latest VDOT standards as will all proposed improvements planned for the Eastgate project. Eastgate Commerce Center is located outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Community and county -wide planning and planning policies recognize this area as suitable for development. The property is zoned and currently the site of Jouan, Inc. and Special Maid which is under construction. Analysis of environmental and physical characteristics of this property to be rezoned indicate that there is opportunity for development as envisioned. There are no known environmental features that limit development of the property. Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement Assuming full development of the 231.9520 acres rezoned to B-2, B-3 and M-1, and assuming an average development factor of 5,000 to 15,000 square feet per acre, approximately 2,319,520 square feet of office/commercial/industrial space may be developed using an average of 10,000 square feet per acre. For example, the Jouan, Inc. facility currently under construction has approximately 5,100 square feet per acre. Revenues in the form of real property taxes, the local share of retail sales taxes, personal property taxes and business license fees are accounted for in the Development Impact Model provided by the Frederick County Planning Office. 82.1723 acres are requested to be rezoned from current RA to M-1. This portion of the Eastgate commerce Center was retained as RA and considered for future M-1 zoning. Development of industrial sites at the Eastgate Commerce Center has used most of the M-1 zoned land. The rezoning request for the 80.1723 acres completes the remaining portion of the property and adds much needed industrial land for future sites. Public water and sewer are available to the property. Currently a 12" water line serves the property. Sewer service is available via a 6" force main and an onsite sewage pump station. Natural gas and electrical service are available to the property. The rezoning and master development plan fit within the guidelines of present planning policy for this currently zoned and developing commerce center. In summary: • The property is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) shown in the Comprehensive Plan. • The property has all service utilities including sewer and water. • The property is zoned and designated for development. • The property is located on an important transportation corridor, US Route 522. • There are no environmental of historic impacts. • There are positive fiscal impacts. • Major transportation improvements are proposed as part of the development plan. • Landscaped greenways are proposed as part of the park • The 82.1723 acres proposed for M-1 zoning is a logical extension of the current zoning. Project Background Eastgate Commerce Center PROJECT BACKGROUND Impact Analysis Statement Introduction Eastgate Commerce Center now consists of 231.9520± acres.. Since it's inception US Route 522 was reconstructed from two lanes to four lanes and VA Route 642 has been designed and relocated. This rezoning is in response primarily to the major road improvements completed and the demand for additional industrial sites. Since the initial rezoning for Eastgate, 31.86 acres have been sold or dedicated for rights-of-way. 20.86 acres have been sold to Jouan, Inc. and 11.01 acres have been given for rights-of- way. Of the remaining acreage, 31± acres were recently evaluated and approved by the Board of Supervisors for B-2, B-3 and M-1 zoning. 82.1723 additional acres are proposed and evaluated herein for M-1 zoning. Eastgate Commerce Center is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of US Route 522 South and VA Route 642. The parcels are identified as tax parcels 76-((A))-53 & 87-((A))-17 in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is currently zoned Rural Area (RA), Business General (B-2), Industrial Transition (B-3) and Industrial (M-1). An 82.1723 acre portion of the original parcel including a 5.01 acre parcel remained RA zoning. This portion of the property is located south of Route 642 and is requested for M-1 zoning. The property is located in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) designed in the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The park is currently zoned and is the site of one major industry. This portion of the Eastgate Commerce Center is zoned RA and proposed for M-1 zoning. A master site development plan and site evaluation indicates that this site can support business and industrial uses. Location and Access Eastgate Commerce Center is located in the Shawnee Magisterial District of Frederick County. The Center has frontage on US Route 522 and VA Route 642 (see the attached location map). The 82.1723 acres to be zoned M-1 is in the southern portion of the property and is accessed via Rainville Road from Route 642. Site Suitability The property to be rezoned has some development limiting factors; steep slopes and flood plain. The property to be rezoned appears well suited for the M-1 zoning proposed and development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. The portions of the property in steep slopes and flood plain will be identified in all master planning documents. this area consists of approximately 30+/- acres. Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the changE of use from open, rural land to a business/industrial setting. The impacts of the allowed and industrial uses on the surrounding uses is reduced through distance setbacks, buffers, landscaping and screening regulations. The adjoining property is primarily vacant, agricultural. I& DP - J 01 IAN f 41 720 01-ubk 011gam Mf EASTGATE Location Map COMMERCE t CENTER AREA TO BE REZONED RA TO M-1 , fat % it C:7 DP - J 01 IAN f 41 720 01-ubk 011gam Mf EASTGATE Location Map COMMERCE t CENTER AREA TO BE REZONED RA TO M-1 Development Plan Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Eastgate Commerce Center development proposes a continuation of the commercial and industrial center in the southeastern part of Frederick County. US Route 522 is an important corridor connecting with US Route 50/17 and I-81 in Frederick County. Additionally, newly relocated VA Route 642 that traverses the site is an important east -west connector linking I-81 and US Route 522. Eastgate Commerce Center is proposed as an industrial, commercial and office center. This industrial, commercial and office center is designed to provide near term industrial sites along this important corridor while providing for future commercial growth in the same planned setting. The site is bisected by a major road that connects to US Route 522. The road replaces the old Macedonia Church Road and provides for a east -west connecting link with the Urban Development Area to the west. Two cul-de- sac roads are planned intersecting with Tasker Drive to provide access to portions of the site not suitable for interparcel connections. A parallel road connects with US Route 522 serving the southeastern portion of the site providing a secondary access. These roads create different development sections which are defined by and follow the natural form and flow of the land connecting with relocated VA Route 642. A Master Development Plan is attached illustrating the major design features proposed for the Eastgate Commerce Center. The 82.1723 acre portion requested for M-1 zoning is accessed via Rainville Road (formerly Spring House Road) and Ridgetop Road. These roads will end in a cul-de-sac on the 82.1723 acre portion zoned M-1. The cul-de-sac is an extension of the proposed and master planned road for the Eastgate Commerce Center. i r -3 SZ .1-7Z3 lq--M77 RA to M-1 AKEA F�Ea OR5,rED FOR A-1 zot llNG / OZ 14, Impact Analysis Eastgate Commerce Center IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact Analysis Statement Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. is commissioned to evaluate the rezoning of the Wrights Run, LP property project known as "Eastgate Commerce Center" in light of the several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared to rezone an 82.1723 acre tract including a 5.01 parcel from present Rural Areas (RA) to Industrial (M-1). The property is well suited for M-1 zoning considering all factors required for analysis of a site. There is a positive fiscal impact. Introduction The 231± acre property, of which 82.1723 acres are evaluated herein for the M-1 zoning, is identified as tax parcel 53-((A))-68 and 87-((A))- 17 in the Shawnee Magisterial District and is currently zoned RA. The property is located in the Sewer and Water Service Areas designated in the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The property is located on a major transportation corridor, US Route 522 South. A preliminary site development master plan and site evaluation indicates that this site can support business and associated uses of the M-1 zone. Planning Analysis Site Suitability - The property to be rezoned has no site specific development limiting factors. The property appears well suited for M-1 zoning uses and development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 48 as Weikert Berks channery silt loams and Clearbrook channery loams. Prime Agricultural Soils - The property does not contain prime agricultural soils as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Slopes - There are identified steep slopes on this property. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7% on the areas to be used for industrial sites. Approximately 30+/- acres are in steep slopes. Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property to be rezoned. The property is generally well drained and has no low lying wet areas or wetland vegetation that indicates the presence of a wetland area. Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property that impact planning development or impact the areas considered for rezoning. Flood Plain - A small portion of the property is located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063- 00115B of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary Map. Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement Adjoining Properties - Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties in the change of use from open, rural land to an business and industrial setting. The impacts of the allowed business uses on the surrounding uses is reduced through existing zoning, master planning, distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. Traffic Impacts Recent traffic counts and traffic study analysis are contained herein for the relocated VA Route 642 and recently reconstructed US Route 522. The traffic volume impact resulting from the proposed rezoning is estimated. The additional 414 trips were distributed using the assumptions of last years study. They are: 1. 15% of trips to Eastgate are from/to US 522 North 2. 45% of trips to Eastgate are from/to US 522 South 3. 40% of trips to Eastgate are from/to VA Route 642 West Additionally, since southbound US Route 522 trips to the Center can access the area to be rezoned two ways it was assumed that 20% of these trips turned right at Route 642 and then left at Rainville Road. The remaining 80% proceed to Beechwood Drive, then make a right turn. It was also assumed that 90% of the trips from the 57 acres to US Route 522 South would go east on Sunrise Drive. The remaining 10% used Rainville Road and Route 642. Attachment 1B presents a summary of the p.m. peak hour enter and exit volumes for the entire development. The new area is numbered 11. The new trips were added to the estimated intersection volumes from last years study. For your reference, the current totals as counted last year are also provided. Primarily the Rainville Road and Tasker Road intersection and Tasker Road and US Route 522 intersections will be negatively impacted. The other Tasker Road intersection analyzed last year was at Rams Head Road. As the impact there was only estimated at 20 eastbound through trips and 146 westbound trough trips. that intersection was not reevaluated. In July, 1997 the Rams Head Road intersection was found to operate at level of service B on all movements. A summary of the impact determination for the Tasker Road/US Route 522 intersection is Attachment 2. The intersection volume increased from 2,741 to 2,842 during the peak hour. Attachment 3 summarizes the Tasker Road and Rainville Road intersection. There the peak hour intersection volumes increased from 1,954 to 2,224 trips. SP 209 was used to evaluate the resulting intersection geometry. The same signal and lane configurations used in last years study were checked. The findings are provided in Attachment 4 for the Tasker Road/US Route 522 intersection and in Attachment 5 for the Tasker Road/Rainville Road intersection Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement The findings indicated that the Rainville Road intersection will continue to operate at a B level of service with the lane configuration recommended in last years study. At the Tasker Road and US Route 522 intersection, an error in last years model was found dealing with the Route 642 lane geometry. Dedicated left turn and right turn laries are provided. Under this configuration the intersection operates at a C level of service. The results of this study indicate that improvements over and above those recommendations in the July, 1997 traffic impact study are not required by the increased traffic caused by the proposed rezoning from RA to M-1 at the Eastgate Commerce Center. We have also estimated the average daily trips on Rainville Road at 5,621. We do recommend that Rainville Road be designed for 5,650 trips per day. The generation counts and evaluations follow: EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER III TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 87 ACRE AREA TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES ATTACHMENT 1A 1/7/1998 gilbert w. clifford and associates Revision 1.0-3 July 1997 Revision 2.0 -January 7998 Eastgate Commerce Center RA - M1 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 57 ACRE OF GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1/05/1997 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DRIVEWAYRATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 51.80 32.69 1.00 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 6.23 0.00 2953 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 1.28 0.00 1.00 355 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 7.51 6.51 1.00 73 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 0.87 0.00 1.00 428 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 6.39 0.00 1.00 50 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 7.26 5.99 1.00 364 AM GEN PK HR ENTER 7.16 0.00 1.00 414 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.80 0.00 1.00 1.00 408 45 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 7.96 6.46 1.00 PM GEN PK HR ENTER 1.23 0.00 1.00 454 PM GEN PK HR EXIT 7.54 0.00 1.00 70 430 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 8.77 6.74 1.00 500 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 8.73 7.91 1.00 498 PK HR ENTER 0.45 0.00 1.00 26 PK HR EXIT 0.51 0.00 1.00 29 PK HR TOTAL 0.96 1.55 1.00 55 SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 4.42 5.50 1.00 252 PK HR ENTER 0.31 0.00 1.00 18 PK HR EXIT 0.33 0.00 1.00 19 PK HR TOTAL 0.64 1.06 1.00 36 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Update. TRIP GENE;; -ON a`" MICROTRANS Eastgate Co=erce Center RA - Ml SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES FOR 57 ACRE OF GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TRIPS PER ACRE 1/05/1997 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Update. AVG TRIP RATE MIN TRIP RATE MAX TRIP RATE STD DEV NO OF DATA AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 51.80 5.21 159.37 32.69 17 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 6.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 7.51 1.61 34.38 6.51 18 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 6.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 7.26 1.32 28.00 5.99 16 AM GEN PK HR ENTER 7.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 7.96 1.61 34.38 6.46 19 PM GEN PK HR ENTER 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PM GEN PK HR EXIT 7.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 8.77 1.32 31.25 6.74 18 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 8.73 4.10 43.53 7.91 6 PK HR ENTER 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PK HR EXIT 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PK HR TOTAL 0.96 0.44 7.06 1.55 5 SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 4.42 3.29 34.12 5.50 4 PK HR ENTER 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PK HR EXIT 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 PK HR TOTAL 0.64 0.47 4.71 1.06 4 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Update. Eastgate Commerce Center RA - M1 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 57 ACRE OF GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1/05/1997 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Update. AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DRIVE WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 51.80 32.69 1.00 2953 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 6.23 0.00 1.00 355 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 1.28 0.00 1.00 73 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 7.51 6.51 1.00 428 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 0.87 0.00 1.00 50 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 6.39 0.00 1.00 364 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 7.26 5.99 1.00 414 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 8.73 7.91 1.00 498 PK HR ENTER 0.45 0.00 1.00 26 PK HR EXIT 0.51 0.00 1.00 29 PK HR TOTAL 0.96 1.55 1.00 55 SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 4.42 5.50 1.00 252 PK HR ENTER 0.31 0.00 1.00 18 PK HR EXIT 0.33 0.00 1.00 19 PK HR TOTAL 0.64 1.06 1.00 36 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Update. Eastgate Commerce Center RA - M1 SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION FOR 57 ACRE OF GENERAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 1/05/1997 24 HOUR 7-9 AM PK HOUR 4-6 PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT AVERAGE WEEKDAY 2953 355 73 50 364 24 HOUR PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY VOLUME ENTER EXIT SATURDAY 498 26 29 SUNDAY 252 18 19 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Update. _^1T �,`41TT�\♦ "'1�� 1N4 re av �rw. ATTACHMENT t B 3/98 Eastgate Commerce Center Traffic Impact Study Distribution Mop County of Frederick, Virginio PA. Peak HR. Trips From Trips Area Acres Trips Generated Entering South North West Exiting South From 1 41.3 428 90 41 14 36 338 North West 2 12 125 26 12 q 152 1 35 3 26.4 245 52 23 8 11 21 99 45 15 IS 400 4 12.7 483 242 109 36 97 195 Be 29 78 5 8.4 321 160 72 24 64 1 160 60 109 72 36 6 3.1 116 58 26 9 23 58 26 24 4 6 64 7 8.14 309 154 69 23 62 1 69 9 23 8 0.697 26 13 6 2 5 3 1 13 23 9 7.3 279 140 63 21 56 140 6 63 2 5 5 10 4.6 175 88 39 13 35 88 39 21 56 `5 11 57.0 414 50 23 8 20 364 13 164 55 06 ATTACHMENT t B 3/98 Eastgate Commerce Center Traffic Impact Study Distribution Mop County of Frederick, Virginio I L�-- 6UnnrV1taGF- CENTER III 87 ACRE REZONING . RAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Current US Rte 522/ Va Rte 642 Intersection Volumes Traffic From West Traffic From South on VA Rte 642 on US Rte 522 Time Period Left Right Total Left Thru Total 17:00 18:00 17 109 126 196 591 787 Impact of Development Based on Existing Zoning Traffic From North on US Rte 522 Total Thru Right Total N,S,E,W 362 35 397 1310 Traffic From West Traffic From South Traffic From North Total on Va Rte 642 on US Rte 522 on US Rte 522 Time Period Left Right Total Left Thru Total Thru Right Total N,S,E.W 17:00 18:00 256 648 904 714 591 1305 362 170 532 2741 Increase Traffic Volume Traffic From West Traffic From South Traffic From North on VA Rte 642 on US Rte 522 on US Rte 522 Added Left Tums 55 23 0 Added Right turns 16 0 2 Added Thru Traffic 0 0 6 Impact of Development Based on Proposed Zoning Traffic From West Traffic From South Traffic From North Total on Va Rte 642 on US Rte 522 on US Rte 522 Time Period Left Right Total Left Thru Total Thru Right Total N,S,E,W 17:00 18:00 311 664 975 737 591 1328 368 171 539 2842 gilbert w. clifford and associates Revision 1.0-3 July 1997 Revision 2.0 -January 1998 VA Rte 642/ US Rte 522 Intersection Proposed P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Attachment -2 ntersection of 6421 Rainsville Road :urrent Traffic 642/Rainsville Road Traffic From West on VA Rte 642 ince Period Left Right 1700 1800 0 0 EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER III 87 ACRE RE! 11NG TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Traffic From East on VA Rte 642 Thru Left Right Thru 126 0 0 231 Traffic From North E Traffic From South D npact of Development Based on Current Zoning Traffic From West Traffic From East Traffic From North Traffic From West Traffic From East Traffic From North on VA Rte 642 on Va Rte 642 on VA Rte 642 Traffic From South iri�e Period Left Right Thru g Left Right Thru on Wrights Run on Wrights Run 1700 1800 62 120 613 140 93 510 Left Right Thru g Left Right T5 :/ded Right Turns 20 88 62 5 174 83 5 icrease Traffic Volume Due to Development RAINSVILLE ROAD ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC PM peak hour trips = 788 Ration PM peak to Average Daily Trips = (414/2953) = 0.140196 Average Daily Trips = 5621 cit iv. Clifford and associates vision 1.0-3 July 1997 vision 2.0 -January 1998 Total N,S,E,W 1954 Total N,S,E,W 2224.48 VA Rte 642/ Rainsville Rd Intersection Proposed P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Attachment -3 Traffic From West Traffic From East Traffic From North on VA Rte 642 on VA Rte 642 on Wrights Run Traffic From South on Wrights Run tided Left Turns 0 :/ded Right Turns 20 24 0 146 •1ded Thru Traffic 0 0 0 71 0 5 5 ipact of Development Based on New Zoning Traffic From West on Va Rte 642 Traffic From East Traffic From Nortti Traffic From South ne Period Left Right Thru g on VA Rte 642 Left Right Thru on Wrights Run on Wrights Run 700 1800 61.8 140.3 613 163.8 92.6 509.7 Left Right Thru 87.6 Left Right Thru 61.8 10 320 153.88 10 RAINSVILLE ROAD ESTIMATED AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC PM peak hour trips = 788 Ration PM peak to Average Daily Trips = (414/2953) = 0.140196 Average Daily Trips = 5621 cit iv. Clifford and associates vision 1.0-3 July 1997 vision 2.0 -January 1998 Total N,S,E,W 1954 Total N,S,E,W 2224.48 VA Rte 642/ Rainsville Rd Intersection Proposed P.M. Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Attachment -3 EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER III TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY US ROUTE 522 AND TASKER ROAD INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION ATTACHMENT 4 1/7/1998 gilbert w. clifford and associates Revision 1.0-3 July 1997 Revision 2.0 -January 1998 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 01-07-1998 Gilbert W. Clifford And Associates ~reets: (E -W) Va Rte 642 -~----------- (N -S) Us Rte 522-------- �. .lyst: Ram File Name: EG57-522.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-8-98 pm pk Comment: Intersection of Rte 642/522 PROP 57 AC M-1 AREA ADDED Eastbound westbound Northbound Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R --- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- No. Lanes 1 1 2 2 -- ---- ---- ---- Volumes 311 664 2 1 PHF or PK15 0.90 0.90 737 591 368 171. 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 Grade 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 % Heavy Veh 2 2 0 02 2 Parking (YIN) N 2 2 Bus Stops 0 (YIN) N (YIN) N Con. Peds 00 0 Ped Button (YIN) N 0 0 0 Arr Type 6 3 (YIN) N (YIN) N RTOR Vols 3 3 350 100 150 3 3 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Prop. Share 3.00 3.00 Prop. Prot. ------------------------------------------------------------ --- Signal Operations -- - - F se Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB Left * 8 NB Left * * Thru Right * Thru * Right Peds Peds WB Left SB Left Thru Right Thru * PRight Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 24.OA Green 24.OP 18.OA Yellow/AR 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length_--75-secs--Phase-combination-order_-#1-#5-#6 - m---_-^-- Intersection Performance Summary - -- Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay ch: ___-- ----------- ----- Delay LOS Delay LOS EB L 566 1770 0.611 0`320 16.7 C 18.2 R 507 1583 0.689 0.320 19.6 C C NB L 1332 3539 0.634 0.560 13.1 B 14.7 B T 1192 3725 0.579 0.320 16.7 C SB T 1.192 3725 0.360 0.320 15.0 B 14.9 B R 507 1583 0.045 0.320 13.4 B Intersection Delay = 15.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C Lost Time/Cycle, L = 6.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.742 HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.4c --_-------_ 01-07-1998 1 ----------------- ---- ------------------------- tbert W. Clifford And Associates - ---`___-- 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 667-2139 Streets: (E -W) Va Rte 642 (N -S) Us Rte 522 Analyst: Ram File Name: EG57-522.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-8-98 pm pk Comment -Intersection -of -Rte -642/522 -PROP -57 AC M-1 AREA ADDED TrafficandRoadway Conditions -------- - - - Eastbound Westbound Northbound --- L T R L T R L T R Southbound No. Lanes 1 1 - ---- -2-- -2-- ---- ---- ---- ---- Volumes 311 664 2 1 PHF or PK15 0.90 0.90 737 591 368 171 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Grade0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 W Heavy Veh 2 2 0 0 2 2 Parking (YIN) N ( 2 2 (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 (YIN) N CMI . Peds 0 0 0 0 F Button (YIN) N 0 0 Arr Type 6 3 (YIN) N (Y/N) N RTOR vols 3 3 3 3 350 100 Lost 150 -Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3 .00 300 3.00 -------------------------------- �- Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 ----------------------- ----8- 3 4 EB Left * NB Left * 6 7 Thru Right * Thru * Peds Right Peds WE Left Thru SB Left Right Thru Peds Right Peds NB Right SB Right EB Riaht WE Right Green 24. OA Green 24. OP 18, OA Yellow/AR 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 75 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6 HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.4c 01-07-1998 2 - Teets: (E -W) Va Rte 642 (N -S) Us Rte 522 --------------- Analyst: Ram File Name: EG57-522.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-8-98 pm pk Comment: Intersection of Rte 642/522 PROP 57 AC M-1 AREA ADDED Volume Adjustment Worksheet Direc- 1900 1 1.00 0.98 Lane 1.00 Lane 1.00 Adj 0.95 - tion/ Mvt 1 Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt Vol PHF Vol Grp Vol Ln -- Fact Fact Vol LT RT EB--- ----- ------ ---- ---- ---- Left Right 311 664 0.90 0.90 346 349 L 346 1 1.000 1.000 346 1.00 0.00 WE 1900 2 1.00 R 349 1 1.000 1.000 349 0.00 1.00 NB Left 737 0.90 819 L 819 2 1.030 1.000 844 1.00 0.00 Thru 591 0.90 657 T 657 2 1.050 1.000 690 0.00 0.00 SB Thru 368 0.90 409 T 409 2 1.050 1.000 429 0.00 0.00 Right 171 0.90 23 R 23 -------------------------------------- 1 1.000 1.000 23 0.00 1.00 Saturation Flow Adjustment worksheet Ideal Adj Direction Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat /LnGrp Flow Lns W HV G --p- BE A RT LT Flow --- - ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- EB L 1900 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 R 1900 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 WE NB L 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.95 1067 3539 T 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3725 SB T 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3725 R 1900 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 HCS_-- - Signalized Intersection Version 2.4c 01-07-1998 3 "-eets: (E -W) Va Rte 642 (N -S) -US -Rte -522================ Analyst: Ram File Name: EG57-522.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-8-98 pm pk Comment: Intersection of Rte 642/522 PROP 57 AC M-1 AREA ADDED ----------------------------------------------- Supplemental Permitted LT Worksheet APPROACH Cycle Length, C NE Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 75 Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 45 2424 Opposing Effective Green Time, go Number of Opposing Lanes, No Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 2 2 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vit Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt 819 1.00 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=Vlt*C/3600 Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 11 17..06 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: V01c=V0C/3600No 429 4.47 Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo Lost time per phase, tl 1 gf=Gexp(-0.882*LTC"0.717)-tl 3 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) 0.00 0.68 gr = Volc * qro / (.5 - Volc * {1 - qro) / go)-tl 3.90 91- -g-gq (or g-gf) fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 20.10 P1=Plt [1+ f (N-1) g/ (fsgu+4.5) }] 0.61 Eli 2.44 fmin 2.57 fm,(min=fmin;max=1.00) 0.29 flt=[fm+0.91(N-1)]/N 0.29 0.29 HCS: --Signalized Intersection Version 2.4c -------_-____ 01-07-1998 4 itreets: (E -W) Va Rte 642 - (N -S) Us Rte 522 - - Analyst: Ram File Name: EG57-522.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-8-98 pm pk Comment: Intersection ot- Rte -642/522- PROP -57 AC M-1 AREA ADDED ---------------------- - CapacityAnalysis-Worksheet --------------------- Adj Adj Sat Flow Lane Group Direction Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c /LnGrp ------ --- ----- (v) (s} (v/s) (g/C)(c) Ratio --------- ----- EB L 346 1770 0.195 0.320 .220 566 0.611 R 349 1583 0.220 0.320 507 0.689 * NB Lsec. 341 1067 0.320 0.320 Lpri. 503 3539 0.142 0.280 341 1.000 * Ltot. 844 991 0.508 T 690 3725 0.185 0.320 1332 0.634 SB 1192 0.579 T 429 3725 0.115 0.320 1192 0.360 R 23 1583 0.015 0.320 507 0.045 Sum (v/s) critical = 0.682 � ost-Time/Cycle-L-_---6_0-sec------------------------------------------- - - - Criticalv/c(x)0,742 ----------------------Level-of- - -ServiceWorksheet Delay Del Lane Calib Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS Direction v/c g/C d Adj Groupd d /LnGrp Ratio Ratio 1 Fact Ca Grp Grp BY By --------- ----- ----- ----- Fact- --P-- 2 2 Del LOS App APP EB----- --- ---- ---- ----- --- L 0.611 0.320 16.4 1.000 566 4 0.4 16.7 C 18.2 C R 0.689 0.320 16.9 1.000 507 16 2.7 19.6 C WB NB L 0.634 0.560 12.4 1.000 1332 16 0.7 13,1 B 14.7 B SB Z' 0.579 0.320 16.2 1.000 1192 16 0.5 16.7 C T 0.360 0.320 14.9 1.000 1192 16 0.1 15.0 B 14.9 B R 0.045 0.320 13.4 1.000 507 16 0.0 13.4 B - -------Intersection- Delay- - 15.6 sec/veh Intersection LOS = C HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.4 - ---------- c 01-07-1998 5 ---------------------- _______________________________ S__eets: (E-W) Va Rte 642 (N-S) Us Rte 522 Analyst: Ram File Name: EG57-522.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-8-98 P Comment: Intersection of Rte 642/522 PROP 57 AC MplAREA ADDED Supplemental Uniform Delay Worksheet Approach Adj. LT Vol (v) v/c ratio (x) Primary phase effective green gq from Supplemental LT Worksheet gu from Supplemental LT Worksheet Red time (r) Arrivals qa = v/(3600(max(x,l) Primary Ph. Departures Sp=s/3600 Secondary Ph. Departures Ss=S(Gq+Gu)/(Gu*3600) Xperm XProt Case Queue at begining of green arrow (Qa) Queue at beginning of unsaturated green (Qu) Residual queue (Qr) Ur'-"orm Delay Northbound 819 0.63 21.00 3.90 20.10 30.00 0.23 0.98 0.35 1.73 N/A 5 5.17 7.71 0.00 12.38 INTERSECTION DIAGRAM Intersection: Va Rte 642 and Us Rte 522 Time period: pm pk Volumes SB Total 539 < v > 171 368 0 Legend [X] = Level of Service #-� = No. of Lanes D -J = De facto Turn EB Total 975 1 [C] [C] v 311- i 0 664 v Us Rte 522 Intersection [C] [B] [C] 2 2 0 0 WB Total < 0 0 r --- v Va. Rte 642 7 591 1328 NB Total EASTGATE COMMERCE CENTER III TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY RAINSVILLE ROAD AND TASKER ROAD INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION ATTACHMENT 5 1/7/1998 gilbert w. clifford and associates Revision 1.0-3 Juiv 1997 Revision 2.0 -January 1998 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECT- `J SUMMARY version 2.4c 01-07-1998 Gilbert v. Clifford And Associates Streets: (E -W.1 Va Rte 642 (N-,) rainsville road ------- Analyst: HCS File Name: EGRN-SIG.HC9 F a Type: Other 1-7-98 PK HR Ct-'Lmnent: Eastgate Traffic proposed intersection with full development - Eastbound Westbound Northbound- I- Southbound L T R L T R L T R L T R --- ---- ---- __ ____ ____ No. Lanes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c -- Volumes 62 613 140 164 510 93 320 10 154 188 110< 62 PHF or PK15 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 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 W Heavy Veh 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 0 0 Con. Peds 0 0 Ped Button (YIN) N (YIN) N 0 0 0 (Y/N) N (YIN) N Arr Type 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 120 93 83 62 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 F" Left * * NB Left Thru * Thru Right PRight Peds Peds WB Left * * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WS Right Green 4.OP 26.OP Green 18.0P Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 Cycle Length: 57 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 -------------------- Intersection Performance Summary Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach: Mvmts -Cap --Flow- Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS - EB L 255 1770 0.271 0.193 5.7 B 13.0 -B- T 850 1863 0.801 0.456 14.0 B R 722 1583 0.032 0.456 6.5 B WB L 255 1770 0.714 0.193 13.6 B 11.3 B T 850 1863 0.667 0.456 10.6 B R 850 1863 0.000 0.456 0.0 A NT L 539 1707 0.660 0.316 14.9 B 14.1 B TR 511 1617 0.176 0.316 10.8 B SB L 424 1343 0.231 0.316 11.0 B 10.9 B TR 588 1863 0.019 0.316 10.2 B Intersection Delay 12.5 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B Lost Time/Cycle, L 4 9.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.765 HCS: Signalized intersection Version 2.4c 01-07-1998 ---------------------- G )ert W. Clifford And Associates ----------- 2UU North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 667-2139 Streets: (E -W) Va Rte 642 (N -S) rainsville road Analyst: HCS File Name: EGRN-SIG.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-7-98 PK HR Comment: Eastgate Traffic proposed intersection with full development Traf f i Eastbound L T R No. Lanes 1 1 1 - Volumes 62 613 140 PHF or PK15 0.90 0.90 0.90 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Grade 0 $ Heavy Veh 2 2 2, Parking (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 Con. Peds 0 P( Button (YIN) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 120 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------------------- c and --------------- Roadway C westbound T L T R 1 1 1 164 510 93 0.90 0.90 0.90 12.0 12.0 12.0 62 0 0.90 2 2 2. (YIN) N 12.0 12.0 0 0 (YIN) N 0 3 3 3 2 2 93 3.00 --------------- 3.00 3.00 onditions Northbound Southbound L T R L T R 1 1 < 1 -�-- < ---- 320 10 154 88 10 62 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 (YIN) N (YIN) N 0 0 0 0 (YIN) N (YIN) N 3 3 3 3 83 62 3.00 ----------------------------- 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB Left * * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds I Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds i -M Right :aB Right .ireen fellow/AR 4.OP 26.OP 3.0 3.0 SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WE Right Green 18.OP Yellow/AR 3.0 `yc.le Length: 57 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.4c _------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Direction Sat No. f 01-07-1998 2 -eets: (E Analyst: HCS -W) Va Rte 642 Adj (N -S) rainsville road Area Type: Other f f f File Name: EGRN-SIG.HC9 Sat Comment: Eastgate ------g---------1`-proposed Traff;r. a 1-7-98 PK HR -intersection-with full development ---- p BB ------------------Lane-------------------------------- Volume Adjustment Worksheet Flow EB- Direc---------------- ----- - ----Lane----------------------------- ----- ----- ---- L T 1900 1900 tion/ Mvt 0.98 Adj Lane Lane Grp No. Util 0.14 0.95 Adj R 1900 Mvt-- Vol- PHF- Vol- Grp Vol Ln Fact Growth Fact Grp Prop Prop - - 1.00 0.85 1.00 Vol LT RT EB----- 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 ------ ---- ---- ---- Left Thru 62 613 0.90 0.90 69 681 L T 69 1 1.000 1.000 69 1.00 0.00 Right 140 0.90 23 R 681 23 1 1 1.000 1.000 681 0.00 0.00 WE 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.000 1.000 23 0.00 1.00 Left Thru 164 510 0.90 0.90 182 567 L T 182 1 1.000 1.000 182 1.00 0.00 Right 93 0.90 0 R 567 0 1 1.000 1.000 567 0.00 0.00 NB 1.00 1.00 1 1.000 1.000 0 0.00 1.00 Left Thru 320 10 0.90 0.90 356 it L 356 1 1.000 1.000 356 1.00 0.00 R4 -'ht 154 0.90 79 TR 90 1 1.000 1.000 90 0.00 0.88 S. Left Thru 88 10 0.90 0.90 98 11 L TR 98 1 1.000 1.000 98 1.00 0.00 Right ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 62 0.90 0 11 Z 1.000 1.000 11 0.00 0.00 Saturation Flow Adjustment worksheet Ideal -------------------------- Direction Sat No. f f f £ Adj /LnGrp Flow Lns W HV G f f f f Sat ------ ---- --- ----- ----- ---- p BB A RT LT Flow EB- ----- ------ ----- ----- ----- ---- L T 1900 1900 1 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.14 0.95 257 1770 R 1900 1 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 WB 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 L T 1900 1900 1 1 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 0.14 0 0 .95 257 1770 R 1900 1 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 Z.00 1.00 1.00 x.00 1.00 1.00 .00 1863 i� 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 L 'rR 1900 1900 1 1 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1707 3b 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 1.00 1617 L TR 1900 1900 1 1 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.72 1343 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 HCS: --Siqnalized Intersection Version 2.4c ------------------------__-_- --_ 01-07-1998 3 Greets: (E -W) Va Rte 642 - Analyst: HCS(N-S ) rainsville road Area Type: Other File Name: EGRN-SIG.HC9 HR Comment: -Eastgate -Traffic -proposed -intersect8onKwith full development Supplemental Permitted LT Worksheet APPROACH Cycle Length, C EB Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 57 Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 33 Opposing Effective Green Time, go 29 Number of Opposing Lanes, No 26 Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, V1t 1 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, plt Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=Vlt*C/3600 69 1.00 Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 1.09 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc=VOC/3600No Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo 567 8.98 Lost time per phase, tl 1 gf=Gexp (-0.882*LTC"0.717) -tl 0 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) __T 0.00 = Volc * qro / ( .5 - Volc * (1 - qro) / go) _tl =9-gq (or g-gf) 0.54 14.26 fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 14.74 P1=Plt [l+{ (N-1) g/ (fsgu+4.5) }) 0.52 Ell 1.00 fmin 7.39 fm, (min=fmin;max=1.00) 0.14 flt= [fm+0.91 (N-1) ] /N 0.14 0.14 APPROACH Cycle Length, C WB Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 57 Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 33 Opposing Effective Green Time, go 29 Number of Opposing Lanes, No 26 Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt 1 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, plt 182 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=Vlt*C/3600 1.00 Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 2.88 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: VOIC=VOC/3600No Platoon Ratio, Rpo 01 1 78 Opposing Lost time per phase, tl 1 gf=Gexp(-0.882*LTC"0.717)-tl 0 0 -nosing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) 0.00 = Volc * qro / ( .5 - Volc * (1 - qro) / o) -t1 gu=g-gq (or g-gf) g 0.54 18.87 fs=(875-0.625vo)/1000 10.13 P1=P1t [1+{ (N -1)g/ (fSgu+4.5) }] 0.45 Ell 1.00 fmin 8.20 APPROACH Cycle Length, C NB Actual Green Time for Lane Group; G 57 Effective Green Time for Lane Group,18 g `-,nosing 18 Effective Green Time, go 18 ober of Opposing Lanes, No 18 Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1 1 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt 98 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt 3 1 1.00 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=Vlt*C/3600 . Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 5.64 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc=VoC/3600No 11 0.17 Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo Lost time per phase, tl 1 gf=Gexp (-0. 882*LTC^0.717) -tl 3 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) 0.00 gq = Volc * qro / (.5 - Volc * (1 - qro) / go)-tl 0.68 0.00 gu=g-gq (or g-gf) fs= (875-0. 625Vo) /1000 18.00 P1=Plt [l+{ (N-1) g/ (fsgu+4.5) )] 0.87 Ell 1.00 fmin 1.09 fm, (min=fmin;max=1.00) 0.22 flt= [fm+0.91 (N-1) ] /N 0'92 0.92 APPROACH Cycle Length, C SB Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 57 F'fective Green Time for Lane Group,18 g 18 _)osing Effective Green Time, go 18 Number of Opposing Lanes, No Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1 1 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt 98 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt 1.00 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=Vlt*C/3600 1.55 Adjusted O J Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 90 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: V0lc=VoC/3600No 1.42 Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo Lost time per phase, tl 1 gf=Gexp(-0.882*LTC-0.717)-tl 3 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) 0.00 0.68 gq = Volc * qro / (.5 - Volc * (1 - qro) / go)-tl 0.00 gu=g-gq (or g-gf) fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 18.00 P1=Plt [l+{ (N-1) g/ (fsgu+4.5) )] �' 82 Ell 1.00 fmin 1-39 fm,(min=fmin;max=1.00) 0'22 flt= [fm+0.91 (N-1) ]IN 0.72 0.72 HCS:- Signalized intersection 'version 2.4C 5.6 10.1 ---------------- ------- ------------------- ------------------ 0.1 5.7 01-07-1998 4 eets: A.ualyst: (E -W) Va HCS Rte 642 ------- (N -S) rainsville-road 1.000 Area Type: Other 16 16 3.9 File Name: EGRN-SIG.HC9 Comment: Eastgate Traffic proposed intersection 1-7-98 pR HR w ith full development Capacity Analysis Worksheet 0.0 6.5 B Ada Adj Sat---Flow---------------Lane L T 0.714 0.667 0.193 0.456 7.4 9.2 Direc tion /LnGrp Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Group--------- Capacity 13.6 ------ -- (v) --- (s) --- (v/s) (9/C) (c) v/c Ratio EB Lsec. Lpri. 0 69 257 1770 0.000 -------- --- 0.509 ---- ------ 131 ----- 0.000 Ltot. 69 0.039 0.070 124 0.556 T R 681 23 1863 0.366 0.456 255 850 0.271 0.801 WE Lsec. 58 1583 257 0.01S 0.226 0.456 722 0.032 Lpri. 124 1770 0.070 0.509 0.070 131 0.443 Ltot. 182 511 16 0.0 124 1.000 T R 567 1863 0.304 0.456 255 850 0.714 0.667 NB 0 1863 0.000 0.456 850 0.000 L '7R 356 90 1707 1617 0.209 0.316 539 0.660 Sb 0.056 0.316 511 0.176 L TR 98 11 1343 1863 0.073 0.006 0.316 424 0.231 Lost Time/Cycle, L = 9.0 0.316 Sum (v/ical 588 0.644 0.019 ------------------------------------------/- sec -- Critical)v/c(crix) = i- ------ 0-765 ------------ Level of Service Worksheet Delay Del Lane Calib Delay Lane Lane -Delay -LOS Direction v/c g/C d Adj Group d d Grp G B OS y By /LnGrp Ratio Ratio 1 Fact Cap 2 2 ------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -____ Del LOS App APP EB----- ----- ---- ---- ----- --- L T 0.271 0.801 0.193 0.456 5.6 10.1 1.000 1.000 255 16 0.1 5.7 B 13.0 B R 0.032 0.456 6.5 1.000 850 722 16 16 3.9 Z4.0 B WB 0.0 6.5 B L T 0.714 0.667 0.193 0.456 7.4 9.2 1.000 255 16 6.1 13.6 B 11.3 B R 0.000 0.456 0.0 1.000 1.000 850 850 16 1.4 10.6 B 0 0.0 0.0 A L Q 0.660 0.176 0.316 0.316 12.8 10.7 1.000 1.000 539 16 2.1 14.9 B 14 .1 B B 511 16 0.0 10.8 B L TR 0.231 0.019 0.316 0.316 10.9 10.2 1.000 1.000 424 16 0.1 11.0 B 10.9 B Intersection Delay = 588 12.5 16 sec/veh 0.0 10.2 B Intersection LOS = B HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.4C --------------------------- 01-07-1998 5 ----------________________- ' gets: (E -W) Va Rte 642 (N -S) rainsville road Analyst: HCS File Name: EGRN-SIG.HC9 Area Type: Other 1-7-98 PK HR Comment: -Eastgate -Traffic -proposed -intersection -with full development Supplemental Uniform Delay worksheet Approach Adj. LT Vol (v) Eastbound v/c ratio (x) 69 Primary phase effective green 0.27 gq from Supplemental LT Worksheet 4.00 gu from Supplemental LT Worksheet 14.26 Red time (r) 14.74 Arrivals qa = v/ (3600 (max (x, 1) 24.00 Primary Ph. Departures Sp=s/3600 0.02 Secondary Ph. Departures Ss=S(Gq+Gu)/(Gu*3600) 0.49 Xperm 0.14 Xprot 0.27 Case 0.27 Queue at begining of green arrow (Qa) 1 Queue at beginning of unsaturated green (Qu) 0.46 Residual queue (Qr) 0.27 Uniform Delay 0.00 5.56 Apl,, oach Adj. LT Vol (v) Westbound v/c ratio (x) 1820 Primary phase effective green 71 gq from Supplemental LT Worksheet 4.00 gu from Supplemental LT Worksheet 18.87 Red time (r) 10.13 Arrivals qa = v/ (3600 (max (x, 1) 24.00 Primary Ph. Departures Sp=s/3600 0.05 Secondary Ph. Departures Ss=S(Gq+Gu)/(Gu*3600) 0.49 Xperm 0.20 Xprot 0.71 Case 0.72 Queue at begining of green arrow (Qa) 1 Queue at beginning of unsaturated green (Qu) 1.21 Residual queue (Qr) 0.95 Jniform Delay 0.00 7.43 INTERSECTION DIAGRAM Intersection: Va Rte 642 and rainsville road Time period: PK HR Volumes SB Total 160 < v > 62 10 88 Legend [X] = Level of Service #I = No. of Lanes D -J = De facto Turn --------------------- 1 > [B] [B] v rainsville road Intersection [B] L- 510 93 510 WB Total < 767 164 r --- v [A] �--- 1 [B] < 1 [B) r--- 1 v --------------------- Va Rte 642 320 10 154 <1 > I [ 484 NB Total TRUCKS+CARS Traffic From Was. Traffic From South Traffic From N on VA Rte 642 on US Rte 522 on US Rte 571 Time Period Left Right Total Left Thru Total Thru Right Total Total 7:00 - 7:15 5 19 24 15 Time Period 7:15 - 7:30 3 23 26 9 61 47 9 56 141 7:00 - 7:15 7:30 - 7:45 9 22 31 53 62 59 3 62 150 7:15 - 7:30 7:45 - 8:00 8 15 23 12 71 83 54 12 66 180 7:30 - 7:45 8:00 - 8:15 10 10 20 10 3 61 71 52 7 59 153 7:45 - 8:00 8:15 - 8:30 2 g 11 2 67 70 44 7 51 141 8:00 - 8:15 8:30 . 8:45 4 12 16 52 54 38 0 38 103 8:15 - 8:30 8:45 .. 9:00 6 7 13 1 41 42 29 2 31 89 8:30 - 8:45 9:00 - 9:15 5 10 15 4 6 76 80 40 2 42 135 8:45 - 9:00 9:15 - 9:30 5 7 12 5 51 57 45 10 55 127 9:00 - 9:15 9:30 - 9:45 7 2 9 61 66 32 2 34 112 9:15 - 9:30 9:45 . 10:00 4 4 8 4 58 62 32 2 34 105 9:30 - 9:45 10:00 - 10:15 6 11 17 3 6 41 44 25 4 29 81 9:45 - 10:-20 10:15 10:30 2 3 5 6 59 65 59 2 61 143 10:00 - 10:15 10:30 10:45 2 6 8 8 35 42 17 3 20 67 10:15 - 10:20 10:45 11:00 3 5 1 8 2 72 80 37 5 42 130 10:30 - 10:45 11:00 - 11:15 4 3 7 6 47 4g 42 3 45 102 10:45 - 11:00 11:15 - 11:30 3 1 4 4 49 55 46 2 48 110 11:00. - 11:' S 11:30 - 11:45 2 8 10 9 53 57 38 4 42 103 11:15 - 11:20 11:45 12:00 5 9 14 34 43 51 3 54 107 11:30 - 11:45 12:00 - 12:15 7 9 16 8 58 66 49 2 51 131 11:45 - 12:C0 12:15 - 12:30 3 7 10 12 46 58 45 1 46 120 12:00 - 12:'S 12:30 - 12:45 0 5 5 4 57 61 55 5 60 131 12:15 - 12:20 12:45 - 13:00 1 2 3 8 55 63 45 7 52 F55 120 12:30 - 12:45 13:00 13:15 2 4 6 2 5 38 40 55 0 98 12:45 - 13:CO 13:15 - 13:30 3 4 7 61 66 50 3 53 125 13:00 _ 13:'5 13:30 - 13:45 3 3 6 12 49 61 65 3 68 136 13:15 - 13:20 13:45 - 14:00 6 4 10 1 60 61 46 4 50 117 13:30 - 13:-15 14:00 - 14:15 5 4 9 4 40 44 67 1 68 122 13:45 - 14:C0 14:15 - 14:30 4 8 12 7 61 68 51 1 1 52 129 14:00 - 14:15 14:30 - 14:45 5 4 9 9 61 70 74 2 76 158 14:15 - 14:20 14:45 - 15:00 5 4 9 7 62 69 59 7 66 144 14:30 - 14:45 15:00 - 15:15 5 4 9 3 58 61 65 6 71 141 14:45 - 15 -CC 15:15 - 15.30 2 5 7 4 66 70 52 5 57 136 15:00 15.-:s 15.30 - 15.45 4 1 5 8 52 60 71 7 78 145 15:15 - 15:'0 15:45 - 16.00 7 8 15 7 49 56 72 7 79 140 15.30 - 15:15 16:00 - 16:15 14 4 18 14 17 57 71 78 5 83 169 15:45 - 16.:- C 16.15 - 16.30 4 6 10 7 46 63 83 9 92 173 16:00 - 16,'S 16.30 - 16.45 7 8 15 52 59 81 10 91 160 16:15 - 16.20 16.45 - 17:00 5 5 10 14 58 72 92 5 97 184 16.30 16.-E 17:00 - 17:15 1 15 16 10 28 45 55 90 9 99 164 16:45 - 17 20 17:15 - 17:30 5 17 22 136 164 85 1 9 ( 94 274 17:00 17.'E 17:30 - 17:15 9 39 51 151 202 119 10 129 353 17:15 17 -20 17:45 - 18:00 4860 2 38 132 192 89 9 ( 98 338 17:30 - 17 -5 4022_ 57 172 o E9 7 76 � 345 17:.15 t 9 h k I n o P r 204 394 598 474 2750 3224 2494 216 2710 6532 '✓A Rte ode US Rte .:__ !nte!-sec::c;, Counted totals adjusted to houriv volumes Traffic From West Traffic From South on VA Rte 642 on US Rte 522 Left Right Total Left Thru Total Time Period 7:00 - 8:00 7:15 - 8:15 7:30 - 8:30 7:45 - 8:45 8:00 - 9:00 8:15 - 9:15 8:30 - 9:30 8:45 - 9:45 9:00 - 10:00 9:15 - 10:15 9:30 - 10:30 9:45 - 10:45 10:00 - 11:00 10:15 - 11:15 10:30 - 11:30 10:45 - 11:45 11:00 12:00 11:15 12:15 11:30 - 12:30 11:45 - 12:45 12:00 13:00 12:15 - 13:15 12:30 - 13:30 12:45 - 13:45 '.3:00 - 14:00 3:15 - 14:15 13:30 - 14:30 13:45 - 14:45 14:00 - 15:00 14:15 - 15:15 14:30 - 15:30 14:45 - 15:45 15:00 - 16:00 15.'5 - 16:15 15.30 - 16.30 15.45 - 16:45 16.00 - 17:00 16.15 - 17:15 16.30 - 17:30 16.45 - 17:45 17.00 - 18:00 Traffic From N on US Rte 522 Total Thai Right Total N,S,E,W 25 79 104 46 231 277 212 31 243 Time Penod 30 70 100 34 252 286 209 29 238 624 7:00 » 8:00 29 56 85 27 251 278 188 26 214 624 7:15 - 8:15 24 46 70 16 221 237 163 16 179 577 7:30 8:30 22 38 60 10 236 246 151 11 162 486 7:45 - 8:45 17 38 55 13 220 233 152 14 166 468 8:00 - 9:00 20 36 56 16 229 245 146 16 454 8:15 - 9:15 23 26 49 19 246 265 149 162 463 8:30 - 9:30 21 23 44 18 211 229 16 165 479 8:45 - 9:45 22 24 46 18 219 134 18 152 425 9:00 - 10:00 19 20 39 19 194 237 148 10 158 441 9:15 - 10:15 14 24 38 23 208 213 133 11 144 396 9:30 - 10:30 13 25 38 22 214 231 138 14 152 421 9:45 - 10:45 11 17 28 22 204 236 155 13 168 442 10:00 - 11:00 12 15 27 20 221 226 142 13 155 409 10:15 - 11:15 12 17 29 21 241 163 14 177 445 10:30 11:30 14 21 35 27 183 204 177 12 189 422 10:45 » 11:45 17 27 44 33 194 221 184 11 195_ 451 11:00 12:00 17 33 50 33 191 224 183 10 193 461 11:15 - 12.15 15 30 45 32 195 228 200 11 211 489 11:30 - 12:30 11 23 34 216 248 194 15 209 502 11:45 12:45 26 196 272 200 13 213 469 12:00 - 13:^v9 6 18 24 19 211 230 205 15 220 474 12:15 - 13:15 6 15 21 27 203 230 215 13 228 479 12:30 - 13:30 9 13 22 20 208 228 216 10 226 476 12:45 13:45 14 15 29 22 210 232 228 11 239 500 13:00 - 14:00 17 15 32 24 210 234 229 9 238 504 13:15 14:15 18 19 37 21 222 243 238 8 246 526 13:30 14:30 20 20 40 27 224 251 251 11 262 553 13:45 - 14:45 19 20 39 26 242 268 249 16 265 572 14:00 - 15:0 19 20 39 23 247 270 250 20 270 579 14:15 - 15'5 17 17 34 22 238 260 247 25 272 566 14:30 - 15:30 16 14 30 22 225 247 260 25 285 562 14:45 15.45 18 18 36 33 224 257 273 24 297 590 15.00 16:C0 27 18 45 46 204 250 304 28 332 627 15.15 - 16.'5 29 19 48 45 204 249 314 31 345 642 15.30 - 16.:3 32 26 58 52 213 265 334 29 363 686 15.45 - 16.45 30 23 53 48 201 249 346 33 379 681 16.00 - 17:CIC 17 34 51 59 291 350 348 33 381 782 16.15 - 17-'5 18 45 63 103 390 493 386 33 419 975 16.30 '7 2-- 20 76 96 149 464 613 383 37 420 1129 16:45 17-5 17 109 126 196 591 787 362 35 397 1310 17:00 '8.;C Rte 6.12' US Rtc _22 !ntersr .. .. -<<_'_ .::ef �e�n amour Determine:i, Development Type Industrial Park (M-1,8-3) Trip Rate Average Daily Trips 62.9 P.M. Peak Hour Adj. Street 10.48 Retail (5.2) Area At FAR = 25% 5 Lots - Trip Rate Average Daily Trips 48.54 P.M. Peak Hour Adj. Street 4.56 'nder Existing Zoning Trips Generated Area 98.6 6199 1033 Area 25 G.L.F.A. - 272250 13215 1241 Residential (RA) Area 112.E Lot Sizei.ac) = 5 Lots - ?2.4 36.9 Trip Rate 3.5 Average Daily Trips 9.55 214 M. Peak Hour Adj. Street 1.01 23 TOTALS: Average Daily Trips 19628 P.M. Peak Hour Adj. Street 2297 dbo 6d�1�CfOMidOd�DD6 rr88®s�u increa: Under Prr—ilsed Zoning Trips Generaw Trips aerated Area 72.9 e587 -1611 764 -268 Area 52.0 G.L.F.A. - 565844 Trip Rate Due to Rezoning 36.9 20880 76665 3.5 1980 739 Area 79 Lots - 15.8 151 _6� 16 7 25618 5c=v 2761 1164 Average Daily Volume Summary Trips Per Day at Trips Per Day at Full Development Full Development Increase -rips Existing Trips Per Day Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Due to Rezoning VA Rte 642 1717 3652 4243 591 U.S. Rte 522 7552 Northside 16062 18659 25_7 U.S. Rte 522 8149 Southside 17332 20135 2802 Total - 17419 37047 43037 Assuming traffic occurring benveen 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. accounts for 75`0 of daily trios Assume !uture trios arrive site relative to current trip distribution at the =2Z 6112 intersection The c-ance :n zoning from the current layout increases the retail area oy 27 acres while losing -'his inousmai area. chance wnl resu,t :-I a 16 percent ;ncrease in trips aeneratea over wnat could have occurred unser the zcnrn::. Cosigotc hCzcninc Eastgate Rezoning Traffic impact Analysis Attachment #5 Trip Generation Calculation Proposed Zoning Patterns EASTGATE Prop Retail SUMMA= OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 563.844 T.G.L.A. OF SHOPPING CENTER 2 June 1997 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available The above rates were calculated from the following egsat-on. At -;D 2 -Way Vol (=c570 TGLA) : Ln(T) = 0.625Ln(A) + 5.985, R-2 = 0.7 DRIV Vol ( >570 TGLA) Ln (T) = 0 . 756Ln (A) AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT WAY Total: Ln (T) = 0 . 589Ln (A) + RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUM AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 36.90 62.21 1.00 2087E 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.50 0.00 1.00 28-: 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 0.29 0.00 1.00 167 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 0.80 6.57 1.00 45-- 5=4-6 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 1.75 0.00 1.00 99C 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 1.75 0.00 1.00 99C 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 3.50 7.38 1.00 197` AM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 1 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.00 6.12 1.00 PM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 PM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.00 7.16 1.00 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 48.00 41.91 1.00 271E PK HR ENTER 2.36 0.00 1.00 13= PK HR EXIT 2.36 0.00 1.00 1=_ PK HR TOTAL 4.73 2.23 1.00 26 - SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 20.70 9.02 1.00 1=7 PK HR ENTER 1.01 0.00 1.00 SE PK HR EXIT 1.05 0.00 1.00 5= PK HR TOTAL 2.05 1.22 1.00 11� Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available The above rates were calculated from the following egsat-on. At -;D 2 -Way Vol (=c570 TGLA) : Ln(T) = 0.625Ln(A) + 5.985, R-2 = 0.7 AW -D 2 -+^lav Vol ( >570 TGLA) Ln (T) = 0 . 756Ln (A) + 5 . 154 , R^ 2 = 0 . s 7 - 9 AM Pk Hr Total: Ln (T) = 0 . 589Ln (A) + 2.37 R-7- = 0.49, 63 o Enter, 37'10- 4-5 P''. Pk Hr Total (=c600 TGLA) : Ln(T) = 0.637Ln(A) + 3.5= R-2 = 0.81, 5096 Enter, 50 E:x- Pk Hr Total (>600 TGLA) : Ln(T) = 0.725Ln(A) - 2.9E R-2 = 0.55, 50%- Enter, 50g EX- 2-Wav Vol. Ln(T) = 0 . 628Ln (A) + 6.21-19, R'_ 0 . E Pk Hr Total: Ln(T) = 0 . 63SLn (A) - _ . gc v R" = 0.83, 50% Enter, _C�- o . 499Ln (A) + 6.'!-, R _ ' - '• - - 1 EASTGATE Prop Residential SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 16 DWELLING UNITS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 2 June 1997 DRIV: AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 9.55 3.66 1.00 153 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.19 0.00 1.00 3 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 0.55 0.00 1.00 9 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 0.74 0.90 1.00 1Z 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 0.66 0.00 1.00 1= 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 0.35 0.00 1.00 E 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 1.01 1.05 1.00 lE AM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.20 0.00 1.00 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.56 0.00 1.00` AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.76 0.91 1.00 1- PM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.66 0.00 1.00 1: PM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.36 0.00 1.00 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 1.02 1.05 1.00 1 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 10.19 3.65 1.00 16 PK HR ENTER 0.52 0.00 1.00 PK HR EXIT 0.44 0.00 1.00 PK HR TOTAL 0.96 1.00 1.00 SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 8.78 3.36 1.00 1 PK HR ENTER 0.44 0.00 1.00 PK HR EXIT 0.44 0.00 1.00 PK HR TOTAL 0.89 0.96 1.00 - Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trn Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Update EASTGATE Prop Ind Pk SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 72.93 ACRE OF INDUSTRIAL PARK 2 June 1997 DRIVE: AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT WAY RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME: AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 62.90 62.21 1.00 4587 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 8.27 0.00 1.00 603 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 1.82 0.00 1.00 132 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 10.09 6.57 1.00 736 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 2.20 0.00 1.00 161 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 8.28 0.00 1.00 604 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 10.48 7.38 1.00 76.1 AM GEN PK HR ENTER 7.21 0.00 1.00 526 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 1.08 0.00 1.00 79 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 8.29 6.12 1.00 605 PM GEN PK HR ENTER 1.82 0.00 1.00 133 PM GEN PK HR EXIT 6.85 0.00 1.00 50C PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 8.67 7.16 1.00 37- 637 - SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL SAT URD AY 34.23 41.91 1.00 2496. PK HR ENTER 1.51 0.00 1.00 11C, PK HR EXIT 3.20 0.00 1.00 234: PK HR TOTAL 4.71 2.23 1.00 34 - - SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 10.11 9.02 1.00 73 PK HR ENTER 0.46 0.00 1.00 3= PK HR EXIT 0.53 0.00 1.00 3c PK HR TOTAL 0.99 1.22 1.00 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trio Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Update Eastgate Rezoning Traffic Impact Analysis Attachment #4 Trip Generation Calculation Existing Zoning Patterns gube.? '.v. C: F`J Q 3nc 35SOC:3:e� : eL;S:C. .,� Eastgate Ex Residential SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 23 DWELLING UNITS OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 2 June 1997 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trio Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Updar-e. AVERAGE RA'Z'E STANDARD DEVIATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR DRIVE WAY VOLUME AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 9.55 3.66 1.00 220 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.19 0.00 1.00 4 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 0.55 0.00 1.00 13 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 0.74 0.90 1.00 1 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 0.66 0.00 1.00 L 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 0.35 0.00 1.00 8 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 1.01 1.05 1.00 23 AM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.20 0.00 1.00 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.56 0.00 1.00 13 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.76 0.91 1.00 1 - PM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.66 0.00 1.00 1� PM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.36 0.00 1.00 8 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 1.02 1.05 1.00 23 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 10.19 3.65 1.00 234 PK HR ENTER 0.52 0.00 1.00 12 PK HR EXIT 0.44 0.00 1.00 10 PK HR TOTAL 0.96 1.00 1.00 2 -- SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 8.78 3.36 1.00 202 PK HR ENTER 0.44 0.00 1.00 10 PK HR EXIT 0.44 0.00 1.00 10 PK HR TOTAL 0.89 0.96 1.00 20 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trio Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Updar-e. Eastgate Ex Ind Pk SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 98.55 ACRE OF INDUSTRIAL PARK 2 June 1997 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Uodate. AVERAGE RATE STANDARD DEVIATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR DRIVE WAY VOLUME AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 62.90 62.21 1.00 6199 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 8.27 0.00 1.00 815 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 1.82 0.00 1.00 179 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 10.09 6.57 1.00 994 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 2.20 0.00 1.00 217 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 8.28 0.00 1.00 816 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 10.48 7.38 1.00 1033 AM GEN PK HR ENTER 7.21 0.00 1.00 711 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 1.08 0.00 1.00 106 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 8.29 6.12 1.00 817 PM GEN PK HR ENTER 1.82 0.00 1.00 179 PM GEN PK HR EXIT 6.85 0.00 1.00 675 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 8.67 7.16 1.00 854 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 34.23 41.91 1.00 3373 PK HR ENTER 1.51 0.00 1.00 149 PK HR EXIT 3.20 0.00 1.00 316 PK HR TOTAL 4.71 2.23 1.00 464 SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 10.11 9.02 1.00 996 PK HR ENTER 0.46 0.00 1.00 45 PK HR EXIT 0.53 0.00 1.00 53 PK HR TOTAL 0.99 1.22 1.00 98 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 5th Edition, With Feb. 1995 Uodate. Eastgate Ex Retail SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 272.25 T.G.L.A. OF SHOPPING CENTER 2 June 1997 AVERAGE STANDARD ADJUSTMENT DRIVE RATE DEVIATION FACTOR VOLUME AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 48.54 0.00 1.00 13216 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.68 0.00 1.00 185 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 0.40 0.00 1.00 108 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 1.08 0.00 1.00 293 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 2.28 0.00 1.00 621 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 2.28 0.00 1.00 621 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 4.56 0.00 1.00 1242 AM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 63.01 0.00 1.00 17155 PK HR ENTER 3.09 0.00 1.00 841 PK HR EXIT 3.09 0.00 1.00 841 PK HR TOTAL 6.18 0.00 1.00 1681 SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 29.89 0.00 1.00 8137 PK HR ENTER 1.52 0.00 1.00 413 PK HR EXIT 1.58 0.00 1.00 430 PK HR TOTAL 3.10 0.00 1.00 843 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available The above rates were calculated from the following equations: AWD 2-Wav Vol (=<570 TGLA): Ln(T) = 0.625Ln(A) + 5.985, R"2 = 0.78 AWD 2-Wav Vol (>570 TGLA) Ln(T) = 0.756Ln(A) + 5.154, R"2 = 0.42 7-9 AM Pk Hr Total: Ln(T) = 0.589Ln(A) + 2.378 R-2 = 0.49, 631k Enter, 37% Exit 4-6 PM Pk Hr Total (=<600 TGLA): Ln(T) = 0.637Ln(A) + 3.553 4-6 PM Pk Hr Total (>600 TGLA): R-2 = 0.8=, Ln(T) 501� Enter, 50%� Exit = 0.725Ln(A) + 2.96- Saturca%- 2-Wav Vol.: Ln(T) R-2 = 0.55, = 0.628Ln(A) 50$ Enter, 50%- + 6.229, R-2 Exit 0.83 Satsr,-;- Pk Hr Total: Ln(T) = = 0.535Ln(A) - 3.86' Su c=% _ -:Jai Vol . : Ln (T) R-, = 0.83, = 0 498Ln (A) 50� Enter, 50% 6- Esti=- iota- • _ Ln(T) = + 1_ -- -�-5- Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems associated with this project. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future sewer service. Currently this property is served by public sewer service. Sewage service to this site is provided by Frederick County Sanitation Authority via a 6" force main. Water Supply Impacts There are no water supply or transmission problems with this property. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future water service. Currently this property is served by public water service via an 12" water line. Water service is under the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Fire protection measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be addressed at the site development stage. The installation of fire protection hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the property will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as well as the enhancing the protection of the property. The fire fighting capabilities of the fire company covering this area will be enhanced with additional fire hydrants. Drainage Facility Impacts Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site drainage impacts. The development of business in lieu of rural residential /agricultural will increase stormwater run off. It is recommended that the increased run off would be reduced prior to discharge from the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of this increase storm water on the existing down stream water course. Drainage flows generally south toward Wrights Run drainage area to the south of the property. Pre -development runoff rates will be maintained using recognized storm water management standards. Solid Waste Cost There are no solid waste collection and disposal impacts. Solid waste will be exported by contract hauler at no cost to the County. No additional solid waste facilities will be required to handle the waste from this property. Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement Historic Impacts This project area through past development of adjoining property has no known significance. The area has been significantly developed to the east and south. There are no structures currently located on the area to be rezoned that are of historic significance. A review of the National Register, the Virginia Landmarks Register and the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are no known historic structures on this property. Community Facilities • Education - This project will generate no school children and therefore have no effect on educational cost in Frederick County. Capital cost impacts for school age children will be reduced since no school children will result with M-1 zoning. • Parks and Recreation - This project would result in no capital impact on Parks and Recreational facilities. • Emergency Services Cost - There are minimal additional fire, rescue or sheriff capital facilities anticipated with the zoning of the property. Additional capital costs have been mitigated with a like proffer contribution to the County. Fire protection is available from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. The planned M-1 rezoning will have all required site development standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no fire protection problems associated with this property. All hydrants and fire protection measures will be installed when the property is developed. Rescue services are provided by the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad. Sheriff Department services protection will be required by this facility. Generally, routine patrols of the area should suffice for the majority of time and materials necessary to cover this property. Environmental Impacts There are no known major environmental impacts associated with the rezoning of this property. There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. The effects on the down -stream impoundment and streams are minimal. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. Steep slope and flood area shall be identified and master planned for protection as required by Frederick county development regulation for master planning and subdivision and site planning. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground, water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and business use. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement Other This planned zoning change would create a positive fiscal impact as compared to the existing zoning. There are no known other impacts. Fiscal Impacts Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement • Utility tax • Retail sales tax (estimated at $2.83 per square foot) • Transient tax (Motel tax) (estimated at $172.00 per room) • Meals tax (estimated at $5.91 per square foot) The remaining Eastgate property consists of 82.1723 acres currently zoned Rural Area (RA). Approximately 30 acres are in steep slopes along the southern most property boundary along Wrights Run. This steep slope area will be identified on our master development plan which will be revised to include the additional 82.1723 acres. Development of this area will be limited for future industrial users and a natural buffer or green space is envisioned along Wrights Run. Eastgate Commerce Center Impact Analysis Statement FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impacts of the Eastgate Commerce Center rezoning are measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity ofpublic facilities. The amount of the impact for any rezoning and subsequent land development such as Eastgate Commerce Center depends upon location and land uses. Using the rezoning impact model provided by Frederick County, the total capital cost of required new facilities generated by the eastgate commerce center rezoning is considered for each local governmental department for its' respective service area. In this case these departmental areas include: • Schools • Parks and Recreation • Fire and Rescue The Eastgate Commerce Center development, when rezoned, warrants a credit based upon its' overall net fiscal impact due to taxes that will be paid by the project in future years. Eastgate Commerce Center generates a net positive fiscal impact. Future credits that go toward funding existing debt service are determined by the model and applies to school, fire and rescue and parks and recreation departments only. The rezoning impact model for Frederick County does not calculate positive fiscal impacts associated with non-residential land uses such as this rezoning for Eastgate Commerce Center, M-1 zoning. Instead, only impacts associated with residential uses are actually shown. In the case of non-residential uses a zero ($0) value impact amount or value is shown due to the large amount of fiscal impact associated with such commercial or office (non-residential) land uses. The Frederick County impact model shows that there is no net impacts for the Eastgate Commerce Center rezoning. There is a fiscal impact credit since the impact of all land uses is positive and a credit for contribution to capital costs is shown through future taxes paid to the County. The net fiscal impact credit result from the new project against capital costs that are generated by the project. The credit over a ten year period is the amount of development fees, as well as permit fees, plus, project revenues. Revenues are the sum of the following taxes and fees associated with M-1 type zoning land uses: • Real property tax • Personal property tax (estimated at $93.00 per employee) • Business license tax ---- OUTPUT MODULE --—-------- -- ---- --- --------- ------------------------------ Net Credit For Capital Fiscal Impact Taxes to Capital Net Fire Department S1,534 Rescue Department 510,013 x,494 SO Elementary Schools SO Middle schools SO High Schools so 52,206,819 SO Parks and Recreation U -- --- -------------TOTAL -- -- S11.548 - ---- 531,767,898 S2.353,491 ------------- FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM ------ ----- O New Capital Costs Not ,overed by County 524,462.71 .contributions DOTES: Model Run Date 09/12/97 EAW J.N '-A-53 Rezoning: Assumes 1,980,000 sq.ft. office on 80 acres. Per acre Fire and Rescue Capital Costs Not Covered By County Contributions is $305.78. 82.1723 acres X 305.78 = $25,126.97 Per square foot Fire and Rescue Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contribution is 0.012350 $24,462.71 - 1,980,000 sq. ft. = 0.012350 PC REVIEW DATE: 03/04/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 03/25/98 REZONING APPLICATION #002-98 TASKER ROAD AND WARRIOR ROAD COMMERCIAL To Rezone 3 8.1979 Acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) LOCATION: This property is located at the intersection of Tasker Road (relocated Route 642) and proposed Warrior Road, and approximately 1,000'+ east of the Tasker Road and Warrior Road intersection along the north side of Tasker Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ED NUMBERS: 75-A-104, 105 and 117 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RP, Residential Performance District Land Use: Vacant ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Zoned: RP, Residential Performance Use: Residential & Vacant South: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas Use: Residential & Regional Park East: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas Use: Residential & Vacant West: Zoned: RP, Residential Performance Use: Residential & Vacant PROPOSED USE: Commercial (office & retail) REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: See attached letters dated Jan. 30, 1998 from Steven Melnikoff and Oct 30, 1997from Robert Childress. Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 2 February 23, 1998 Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer are available. Public Works: See attached letter dated Oct 20, 1997 from Ed Strawsnyder. Fire and Rescue: Recommends approval of this request. Stephens City Fire and Rescue: The Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company has no objection to the rezoning request. County Attorney: If signed by owner, proffer appears to be in proper form. Planning & Zonina: 1) Site History The applicant has proposed to rezone 38.1979 acres of the total 329.83 acres comprised of parcels 75-A-104, 105, and 117 from RP, Residential Performance District to B2, Business General District. The following provides a brief summary of the zoning history for each parcel: Parcel 75-A-104 is depicted on the original zoning maps as R-3, Residential General District. This zoning of this parcel was changed to RP, Residential Performance District on September 28, 1983 when the RP District replaced the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-6 Districts. The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #001-88 for ADD Partnership on May 10, 1989. This action rezoned parcel 75-A-105 from A-2, Agricultural General District to RP, Residential Performance District. A portion of this parcel was subdivided as a result of the relocation of Route 642 (Tasker Road). The land that was severed as a result of this road improvement project is currently being developed as sections of Mosby Station. The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #006-89 for Jasbo, Inc., on May 10, 1989. This action rezoned parcel 75-A-117 from A-2, Agricultural General District to RP, Residential Performance District. No land division or development activity has occurred on this parcel to date. 2) Location The 38.1979 acres proposed for rezoning is located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 3 February 23, 1998 Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The four areas which comprise the 38.1979 acres all have frontage along Tasker Road. The completion of the first phase of Warrior Road will provide additional frontage for three of the four areas. The 38.1979 acres proposed for rezoning is located within close proximity of several residential areas, including Wakeland Manor, Macedonia Acres, Mosby Station, Frederick Woods, Albin Village, and Fredericktowne Estates. These subdivisions are within a couple of hundred feet to one-half mile of the four areas proposed for rezoning. 3) Site Suitabilitv The 38.1979 acres proposed for rezoning does not contain areas of flood plain, steep slopes, or prime agricultural soils. The 1990 National Wetlands Inventory identifies features within the proximity of the areas to be rezoned as PUBHh, or Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom, Permanently Flooded, Diked/Impounded. The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies two structures within the proximity of the areas to be rezoned as Structure #1340, Sam Plasters House, and Structure #1344, J.W. Smith House. These structures are not included on the list of potentially significant properties, nor are the properties included in the areas depicted as potential historic districts. The applicant does not account for areas of woodlands in the impact statement. It appears that three of the four areas proposed for rezoning contain a significant amount of woodlands. The applicant needs to address this issue as part of the rezoning review process. 4) Potential Impacts a) Traffic The applicant has prepared a detailed traffic impact analysis which includes actual traffic counts at the Tasker Road/Aylor Road intersection, vehicle trip generations for weekday and weekend volumes, vehicle trip distribution estimates, projected intersection volumes at the Tasker Road/Warrior Road intersection, and the projected Level Of Service (LOS) at the Tasker Road/Warrior Road intersection under a signalized condition. VDOT conducted a traffic study of the Tasker Road/Aylor Road/Oak Ridge Drive intersection on September 4, 1997 and September 18, 1997. The purpose of this Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 4 February 23, 1998 study was to determine traffic counts and turning movement data. The results of this study indicate a total traffic volume of 7,800 vehicle trips at this intersection over a 12 -hour period. Trip generation data was provided for a mixed-use retail development, including a shopping center, a supermarket, fast food and family restaurants, a convenience market, a discount store, a bank, and a small office park. The trip generation, obtained from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, indicates a 24-hour, two- way weekday volume of 16,849 trips per day, and a 24-hour, two-way weekend volume of 20,663 trips per day. The ITE Manual suggests that 38 acres of residential use will produce 990 vehicle trips per day for 38 acres, which depicts an overall gross density of 2.7 units per acre. Therefore, the proposed rezoning from RP, Residential Performance District to B2, General Business District would amount to an increase of 15,859 weekday vehicle trips, or a 1,602% increase, and an increase of 19,673 weekend vehicle trips, or a 1,987% increase. The applicant provided an LOS analysis of the Tasker Road/Warrior Road intersection, utilizing left and right turn movements and through movements for eastbound, westbound, northbound, and southbound traffic. This analysis was prepared assuming a signalized intersection condition. Based on this analysis, the intersection functioned at an LOS B. The Comprehensive Policy Plan defines an LOS B as: stable flow, operating speed at speed limit, some lines of vehicles at intersections and turns, and less than 10% of cycles loaded at signals. The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that an LOS C should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments in the county. b) Emergency Services The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this rezoning request, assuming the maximum development of 815,495 square feet of retail use on 38.1979 acres of land zoned B2, General Business District. The results of this model run demonstrated a negative fiscal impact of $7,008.41 for fire and rescue services. 5) Impact Statement/Proffer Statement The applicant has submitted a proffer statement that has been signed, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney. The applicant has proffered to prepare individual traffic impact Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 5 February 23, 1998 studies for review by VDOT during the site plan process for this acreage. The applicant has further proffered to construct any improvements required by VDOT as a result of this analysis. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution for the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company which is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Impact Model. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 03/04/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The proposed rezoning is located within an area of the county that is appropriate for commercial development. The four areas that are proposed to be rezoned have frontage on a major arterial road, with the majority of this acreage being ultimately located at an intersection of two major collector road systems. There is a significant amount of land within the proximity of this acreage that is developed as residential use or is planned for residential use; however, there are virtually no commercial services available for these areas. Staff believes that it is good planning to provide these services within the proximity of residential areas to provide opportunities for access, employment, and convenience, as well as reduce the negative impacts to the overall transportation system. Staff believes that the rezoning application is appropriate, provided that sufficient right-of-way is dedicated to accommodate the concerns made by VDOT. 0:1AGENDASRMNE\COM MENTSTASKER. REZ COMMONWEA .TY4, of V7PPZ TNTT A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG RESIDENCY COMMISSIONER 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE P 0. BOX 278 EDINBURG, VA 22824.0278 January 30, 1998 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER Y ELE (540) 98I.Stj o FAX (t+o) W4 -5r^7 Ref: Desired R/ W Requirements Warrior Drive & Tasker Road Frederick County At our meeting earlier this month, we discussed future right-of-way needs for the ultimate build -out of Warrior Drive north and south of Tasker Road. It is VDOT's desire to request right-of-way dedications sufficient in width to allow for what we believe to be the ultimate Warrior Drive design from your client. The following are the desired right-of-way widths and pavement widths to meet ultimate designs: I'Varrior Drive north of Tasker R()ad: A right-of-way width of 125' for the full length of any proposed commercial property adjoining Warrior Drive. Total pavement typical section to be determined as commercial property develops. Warrior Road South of Tasker Road: A right-of-way of 125' for the full length of any proposed commercial property adjoining Warrior Road. Pavement widths to be determined as commercial property develops. However, we have determined the northbound lane should be designed with two 12' through lanes along with a 12' left and 12' right turn lane, totaling four northbound lanes. The southbound lane would also have two twelve' through Ianes along with a 12' left and 12' right turn lane, totaling four southbound lanes. The typical section should also include standard curb & gutter, grass utility strip and sidewalk on both sides of Warrior Drive. Mr. Charles E. -Maddox, Jr. January 30, 1998 Page 2 Tasker Road both East & West of Warrior Drive: Should be ultimately designed with two 12' through lanes both east and west bound along with 12' right and left turn lanes to Warrior Drive. These typical sections should be designed with curb & gutter, grass utility strip and sidewalks. This section should be designed and built as commercial property develops within this intersection. A signalization agreement will be required in which the developer(s) agree to pay 100% of the cost of a VDOT approved signal system. The preliminary study, cost of material and installation of signalization is to be borne by the developer(s). The agreement should not be bound by a time limit, but is an open agreement whenever the signal is to be installed. Ultimate build out of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive pavement section may be phased in as commercial property develops. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, Steven A. Melnikoff Hwy. Permits & Subdivision Specialist Senior SAM/rf xc: Mr. B. I Sweitzer Mr. Kris Tiemey COMMONWEALTH of 'V1RQIN1A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278 October 30, 1997 Mr. Steve Gyurisin C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Steve: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984.5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 Ref: Jasbo, Inc. Property Route 642 & Warrior Road Frederick County We have received your Rezoning Impact Statement and Generalized Development Plan for the referenced 35.0578 property. You indicate approximately 350,000 sq. ft. of office and commercial retail space may be developed on the property. Except for one statement in your narrative: "Traffic studies recently conducted indicate sufficient right-of-way to accommodate future development". You have provided no information concerning traffic impacts from this project. A commercial development of this size will certainly have a significant impact on the surrounding area. Therefore, before we provide comments on your rezoning proposal we believe a traffic impact analysis should be provided in order to adequately assess this request. In addition there are several issues/ questions we feel need to be answered concerning the Warrior Road Corridor during this rezoning review process: 1. The Department and Frederick County are currently working together on a revenue sharing project to construct Warrior Road from Route 277 to Tasker Road (new Route 642). Actual construction is still several years off. Is the segment of roadway which traverses your client's property expected to be in place or will your client construct It? 2. The section of Warrior Road between Tasker Road and Macedonia Church Road (old Route 642) will need to be constructed to adequately serve Parcel 2 and to connect on northward to the Warrior Road extension into Wakeland Manor. The adjustment of Macedonia Church Road to include dead ending with cul-de-sacs as discussed during the master planning of the Mosby Station Project will need to be considered. Presently, this work isn't included in the aforementioned revenue sharing project. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Mr. Steve Gyurisin Ref.- jasbo, Inc. Property October 30, 1997 Page 2 3. Is the proposed Warrior Road on your plan intended to be dedicated right-of-way. 4. Traffic signalization will need to be provided at the appropriate locations and funded by the developer. Once the Traffic Impact Analysis is available, please submit it along with any additional information and/or revised plans and we will begin our review. In the meantime, if you would like to discuss the parameters of the needed analysis or the aforementioned issues, please let me know. Sincerely, 6�'6 , Z—Z�/Z- Robert B. Childress Transportation Engineer RBC/rf xc: Mr. K. B. Downs Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. B. J. Sweitzer Mr. Kris Tierney October 20, 1997 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 RE: Rezoning of Approximately 35 acres near the Intersection of Route 642 and Warrior Road Frederick County, Virginia Dear Steve: We have completed our review of the rezoning request for approximately 35 acres near the intersection of Route 642 (Tasker Drive) and Warrior Road. The approximate 35 acres includes four (4) parcels (11.6 acres, 16.68 acres, 4.7 acres and 2.52 acres). The requested rezoning is to change the current RP zoning to B-2. Based on our review of the rezoning request we offer the following comments: 1. Summary The projected impact credit of approximately $20 million dollars seems to be rather excessive compared to similar B-2 zonings in Frederick County. 2. The development of the proposed B-2 areas will contribute to the growing traffic congestion along Tasker Drive especially at the intersection of Aylor Road. 3. Each parcel will require a separate stormwater management pond unless a regional facility is installed. If the latter is adopted, the developer will be required to perform long-term maintenance of this facility. 4. The master development plan for Mosby Station indicates a stormwater detention pond on the two and one-half acre parcel. This location should be reflected on Sheet 1 of Route 642 Rezone. 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Warrior Road and Route 642 Rezoning Page 2 October 20, 1997 S. pt appP.,a.rS that si+.e dicta.*:,-,- may be a problem for the two and one-half ".-re Y�L parcel. This issue should be resolved before proceeding with rezoning this parcel. 6. The location of the utility easements and required setbacks may negatively affect the development of the two and one-half acre parcel. 7. Parcel two as shown on Sheet 1 of 1 reflects a RA zoning designation. Verify that this zoning should be RP. Please provide us with a revised copy of the rezoning application for our review. Sincerely, Harvey trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES:rls cc: Planning and Zoning file 1 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff.- Zoning taff. Zoning Amendment Number '9 Date Received �- PC Hearing Date 3- BOS Hearing Date 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: Gilbert W. Clifford & Assoc, Inc Phone: 540-667-2139 Address: 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: _Fred L. Glaize, III, Tasbo Inc. Telephone: 540-667-2139 Frederick Development Co. Inc. Tames L. Bowman Address: P.O. Box 888 P.O. Box 6 Winchester, Va. 22604 _ Stephens City, Va. 22655 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Stephen M. Gyurisin Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed to property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verifying taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please lig* � W WT all %J VVILers or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: .+f- vI3lf%rr Fred L. Glaize, III Tames L. Bowman 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: Commercial (office & retail) 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE 75 -A -104C Residential 75M-1-2-17 Vacant 75-A-103 Residential 75-A-101 Vacant 75-A-104 Agricultural 75-A-105 Agricultural ZONING I;F;, RP RP RP RP RP 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): At the intersection of Va. State Route 642 (relocated) Tasker Road and _12rol2osed Warrior Road and approximately 1,000' + east of the Tasker and Warrior Road intersection along the north side of Tasker Road 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: Parcel Identification #'s: 75- A))-104,105 & 117 Districts Magisterial District: Opequon High School: Sherando Fire Service: Ste hens City Middle School: A for Rescue Service: _ Stephens City Elementary School: Bass Hoover/Armel 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 38.1979 RP B-2 Total Acreage to be Rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Pro osed N/A Single Family Homes: Non -Residential Lots: Townhomes: Mobile Home: Multi -Family: Hotel Rooms: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: Retail: X Restaurant: Service Station: Manufacturing: Warehouse: Other: 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(s): Owner(s): i 14 5 Date: Date: Date: ZZ— Date: G/�, vf} ,?ZI•sS 75;Al - el)) Z - / 7 ger :� • V' �7�Irlrl�x t'Pid 7S-(la)j-/o3 Avwtiv 7-1 43b r�/ /ea �rc.�roc.5 '40 l /05 7?�5e4o Ime 4,&;. e" 6c�9rz�LTr 4:9 lAe- oo l 75 ((A)� 102 DgviJ e- %-J kace.n S. WA;40cre 1:314 Z. Mae a Jon;a Ciiv rc. % ROad SfCPAen5 c; irl Va. ZZ&55 2332 1N;dd1� �aad W;nCc c3TGri Vq. ZZGO! /08 drover Z. eur4ekel. 39G Wk; Ac ook RoaJ h/+ -res W bi 4c PS , VO. ZZel&3 /09 Grover 6, cnd Jody k. Bura-ker 3-F& wi"4e Oak- Rood wi;; �e Posf,1%a. ZZ&& 3 //Co Chloe- 3. 5Par//C5 504�p wh.lc ook go -d %Vk.4c Posf, VQ. i,7A coun4y a-� rrcJcr.;c-k 107 N. Ken? �: W;nGhc-,vq. zsvor RP Re Z; d r -t -A.,, RA RA I I?R IT«:den! 'Q I RR ef'c 3 de 'o RA Loco% Govcrnr .CAIS I /8 Abrarr7 ,E, a„d 1�e/ to �%9e RA sfepl�ens C,;�r,Va. 2zG55 75FCC3)) //� 1/Qller 1�%r o1C QnJ Ynve3Trrf�hT Core. leP VgCoin Go9 Cedgr Creek Gr4�t //7 ge;nz A ar►J Veron;cq (qunrer RP �Pesidcr�ti4 i ,t14 5LX o l k Circle Sfcpbcn s c, by , Va, a ze,55 //8 Dorre/% G. ar%,d j;) i e Po cr RP Rea•de,�Ti'4 //Z S.-�Volk Circle SfC,Acn s C,,I y, y4 . 224, 6 5 129 V /ch W. oral PC,,.--lq Z. Rus -veli RP RcS.Wcq �rQ I 139 Panararna Dr;ve W1nckc5ic•-.) Vq Z2b03 /30 Maynarcl J.7insman, QJ M;e�G/l. J.7ins non //o Romney Pfau Sf'C��errs C;ir, Va. 2ZG55 RP [ 75AIMA /3! VQ /ley Nor�C- and -tnves&cn� Car &o9 Cadav Crcck Grade Sr.: fe A bt%,'n� eSTerr Va. 22&01 75,5 (C9)) 14— 248 ?oP X W rq; n a D ev eloprne•+ Co.rP. P. O. SoX Z 2710 Vi"AcZler'I Va. zce-o i Lori R. ko kr+; s /Z7 $1;ppery 61rn Dave s�CpAetis e:.�.,Yq. ZZ&55 2 RvA P. AnazAQs /Z5 Bi'Mon Bush 4vernuc 5/-Cp ier,sC;�Y,VQ_ 2zG55 3 Donald G. onJ SanJr+a R. #.,i /23 6vl4on Be,s% Avenve. Sfcpimr)s C'4y, Va. ZZ655 4 `7-;rno7l-Ay J. Sctrsenf ,/Z/ 0u-4en k3vS; Avcn,,e- Sfepl-,c,,s 0,-Jy , Va. 2Z(,55 RP JSP RP RP RP 1/QCQrl� u4c4I.) T Jj1 rSiCie'n a I ,ec5;der)A-Q I �Pcs;dcn�,•a I Res.cjer,4j* q ( 75. *"1))/- 5 Daniel A. and SAVIC M. Z o^cicr- /I9 Bu on Bu.s,1, Avenue- sfepA e, s C,'�y, Va. 2 2G s 5 !o k; rk .i. an-) OonnQ M. Ay3ol I/7 as on 8usA Avenue- S�cp� en s co,/Y/ VQ, ZzGss 7 Ovrlczlj N. and Alcan;e V. filg/ey US Sinton Buss, Averwe- S�epl�c�s C;4y, lip. 2ze-s5 8 k4iAlcen T Galla I13 Ou�40n 8vs% Avenue Sfcpp)ens C,4y, Ver. 22G►5$ 5 Oav,d W. Wi I1jams I!! 8v��ort $vslr Avcnvc Sfe�l,e�s C,�y�Va. 22�ss ke!/y P, Z)Q:ly /o q 8u on BvsA Avenue V4. 22&s5 RP Res i d e,% ka RP i R P /Pcsi d c" ka l Rp Rcs,�c��,al RP Re -TI "C)e��.'4 i RP dcn�;a I 76,L(C/i)/ - /I C,6ar/Gs 05, and Coi; 7' .ScczTcs /07 Bu�1�'on 8vsA AvenvG SieJ�7e»s C;4y/ VQ. zzeo5 $ /2 Dav;,J W. and Jvd-A W.P. rah preen /05 Bv74on BusA Avenve- S4cf�cns C'ly/ Va. ZZ655 75 M ((/))1-75A JA58C, Inc., Fred .(.. 151v;se,.2Zr, FrCder.ck Deve%+f.C117� Coylr�e. or,d James G. Bowman % Fred L. G /-;:tC = P.D. Seat 888 W:nchcsie.-j ✓C. 224,0¢ Ifo ((A)) 4Z Sor9er�T Es�ai�c 255 W1,i �c Uak /l'og� Wd ;Ie Poi-, Va, zzGG� 41 G�7ri'srophcr• R. q„j Audrey M. see_ / / o W'4e Ook Rood wh;�r Pos� Ya. Z2C•G3 86o ((A)) / 3 5 C©un, y et' �tGQcr:'ck /07 N, ken Sf: InlinGi. c5tcr� Vt+, 2ZG0 � RP RP m "FA SPA RR Res;afem4;a 1 Ojo er, Space A3r:Cwj% vra l Res:'le" a I LOC40 C7overnrne (A)) 75C Za r 1 R. and Am, a 300 A IL n Drrvc 5V-epl7eh 3 C4,y Va. ZZeo s5 754 4o A berT 6. an4 Donna M. act s-ri3Q /Z& 51;ppery 'Elm Or-: vd SfcP�ens C; +�jr, Ya. 2205$ 75 ((A)) 75,0 Volley Morr90.5e and 609 Ce�nf ��eek C rc�o�a Su i 7' e yVinG�es�Cr1 yQ, ZZlvO RP RP wm�i Res:de.,1;a 1 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Numbers 75-((A))-104,105 & 107 Opequon Magisterial District JASBO, INC., FRED L. GLAIZE, III, FREDERICIC DEVELOPMENT, INC & JAMES L. BOWMAN "Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial" Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et_ seg., 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 # -97 for the rezoning of 38.1979 acres from Residential Performance (RP) Zoning District to the Business General (B-2) 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 Virginia law. 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 successor or assigns. Transportation Improvements to Offset Impact of Development A traffic impact study will be conducted using VDOT procedures for each site development use proposed within the Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial site at the time of site plan review. Improvements will be constructed by the undersigned as required by VDOT regulations for the predicted traffic impacts based upon the specific use proposed. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 38.1979 acre tract, lying along Tasker Drive in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RP to B-2, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County for the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company. The sum of $7,008.43 at the time the first building permit is applied for and issued. REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 75-((A))-104,105 & 107 "Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial " Page 2 The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, TY By: Date: Ja7sk Bo n resident, Jasbo,-Inc. By: Date:_ W. Petry, Vic President rederick Development Company, Inc. STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this \3 day of Feb ,So,-,, 1998, by J Gme� L _ C6owr,,V, Pccs.a�} J gSbo My Commission expi NotaryPublic l :lea , M STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 13 day of Few c 1998, by JacY\cS 1,J. Pe. ", �kc.c- Pre- s.A VCcA—r\C1�. l�,clop,Y.e,��. Co, C. My Commissionnnexpires J..\ j' 3%, Zoo O Notary Public (Imr _� 'L ` n . hI--C,-, BOUNDARY 1NF0RMATI0N SHOWN HEREON IS EITHER TAKEN FROM OR BASED UPON PLATS OF RECORD IN DEED BOOK 809 AT PAGE 525, r HIGHWAY PLAT BOOK 9 AT PACES 328 THRU 337, AND IN UNRECORDED PLAT OF SURVEY DATED MAY 14,1996 ` � �--' -` t' "' •� - _ BY MARSH k LEGGE, PLC AND YET UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION PLAT OF MOSBY STATION II -SECTION B. DATED APRIL 4,1997 BY GILBERT W. CLIFFORD h ASSOC.,INC. PARCEL i 2.5205 ACRES PARC EL2 . ++ 4.EE4E ACRES PARCEL 3.13.0277 ACRES PARCEL 4 . O.b1E ACRES PARCEL ® 331979 ACRES REOUESTED TORE REZONED FROM RESIDENTIAL S . 17.58.7E ACRES IOTA! (RP) TO COMYERCIAI (8-2) 38.1979 ACRES , t P L, R _ �R� SD AACW" 1 � � '. i. •a fill t t , FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT ,TD RE?ONnNG APP LIGATION iviATEitiALS FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL JASBO, INC., FRED L. GLAIZE, III .FREDERICK DEVELOPMENT, INC. AND JAMES L. BOWMAN PROPERTY Opequon Magisterial District February,1998 TASKER ROAD AND WARRIOR ROAD COMMERCIAL gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 540-667-2139 • Fax: 540-665-0493 • E-mail: gwcliff@miisinc.com 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 Phone. 540-898-2115 0 Fax. 540-662-1331 • E-mail: clifford@lbidred.com bidred.com Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement Table of Contents Summary Project Background Introduction Location and Access Site Suitability Impact Analysis Introduction Planning Analysis • Site Suitability • Adjoining Properties Traffic Impacts Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts Water Supply Impacts Drainage Facility Impacts Solid Waste Cost Historic Impacts Community Impacts • Education • Parks and Recreation • Emergency Services Environmental Impacts Other Fiscal Impacts Fiscal Impact Summary Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement The following Impact Analysis Statement is provided in summary form for the property known as the `Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial" sites. The property consists of four parcels located along Tasker Road (relocated Route 642) and at the planned intersection of Tasker Road and proposed Warrior Road. The parcels total 38.1979 acres. Each parcel is currently zoned Residential Performance (RP). The requested rezoning is to change the current RP zoning to B-2 (Business General). The requested change of zoning comes as a result of the final design and recently completed construction of VA Route 642 now know as Tasker Road and the proposed Warrior Drive connection from VA Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) to VA Route 642 (Tasker Road). The completed and planned transportation infrastructure along the Tasker Road corridor create an ideal commercial and business area. The parcels to be zoned to B-2 consist of 38.1979 acres and are shown and highlighted on the attached generalized development plan. The Impact Analysis Statement for the "Tasker Road and Warrior Drive Commercial" sites is prepared as required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors for rezoning approval of the property. A positive fiscal impact is projected by the model. New capital costs not covered by county contributions for fire and rescue are projected at $7,008.43. The net fiscal impact credit is projected at $20,000,489.00. There are no residential units proposed as part of this rezoning proposal. The parcels are planned as commercial sites with a mix of business and retail uses. There are no specific uses or businesses planned at this time as part of this rezoning proposal. The parcels located in the Opequon Magisterial District have frontage on the recently reconstructed VA Route 642 (Tasker Road). Three parcels proposed for B-2 zoning are located at the intersection of Warrior Drive and Tasker Road. The remaining parcel proposed for B-2 rezoning is located west of the Tasker -Warrior intersection along the north side of Tasker Road. The parcels proposed for B-2 rezoning are located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Community and county wide planning and planning policies recognize this area as suitable for development. Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement Analysis of environmental and physical characteristics of this property to be rezoned indicate that there is opportunity for development as envisioned for commercial B-2 business uses. There are no known environmental features that limit the development of the property. Assuming full development of the 38± acres with the required fifteen percent open space for B-2 zoning, an average development factor of 5,000 to 15,000 square feet per acre, approximately 380,000 square feet of office and commercial retail space may be developed using an average of 10,000 square feet per acre. Revenues in the form of real property taxes, the local share of retail sales taxes, personal property taxes and business license fees are accounted for in the Development Impact Model provided by the Frederick County Planning Office. There are no identified capital cost impacts to schools or parks and recreation. Impacts to fire and rescue capital costs will be mitigated with a like payment as identified. Traffic studies recently conducted for the Eastgate Commerce Center along Tasker Road indicate sufficient right-of-way to accommodate future development. Public sewer and water are available to the property. Natural gas and electrical service are available to the property. The rezoning of the 38± acres of the "Tasker Road and Warrior Drive Commercial" property fit within the guidelines of present planned policy for the area. In summary: • The property is within the UDA and SWSA shown in the Comprehensive Plan. • The property has all service utilities including sewer and water. • A portion of the property is Master Planned for Commercial land uses. • The property is zoned and designated for development, currently RP. • The property is located along an important transportation corridor and at an important future transportation intersection. • There are no environmental or historic impacts. • There are positive fiscal impacts. Project Background Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement PROJECT BACKGROUND Introduction The property to request for Business General, B-2 Zoning consists of 38± acres of which 35.6777 acres are located on three corners of the intersection of Tasker Road and proposed Warrior Road. The remaining 2.5202 acre parcel requested for B-2 zoning is lcoated west of the Tasker Road and Warrior Road intersectino. The 2.5202 acre parcel was created as part of the Mosby Station subdivision and master planned for a possible future commercial site. The property is located in the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) designed in the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned and is within the Urban Development Area (UDA). A master site development plan and site evaluation indicates that this site can support business and commercial uses. Location and Access The Tasker & Warrior Road Commercial area is located in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County. The Center has frontage on VA Route 642 (Tasker Road) proposed Warrior Road. Access will be via planned commercial entrances from both roads. Site Suitability The property to be rezoned has no development limiting factors. The property to be rezoned appears well suited for the B-2 zoning proposed and development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the change of use from open, rural land to a business/ commercial setting. The impacts of the allowed commercial use on the surrounding uses is reduced through distance setbacks, buffers, landscaping and screening regulations. The adjoining property is primarily vacant, residentially zoned property. i � �I, \ 8 ``'� ° :-� /(/ •.o l( 1Yu ��; �� �J Mim5 :1 440 r / r °ate ,r+•'�x.t .J r�• `� �.�,�C� t \ (,+i/'�•ri�: •./ r /I / _ 8 V v/.. t, o _ _ �1 'mss ,� s'�- c _ , . ., � �• — "'iJ •� � � - -g r �y� •a*n �t y �1 i(.'.i � r — _ �_-�1�{��rl \t. \ "j ,. 1 �9• �-.-.� � o __ 8 L _ fl.'ya• �� • - (I / 1`, -/ ! -�' , V (("" -V•w, - m--j.A ..a .]Nti a / - )(� ..•. eO .' /�j �f g r. 4 v �, '. �'n � . _ _ z7s„.. •• ./ r- '>rs �. ie7 (,,1 � _ /%• I i C, � \ \\ �� 'f •s •s7 / / '7 �\_ _�-A��. o_ .. ' o e ..3r: -, _ lStephe City, 61., ti�l.•h a ` L �; ` )JfY� 8' i Fiwlr ��, i�. —� : �)' ,' A� s�=�;,�': _ .-'.i•�k.•, -- a •.`may, l � � ✓ � f — `� � 1>w - S� _ O �•• � s < '_. • .,•,gin ef r li j •.fie ; = r� \ `,! - _ - 4 6 = �,so •r ,�., �: beT a. r. moi. ,�'Q) '7�.. �J; .s=: . �J '. ✓ \ sao�. •d X10 \ SMIe G t y.:-_-_„�.�^• (T,r , MI '� /- � � �-a ,I��u i..';� Ino ._ °''< .•r/_ s - Lsr C,a' - •� v</• - '• °8 AM,-�. 1 I y��t •i: /INtE 1. ^-\ i I ✓ / ` y - w I . -r a 1< - _ _ _ �� • e .:Y •y l,w�'r b� x � `�11 f • � �;� • Q r � n •�yg' � _ � / � / �_ _'w_-11,, ,� �� � � • dfs � • 4 0.� J ✓^ so a ; Jr/ a l ��l D� ''P Mr - I 1 7 i �� / �• Fes, _ ••• ♦ 752 • Q 'T - 4 - -Armel CJ o - \ ea,1 � � i �_ mow-:•. S � .o '•i)• r = _ (((///JJJjjf C` �;�oj,�-_- _f"�4 /c- / �� - -��: cJ� 'U�0 _,w ♦ - .. .. w ,ab, ,-J 63 Rua o'` : vU'ean' "/ /�� •L+ - )66 — _ - ,��� 1 �j m, _ • ao / r ��� ' t `ue P e ,- o�� CCC !• TD��� �, i O O SJ �� �\ �)0�0 J O E.. 1x111 f _ Y ?� O •� `^ - \ .Q . • tl e•` -1 V �'-�� �V• e. '• 769 - ) - 7! � '.l l_ 7 ,�� <7Ba • )SO � R' (� - .1� � - - � � *y �- t t .% IG 1' . J � .\ \ �� �� ,� ^� �^ � o r )'� ` ` y r• • / _ I)1 `� r Ce R s ° - ° '/ ..'� - - - L ! - �><rrviri ^ t - y� •�,� �� _ ..-/ _. pwr� , Tollgate $ _ a <1✓✓f O- t 1 � ,..� ♦, s,l.r. ._ �J/;� 11 Impact Analysis Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement IMPACT ANALYSIS Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. is commissioned to evaluate the rezoning of the property project known as "Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial" in light of the several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared to rezone 38.1979 acres from present Residential Performance (RP) to Commercial (B-2). The property to be zoned is well suited for B-2 zoning considering all factors required for analysis of a site. There is a positive fiscal impact. Introduction The 38.1979 acres are evaluated herein for the B-2 zoning, is identified as tax parcels 75- ((A))-104,105 & 117 in the Opequon Magisterial District and is currently zoned RP. The property is located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Areas (SWSA) designated in the adopted Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The property is located on a major transportation corridor, US Route 522 South. A preliminary site development master plan and site evaluation indicates that this site can support business and associated uses of the B-2 zone. Planning Analysis Site Suitability - The property to be rezoned has no site specific development limiting factors. The property appears well suited for B-2 zoning uses and development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 47 & 48 as Weikert Berks channery silt loams and Clearbrook channery loams. Prime Agricultural Soils - The property does not contain prime agricultural soils as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Slopes - There are no identified steep slopes on this property. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7%. Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property to be rezoned. The property is generally well drained and has no low lying wet areas or wetland vegetation that indicates the presence of a wetland area. Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property that impact planning development or impact the areas considered for rezoning. Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063-0200B of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary Map. Adjoining Properties - The primary impact concern on adjoining properties in the change of use from open, rural land to an business and commercial setting. The impacts of the allowed business uses on the surrounding uses is reduced through existing zoning, master planning, distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. WARRIOR/TASKER COMMERCIAL REZONING VA RTE 642NA RTE 647 TRAFFIC COUNTS ATTACHMENT A gilbert w. clifford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester. Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT AT INTERSECTION OF ROUTES 642164711031 DATE: 914818197 APPROACHING INTERSECTION IN Frederick COUNTY. Recorder. H ,A TI2UEl On Route: 642 642 From the On Route: 1031 647 From the EAST WE l5 I NORTH SOUTH urs Left I hru --RT Ped Left I nrul R f Ilea Left I hru K i Pede ru RT Pea I otals 0-07:30 23 38 6 0 2 51 69 0 12 30 20 0 140 15 36 0 442 0-08:00 16 35 0 0 1 43 83 0 19 38 26 0 204 13 39 0 517 0-08:30 12 26 2 0 4 35 49 0 9 17 18 0 121 15 25 0 333 0-09:00 16 20 6 0 3 22 44 0 5 25 10 0 130 6 22 0 309 0-10:00 32 32 1 0 7 28 77 0 3 20 12 0 130 26 26 0 394 0-11:00 19 20 2 0 9 23 87 0 3 20 9 0 93 17 17 0 319 0-12:00 20 43 4 0 12 48 107 0 4 26 11 0 107 20 23 0 425 :0-01:00 35 38 4 0 10 39 149 0 1 34 9 0 119 30 35 0 503 �0-02:00 24 33 3 0 10 36 123 0 7 21 6 0 130 24 17 0 434 X-03:00 47 45 13 0 8 38 147 0 3 29 13 0 129 33 32 0 537 )0-04:00 46 86 14 0 23 56 240 0 12 31 11 0 183 47 23 0 772 )0-04:30 28 29 5 0 14 38 132 0 2 19 6 0 96 38 15 0 422 30-05:00 42 36 10 0 21 24 154 0 2 22 4 0 73 36 16 0 440 10-05:30 43 42 11 0 16 48 233 0 6 24 15 0 93 45 19 0 595 30-06:00 42 50 5 0 16 30 157 0 2 29 14 0 110 33 19 0 507 30-07:00 64 54 20 0 18 44 261 0 9 53 21 0 194 71 42 0 851 3t2 ' Recorder. H ,A TI2UEl Eight Hour Volumes of Approach Vehicles Time East West North South Total Veh. Ped. From To Veh. I Ped. Veh. I Ped. Veh. I Ped. Veh. Ped. 7 AM 8 AM 118 "u 249 0 145 0 447 0 959 0 8 AM 9 AM 82 0 157 0 84 0 319 0 642 0 12 PM 1 PM 77 0 198 0 44 0 184 0 503 0 2 PM 3 PM 105 0 193 0 45 0 194 0 537 0 3 PM 4 PM 146 0 319 0 54 0 253 0 772 0 4 PM 5 PM 150 0 383 0 55 0 274 0 862 0 5 PM 6 PM 193 0 500 0 90 0 319 0 1102 0 6 PM 7 PM 138 0 323 0 83 0 307 0 851 0 Totals 1009 0 2322 0 600 0 2297 0 6228 0 .oute 42 C Vest Route 642 West 1031 216 North F Route 647 South Route =847 Route 642 East Peak Hour 5:00-6:00 PM Route 642 East Route�\ Directional Turning movement 647 5986 Int. Rtes. 642/647/1031 South I Frederick County 9/4818/97 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM 12 Hours WARRIOR/TASKER COMMERCIAL REZONING TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES ATTACHMENT B gilbert w. clifford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester. Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 ASSUMED USE Shopping Center Supermarket Fast Food Restaurant Convenience Market High Turnover Restaurant - Discount Super Store Tire Store Bank Office Park WARRIOR DRIVE REZONING PROPOSED USE TRIP GENERATION AREA(ac) FAR UNITS GLFA TOTAL GLFA GENERATED TRIPS PER DAY 12 0.2 104544 104544 4487 5 0.2 43560 43560 4857 4 2 2000 4000 1984 3 2 1500 3000 2214 2 1 3000 3000 391 3 0.2 26136 26136 1227 2 1 2000 2000 50 2 2 1250 2500 663 5 976 TOTAL TRIPS - 16849 TRIP GENERATION IF FULLY DEVELOPED UNDER EXISTING ZONING ASSUMED USE AREA(ac) GENERATED TRIPS PER DAY RESIDENTIAL 38 990 INCREASE TRIPS PER DAY DUE TO PROPOSED REZONING = 15859 All trip generation rates per ITE Trip Generation 6th Ed. aj!hert w. clifford and associates North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 WARRIOR REZONING SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION AVERAGE WEEKDAY DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 2/5/98 24 HOUR AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR TWO-WAY LAND USE SIZE VOLUME ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT SHOPPING CENTER 104.544 T.G.L.A. 4487 66 42 188 203 SUPERMARKET 43.56 TH.GR.SQ.FT. 4857 86 55 256 246 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU 4 TH.GR.SQ.FT. CONVENIENCE MARKET (OPEN 24 HR) 1984 102 98 70 64 3 TH.GR.SQ.FT. HIGH TURNOVER (SIT-DOWN) RESTAURANT 2214 98 98 81 81 3 TH.GR.SQ.FT. FREE-STANDING DISCOUNT SUPERSTORE 391 14 13 20 13 26.136 TH.GR.SQ.FT. TIRE STORE 1227 25 24 49 51 2 TH.GR.SQ.FT. DRIVE-IN BANK 2.5 TH.GR.SQ.FT. 50 663 4 2 3 5 OFFICE PARK 5 ACRE 976 18 118 14 10 68 68 21 120 TOTAL 16849 531 356 756 851 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS WARRIOR REZONING SUMMARY OF AVERAGE VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION SATURDAY AND SUNDAY DRIVEWAY VOLUMES ?/5/98 LAND USE SIZE SHOPPING CENTER 104.544 T.G.L.A. SUPERMARKET 43.56 TH.GR.SQ.FT. FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU 4 TH.GR.SQ.FT. -CONVENIENCE MARKET (OPEN 24 HR) 3 TH.GR.SQ.FT. HIGH TURNOVER (SIT-DOWN) RESTAURANT 3 TH.GR.SQ.FT. FREE-STANDING DISCOUNT SUPERSTORE 26.136 TH.GR.SQ.FT. TIRE STORE 2 TH.GR.SQ.FT. DRIVE-IN BANK 2.5 TH.GR.SQ.FT. OFFICE PARK 5 ACRE TOTAL SATURDAY SUNDAY 24 HR PEAK HOUR 24 HR PEAK HOUR 2 -WAY 2 -WAY VOL. ENTER EXIT VOL. ENTER EXIT 5224 7736 2888 2589 475 1439 0 165 147 20663 270 249 2639 272 261 7250 120 115 2171 94 98 2275 38 22 396 65 63 1136 5 7 0 54 52 47 9 3 68 927 870 15982 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 160 166 0 0 140 151 92 103 30 25 58 54 0 0 5 4 4 6 489 509 warrior rezoning SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION FOR 38 ACRE OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 2/5/98 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS AVERAGE RATE STANDARD DEVIATION ADJUSTMENT FACTOR DRIVE WAY VOLUME AVG WKDY 2 -WAY VOL 26.04 19.62 1.00 990 7-9 AM PK HR ENTER 0.64 0.00 1.00 24 7-9 AM PK HR EXIT 1.42 0.00 1.00 54 7-9 AM PK HR TOTAL 2.06 1.97 1.00 78 4-6 PM PK HR ENTER 1.81 0.00 1.00 69 4-6 PM PK HR EXIT 0.93 0.00 1.00 35 4-6 PM PK HR TOTAL 2.74 2.65 1.00 104 " AM GEN PK HR ENTER 0.62 0.00 1.00 24 AM GEN PK HR EXIT 1.46 0.00 1.00 55 AM GEN PK HR TOTAL 2.08 1.99 1.00 79 PM GEN PK HR ENTER 1.80 0.00 1.00 68 PM GEN PK HR EXIT 0.93 0.00 1.00 35 PM GEN PK HR TOTAL 2.73 2.64 1.00 104 SATURDAY 2 -WAY VOL 31.02 24.43 1.00 1179 PK HR ENTER 1.60 0.00 1.00 61 PK HR EXIT 1.37 0.00 1.00 52 PK HR TOTAL 2.97 3.20 1.00 113 SUNDAY 2 -WAY VOL 27.02 19.90 1.00 1027 PK HR ENTER 1.30 0.00 1.00 50 PK HR EXIT 1.30 0.00 1.00 50 PK HR TOTAL 2.61 2.86 1.00 99 Note: A zero rate indicates no rate data available Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS WARRIOR/TASKER COMMERCIAL REZONING TRIP DISTRIBUTION ESTIMATES ATTACHMENT C gilbert w. clifford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester. Virginia 22601 S•10-667-2139 WARRIOR DRIVE REZONING TRIP DISTRIBUTION P.M. Peak Hour Generated Trips ASSUMED USE Trips Entering Shopping Center 188 Supermarket 256 Fast Food Restaurant 70 Convenience Market 81 High Turnover Restaurant 20 - Discount Super Store 49 Tire Store 3 Bank 68 Office Park 21 Totals 756 Trip Distribution Additional Trips From South (Rte 277) Additional Trips From North (Rte 37) Additional Trips From East (Rte 522) Additional Trips From West (1-81) Trips To South Trips To North Trips To East Trips To West )eft w. clifford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 212.75 255.3 170.2 212.75 851 Trips Exiting 203 246 64 81 13 51 5 68 120 851 Percentage 25% 30% 20% 25% Trips From South Trips From North Trips From East Trips From West Total Trips 391 502 134 162 33 100 8 136 141 1607 189 226.8 151.2 189 756 WAR.RIOR/TASKER COMMERCIAL REZONING DETERMINATION OF IMPACTS ATTACHMENT D gilbert w. clifford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 Assumed Existing Trips Project Name: Warrior Rezoning Location: Frederick County, VA Future Warrior/Tasker Intersection Date: Sept 97 Traffic From East Traffic From West Traffic From South Traffic From North on VA Rte 642 on VA Rte 642 on Warrior on Warrior Time Period Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 17:00 - 18:00 85 92 16 193 32 78 390 500 203 78 38 319 8 54 39 101 Traffic counts provided here are those taken at the Rte 642/Rte 647 Intersection by VDOT in Sept 97. These values are assumed to represent typical volumes and tum movement ratios at Warrior drive when opened. Impact of Development (entering) Left Thru Right Total Time Period 17:00 - 18:00 136 15 151 Impact of Development (exiting) Left Thru Right Total Time Period 17:00 - 18:00 0 Left Thru Right Total 170 170 Intersection Volume 1113 Intersection Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Volume 19 19 204.1 23 227 Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total 26 17 21 64 191 229.8 153 574 Left Thru Right Total 90% of trips to and from the south do not enter the intersection 10% of trips to and from the west do not enter the intersection 7 567 Intersection Volume 638 90% of traffic to rezoned areas are assumed to go to sites on Warrior, south of Tasker 10% of traffic to rezoned areas are assumed to go to sites on Tasker, west of Warrior Additonal Northbound Trips on Warrior to sites = 170 entering Additonal Southbound Trips on Warrior From sites = 191 exiting gilbert w. clifford and associates Additonal Eastbound Trips on Tasker to sites = 18.9 entering 200 North Cameron Street Additonal Westbound Trips on Tasker from sites = 21.3 exiting Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 WARRIOR DRIVE REZONING WARRIOR/TASKER COMMERCIAL REZONING INTERSECTION VOLUMES AFTER FULL DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT E gilbert w. Clifford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester. Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 Total Impact of Development (entering and exiting) Warrior Rezoning Location: Frederick County, VA Future Warrior Tasker Intersection Date: Sept 97 Traffic From East Traffic From West Traffic From South on VA Rte 642 on VA Rte 642 on Warrior Time Period Left Thru Right Total Left Ther Right Total Left Thru Right Total 17:00 - 18:00 136 15 0 151 26 17 191 234 210 230 153 593 Estimated Intersection Volumes with Proposed Commercial Rezoning Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 642 on VA Rte 642 Left Thru Right Total Left Thar Right Total Time Period 17:00 - 18:00 221 107 16 344 58 95 581 734 giibert w. difford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 Traffic From South on Warrior Left Thru Right Total 413 308 191 912 Traffic From North on Warrior Intersection Left Thru Right Total Volume 0 204 23 227 1205 Traffic From North on Warrior Intersection Left Thea Right Total Volume 8 258 62 328 2318 WARRIOR DRIVE REZONING WARRIOR/TASKER COMMERCIAL REZONING LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION ATTACHMENT F gilbert w. Clifford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester. Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4c 02-06-1998 Gilbert W. Clifford And Associates Streets: (E -W) (E -W) TASKER (N -S) WARRIOR '-lalyst: RAM File Name: WAR-TRAF.HC9 -ea Type: Other 2-6-98 PM PK Comment: TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L T R -- L T ---- ---- R L T R L T R No. Lanes 1 2< 1 2 1< ---- 2 ---- ---- 2 2 ---- 1 ---- ---- 1 2 1 Volumes 58 95 581 221 107 16 413 308 191 8 258 62 PHF or PK15 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 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 (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) N (YIN) 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 3 3 RTOR Vols 50 16 120 62 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 60 60 Prop. Prot. -- - ------------------------------------------------ Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Left * * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds WE Left * * SB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right * WB Right Green 11.OP 17.OP Green 12.OP 18.OP Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 Cycle Length: 70 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 567 1770 0.113 0.357 8.7 B 18.3 C TR 800 3295 0.604 0.243 18.8 C R 384 1583 0.614 0.243 20.0 C WB L 958 3539 0.264 0.357 9.3 B 11.6 B TR 452 1863 0.263 0.243 16.4 C R 905 3725 0.000 0.243 0.0 A '-' L 962 3539 0.492 0.386 9.0 B 12.5 B T 958 3725 0.375 0.257 16.4 C R 407 1583 0.194 0.257 15.5 C SB L 483 1770 0.019 0.386 7.7 B 15.8 C T 958 3725 0.314 0.257 16.0 C R 852 1863 0.000 0.457 0.0 A Intersection Delay = 14.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = _ HCS: --signalized Intersection Version 2.4c 02-06-1998 1 -lbert W. Clifford And Associates ---- 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 667-2139 Streets. (E -W) TASKER----------------- (N=- S ) WARRIOR - Analyst: RAM File Name: WAR-TRAF.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-6-98 PM PK Comment: TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING Traf f i Eastbound L T R No. Lanes 1 2 c 1 Volumes 58 95 581. PHF or PK15 0.90 0.90 0.90 Lane W (ft) 12.0 12.0 12.0 Grade 0 W Heavy Veh 2 2 2 Parking (YIN) N Bus Stops 0 Con. Peds 0 1 Button (YIN) N Arr Type 3 3 3 RTOR Vols 50 Lost Time 3.00 3.00 3.00 --------------------------- c and --------------- Roadway C Westbound 1 L T R 2 1 < 2 221 107 16 0.90 0.90 0.90 12.0 12.0 12.0 2 0 (Y/N) 2 2 2' (YIN) N 0 0 N 0 (YIN) N 3 3 3 3.00 3.00 16 3.00 --------------- 3.00 3.00 onditions --------------- T Northbound 1 L T R 2 2 1 413 308 191 0.90 0.90 0.90 12.0 12.0 12.0 2 0 (Y/N) 2 2 2 (YIN) N 0 0 N 0 (YIN) N 3 3 3 3.00 3.00 120 3.00 --------------- 3.00 3.00 Signal Operations Southbound L T R 1 2 1 8 258 62 0.90 0.90 0.90 12.0 12.0 12.0 0 2 2 2 (Y/N) N 0 0 (YIN) N 3 3 3 62 3.00 -------------- 3.00 3.00 --------------- P ase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left * * NB Left Thru * Thru Right * Right Peds I Peds WB Lef t Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow/AR * 11. OP 17. OP 3.0 3.0 SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Green 12.OP 18.OP Yellow/AR 3.0 3.0 C. -le Length: 70 secs Phase combination order: #1 #2 #5 #6 HCS: --Signalized Intersection Version 2.4c 02-06-1998 2 _reets: (E -W) TASKER (N -S) WARRIOR Analyst. RAM File Name: WAR-TRAF.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-6-98 PM PK Comment: TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING Volume Adjustment Worksheet Direc- Lane Lane Adj -- -- tion/ Mvt Adj Lane Grp No. Util Growth Grp Prop Prop Mvt Vol PHF Vol Grp Vol Ln Fact Fact VolLT EB-- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- -- - -- -RT- Left 58 0.90 64 L 64 1 1.000 1.000 64 1.00 0.00 Thru 95 0.90 106 TR 460 2 1.050 1.000 483 0.00 0.77 Right 581 0.90 590 R 236 1 1.000 1.000 236 0.00 1.00 WB . Left 221 0.90 246 L 246 2 1.030 1.000 253 1.00 0.00 Thru 107 0.90 119 TR 119 1 1.000 1.000 119 0.00 0..00 Right 16 0.90 0 R 0 2 1.130 1.000 0 0.00 1.00 NB Left 413 0.90 459 L 459 2 1.030 1.000 473 1.00 0.00 Thru 308 0.90 342 T 342 2 1.050 1.000 359 0.00 0.00 Right 191 0.90 79 R 79 1 1.000 1.000 79 0.00 1.00 Left 8 0.90 9 L 9 1 1.000 1.000 9 1.00 0.00 Thru 258 0.90 287 T 287 2 1.050 1.000 301 0.00 0.00 Right 62 0.90 0 R 0 1 1.000 1.000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Saturation---- Saturation Flow Adjustment Worksheet --------------------------------- Ideal Adj Direction Sat No. f f f f f f f f Sat /LnGrp Flow Lns --W-- --HV- --G-- --p-- --BB- --A-- --RT- --LT- Flow EB 0.54 1011 L 1900 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 TR 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 0.88 1.00 3295 WB R 1900 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 0.38 1407 L 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 3539 TR 1900 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 NB R 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3725 0.32 118s L 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 3539 T 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3725 R 1900 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1583 L 19 0.32 599 00 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1770 T 1900 2 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3725 R 1900 1 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1863 HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.4c 02-06-1998 3 -Greets: (E -W) TASKER (N -S) WARRIOR - Analyst: RAM File Name: WAR-TRAF.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-6-98 PM PK Comment: TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING Supplemental Permitted LT Worksheet APPROACH EB Cycle Length, C 70 Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 31 Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 20 Opposing Effective Green Time, go 17 Number of opposing Lanes, No 1 Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, V1t 64 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt 1.00 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=Vlt*C/3600 1.24 Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 119 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: VOlc=VOC/3600No 2.31 Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo 1 Lost time per phase, tl 0 gf=Gexp(-0.882*LTC-0.717)-t1 0.00 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) 0.76 mq = volc * qro / (.5 - voic * (1 - qro) / go) _tl 3.75 1=g-gq (or g-gf ) 16.25 fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.80 P1=Plt[l+{(N-1)g/(fsgu+4.5)}] 1.00 Ell 1.50 fmin 0.20 fm,(min=fmin;max=1.00) 0.54 flt= [fm+0 .91 (N-1) l /N 0.54 APPROACH WB Cycle Length, C 70 Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 31 Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 20 Opposing Effective Green Time, go 17 Number of Opposing Lanes, No 2 Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 2 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, vlt 246 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt 1.00 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=V1t*C/3600 4.78 Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 483 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: V01c=VOC/3600No 4.70 Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo 1 Lost time per phase, tl 0 gf=Gexp(-0.882*LTC"0.717)-tl 0.00 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) 0,76 1 = Volc * qro / (.5 - voic * (1 - qro) / go) tl 8.21 _1u=g-gq (or g-gf) 11.79 fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.57 P1=P1t [1+{ (N -1)g/ (fsgu+4.5) }] 2.78 Ell 2.90 fmin 0.38 fm,(min= fmin; max=1.00) 0.38 flt= [fm+0. 91 (N-1) ] /N 0.38 APPROACH Ng Cycle Length, C 70 tual Green Time for Lane Group, G 33 ai-fective Green Time for Lane Group, g 21 Opposing Effective Green Time, go 18 Number of Opposing Lanes, No 2 Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 2 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt 459 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt 1.00 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=Vlt*C/3600 8.93 Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 301 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc=VoC/3600No 2.93 Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo 1 Lost time per phase, tl 0 gf=Gexp(-0.882*LTC"0.717)-tl 0.00 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) 0.74 gq = Volc * qro / (.5 - Volc * (1 - qro) / go)-tl 4.74 gu=g-gq (or g-gf) 16.26 fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.69 P1=Plt [l+{ (N-1) g/ (fsgu+4 .5) }] 2.34 Ell 2.05 fmin 0.32 ,(min=fmin;max=1.00) 0.32 Lit= [fm+0 .91 (N-1) ] /N 0.32 APPROACH gg Cycle Length, C 70 Actual Green Time for Lane Group, G 33 Effective Green Time for Lane Group, g 21 Opposing Effective Green Time, go 18 Number of Opposing Lanes, No 2 Number of Lanes in Lane Group, N 1 Adjusted Left -Turn Flow Rate, Vlt 9 Proportion of Left Turns in Lane Group, Plt 1.00 Left Turns per Cycle: LTC=Vlt*C/3600 0.18 Adjusted Opposing Flow Rate, Vo 359 Opposing Flow per Lane, Per Cycle: Volc=VoC/3600No 3.49 Opposing Platoon Ratio, Rpo 1 Lost time per phase, tl 0 gf=Gexp(-0.882*LTC^0.717)-tl 0.00 Opposing Queue Ratio: qro=1-Rpo(go/C) 0.74 gq = Volc * qro / (.5 - Volc * (1 - qro) / go)-tl 5.76 gu=g-gq (or g-gf) 15.24 fs=(875-0.625Vo)/1000 0.65 P1=Plt [l+{ (N-1)g/(fsgu+4.5) i] 1.00 Ell 2.26 r-iin 0.19 .L,(min=fmin;max=1.00) 0.32 flt= [fm+0.91 (N-1) ] /N 0.32 z xignajizea inF-crsecLion version 2.4c 02-06-1998 4 Streets: (E -W) TASKER (N -S) WARRIOR Analyst: RAM File Name: WAR-TRAF.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-6-98 PM PK Comment: TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING Capacity Analysis Worksheet Level of Service Worksheet Delay Del Lane Calib Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS Direction v/c g/C d Adj Group d d Grp Grp By By /LnGrp Ratio Ratio 1 Fact Cap 2 2 Del LOS App App EB L Adj Adj Sat Flow 1.000 Lane Group 16 Direction Flow Rate Flow Rate Ratio Green Ratio Capacity v/c /LnGrp (v) (s) (v/s) (g/C) (c) Ratio EB Lsec. 0 1011 0.000 0.286 289 0.000 Lpri. 64 1770 0.036 0.157 278 0.230 Ltot. 64 WB 567 0.113 TR 483 3295 0.147 0.243 800 0.604 R 236 1583 0.149 0.243 384 0.614 * WB Lsec. 0 1407 0.000 0.286 402 0.000 _ Lpri. 253 3539 0.071 0.157 556 0.455 * Ltot. 253 R 0.000 958 0.264 TR 119 1863 0.064 0.243 452 0.263 R 0 3725 0.000 0.243 905 0.000 NB Lsec. 0 1185 0.000 0.300 356 0.000 Lpri. 473 3539 0.134 0.171 607 0.779 * Ltot. 473 12.5 B T 962 0.492 T 359 3725 0.096 0.257 958 0.375 * R 79 1583 0.050 0.257 407 0.194 SB Lsec. 0 599 0.000 0.300 180 0.000 Lpri. 9 1770 0.005 0.171 303 0.030 Ltot. 9 483 0.019 T 301 3725 0.081 0.257 958 0.314 R 0 1863 0.000 0.457 852 0.000 1.000 958 16 Sum (v/s) critical = 0.451 Lost Time/Cycle, L = ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 sec Critical v/c(x) = 0.544 1.000 Level of Service Worksheet Delay Del Lane Calib Delay Lane Lane Delay LOS Direction v/c g/C d Adj Group d d Grp Grp By By /LnGrp Ratio Ratio 1 Fact Cap 2 2 Del LOS App App EB L 0.113 0.357 8.6 1.000 567 16 0.0 8.7 B 18.3 C TR 0.604 0.243 17.9 1.000 800 16 0.9 18.8 C R 0.614 0.243 17.9 1.000 384 16 2.1 20.0 C WB L 0.264 0.357 9.3 1.000 958 16 0.0 9.3 B 11.6 B TR 0.263 0.243 16.3 1.000 452 16 0.1 16.4 C R 0.000 0.243 0.0 1.000 905 -0 0.0 0.0 A NB L 0.492 0.386 8.7 1.000 962 16 0.3 9.0 B 12.5 B T 0.375 0.257 16.2 1.000 958 16 0.1 16.4 C R 0.194 0.257 15.4 1.000 407 16 0.0 15.5 C L 0.019 0.386 7.7 1.000 483 16 0.0 7.7 B 15.8 C T 0.314 0.257 16.0 1.000 958 16 0.1 16.0 C R 0.000 0.457 0.0 1.000 852 0 0.0 0.0 A ------------ Intersection Delay = ------------------------------------------------ 14.7 sec/veh Intersection LOS = B HCS: Signalized Intersection Version 2.4c 02-06-1998 5 streets. (E -W) TASKER---------------===(N_S) WARRIOR Analyst: RAM File Name: WAR-TRAF.HC9 Area Type: Other 2-6-98 PM PK Comment: 'T'RAFFIC VOLUMES WITH COMMERCIAL ZONING Supplemental Uniform Delay worksheet Approach Adj. LT Vol (v) Eastbound v/c ratio (x) 64 Primary phase effective green 0.11 11.00 gq from Supplemental LT Worksheet 3.75 gu from Supplemental LT worksheet 16.25 Red time (r) 39.00 Arrivals qa = v/(3600(max(x,i) 0.02 Primary Ph. Departures Sp=s/3600 0.49 Secondary Ph. Departures Ss=S(Gq+Gu)/(Gu*3600) 0.35 Xperm 0.06 Xprot 0.16 Case 1 Queue at begining of green arrow (Qa) 0.69 Queue at beginning of unsaturated green (Qu) 0.07 Residual queue (Qr) 0.00 r,niform Delay 8.65 Approach Westbound Adj. LT Vol (v) 246 V/c ratio (x) 0.26 Primary phase effective green 11.00 gq from Supplemental LT Worksheet 8.21 gu from Supplemental LT Worksheet 11.79 Red time (r) 39.00 Arrivals qa = v/(3600(max(x,l) 0.07 Primary Ph. Departures Sp=s/3600 0.98 Secondary Ph. Departures Ss=S(Gq+Gu)/(Gu*3600) 0.66 Xperm 0.17 Xprot 0.32 Case 1 Queue at begining of green arrow (Qa) 2.66 Queue at beginning of unsaturated green (Qu) 0.56 Residual queue (Qr) 0.00 Uniform Delay 9.28 Approach Northbound Adj. LT Vol (v) 459 v/c ratio (x) 0.49 Primary phase effective green 12.00 gq from Supplemental LT Worksheet 4.74 from Supplemental LT Worksheet 16.26 r.ed time (r) 37.00 Arrivals qa = v/(3600(max(x,1) 0.13 Primary Ph. Departures Sp=s/3600 0.98 Secondary_ Ph. Departures SS=S(Gq+Gu)/(Gu*3600) 0.43 Xperm 0.39 Xprot 0.53 Case 1 Queue at begining of green arrow (Qa) 4.72 Queue at beginning of unsaturated green (Qu) 0.60 Residual queue (Qr) 0.00 iform Delay 8.71 Approach Adj . LT Vol (v) Southbound v/c ratio (x) 9 Primary phase effective green 0.02 gq from Supplemental LT Worksheet 12.00 gu from Supplemental LT worksheet 5.00 76 Red time (r) 15 .24 15.00 Arrivals qa = v/ (3600 (max (x, 1) Primary Ph. Departures Sp=s/3600 0.00 Secondary Ph. Departures Ss=S(Gq+Gu)/(Gu*3600) 0.49 0.23 Xperm Xprot 0.02 Case 0.02 Queue at begining of green arrow (Qa) 1 0.09 Queue at beginning of unsaturated green (Qu) 0.01 Residual queue (Qr) 0. 00 0 00 Uniform Delay WARRIOR/TASKER COMMERCIAL REZONING INTERSECTION CONFIGURATION ATTACHMENT G gilbert w. Clifford and associates 200 North Cameron Street Winchester. Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 INTERSECTION DIAGRAM Intersection: TASKER and WARRIOR Time period: PM PK Volumes SB Total 328 < v > 62 258 8 Legend [X] = Level of Service #J = No. of Lanes DJ = De facto Turn 58" EB Total 95 734 > 581 v WARRIOR [B] [C] [C] Intersection [B] [A] 2 [C] < 1 2 v TASKER 413 308 191 < I > 912 NB Total Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement Historic Impacts This project area through past development of adjoining property has no known significance. The area has been significantly developed to the east and south. There are no structures currently located on the area to be rezoned that are of historic significance. A review of the National Register, the Virginia Landmarks Register and the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are no known historic structures on this property. Community Facilities 0 Education - This project will generate no school children and therefore have no effect on educational cost in Frederick County. Capital cost impacts for school age children will be reduced since no school children will result with B-2 zoning. • Parks and Recreation - This project would result in no capital impact on Parks and Recreational facilities. • Emergency Services Cost - There are minimal additional fire, rescue or sheriff capital facilities anticipated with the zoning of the property. Additional capital costs have been mitigated with a like proffer contribution to the County. Fire protection is available from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. The planned B-2 rezoning will have all required site development standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no fire protection problems associated with this property. All hydrants and fire protection measures will be installed when the property is developed. Rescue services are provided by the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Squad. Sheriff Department services protection will be required by this facility. Generally, routine patrols of the area should suffice for the majority of time and materials necessary to cover this property. Environmental Impacts There are no known major environmental impacts associated with the rezoning of this property. There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. The effects on the down -stream impoundment and streams are minimal. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground, water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and business use. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on future residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. Other This planned zoning change would create a positive fiscal impact as compared to the existing zoning. There are no known other impacts. Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems associated with this project. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future sewer service. Currently this property is served by public sewer service. Sewage service to this site is provided by Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Water Supply Impacts There are no water supply or transmission problems with this property. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future water service. Currently this property is served by public water service via an 12" water line. Water service is under the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Fire protection measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be addressed at the site development stage. The installation of fire protection hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the property will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as well as the enhancing the protection of the property. The fire fighting capabilities of the fire company covering this area will be enhanced with additional fire hydrants. Drainage Facility Impacts Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site drainage impacts. The development of business in lieu of rural residential/ agricultural will increase stormwater run off. It is recommended that the increased run off would be reduced prior to discharge from the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of this increase storm water on the existing down stream water course. Drainage flows generally north toward Opequon Creek drainage area. Pre - development runoff rates will be maintained using recognized storm water management standards. Solid Waste Cost There are no solid waste collection and disposal impacts. Solid waste will be exported by contract hauler at no cost to the County. No additional solid waste facilities will be required to handle the waste from this property. Fiscal Impacts �a Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impacts of the Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial rezoning are measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity of public facilities. The amount of the impact for any rezoning and subsequent land development such as the Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial rezoning depends upon location and land uses. Using the rezoning impact model provided by Frederick County, the total capital cost of required new facilities generated by the rezoning is considered for each local governmental department for its' respective service area. In this case these departmental areas include: • Schools • Parks and Recreation • Fire and Rescue As evidenced by the model forecast, the only capital cost is new capital costs calculated for Fire and Rescue for costs not covered by county contributions boosts the amount for Fire and Rescue to $7,008.43 for the Stephens City Fire & Rescue Company. This property, when rezoned, warrants a credit based upon its' overall net fiscal impact due to taxes that will be paid by the project in future years. Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial rezoning generates a net positive fiscal impact. Future credits that go toward funding existing debt service are determined by the model and applies to school, fire and rescue and parks and recreation departments only. The rezoning impact model for Frederick County does not calculate positive fiscal impacts associated with non-residential land uses such as this rezoning. Instead, only impacts associated with residential uses are actually shown. In the case of non- residential uses a zero ($0) value impact amount or value is shown due to the large amount of fiscal impact associated with such commercial or office (non-residential) land uses. The Frederick County impact model shows that there is no net impacts for the Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial rezoning. There is a fiscal impact credit since the impact of all land uses is positive and a credit for contribution to capital costs is shown through future taxes paid to the County. Tasker Road & Warrior Road Commercial Impact Analysis Statement The net fiscal impact credit result from the new project against capital costs that are generated by the project. The credit over a ten year period is the amount of development fees, as well as permit fees, plus, project revenues. Revenues are the sum of the following taxes and fees associated with M-1 type zoning land uses: • Real property tax • Personal property tax (estimated at $93.00 per employee) • Business license tax • Utility tax • Retail sales tax (estimated at $2.83 per square foot) • Transient tax (Motel tax) (estimated at $172.00 per room) • Meals tax (estimated at $5.91 per square foot) Impacts as modeled reflect an impact rate of 0.0085¢ per projected square foot or $183.47 per acre. 38.1979 acres @ $183.47 per acre equals $7,008.43 projected new capital costs for the Stephens City Fire & Rescue Company. 7 -:EP -12-'?, FPI -.__ FF 'EPICK =i111fATY 1 _ 067:^_.kl r..^-.� F.�i'• OUTPUT MODULE ---------..-------------------------_..._- Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net coctc Credit col, Impact Fire Department $185 S 1,166 $0 Rescue Department S754 Elementary Schools S0 Middle Schools SO S425,632 SO High Schools Sp Parks and Recreation U S25-301 TOTAL -------------- 5939 $6,369,237 5452,099 Sp FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM ----_ _--------------------"-"-"-"-- New Capital Costs Not $2,048.52 Covered by County Contributions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 09/12/97 EAW P.I.N. 75-A-105 Rezoning; Assumes 238,496 sq.ft, retail on 11.1650 acres. :EF -12--7 FF'I ._ FF t)EFICt CF-i11t4T''( 1 067•^_•0r..^_.- P�i? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OUTPUT MODULE Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net COSiS Credit CQM 1mpac Fire Department $276 $1,743 SO Rescue Department S1:127 Elementary Schools SO Middle Schools 30 $636,177 S0 High Schools 30 Parks and Recreation U 537,816 �Q TOTAL 51,403 59,517,918 $675,737 SO FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not 53,061.85 Covered by County Contributions NOTE5: Model Run Date 09/12/97 EAW P.I.N. 75-A-104 Rezoning: Assumes 356,472 sq.ft, retail on 16.6880 acres. 3EF- 1 2-' T FR I . _ _ FF !ER I CK Cni MT's 1 067!3 ElS2 OUTPUT MODULE Net -------------------------- Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net C= Chit CDAU Impact Fire Department $78 $489 SO Rescue Department S316 Elementary Schools SO Middle Schools $0 S178,586 So High Schools SO Parks and Recreation $Q S ] 0.616 gg TOTAL 5394 $2,673,793 S189.691 SO FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not 5859.52 Covered by County Contributions --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 09/12/97 EAW P.I.N. 75-A-104 Rezoning: Assumes 100,068 sq.ft. retail on 4.6846 acres, •EF -12 -?T FPI ' _54 FF IEF= ICF:. -C)I lT' 1 i_tr.^=:11r._IZ OUTPUT MODULE ------------------ Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net COStS edit i= tm"a Fire Department S42 5263 Rescue Department y 1 -7n SO Elementary Schools S0 Middle Schools $0 596,075 SO Nigh Schools s0 Parks and Recreation U ILZU U TOTAL 5212 51,439,541 $102,049 SO FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not 5462.40 Covered by County Contributions ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES, Model Run Date 09/12/97 EAW P.I.N. 75-A-104 Rezoning: Assumes 53,834 sq.ft. retail on 2.5202 acres. 0 ----------------------------------------------------------- OUTPUT MODULE-------------- etCredit for Capital Fiscal Taxes to Impact Capital C=Sts � Net IMP= rye Department Rescue Department 62 579 $3,991 60 Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation TOTAL -------------------------- FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions s0 60 S1,456,175 60 a $$8- 63,211 621,784,689 51,546,724 --------------------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 02/10/98 EAW P.I.N. 75-A-104, 105 & 117 Rezoning: 38.1979 acres assuming: 815,495 sq.ft. retail on 38.1979 acres of 132 S7,008.41 ie to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this ,utput Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 0 s0 U s0 PC REVIEW DATE: 03/04/98 BOS REVIEW DATE: 03/25/98 REZONING APPLICATION #003-98 BRIARWOOD ESTATES To Rezone 50.53 Acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: This property is located on the east side of Greenwood Road (Route 656), between Valley Mill Road (Route 659) and Senseny Road (Route 657). u: : a 03 11: • W I'll(O v al 11.14 Ire 11 ►l Ju Zoned: RA, Rural Areas District Land Use: Vacant North: Zoned: RP, Residential Performance District Use: Residential (Carlisle Heights) South: Zoned: RP, Residential Performance District Use: Vacant (Briarwood Estates) East: Zoned: RA, Rural Areas District Use: Vacant West: Zoned: RP, Residential Performance District Use: Residential; Vacant PROPOSED USE: Single Family Residential Lots Virginia Dent. of Transportation: See attached letters dated Jan. 14, 1998 and Sept. 16, 1997 from Barry J. Sweitzer. Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 2 February 20, 1998 Fre. derick Co. Sanitation Authority: Water and sewer are available. Public Works: See attached letter dated Jan. 23, 1998 from Ed Strawsnyder. Fire and Rescue: Recommends approval of this request. Stephens City Fire and Rescue: Request information on other 50% of this project as to proffers will it be the same throughout. Parks and Recreation: See comment sheet dated Jan. 24, 1998 from Jim Doran, and attachments dated Aug. 21, 1997. Emderick Co. Public Schools: We believe the impact of the proposed rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the rezoning process. County Attorney: Proffer appears to be in correct form. 1) Site History Parcel 55-A-184, owned by Willis J. and Bettie E. Winslow, was subdivided into five parcels, identified as 55-A-184, 184A, 184B, 184C, and 184D. The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #018-87 of Willis J. and Bettie E. Winslow on August 26, 1987 to rezone parcels 55-A-184, 184A, and 184D from RA, Rural Areas District to RP, Residential Performance District. Parcels 55 -A -184B and 184C had been sold to Eugene and Barbara Grove prior to this rezoning petition. The Winslows maintained parcel 55-A-184 and sold 55 -A -184A and 184D to Shiho. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved Master Development Plan #005-93 for Briarwood Estates on December 8, 1993. This master plan was approved for a phased development of 87 single family detached residential lots that are 15,000 square feet in area. Recently, construction began on the first phase of this development which accounts for 20 lots. The applicant for this rezoning application proposes to revise the master plan for Briarwood Estates to incorporate parcels 55 -A -184B and 184C, should they receive approval. Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 3 February 20, 1998 - M ,_ The 50.53 acre parcels are located on the east side of Greenwood Road, between Senseny Road and Valley Mill Road. These parcels are within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states that new suburban residential development served by sewer and water will have to be located in the UDA. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recognizes that the majority of land in the UDA will be used for suburban residential uses; however, it also states that new development within the UDA should only be approved when roads and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. 3) Site Suitability The 50.53 acre parcels do not contain areas of flood plain, wetlands, prime agricultural soils, or historic elements. The parcels contain areas of steep slopes and woodlands which will need to be accounted for during the master development plan review should this property be rezoned by the Board of Supervisors. a) Traffic: The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis which was prepared for the Fieldstone Heights master development plan in 1995. This analysis was prepared to justify the required classification for Channing Drive which is a proposed major collector road shown on the Eastern Road Plan. The analysis incorporated the acreage that is proposed for this rezoning and was based on the overall residential gross density of 2.2 units per acre. It should be noted that this density is consistent with the overall residential gross density for this proposed rezoning. The 1995 Fieldstone Heights Area Transportation Plan suggests that 1,146 vehicle trips will access Greenwood Road at the intersection of Woodrow Road, which is the entrance into Carlisle Heights, and 2,293 vehicle trips will access Greenwood Road at the intersection of Farmington Boulevard, which is the minor collector road being constructed through Phase I of Briarwood Estates. The results of this analysis assume that the major collector and minor collector road systems are in place, and that the acreage within the study area is developed at an overall residential gross density of 2.2 units per acre. Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 4 February 20, 1998 The traffic impact analysis does not provide information regarding average daily traffic which would be generated if this rezoning is approved, nor does it discuss the current Level Of Service (LOS) for Greenwood Road and what impact this rezoning will have on the LOS. Staff has determined that the 1995 Secondary Road Traffic Counts for Frederick County state that Greenwood Road had a traffic count of 4,237 trips per day. The proposed rezoning application will allow for the development of an additional 143 residences, which will generate an additional 1,366 trips per day (based on 9.55 trips per day per household). Therefore, approval of this rezoning application will increase traffic on Greenwood Road by 32% based on this traffic count. Staff believes that this percentage may be slightly less due to the additional trips per day on Greenwood Road that are a result of new residential development over the last two years. Staff is interested in determining the impact to the LOS on Greenwood Road based on the additional traffic, primarily at the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. County officials have requested VDOT study this intersection on several occasions to determine if signalization is warranted. VDOT has stated that signalization agreements need to be addressed at major intersections along Greenwood Road. The applicant should specify if this intersection is intended to be part of the required signalization agreement with VDOT. b) Community Facilities and Services: The Capital Facilities Impact Model was applied to this rezoning application proposal on October 21, 1997. The results of this model run demonstrate a negative fiscal impact to public schools, parks and recreation, and to fire and rescue services. The total negative fiscal impact demonstrated by the model run is $4,193.15 per residential lot. I �.I I IND., R i IN'3 N' • ',u' 1 The applicant has submitted a proffer statement which has been signed, notarized, and reviewed by the County Attorney. This proffer statement provides for a General Development Plan, a single family detached housing type, a phasing plan that is tied into the Greenwood Road improvement project, road improvements, and a monetary contribution to offset development impacts. Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 5 February 19, 1998 Specific issues of the proposed proffer statement are as follows: 1) General Development Plan This plan combines the proposed parcels with the acreage that was approved for the Briarwood Estates master development plan. It should be noted that this plan would allow for a connection with Carlisle Estates at Charleton Road but would not allow for a connection at Dots Way. 2) Phased Plan The applicant has proposed to limit the number of residential lots that would be permitted to be built until the Greenwood Road improvement project is complete. The applicant has the authority to develop 87 lots from the previously approved master plan. The applicant has proffered to only plat a total of 122 lots for construction, or an additional 35 lots above what is currently permitted to be developed, until the road construction is complete. The 1998-1999 Frederick County Secondary Road Plan calls for an advertisement date of January, 1999 for the Greenwood Road project. 3) Road Improvements The applicant has proffered to develop right turn lanes at street intersections with Greenwood Road, and to enter into a signalization agreement with VDOT. These issues will be considered by VDOT during the review of a master development plan and a subdivision plan should the rezoning be approved by the Board of Supervisors. 4) Monetary Contribution The applicant has proffered a dollar amount to offset the negative impacts associated with public schools and parks and recreation which is consistent with the results of the Capital Facilities Impact Model. Furthermore, the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $10,000 to be forwarded to the Greenwood Fire and Rescue Company which is a 75 % increase in the dollar amount demonstrated by the model run. Tasker Road and Warrior Road Commercial, REZ #002-98 Page 6 February 20, 1998 STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 03/04/98 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The rezoning of parcels 55 -A -184B and 184C would be consistent with the policies established in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The proffer statement submitted by the applicant appears to mitigate the concerns raised by VDOT and adequately mitigates the negative fiscal impacts demonstrated by the Capital Facilities Impact Model. The improvements scheduled for Greenwood Road will assist in the geometric deficiencies and pavement widths that currently exist; therefore, the only outstanding issue is the proposal to develop 35 additional residential lots prior to the completion of the improvements to Greenwood Road. Staff believes that this allowance will not significantly impact the transportation network over the short term; however, staff recommends that the language within the proffer statement under Greenwood Road Improvements should be revised to avoid confusion. The proposed language could be interpreted to mean a total of 122 lots or a total of 209 lots; therefore, staff recommends that 122 lots be revised to read 35 lots. Staff would recommend approval of this rezoning application provided that this language is modified. 01AGENDAS\REZONE\COMMENfS\BRIARWOD. REZ CO M M O N WEALTIT-i of VIRGINIA INIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG RESIDENCY COMMISSIONER 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE JERRY A. COPP P.O. BOX 278 RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE(540)984-5;00 EDINBURG. VA 22824-0278 FAX(540)984-5007 January 14, 1998 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Ref Briarwood - Rezoning Request C/O G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Route 656 (Greenwood Road) 200 North Cameron Street Frederick County Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Steve: We have no objection to the rezoning of the referenced property. However, before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual 5�' Edition for review. Any work performed on the State right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. In addition, when considering the magnitude of existing master plans (approved and pending) under review and in the preliminary stages, VDOT should be apprised of potential impacts on transportation facilities currently in place in the rezoning proposal area. The facilities under concern include Route 657 (Senseny Road), Route 659 (Valley Mill Road) and most importantly Route 656 (Greenwood Road) which appears to be our most vulnerable facility in this rezoning proposal and its impacts. Items which should be addressed in the early stages of subdivision and/or site plan proposals are as follows: 1. Consideration should be given to the need for tapers and right turn lanes at the intersection of Route 656 and any proposed access streets (e.g. Farmington Boulevard) to the Briarwood Rezoning Area. 2. Review and/or upgrading of Farmington Boulevard when deemed appropriate under VDOT review. 3. Simalization agreements at any/all major intersections with VDOT facilities: Route 656 at Farmington Boulevard; Route 656 at Woodrow Road; Route 656 at Route 659; and Route 656 at Route 657. Each of these facility locations are potentially exposed to severe impacts now and in future years as proposed development encompasses the surrounding area. This could be severe if the normal assumptions establishing the parameters are understated. Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Ref: Briarwood - Rezoning Request January 14, 1998 Page 2 The signalization agreements should be on the basis of 100% of installation costs to be borne by the developer. The time period should be five years, with VDOT having the privilege to extend the period beyond five years if needed. The foregoing considerations should be assessed at each subdivision/ site plan review stage of development. Sincerely , V; Barry J. Sweitzer Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Norman K. Sparks Trans. Ass't. Resident Engineer BJS/rf Attach. xc: Transportation Engineer Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. Kris Tierney COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER P O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278 September 16, 1997 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: L�4 JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE 5-0)984-5600 FAx( 540)984-5607 Ref: Briar -wood Estates at Greenwood Road (SR 656) Route 656 Frederick County We have reviewed the preliminary plan for the proposed intersection of the site road with Greenwood Road (SR 656). The proposed VDOT plan being prepared by consultants will be reviewed with the general public at a public hearing scheduled to be held October 31, 1997. The basic typical section proposed would have an urban concept with 30' between faces of curb. The combined direct impact of proposed Briarwood Estates and Coventry Court projects would be approximately 550 trips per day. Added to these estimates would be the effect of action on the Grove Property which we do not know pending rezoning decisions. With these factors in progress the potential impact on SR 656 would be significant. For the intersection to function at an acceptable level of service, the following modifications could/would be necessary: A. SR 656 roadway widening to provide right and left turning lanes, and additional width to logical termini. B. Signalization of the proposed intersection. C. Farmington Boulevard, serving both Coventry Courts and Briarwood Estates should cross SR 656 at the same location, no jog -dog -leg in the intersection. The cost of these modifications would be borne by the developer since the need would be to accommodate proposed development. Thank you for the opportunity for this early review. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Barry J. Sweitzer, Trans. Roadway Engineer For: Robert B. Childress, Transportation Engineer BJS/rf Xc: Mr. R. B. Childress. Mr. S. A. Melnikoff. Mr. C. W. Gardner (w/ copy project plans). Mr. Kris Tierney WE VIRGINIA MOVINI , COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 5401665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 January 23, 1998 Mr. Stephen Gyurisin Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning Request for 50.53 acres adjacent to Briarwood Estates Subdivision Frederick County, Virginia Dear Steve: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning request and offer the following comments: 1. The proposed rezoning fronts Greenwood Road (Route 652) which is scheduled for major improvements by the year 2000. These improvements are needed to accommodate the current traffic flows and to address existing safety problems inherent with this section of Greenwood Road. We cannot support this rezoning until such time that these improvements have been implemented by the Virginia Department of Transportation to accommodate the existing and future traffic flows. 2. We recommend that the impact study be expanded to include the issue of solid waste disposal. We currently provide citizen refuse disposal via compactor sites. The existing convenience site behind the Greenwood Fire Company has experienced a severe overloud due to increased development. This site will need to be expanded to accommodate this new development. In addition, the increased development translates to increases in collection and hauling costs at the current rate of $56 per ton. These impacts should be included in your impact analysis because of the proposed residential development. 3. Stormwater management should be addressed in the master development plan. A detailed review will be performed when the subdivision plans are submitted. 107 North Dent Street • Winchester. Virginia 22001-5000 Rezoning Comments Page 2 January 23, 1998 Please provide me with a copy of the revised impact study. Sincerely, 4 -C-G, I t - Harvey �trawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works cc: file Rezoning Comments Frederick County Parks and Recreation Mail to: Hand Deliver to: Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation 107 N. Kent Street County Admin. Bldg., 2nd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 107 N. Kent Street (540) 665-6350 Winchester, Virginia Applicant's Name: G. W. Clifford & Assoc. Jnc. Telephone: 540 667-2139 Mailing Address: c/o Stephen M. G urisin 1/20/98 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester Virginia 22601 Location of property: East side of Greenwood Road (Rt 656) between Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and Valley Mill Road (Rt. 659) - adjoins existing Briarwood Master _ Planned Subdivision. Current zoning: RA Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 50± Acres Parks & Recreation Dept.'s Comments: I would recommend that current impact information be reviewed when considering the nropnspd nrOffers for Parks and Recreation services. I have attached the most up—to—date information using the proffer model and current Capital Improvement Plan project estimates. Parks & Recreation Signature & Date: Notice to Parks & Recreation Dept. - Please Return This Form to Applicant Proffer Summary Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department Based on the 1997_98 CIP 8/21/97 Impact Impact Facility* Tennis Courts Parkland in Western F.C. Pla ygroun , Open Play and Picnic Areas Frederick Count y a da 1/2000 pop 1/52,000 pop 1/2000 pop Based on 2.5 per Housing Un .125% .0048% .125% Based on 3.5 per Housing U • .175% .0067$ .175$ Current d 26 1 26 Current Need 9 0 20 Current Facility Need Unit a o 17 63,650 1 1,154,772 6 180,847 Request Currently CIP on the Facility C P List 11 700,152 1 1,154,772 4 723,386 Proffer Per Housing 80 55 226 Proffer Per Housing n 111 77 316 Basketball Courts Softball Fields Baseball Field Renovation Field House Support Facilities Maintenance Areas Soccer Fields Indoor Pool Stage Areas Skateboard Park 1/2000 pop 1/50000 P P 1/5000 pop 1/52,000 pop 1/25,000 pop 1/25,000 pop 1/5,000 pop 1/52,000 pop 1/25,000 pop 1/52,000 pop .125% .05% .05$ .0048$ .01$ .01$ .OS$ .0048$ .01% .0048/$ .175$ .07% .07$ .0067$ ,plq$ .014$ .07$ .0067$ .014% .0067% 25 10 13 1 1 2 10 1 2 1 5 6 9 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 21 4 4 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 69,765 235,348 102,800 1,542,000 31,537 168,539 375,878 1,953,200 323,997 200,000 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 139,530 470,696 411,200 1,542,000 31,537 168,539 1,127,634 1,953,200 323,997 200,000 87 118 51 74 3 17 188 94 --�. 122 165 72 103 4 24 263 131 4� Total Impact Per Unit 1,025 1,433 8/21/97 Sample Information: Soccer Field - 1/5000 population costing $375,878 *Development - 1 unit x 2.5 per unit a 2.5 population *-05% is the potential impact that one unit, or 2.5 people, will have on a facility that has a standard of 1/5000 population. 2.5 is equal to .05% of 5000. (2.5 divided by 5000% a .05%). Sample Computation: $375,878 facility cost x .05%, which is equivalent to the percentage of potential impact a $187.939 per unit times the number of housing units = cost per development. Computation Check: Cost per unit divided by people per unit s individual impact cost times standard for facility = total facility development cost. $187.939 divided by 2.5 = $75.1756 x 5000 a $375,878. 1997-98 Capital Improvement Plan Total - $9,439,405. Notes: Bicycle facility has been funded and eliminated from proffer summary. Playground at Clearbrook park has been funded and eliminated from this summary. Support facilities at Clearbrook park have been partially completed and funding requirements have been reduced. Each project has been adjusted by 2.3%, which is the reported annual inflation rate from the 1996-97 plan to the current plan (1997-98). REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff. REZONING ZoningAmendment Number -19 S Date Received PC Hearing Date BOS Hearing Date -"LL-2Z 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: G. W. Clifford & Assoc. Telephone: 540-667-2139 Address: 200 N. Camerson St. Winchester Va._ 22601 2Z4/98 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: SHIHO Inc. Name: Eugene F. & Barbara Grove Phone: 540-667-2120 Phone: 540-667-7598 Address: P.O. Box 2715 340 West Parkins Mill Road Winchester Va. 22604 Winchester Va.22601 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Stephen M. Gyurisin Telephone: 540-667-2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Agency Comments Plat Fees Deed to property Impact Analysis Statement Verifying taxes paid Proffer Statement 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: David Holliday Ron Shickle Eugene F. & Barbara Grove 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Vacant B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential/Single Family 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER (see attached list) USE ZONING Vacant & Residential RA & RP 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): 654 The property is located on the east side of Greenwood Road (Va. Sec. Rt. between Valley Mill Road (Va. Sec. Rt. 659) and Senseny Road (Va Sec Rt 657) adjoins the existing Briarwood Estates subdivision that master planned and is under construction and C s e Heights subdivision i Car11:5le, 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: Parcel Identification #: 55 -((A)) -184B & 184C Districts Magisterial District: Stonewall High School: Tames Wood Fire Service: Greenwood Middle School:Tames Wood Rescue Service: Greenwood Elementary School: Red Bud 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 50.53 RA RP 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: 127 Townhomes: N/A Non -Residential Lots: N/A Mobile Home: _NIA Multi -Family: N/A Hotel Rooms: N A Square Footalze of Proposed Uses Office: N/A Service Station: N/A Retail: N/A Manufacturing: N/A Restaurant: _ N/A Warehouse: N/A Other: 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 }�'� oni^g ^''p ^.f �""deri�k County, vTirgiitia. i (we) �a ��. V Ll� �L lf.l VL 11G authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) 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 true and accurate-t—best,4 Applicant: Owner(s): d its accompanying materials are wledge. Date: z /4 /Py Date: -ZI6//g Date: �� � �9 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 thl[.' �oitiiig i:iup of Pleuerick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) 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) owledge. Applicant: te: i Owners _ Date: � Date: gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers - Surveyors - Land Planners - Water Quality Briarwood Subdivision Adjoining Property Owners Within 300 Feet Tax ID # Property Owner 55C-1-1 Herbert L. & Betty J. Sluder 55C-1-2 528 Greenwood Road 55C-1-3 Winchester, Virginia 22602 55C-1-4 Barbara A. Keckley 544 Greenwood Road Winchester, Virginia 22601 55C-1-5 Sue E. Keplinger 552 Greenwood Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55C-1-6 Lawrence H. Connell 560 Greenwood Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 55C-1-7 Donald R. Mencer 586 Greenwood Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55C-1-8 Kenneth G. Ashby 576 Greenwood Road Winchester, Virgiia 22602 551-1-2-1/551-1-3-18 C. C. Longerbeam, Inc. 55I -1-3-19/55I-1-3-20 P.O. Box 2018 55I -1-3-21/55I-1-3-127 Winchester, Virginia 22604 551-1-3-130/551-1-3-133 55I-1-3-134 200 North Cameron Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: (540) 667-2139 Fax: (540) 665-0493 Member American Consulting Ertgirieers Council Briarwood Subdivision Adjoining Property Owners Tax ID # Property Owner 55I-1-2-2 Donald C. & Wanda S. Seagroves 102 Woodrow Drive Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-2-3 James W. & Monica N. Mauck 104 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-2-4 Secretary of Verterns Affairs 210 Franklin Road, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011 55I -1-2-5/55I-1-2-7 Ravinder S. & Rita K. Grewal 55I-1-2-9 720 Treys Drive 55I-1-2-10 Winchester, Virginia 22601 55I-1-2-6 Wade A. & Tina R. Noel 110 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-2-8 Dennis W. & Barbara K. Sieh 114 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-2-11 Claude F. & Betty C. Bender 120 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-2-12 John M. & Mary B Bruton 124 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 551-1-2-13/551-1-3-129 55I-1-2-14 Edwin B. Yost, Trustee 4127 Bee Ridge Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 2 Briarwood Subdivision Adjoining Property Owners Tax ID # Property nTA nor 55I-1-3-122 Thomas F Grimes 138 Woodrow Road Winhcester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-3-123 Kenneth N. Chamblin 140 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-3-124 Daniel J. & Jodi L. Garzarelli 142 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-3-125 Manuel & Sharon Ordonez 114 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-3-126 Melton D. & Mary Chasteen 200 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-3-128 Michael A. & Tapitha K. Grace 204 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-3-131 Daniel W. & Melanie A. Burrier 210 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-3-132 Glen E. & Judy S. Russell 55I-1-4-182 2619 Woodside Road 55I-1-4-185 Clearbrook, Virginia 22624 55I-1-4-181 Glen W. & Pamela L. Russell 270 Panarama Drive Winchester, Virginia 22603 3 �Cf Briarwood Subdivision Adjoining Property Owners Tax ID # Property Owner 55I-1-4-183 John W. & Christina A. Hughes 302 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55I-1-4-184 Linnea W. Stopher 304 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22603 55I-1-4-186 Gordon R., Jr. & Tammy S. Greer 308 Woodrow Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55 -A -184A Greenwood Road P.O. Box 2097 Winchester, Virginia 22604 55 -A -184B Eugene F. & Barbara L. Grove 55 -A -184C 340 West Parkins .Mill Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 55 -A -184D Greenwood Realty Partnership P.O. Box 2097 Winchester, Virginia 22604 55-A-185 Elaine B. Longerbeam P.O. Box 2018 Winchester, Virginia 22604 55-A-206 L. C. Lynnehaven 112 N. CameronStreet Winchester, Virginia 22601 4 Impact Analysis Summary Introduction Planning Analysis Site Suitability/Soils Traffic Sewage Water Drainage Solid Waste Historic Sites Community Facilities Education Emergency Services Parks and Recreation Environment Other Impact Analysis Introduction The property requested for rezoning consists of 50.53 acres. This request is to rezone the entire 50.53 acre from present Rural Area (RA) to Residential Performance (RP). The project will consist of single family homes in a suburban setting and the property is evaluated in light of the proposed single family proposal. The project is herein call Briarwood Estates. Briarwood Estates is located between Valley Mill Road and Senseny Road along the east side of Greenwood Road. The area to be rezoned consists of two parcels totaling 50.53 acres and currently zoned R.A. In the early 1990's, 40 acres that adjoin the requested property for rezoning and zoned RP, was master planned and approved for 87 single family home lots. The developer plans to combine the two projects, revising the previously approved master plan for the entire 90.64 acres, and creating a new master plan. The combined 90.64 acres will be master planned for single family suburban homes with sidewalks, curb and gutter streets and street lighting. The property is identified as tax parcel 55 -((A)) -184B and 184C located in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The property is located in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan designed Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Planning Analysis The requested rezoning is in conformance with the comprehensive plan through its UDA designation. The property has frontage on VA Route 656, Greenwood Road, where planned intersecting streets will provide access. Public sewer and water service is to be provided by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. An initial planning analysis of the property with zoning and development constrains indicate that approximately 143 single family homes can be supported using urban design standards. Site Suitability/Soils The property to be rezoned has development limiting factors of steep slopes along the central portion of the property running north and south and an electrical utility easement also generally going north to south. The property has no other site specific development limiting factors. The property appears well suited for all categories of uses in development based on site evaluations of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the change of use from open, rural land to an suburban home setting. Site Suitability - The property appears well suited for RP single family home uses and conforms with suburban land -use trends in the area. 50GK 416 FACE G47 GREENWOOD ROAD — ROUTE UTE 6S6 PT. sEO. ••A.. ��IRON PIM CL 5 41 50' W — 1216.68' PT. •E 11 a. -c•. O In �� // 4 I 3 ' W� I 86'.3 6%` N. I` � A W S I� �� - 30 - a J.w. _N t` �rn CARLISLE ' 20.21 AC . m LOT w W r Fo � � 1 A �o Ln 0 `h vn N 37'55'E 1253.42' Wa",N� N ( 455.60' 7, 3 Z 1 0% HERBERT 8. COOK cV 1�� 77 3p, LAND d `t ! 3 4.y_ N 8.4 0 •g4' • �w 25 f o / 5 26 •5• o Y o NCO z Q ��O J , I uga o = o 0 MSO C1 N W ' to 30.32 0 0 N� � Moa j(��I INCS 0 -��r N AC. N A W r/ W -� ORR ICK M t` 1 CEMETERY — ¢ to ._ Q CO., INC. LAND N u a u Z Z _ N 4g -3o' � ll �� 540.45e N g, o sruum 44 0 1n �" i.ann sV ' 5 SuS,q NN4 F, SCHMITT LANE) Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 37 as Berks Channery silt loam and Weikert-Berks Channery silt loams. Prime Aericultural Soils - The property does not contain prime ?gr+mult'arai soils as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and Soil Survey. Slopes - There is a central area of steep slopes that run north and south in the central portion of the property. The portion of the property with steep slopes are identified in the 15 - 65% range are minimal. A majority of the site has slopes suitable for development in the 2 - 7% range. Wetlands - There are no wetlands identified on this property. Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on this property. Flood Plain - There are no flood plain areas identified on the property by US HUD flood maps for Frederick County. Map Number 5100630120B. Traffic gilbert ,,T. clifford & associates, inc. INCORPORATED 197Z Engineers Land Planners Surveyors Water Quality Analyses Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • P. 0. Box 781 Fredericksburg,VA 22401 • Winchester Office: 200 North Cameron Street (540) 898-21 15 Winchester, VA 22601 • (540) 667-2139 memorandum To: Review Agencies From: Ron Mislowsky PA Re: Fieldstone Heights Area Transportation Study Date: July 25,1995 Eastern Frederick Development Company is attempting to secure approval of its Fieldstone Heights Master Development Plan. In order to gain VDOT approval, the right of way width required for Channing Drive, a future collector, needs to be established. The right of way width determination was to consider full development of the area bordered by Greenwood Road on the west, Valley Mill Road on the north, future Route 37 on the east, and Senseny Road on the south. Furthermore, the future road plan for this area was to be implemented as the basis for traffic flow. Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates was commissioned by Eastern Frederick to study future traffic flows generated by development of the study area and recommended an adequate right of way width for Channing Drive. The study was to be provided to VDOT for their consideration and use in evaluating the suitability of the 80 ft. right of way called for on the current Master Development Plan. The study area consists of 1040.5 acres which as been marginally developed. Sensenv Glen, Apple Ridge, Carlisle Estates, and Brentwood Terrace are the only existing development of concentrated single family housing. No significant commercial development is anticipated in the study area. A location map is provided on Figure 1#1. A density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre was used to establish the total number of houses at full development in the study area. Our traffic generation estimate is based on 2,289 lots. To determine trip generation by the study area, a factor of 10.016 was applied to the housing volume to develop total trip ends per day. The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition generation rates are commonly accepted. The total trips generated on a daily basis is 22,928. Finally, the distribution of the site generated trips was assumed. There are nine points where traffic from the site can gain access to the major collector roads. Trips were routed to each of the access points based on probable destination and route convenience. The percentage of trips to each access point, as well as the future road network for the area are shown on figure #2. The trips per day on Channing Drive through Fieldstone Heights is estimated at 4,586. BOARD OF DIRECTORS AE:�, Thomas J. O'Toole, P. E. Charles E. Maddox, Jr P E. Erl P Duane Brown, C. L. S. William L. Wright, _abcraaor RE)Sr tc � r'nd snorandum to Review Agencies Fieldstone Heights Area Transportation Study July 25, 1995 The VDOT subdivision street requirements require a 24' pavement width and a 60 ft. right of way for local roads with daily trips over 4,000. It is our belief that the 80 ft. right of way proposed by the developer would meet all of VDOT needs for this roadway. According to 1993 traffic counts on Valley Mill Road, there are 401 trips per day on that road. In order to determine the lane requirements for Channing Drive at the future intersection it was assumed that the trips on Valley Mill Road double. It was further assumed that a vast majority of those trips are generated by single family uses. Using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, peak hour trips for Channing Drive and Valley Mill Road were estimated. The results are as follows: Channing Drive 4,586 TPD/10.016 TPD/Unit = 458 units 458 units x 1.012 TPH (p.m. peak hour generator) = 463 64% enter, 36% exit, 50% southbound Valley Mill Road 802 TPD/10.016 TPD/Unit = 80 units 80 units x 1.005 TPH (p.m. peak hour adjacent street) = 80 Assume 50% southbound Using these hourly trip rates an unsignalized T intersection was evaluated using the 3 lane layout on the local road and Valley Mill Road as proposed by the developer. This analysis reflects the methodology provided in the Highway Capacity Manual, SP209. The results indicate the intersection operates at a level of service "A". The calculations are provided in Figure n3. It is our opinion that the lane configuration proposed by the developer is adequate. The capacity of Valley Mill Road was not evaluated by this study. Surely growth in the area will effect its level of service. Future improvements to Valley Mill Road may be required to implement the County's Eastern Road Plan. Should questions concerning the calculations, attachments, or findings arise during - review, please do not hesitate to contact the writer directly. .mss ��'. � • , �t�. \l \U :I 1 i '. , � o -. v V \ J ti: 0 .• ,f i ' -- i '��,, ,'\ }�i 5sn SSO��_ ��;\ _J'--5;�_'� � � ( �J � a, 71 c CCf z ) He}'Pa is \ �_ /l• �l l�%�" ' ��})/jn `�/il fi{ ' \ O ItCL ft 650 LJco R3 CU = ging Sia J O 0LL ('41 n i 56 5' 1 � iii` \ „ it •C� LL A `�� ood 1(7 rso lb 'Gre116, enwood v �— ghis- •fit ��tn'' \ v �� `p_ J1 /Y r]1IRP / o If � jj I i'` /){ bio o o ���� �,.•. , b .0 I'l ' � • ` '� �` �� �. es:r; � `• '/' (• d I �P � ,. �,�\: ),� spa?'� � t U � ] � 1 i t o /I - 0411 508 A 769 538 A 9 116 1000 1000 884 A 4 206 1000 _ _ 794 A PROJECT NAME - Fieldstone Heights DATE - 20 July 1995 SITUATION: Full development of study area Figure 3 �.vvnl lulu. ncluawne nelgi_/va Hie b59 NAME: ram HOURLY VOLUMES VOLUMES IN PCPH Major Street: Valley Mill Rd N- 40 - V(5) V(2) - 40 147 - V(4) V(3) - 146 V(2) - V(3) - - V(5) 206 - V(4) V(7) - 82 STOP V(7) Date: weekday 83 - V(9) YIELD I - 115 116 - V(9) Time Period: PM Peak Hr N_ Avg Run Spd: 35 Minor Street: Crooked Lane VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS Movement No. 23 1 4 15 7 9 Volume (vph) 4C-11 146 147 40 82 1 83 Vol. (pcoh), Table 10-1 factor = 1.4 206 115 116 RT From Minor Street Actual Conflicting Flow, V(c) Critical Gap, T(c), and Potential Capacity,c(p) Capacity, c(m) 1/2 V(3) + V(2) = 113 T(c) = 5.5 c(p9) = c(m9) = c( 9) = 1000 vph(V(c9)) 670 pcph pcph LT From Major Street Conflicting Flow, V(c) Critical Gap, T(c), and Potential Capacity,c(p) Percent of c(p) Utilized and Impedance Factor Actual Capacity, c(m) V(3) + V(2) = 186 T(c) = 5.0 c(p4) = (v(4)/c(p4))-100 = 20.58% c(m4) = c( 4) = 1000 vph (V(c4)) 1000 pcph P(4) = 0.85 pcph LT From Minor Street Conflicting Flow, V(c) Critical Gap, T(c), and Potential Capacity,c(p) Actual Capacity, c(m) 1/2 V(3)+V(2)+V(5)+V(4) = T(c) = 6.5 c(p7) = c(m7) = c( 7) ' P(4) = 187 vph(V(c7)) 730 pcph 623 pcph SHARED LANE CAPACITY C(sh) = v(7 + v(9) = 768.85 (v(7)/c(m7)) + (v(9)/c(m9)) Movement No v(pcph) c(m)(pc h) 7 11C rnn c(sh)( coh) c(r) LOS - 0411 508 A 769 538 A 9 116 1000 1000 884 A 4 206 1000 _ _ 794 A PROJECT NAME - Fieldstone Heights DATE - 20 July 1995 SITUATION: Full development of study area Figure 3 U-LlWLLL jt Ll%ljj,�/ [\'f, I' oo` 'PD fj '1146 TPD Z.V l' ` l; �C`-,4j� `?��� ,l ;Yy j5 \`�'i. Y t. �1 _ I °� � / � r 1 ,, l,> I 86 '0 Fiscal Impact The fiscal impacts of the Briar -wood Estates rezoning are measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity of public facilities. The amount of the impact for any rezoning and subsequent land development such as Briar -wood Estates depends upon location and land uses. Using the rezoning impact model provided by Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, the total capital cost of requiring new facilities generated by the Briar -wood Estates rezoning is considered for each local governmental department for its respective service area. In this case these departmental areas include: - Schools - Parks and Recreation - Fire and Rescue As evidenced by the model forecast, the capital cost is for new capital costs calculated for Schools, Parks and Recreation, and Fire and Rescue. The amount for Schools is $453,255.00; for Parks and Recreation is $75,066.00. New capital costs for Fire and Rescue not covered by Frederick County contributions is modeled at $5,729.69 for 127 single family dwelling units. Briarwood Estates, when rezoned and developed, warrants a credit of $64,382.00 based upon its overall net fiscal impact due to taxes that will be paid by the project in future years. Briar -wood Estates generates a net negative impact in accord with the Frederick County Impact Model Report for this rezoning proposal. Future credits that go toward funding existing debt service are determined by the model and applies to School, Fire and Rescue, and Parks and Recreation departments only. The rezoning impact model for Frederick County does not calculate positive fiscal impacts associated with non-residential land uses. Instead, only impacts associated with residential uses are actually shown. In the case of non-residential uses a zero ($0) value impact amount or value is shown due to large amount of fiscal impact associated with such commercial or office (non-residential) land uses. The Frederick County impact model shows that there is a net impact of $4,193.15 ($4,148.04 per unit les fire and rescue addendum) per unit for the Briarwood Estates rezoning. The model impacts reflect a change of RA to RP for the purposes of calculating impacts. Impact Model Report The following impact model report was generated on October 21, 1997 assuming 127 single family homes on 50.53 acres from RA zoning to RP zoning. A per unit impact is calculated at $4,193.15. --------------- OUTPUT MODULE re Department Rescue Department Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation TOTAL -------------------------- FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM -------------- Net Fiscal Capital Impact Costs Credit $349 $651 $169,151 $53,246 $289,250 $78.537 $591,183 $0 ---------------------- Credit fog Taxes to Capital Net Q tS AGI $2,520 $0 558,391 $453,255 $3.471 575.066 $64,382 $526,801 ---------------------- New Capital Costs Not $5,729.69 Covered by County Contributions --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTES: Model Run Date 10/21/97 EAW P.I.N. 55-A-1846 & 184C Rezoning: Assumes 127 SFD on 50.53 acres zoned RP. Due 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. Environment There are no known major environmental impacts as associated with the rezoning of this property. There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including runoff sediment, noise, and constructed related traffic and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper CoIIlpiiance with local and state laws for environmental protection. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be affected by this project. Groundwater and air quality should be unaffected. Other This zoning change from RA to RP would create a fiscal impact as identified in the Frederick County Impact Model Report that is attached. These impacts are off -set with contributions proffered to Frederick County. There are no known other impacts other than the impacts identified in this study. COUNTY of rRrnrRtc,t Department of Planning and Development MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director RE: Warrior Drive Revenue Sharing Application DATE: February 19, 1998 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 Attached is a preliminary draft of the referenced application for your information and review. The Revenue Sharing Program is a special funding source established by VDOT which provides a dollar -for -dollar match for qualified secondary road improvement projects. Localities can apply for maximum funding under this program which provides up to $500,000 annually. This is a competitive program throughout each transportation district in the state; therefore, the maximum dollar amount is seldom awarded. Frederick County submitted a Revenue Sharing Application for Warrior Drive during the 1997- 1998 VDOT fiscal year. This application requested assistance for improvements to the existing segment of Warrior Drive, as well as for the extension of Warrior Drive from Fairfax Pike (Route 277) to Tasker Road (Route 642). The Commonwealth Transportation Board awarded $329,877 to Frederick County for the Warrior Drive project during the 1997-1998 fiscal year. It is the intention of the Board of Supervisors to continue and apply for funds through this program to complete this phase of Warrior Drive. Frederick County is currently negotiating an agreement with VDOT, which if approved will expedite the construction of the first phase of Warrior Drive. This agreement will require VDOT to assist Frederick County with right-of-way agreements, utility relocations, and provide an annual allocation for the reimbursement of dollars fronted by the county. A resolution depicting this agreement will be prepared for the Board of Supervisors for approval in March. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to endorse this application, as well as an addendum to the standard resolution for this agreement. U:\EVAN\COM MON\TRANSPO\ W ARRIOR\REVSHAR.PC 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 RE VE rT U E 11AI'Ll r iT YKv UKANt APPLICATION for WARRIOR DRIVE Endorsed on March 11, 1998 by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors Virginia Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 1998-1999 WARRIOR DRIVE PROJECT NARRATIVE introduction: The County of Frederick has prepared a second application for funding through the Virginia Department of Transportations County Primary and Secondary Road Fund to widen and realign Warrior Drive. The vision to develop Warrior Drive was established during the update of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan for Frederick County, Virginia. This update created an Eastern Road Plan for Frederick County which provided a system of improved arterial and collector roads and new major and minor collector roads throughout the Urban Development Area. The development of new major and minor collector road systems was envisioned to mitigate negative impacts to the level of service to existing roads, while providing connections to various land uses that the current system could not. Warrior Drive is an integral part of the Eastern Road Plan, as well as the Winchester Area Transportation Study. Ultimately, Warrior Drive will provide a north -south major collector road system that will connect Route 277 (Fairfax Pike) with the Route 37 Eastern By-pass, and continue north to Route 50/17 (Millwood Pike). It is believed that this ultimate connection will occur through phased development. The first phase is envisioned to occur between Route 277 and Route 642 (Tasker Road). Initially, Warrior Drive was constructed from the intersection of Route 277 to the north, serving 172 residential lots within three developments. Recently, this segment was reconstructed to align with traffic signalization on Route 277 serving Sherando High School. This realignment warranted the removal of barricades within the Village of Sherando, thus providing access to several hundred residential lots in this area. The completion of Warrior Drive between Route 277 and Route 642 will allow for the redistribution of traffic utilizing Route 647 (Aylor Road) as the primary access to Route 277. This should allow for a reduction of traffic at the Interstate 81 Exit 307 interchange area, thus improving the level of service at this interchange area, particularly during peak hours. Project Location and Description: The first phase of Warrior Drive will be constructed between Route 277 and Route 642. This 1.55 mile segment is envisioned to be constructed as a two-lane major collector road within an 80 and 100 foot right-of-way, providing space for both underground and ditch drainage systems and future widening. Properties impacted by this phase include those privately owned that are zoned and planned for commercial use and high density residential use, and publicly owned property serving as a regional park. The majority of the right-of-way required is proposed to be dedicated by developers and Frederick County to allow for the construction of Warrior Drive. 1 Traffic Analysis: In 1997, county staff, with the assistance of the VDOT Edinburg Residency, prepared a preliminary traffic analysis for the first phase of Warrior Drive. A study area was selected accounting for existing land use patterns, future development patterns that are anticipated to occur in the short term, and traffic splits that would realistically utilize Route 647 (Aylor Road) and Warrior Drive. A map depicting the study area utilized for this analysis is included at the end of this application. It was determined that 1,879 residential lots that are either developed or approved for development would utilize Warrior Drive as the primary access between Route 277 and Route 642. Additionally, 445 acres of land that is zoned for high density residential use would have direct access to Warrior Drive. In order to determine the number of additional residential lots that would utilize Warrior Drive, estimates were created utilizing development densities permitted within Frederick County as follows: Residential D�veiopmeat projectiOns Density New Lots Existing Lots .3 Total Lots Low 2.5 units/acre 1,112 1,879 2,991 Medium 4.0 units/acre 1,780 1,879 3,659 High 5.5 units/acre 2,447 E71,879 4,326 Utilizing an average daily trip count of 9.55 trips per lot per day, it is estimated that between 28,564 and 41,313 residential trips per day will have the potential to utilize Warrior Drive as a primary access between Route 277 and Route 642 when build -out is achieved for the properties described above. Public/Private Partnership Effort: Preliminary cost estimates prepared by the VDOT Edinburg Residency suggest that the completion of two lanes for the 1.55 -mile segment of Warrior Drive between Route 277 and Route 642 will cost $3,800,000. In order to expedite the construction of this phase of Warrior Drive, Frederick County officials are willing to undertake the steps necessary to provide dedicated right-of-way and funding for this segment initially, provided that VDOT will program a project and provide an annual reimbursement to Frederick County until the required contribution has been received. An addendum to this effect has been incorporated into the standard VDOT Revenue Sharing Program Resolution. 2 Benefits of Project: The completion of the first phase of Warrior Drive between Route 277 and Route 642 will provide several benefits to the traveling public, Frederick County and the Virginia Department of Transportation as follows: • A north -south major collector road providing access to a highly developing minor arterial corridor (Route 277) will be provided that will ultimately connect with the Route 37 Eastern By-pass. • Current and future traffic patterns at the Interstate 81 Exit 307 interchange will be altered and reduced, providing much needed relief to this deficient interchange area. • Improvements to the level of service to Route 647 and Route 641 will be realized. • Improvements to Route 647 between Route 277 and Route 642 called for in the Frederick County Secondary Road Improvement Plan can be reevaluated. • Improved access to Sherando High School and the Sherando Regional Park will be provided. • The provision of a major collector road that is consistent with the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as specified in the Eastern Road Plan Map. • Conformance with the roadway improvements specified in the Winchester Area Transportation Study. • Conformance with the Route 37 Eastern By-pass corridor study. 3 DESIGNATION OF FUNDS- REVENUE SHARING FY 19-.938 - 1999 COUNTY OF FREDERICK DISTRICT Staunton Current Invol. Appr Per Road ' RESIDENCY Edinburg Day Surface R.E. Project #F-bution Match- Prior- Fully Length Width Fro or ing ity # Fund of of Budget Item # State in b w/RS Proj. Exist. To: Funds YR Fund Road Plan (S) ($) Y/ N (MI) (1) 5500 000 1500 0 (1) To bd ass Vehicle Current Invol. Appr Per Road ' Bridge by Day Surface R.E. 00 N/A Y 1.55 80, Route 277 28,500 Paved miles nd100' (Fairfax Pike) to ight-o](Tasker - to 41,000 way Route 642 Drive) PAGE 1 OF ;cope of Admin. Project by VDOT or CO. Y/ N Y/N Y Y * Widen wo box * Realign lverts * Pave VDOT ti m:r:l! WARRIOR DRIVE 1 PHASE Legend ® Study Area ® Warrior Drive Park School Future Residential M -ft . VNCIM.4f, VFyYp