The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 04-07-93 Meeting AgendaFILE COPY AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Old Frederick County Courthouse Winchester, Virginia APRIL 7, 1993 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB 1) Meeting Minutes of February 17 and March 3, 1993 ................. A 2) Bimonthly Report...........................................B 3) Committee Reports ........................................ C 4) Citizen Comments .......................................... D PUBLIC HEARINGS 5) Conditional Use Permit #003-93 of Joseph C. Smith for the expansion of an existing home for adults. This property is located one mile east of Winchester on the North side of Route 7 in the Stonewall District. (Mr. Miller) ............................................... E 6) Conditional Use Permit #004-93 of Charles & Bettye Violette for a cottage occupation -- an audio and video studio. This property is located off of Route 50 West on Route 259 in the Back Creek District. (Mr. Lilley) ............................................... F Y903 3J11 7) Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article II, Definitions, Article IV, Subdivision Review Procedures, Article V, Design Standards, and Article VI, Plan Requirements. The proposed amendments pertain to definitions (Article II), preliminary subdivision sketch plan requirements (Article IV), major rural subdivision access (Article V), and subdivision platting requirements (Article VI). (Mr. Wyatt) ............................................... G 8) Amendments to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article 11, Amendments, Article III, Conditional Use Permits, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Article V, Rural Areas District, Article VII, Residential Planned Community District, Article X, Business and Industrial Districts, and Article XX Definitions. The proposed amendments pertain to rezoning application procedures (Article II), Conditional Use Permit conditions (Article III), setback requirements, height limitations, accessory dwellings, accessory uses, vehicle parking restrictions, sign permits, inoperable motor vehicles, dimensional requirements (Article IV), alternative design standards for residential planned communities (Article VII), Industrial launderers as a permitted use in the M-1 Light Industrial District (Article X), and definitions (Article XX). (Mr. Wyatt) ............................................... H MISCELLANEOUS 9) Discussion regarding the Prince Frederick Office Park Master Development Plan located in the Shawnee District. (Mr. Wyatt) ................................................ I 10) Discussion regarding truck or freight maintenance facilities as an allowed use in the M-1 Light Industrial District. (Mr. Wyatt)................................................J 11) Discussion with G. W. Clifford & Associates regarding a preliminary master development plan for Henkel Harris Company. The proposed use for this property, consisting of 66.43 acres and zoned M-2, is industrial. (Mr. Tierney) .. •........................................... K MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on February 17, 1993. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; Marjorie Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; and Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison. ABSENT: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large. PlanningStaff taff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Lanny C. Bise, II, Planner I; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director; and Ronald A. Lilley, Planner II. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CP&PS) 2/8.193 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the CP&PS discussed their goals for the next few sessions. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DR&RS),.= 211193 Mtg, Mr. Thomas said that the DR&RS discussed what their focus would be in the upcoming months. Some of the issues they plan to look at are business corridors, appearances of parking lots and industrial/business entranceways. They also plan to review the rural issues sections of the zoning and subdivision ordinances and make clarifications where necessary. Sanitation Authority - 2/17/93 Mtg. Mrs. Copenhaver said that two citizens who were having problems with water line easements across their properties on Route 642 attended the first part of their meeting. Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the water lines from the water plant to Route 11, the connector lines on Routes 642, 522 (Phase I), and Route 7 and Lee Avenue are all under construction. Bids have been received on the Route 50 connector and the Senseny Road connector. She added that the water line connecting the whole county from north to south will soon be completed. Historic Resources Adviso1y Board HRAB - 2110193 & 2/1V93 93 Mr. Shenk reported that the HRAB met on February 10 and 11 to review the recently completed Rural Landmarks Survey and prepare for their presentation at the joint worksession with the Planning Commission and Board. Frederick County/Stephens City Joint Planning Committee - 2/4/93 Mtg. Mr. Thomas said that the Committee discussed the Route 11 South business corridor (setbacks, appearance) and boundary line adjustments for Stephens City and Frederick County MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Master Development Plan #006-92 of James R. Wilkins, III for 88 townhouses and 76 apartments. This property is identified by Parcel ID #54000020000100 and is located on the south side of Route 659 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (This item was tabled 3 from the Commission's December 6 and January 6 meetings.) Action - Approved Mr. Bruce Edens, Engineer with Greenway Engineering & Surveying Company, was present to represent Mr. James R. Wilkins, III, the owner. Mr. Edens presented the plan to the Commission, noting that the plan was redesigned somewhat from the draft copy submitted in November. He said that there was some difficulty meeting the distance requirements from the road. Mr. Edens pointed out an entrance located on Route 658 (Brookland Lane), one in the area of the townhouses out to Valley Mill Road, and one from the apartments. He said that VDOT did not agree to a direct entrance from the apartments to Valley Mill Road. Chairman Golladay called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak either in favor or opposition and the following person came forward: Mr. Thomas Dientz, an area resident, inquired if the developer would be using Brookland Heights as access for construction vehicles. Mr. Dientz was also concerned about the safety of children who might be playing in the area of the drainage ponds. Mr. Edens replied that Brookland Heights would not be used for construction vehicles. Regarding the ponds, he said that there would not be any water remaining in those in less than an hour after it rained. Mr. Thomas said that he realized that the density for this particular proposal was within that allowed by the ordinance, but in light of the fact that this area already had a high density of development, he questioned whether maximum utilization was appropriate based on the existing and surrounding conditions. Mr. Thomas was also concerned about the additional traffic, especially at the intersections where bottlenecking was already a problem. Other Commissioners shared Mr. Thomas' concerns about traffic congestion and stormwater management with continued development. They felt this area had the potential for stormwater management problems because of the existing high density development and poor drainage quality of the soil. They also had concerns about increased traffic on Route 659 and potential bottlenecking at the intersection of Route 7 and Route 659. The Commission did feel, however, that the proposal was appropriate, since this area was already zoned for development and there was a need for higher density housing in Frederick County. The Commissioners also felt that the housing types proposed (townhouses/apartments) were appropriate because of surrounding existing housing types, However, they felt that the intersections in the area needed to be worked on and careful attention paid to the stormwater management plan submitted by the applicant. 4 Mr. James R. Wilkins, III, the owner, came forward to address some of the Commission's concerns, however, a detailed traffic analysis or detailed stormwater management had not yet been done. Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Shenk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Preliminary Master Development Plan #006-92 of James R. Wilkins, III for 88 townhouses and 76 apartments provided that all staff comments and review agency comments are addressed. The vote on this master plan was: YES (TO APPROVE): Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light, DeHaven, Shenk NO: Thomas DISCUSSION WITH PATTON, HARRIS, RUST AND ASSOCIATES (PHR&A) REGARDING THE PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK No Action Mr. Thomas announced that he would abstain from discussion of this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Staff noted that the site was located in the Shawnee Magisterial District on the south side of Route 50 East, approximately 1/2 mile east of the intersection with Route 522 South. The total site area was 91.903 acres, zoned B2 (Business General) District. Staff noted that one item of concern associated with the proposal regards the provision of through roads from this site to the Winchester Regional Airport Authority site and the Donald E. Garber site. Staff believed that these connections were necessary to provide a suitable transportation network for this area. Mr. John Hash, Mr. Douglas Kennedy, Mr. Carl Rinker, and Mr. George Foard, all with PHR&A, came forward to informally discuss the road concerns with the Commission. Mr. John Hash said that if the roads were extended as suggested by the staff, VDOT would require the roads to be constructed as four -lane roads. Mr. Douglas Kennedy, PHR&A's Transportation Engineer, said that his traffic analysis indicated that this property would be able to support 800,000 square foot of employment uses with a two-lane access at Route 50 with additional turn lanes and traffic signals. Mr. Kennedy felt that four -lane roads would act as a magnet to attract trips and go beyond the collector road function. He said that PHR&A would like to work with VDOT and the County to find a solution that 5 allows for the regional access, but also allows for the site traffic demand. The Commissioners said that they were not requesting a commitment on the developer's part to build a four -lane road, only that the roads be designed on the plan so that it would be possible to connect them in the future if traffic warranted. Mr. Tom Dickinson, attorney representing the owners, said that they did not have any problems showing the connection to adjoining properties and he felt any problems could be worked out. DISCUSSION WITH DAVID M. SMITH JR. REGARDING A MULTIPLEX RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE SUNNYSIDE AREA. No Action Staff noted that the plan proposed by Mr. Smith would need variances from the normal road efficiency buffer requirement of 80' and from the setback requirement of 20' from parking areas/ driveways. Though not labeled on the plan, the parking areas proposed were in the form of circular driveways. Staff said that before requesting these variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals, the applicant would like to get the Commission's reaction to his proposal. The concept was to have condominium -type ownership of the property, rather than to divide the property into individual lots requiring a road built to state standards. Staff also noted that the Subdivision Ordinance restriction on the length of an access route from a state -maintained road (500') is exceeded in the plan. And finally, it was noted that the Fire Marshal has stated that the 12 foot lane shown on the plan was not wide enough for fire vehicles. Mr. David M. Smith, Jr., the owner, presented his proposal to the Commission and addressed some of the concerns raised. Mr. Charles Maddox, Engineer with G. W. Clifford & Associates, was also present to speak in favor of Mr. Smith's proposal. The Planning Commission recognized the positive aspects of the proposal: the density proposed was lower than what was permitted by the ordinance, the housing units were naturally buffered from adjacent single-family development, and the site had its own separate access. They felt that the overall concept reflected what was intended by the RP ordinance to allow diversity in housing types and was suited for this particular parcel; however, the concerns raised by the staff still needed to be addressed as well as the issue of compatibility of the multiplex units next to a single-family development. No formal action was taken by the Commission at this time. Ch DISCUSSION WITH G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES REGARDING A PROPOSED 250 - UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT OFF OF VALLEY MILL ROAD No Action Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G.W. Clifford & Associates, presented the proposal to the Commission. Mr. Maddox said that they were proposing a 247 -unit townhouse development on a 32 acre site, zoned RP, located off Valley Mill Road. The parcel adjoins the Wilkins tract (to the south) which was considered earlier for apartment and townhouse units. The Commission's concerns were basically the same as those for the Wilkin's development, since the development proposals were adjacent to each other. They were concerned about problems associated with increased traffic and the potential for drainage problems in the area with additional development. Commissioners felt the potential existed here for regional stormwater management and road network planning and it was a good opportunity for the two property owners to develop a joint proposal on dealing with the problems associated with this area. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 1995 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF RURAL ROUTES Action - Approved Mr. Wyatt said that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has directed VDOT to update the functional classification for urban and rural routes throughout the state. He said that VDOT has completed their comprehensive review of all state routes within Virginia and has provided Frederick County with a copy of the 1995 Functional Classification Plan. This plan is part of the state's planning effort and is in conjunction with the Intermodal Surface transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Mr. Wyatt said that ISTEA has authorized the development of a National Highway System (NHS) and the purpose of the NHS is to provide an interconnected system of principal arterial routes which will serve major population centers. Mr. Wyatt presented a list of primary and secondary routes that have been reclassified from VDOT's 1990 Functional Classification Plan and a copy of the 1992 Frederick County Functional Classification Plan for the Planning Commission's consideration. The Planning Commission had concerns that reclassification of state routes would effect the state's funding of primary and secondary roads. The Commission felt that they could concur with the reclassification plan provided that the funding of primary and secondary road projects followed current practices. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 1995 Functional Classification Plan, however, the Commission does oppose any change in funding or funding mechanisms for future primary and secondary road improvements in Frederick County. 1992 ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT The staff presented the 1992 Annual Report for the Department of Planning & Development. The report contained information concerning the state of the County, current planning issues, development and land use proposals that have been approved, and planning progress during the previous year. No action was taken by the Planning Commission. STATUS OF THE ALTERNATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT STUDY The staff brought the Commission up-to-date on the Alternate Wastewater Treatment Study for the Clearbrook/Brucetown and Roundhill Community Centers. Mr. Tierney noted that a consulting firm had been selected and contract details should be worked out within the next few weeks. He said that a report should be available within 90 days after the contract was finalized. He added that the Health Department's report on the septic survey was available for anyone who may be interested. FUNDING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION Mr. Watkins presented a memo from Lanny Bise, Planner II, which was a response to a request by the Commission for information on the percentage of total capital improvements funds that other localities allocate towards Parks and Recreation facilities. Chairman Golladay accepted the report for the Commission's information. LV OTHER (FREDERICK WOODS) Mr. Thomas brought the Commission's attention to the fact that Frederick Woods' developers have removed much more of the woodland area than indicated on their master plan. He said that they have also bulldozed soil halfway up trees, which will result in many trees dying. Mr. Thomas suggested that the Commission may want to incorporate some method for enforcing the 25% disturbance/steep slope disturbance policy in the ordinance. ADJOURNMENT 9:30 p.m. No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on March 3, 1993. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison; and James Barnett, City of Winchester Liaison. ABSENT: Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director/Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; and Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of January 20, 1993. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the minutes of January 20, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT information. Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Joint Worksession--HRAB PC & BOS - 2/26/93 Mt . Mr. Watkins said that the HRAB and Maral Kalbian presented results of Frederick County's Historic Sites Survey to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Discussion centered on direction for the HRAB with emphasis on education, incentive approaches, and various programs. Mr. Watkins said that the HRAB will evaluate what was heard at that meeting and determine what direction they want to proceed in for the future. Tran, ortation Committee - 3/1/93 M1g. Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee reviewed the 1993 Primary Road Improvement Plan and discussed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). Mr. Thomas said that the committee also received an executive summary of the Corridor H Program. He said that the northern route selected will have significant impacts on Frederick County and Winchester traffic. Mr. Thomas felt the plan needed to be assessed further to determine whether improvements to our area would be included with that plan. Board of Supervisors Mrs. Sherwood said that there will be some informational meetings coming up on the budget. The department heads will be available to answer questions from the public on March 10 at James Wood High School and March 18 at Armel School. Mrs. Sherwood said that the public hearing on the budget will be held on March 24. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Junior Triplett, 363 Front Royal Pike, came forward with a complaint regarding two recently sold parcels of property with bad septic systems and undrinkable water. Mr. Triplett said that he informed Mr. Ed Molden that the parcels he purchased adjoining his residence had bad septic systems and that the water on one parcel was undrinkable. Mr. Triplett said that Mr. Molden has since turned on the electricity to the old house and has not connected to the Sanitary Sewer System. Mr. Triplett said that be went to the Health Department about the problem, but nothing has yet been done. He said that he discovered that a Mr. C. A. Molden is Vice Chairman on the Sanitation Authority and since the Moldens own or rent 3 approximately 300 different properties, he felt that Mr. Molden's position on this committee was a conflict of interest. Chairman Golladay advised Mr. Triplett to speak to the Board of Supervisors, since the Sanitation Authority was a Board -appointed committee and to speak with Mr. Kodar, the Director of the Frederick -Winchester Health Department. AMENDMENT OF THE AGENDA Upon motion made by Mrs. Copenhaver and seconded by Mr. Marker, the Commission unanimously agreed to move Item #9 (Discussion regarding rezoning impacts on Fire & Rescue facilities) up to Tab E and to move Item #5 (MDP #001-93 of Prince Frederick Office Park) after consideration of the conditional use permit (CUP #002-93 of Ryland Homes). DISCUSSION REGARDING REZONING IMPACTS ON FIRE & RESCUE FACILITIES Mr. Watkins said that an impact model has been developed which the staff uses to measure the actual financial impact of a rezoning on county facilities (capital costs only) such as schools, parks, etc. He said that a problem with the model, is that it currently does not measure a financial impact on fire and rescue capital costs in any situation. The reason for this is that the model only measures impacts in relation to the county budget and the county's contribution to Fire & Rescue Companies' capital costs. Because the county only covers a fraction of the actual capital costs associated with fire and rescue, no impacts were generated out of any of the cases examined by the model. Mr. Watkins said that essentially, the fire companies have to seek other sources of contributions to take care of capital costs not covered by the county. Mr. Watkins said that the proffer system language states that cash can be accepted for facilities identified by the C.I.P. or for items not normally included in the C.I.P. Mr. Watkins said that the staff has modified the impact model to identify capital costs associated with fire and rescue. He said that the staff recommends that this modification be included in the impact analysis for rezonings. The Commission had questions on how the funds would be received, who would administer the funds, and who would oversee spending of the funds. Mr. Thomas Owens, Director of Emergency Services, said that the proffer must first be legally received by the county government. Once the funds are received by the Finance 4 Department, a memorandum is written forwarding the funds to the appropriate fire & rescue company. He said that each fire company sets up a proffer line item within their budget. Mr. Owens said that certain procedures are followed so that the money can be traced and a financial statement is done at the end of each year. The Commissioners were in favor of including fire and rescue capital costs within the impact model, however, they stressed the importance of making sure that the funds were used within the law of the statute. (It was noted that the proffers could only be used for capital costs and not operational costs.) Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the staff's recommendation to modify the impact model to include rezoning impacts on fire and rescue services and recommends approval to the Board of Supervisors. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #002-93 of Ryland Homes for an off -premise business sign. This property is identified by Parcel I.D. #750000A0000370 and is located on the west side of Route 647 at the intersection of Westmoreland Drive in the Opequon District. Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that because the sign was so far removed from the subdivision it advertised, it is considered a business sign and not a real estate sign. Off premise business signs require a conditional use permit. Mr. Miller said that the sign is currently existing and the application was submitted as a result of a complaint against the applicant. Michele Busby, Sales Representative for Ryland Homes, was present as the representative for this application. No one else was present to speak either in favor or opposition to the request. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Wilson, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve Conditional Use Permit #002-93 of Ryland Homes for an Off -Premise Business Sign with the following condition: 1. The sign shall meet all the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Vir ' 'a. 5 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS Master Development Plan #001-93 of Prince Frederick Office Park for a business office park. This property is identified by Parcel I_D_ #640000A0000890 and is located south of Route 50, west of Carper's Valley Golf Course, in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Approved Mr. Roger Thomas said that he would abstain from discussion and vote on this master plan, due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. John Hash, with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates (PHR&A), said that they have revised their preliminary plan to address the two issues identified at the last Planning Commission meeting, which were: 1) extending the two cul-de-sacs nearer to the adjoining property boundary lines to show the possibility of connection with the adjoining properties; and, 2) revisions to address regional stormwater management issues. applicant. Staff inquired about projections for level of development expected by the Mr. Douglas Kennedy, Transportation Engineer with PHR&A, said that they are considering office park and office uses with approximately 700,000 square feet of development on approximately 91.9 acres. He said that if the employment areas are developed with warehouse or manufacturing uses, the overall yield of the property could go up. The Commission felt the applicant's projections had a bearing on the transportation network through the park. They felt it had a definite bearing on Mr. Childress' letter (VDOT's letter dated 1/13/93), the traffic light on Route 50, and additional accesses to the site. It was pointed out that 700,000 square feet of development on 91.9 acres only amounted to 15 or 17 acres of building, which meant that approximately 75 acres were unaccounted for. Chairman Golladay noted that only one 100,000 square foot office building with 350-400 employees would result in approximately 400 morning trips and 400 evening trips per day, not including lunch trips. He pointed out that there was only one way for the traffic to go -- to Route 50 and turn left. Mr. Golladay estimated that if you had seven such buildings on the site, the number of trips increased to 2,800 trips --all at one entrance. He felt it was logical to assume that the traffic problems would be significant. Chairman Golladay preferred to see additional access, either through Route 522 or through the airport. It was the staff's feeling that both additional accesses were needed. Mr. Hash said that they were providing the right-of-way dedication to the property j line. He said it was his understanding that there may be some development on the property to the west, at which time those people could probably make that connection through, if that was the County's decision. Mr. Douglas Kennedy said that there will be turn lanes required at the Route 50 intersections. Chairman Golladay asked the applicants if they had any problems with Mr. Childress' letter regarding the traffic light, turn lanes, etc. Mr. Kennedy said that they would work with VDOT on the traffic light, if it was warranted. He said that the only condition of Mr. Childress' letter that may cause them a problem was the requirement for an additional turn lane between Ryco Lane and the Big Lots Shopping Center down to G. W. Motors. Chairman Golladay said that a statement was made at the previous Commission meeting that an agreement would be entered into between the County, the State, and the developers indicating that if the road needed widened or improved in any way, that someone other than the developers would pay for it. Mr. Golladay asked if that statement was correct. Mr. Hash responded that the statement was correct. Mr. Romine stated that he would like to have the four -lane road in place at the beginning or at least have the right-of-way. Mr. Romine asked who would pay for the traffic light. and other commissioners responded that it should be paid for by the developer. Mrs. Copenhaver inquired if the road within the development would be two or three-laned. Mr. Kennedy responded that initially, they would expect to have a one -lane coming into the site and two lanes going out. He said that if traffic builds up, there may be double lefts. Mr. Hash said that they would not have a problem dedicating the right-of-ways beforehand for the extension of roads. Mr. Marker felt the main road should have an 80' right-of-way and the four lanes should be put in immediately. Most of the Commissioners agreed with this. The staff commented that it may not be necessary to specify 80' for the right-of- way; if the applicant goes in with a curb and gutter section, they might be able to work within a smaller right-of-way. The Commissioners agreed not to specify the "80 feet," but to require the four lanes. Chairman Golladay called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak concerning the proposal and the following persons came forward: Mr. Shirley Carter, adjoining property owner, wanted to know what uses would be allowed within the park. Mr. Charles Ryan, with Ryco Management, asked where the proposed construction entrance would be located. Mr. Ryan wanted to make sure they could still conduct their business on Ryco Lane. Mr. Edward Strawsnyder, Frederick County's Engineer, said that he had discussions with the developer and his comments on stormwater management had been addressed in the latest revised plan. Mr. Wilson commented that this site had the potential to add a terrific amount of traffic to an already congested area. He said that he could not conceive of building a development of this size without putting a four -lane road into and out of it. Mr. Wilson said that his biggest concern that needed to be addressed was to have the four lanes in there and to have the lights in place, once they are called for. Mr. Wilson said that other than that, he would move that this be approved based on the staff's recommendations of approval, provided that the applicant address the staff concerns, all review agency comments (including VDOT's 1/13/93 letter), and any concerns of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Mr. Romine. Mr. Light commented that there seemed to be a lot of questions and no definite answers regarding the stop light, turn lanes, widths of right-of-ways, stormwater management, regional stormwater management, good ingress/egress or a second ingress/egress on this property. Mr. Light felt it was too early to approve the master plan at this time. Mr. Light added that during the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee meeting, there were discussions about the entrances being four-laned or possibly, a boulevard center section so that more space was available for traffic to turn. Mr. Light felt the County should set out to get ahead of the project and have it planned right initially. Mr. Wilson said that is why he wanted the four-laned road. Mr. Light questioned if Mr. Wilson's motion included the four -lane road and Mr. Wilson clarified that his motion did include the four-laned road. It was also noted that all the comments from VDOT would have to be complied with. The question was called and the following vote took place: n YES (TO APPROVEL Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper NO: Light ABSTAIN: Thomas (Mr. Shenk was absent) THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Master Development Plan #001-93 of Prince Frederick Office Park for a business office park with a four -lane access road and traffic lights when called for by VDOT and provided that the applicant address all staff concerns, review agency comments, and any concerns of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. OTHER Discussion with G.W. Clifford & Associates Regarding a Preliminary Master Development Plan for Franklin Mobile Home Park, located on the south side of Route 7. Mr. Wyatt said that representatives from G. W. Clifford & Associates have requested time for an informal discussion concerning their proposal to create a 49 -lot mobile home park located on the south side of Route 7, adjacent to Shenandoah Hills subdivision. W. Wyatt said that the site is zoned MH -1 (Mobile Home Community District) and currently contains 15 occupied sites. Mr. Wyatt said that he has been contacted by a resident of the adjoining Shenandoah Hills subdivision and the concern is not necessarily more mobile homes, but the existing gravel entrance onto Route 7. Because of the speed of traffic coming up Route 7, people exiting the park end up spinning their wheels to get onto Route 7. This kicks up gravel, dust, etc. which effects the neighborhood. Mr. Scott Marsh, from G. W. Clifford & Associates, described the location and other aspects of the site. Mr. Charles Maddox, from G. W. Clifford & Associates, said that the issue of allowability of private streets needs to be decided early in this process by the Planning Commission so that they can create a bonafide application. Mr. Maddox said that the ordinance provides for private streets when they are a continuation of existing streets in MH -1 projects. This project is presently served by a 30' right-of-way connection with Route 7 and additional right-of-ways cannot be obtained for this project according to the owner. He said that the first and major question is whether the Planning Commission would allow the extension of private streets in accord with provisions of the ordinance. 7 Mr. Rodney Franklin, the contract owner/developer of the site, spoke to the Commission about his lack of success in trying to acquire additional right-of-way from adjoining property owners. The Commissioners felt that the traffic situation would be tight on the 30' right-of- way due to the density of development. They were concerned about right-hand turns from the site onto Route 7. Some Commissioners felt that there needed to be a pedestrian access, in the form of a walkway, around the site and some type of pedestrian access out to Route 7 for school bus access. No formal action was needed by the Commission at this time. Discussion with Greenway Engineering regarding a proposed single-family cluster development on Greenwood Road. Mr. Wyatt said that Mr. H. Bruce Edens, of Greenway Engineering, has requested time at the Commission's meeting for an informal discussion regarding a proposed single-family cluster development on Greenwood Road. Mr. Wyatt said that the road fronting lots 1 through 8 is specified in the Comprehensive Plan as a new minor collector road. With that in mind and this being residential development, there would be a road efficiency buffer required for this site. Mr. Wyatt said that this greatly reduces the amount of buildable area on the lots fronting on this road. Mr. H. Bruce Edens, of Greenway Engineering & Surveying Company, presented the proposal to the Commission. Chairman Golladay asked if the road efficiency buffer was strictly open space. Mr. Wyatt replied that the road efficiency buffer would require landscaping. Mr. Wyatt added that if the applicant decided to go with the reduced road efficiency buffer to reduce the linear footage requirement, a six foot high berm or other opaque object, such as a fence, would be required. No action was required by the Planning Commission at this time. 1993 PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. Wyatt said that the Transportation Commit -tee reviewed the proposed 1993 Primary Road Improvement Plan during their March 1, 1993 meeting. He said that the Transportation Committee recommended that this plan maintain the same priority as the 1992 Plan. He said that the Transportation Committee also recommended that the 1993 Plan not 10 include any new primary road projects. Mr. Wyatt said that Route 522 South is currently funded on the Commonwealth Transportation Board's Six Year Improvement Program. He said that this is the only project on the 1993 Plan that is funded by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. Wyatt stated that the recommendation of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board on March 10. He said that the final adopted plan will be presented to the Transportation Board on March 23, 1993, during VDOT's Preallocation Hearing. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the 1993 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County. GREENBAY PACKAGING SITE PLAN Mr. Wyatt stated that Greenbay Packaging currently has a site under construction in the Fort Collier Industrial Park across from Kraft General Foods. He said that prior to the applicant submitting a formal application, the staff received all the review agency approvals on the project, except for the Sanitation Authority. The Sanitation Authority finally gave their approval, but the applicant had never formally submitted their site plan to the Planning Department. Greenbay Packaging was, therefore, never placed on the Bimonthly Report. Mr. Wyatt asked the Commission to allow the staff to administratively approve the plan. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, the Commission unanimously voted to allow the staff to proceed with administrative approval of the plan. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert Watkins, Secretary James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman M E M O R A N D U M TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary SUBJECT: Bimonthly Report DATE: March 29, 1993 Fac. 9/12/89 Opeq Trmt.facil (1) Rezonin s Pending: dates are submittal dates 10/25/90 Twin Lakes 4/04/90 (Shaw) (RA to B2/RP) (2) Rezonin s Approved: dates are BOS meeting dates Shaw None Red Star Express Lines 05/24/91 Ston (3) Rezonin s Denied: dates are BOS meeting dates Townhouses None 12/03/92 Ston Ofc/Housing (4) Conditional Use Permits Pending: dates are submittal dates Ryland Homes 01/14/93 Opeq Off Premise Sign Joseph Smith 03/11/93 Ston Adult Care Home Charles & Bettey Violette 03/17/93 BC Cottage Occupation - Audio Video Studio Paul C. Stacy 03/26/93 Ston Eng. & Lawn Mower Rep. (5) Conditional Use Permits Approved: dates are approval dates None (6) Site Plans Pending: (dates are submittal dates Wheatlands Wastewater Fac. 9/12/89 Opeq Trmt.facil Grace Brethren Church 6/08/90 Shaw Church Flex Tech 10/25/90 Ston Lgt. Industrial Hampton Chase 12/18/90 Ston S.F. & T.H. Lake Centre 05/15/91 Shaw Townhouses Red Star Express Lines 05/24/91 Ston Whse. Addition Freeton 04/27/92 Opeq Townhouses Salvation Army 12/03/92 Ston Ofc/Housing Glaize Components C & S Steel Allied Wood Prod. Blue Ridge Indus. Fleet Maintenance 2 01/21/93 Shaw 03/08/93 Ston 03/10/93 Ston 03/18/93 Shaw 03/23/93 Ston Mfg. Plant Roof Mfg. Industrial Garage (7) Site Plans Approved: (dates are approval dates) McDonalds Corp. 03/17/93 Ston Addition (8) subdivisions Pending: (dates are submittal dates) None (9) Subdivisions Pending Final Admin. Approval: (P/C _apprroval dates Abrams Point, Phase I 6/13/90 Shawnee Hampton Chase 02/27/91 Stonewall Lake Centre 06/19/91 Shawnee Fredericktowne Est. 10/16/91 Opequon (sections 5, 6 and 7) Coventry Courts 12/04/91 Shawnee Senseny Glen 12/04/91 Shawnee Freeton 05/20/92 Opequon Henry Business Park 02/03/93 Stonewall (10) PMDP Pending: (dates are submittal dates) James R. Wilkins III 11/02/92 Shawnee Prince Frederick Business Park 01/19/93 Shawnee (11) FMDP Pending Administrative Approval: dates are BOS approval dates Battlefield Partnership 04/08/92 Back Creek Hampton Chase (revised) 05/27/92 Stonewall (12) FMDP Administ. Approved (dates are admin. -approval dates) None (13) Board of Zoning Appeals Applications Pending:(submit. dates) Gregory Groves 03/08/93 Shaw 2' side/deck Timothy Kettlewell 03/12/93 Shaw 3.9' side/house 3 Ronald & Rosalie Wehn 03/25/93 BkCk Wilson McGolerick 03/26/93 Opeq Scot Marsh 03/26/93 Ston L. Allen Ebert 03/26/93 Gain (14) BZA Applications Approved• (approval dates) Trademark Ent. Inc. David Smith (15) BZA Applications Denied: David Walker Lot size 9' rear/deck Lot size Width to Depth Ratio 03/16/93 Ston 10' front/house 03/16/93 Ston 30' road eff. buffer and setbacks from driveways 03/16/93 Shaw 15' rear/house (16) PLANS RECD. FOR REVIEW FROM CITY OF WINCHESTER None E. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT - ACTIVITY REPORT #29 1. Route 642 On March 5, Kris Tierney met with Don Hague of the Evans Company and Jim Longerbeam to discuss a proposal for a minor redesign of the Frederick Woods Development in order to accommodate the proposed relocation of Route 642. This redesign would result in two less residential building lots within the development in order to allow for relocated right-of-way. This proposal went to the Planning Commission informally at their March 17 meeting, at which time the Planning Commission authorized the staff to administratively approve the subdivision once plats and appropriate review agency comments are obtained. 2. Transpgrtation Planning Committee On March 4, Kris Tierney met with Bob Watkins, Jim Golladay, the City Planning Director, Tim Youmans, and a City Planning Commissioner, Jim Barnett to discuss the current and future role of the Transportation Planning Committee. This Committee consists of representatives from Winchester, Frederick County, Stephens City and Middletown. 3. House -Numbering/911 System Staff is continuing with the update of the House Numbering Project through the use of ACAD11, dBase IV, and general inquiry. 4. Plan Reviews Evan Watt conducted the following lan reviews: On March 8, conducted a site inspection of the Liberty Baptist Church. This site is located on the south side of Route 277 On March 11, participated in a Technical Review Committee meeting to discuss a proposed addition to the Schenck Food site. This site is located on the west side of Route 11, south of Winchester. 5. Mapping and Zoning .Issues Evan Wyatt gave a presentation on automated mapping and zoning issues to the Shenandoah Valley Institute of Realtors on March 11. 6. School Bus Routes Booklets Evan Wyatt is continuing work with the Frederick County School Board to update the school bus route booklets and to create a comprehensive road name list for Frederick County. 7. Industrial Uses/Districts On March 8, Evan Wyatt met with June Wilmot, EDC Director, to discuss performance standards for truck maintenance facilities within the industrial zoning districts. On March 9, Evan Wyatt met with Wellington Jones, FCSA Director, to discuss potential impacts to water and sewer systems from specific industrial uses. 8. Professional Develo mp ent Bob Watkins attended a luncheon meeting of the Rappahannock section of the Virginia Chapter of the American Planning Association. Media relations was the topic discussed. 9. Other Bob Watkins and Wayne Miller met with representatives of G.W. Clifford & Associates to discuss a proposed industrial park on Shawnee Drive. P/C Review Date: 4/07/93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #003-93 JOSEPH C. SMITH Expansion of an Existing Home for Adults LOCATION: One mile east of Winchester on the North side of Route 7 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER 55B -A-14 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned Residential Performance (RP) and use is residential. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE• Zoned B-2 (General Business) and RP (Residential Performance), land use - vacant, residential PROPOSED USE: Conversion of a single family residence into an adult care facility for Alzheimer patients. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation• Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. Should use ever expand/change the entrance may need to be upgraded. Inspections Department• Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 307, Use Group I (Institutional) of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Other codes that apply are title 28 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. Need to show a minimum one ADA approved parking space and access to the building. (Note: Need A. E. sealed plans for change of use.) Sanitation Authority• No comment. Water and sewer available. Lines located along Route 7 in front of property. Page 2 Smith CUP Health Department: No objection. Planning Department: The Smith's are currently operating a 25 bed adult care facility under Conditional Use Permit #004-88. The location of this proposed additional operation is in an adjacent existing single family dwelling that they plan to convert to meet all the requirements for establishing the proposed use of caring for patients who have Alzheimer's disease. Convalescent and nursing homes are permitted in the RP zone with a conditional use permit. There is no objection to this application but the submission of a site plan should be required to insure all issues associated with this use are adequately addressed. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR April 7, 1993 PC MEETING: Approval with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments will be addressed and complied with as required. 2. All federal, state and local regulations applicable to adult care facilities will be complied with. 3. A site plan will be submitted for approval. C Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting I APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the X owner M ff other) NAME: lncon Smith ADDRESS: R { Bay TELEPHONE Home 255-3342 Work #1 662-0869 Work #2 667-5323 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) � houses -west of Denny's Furniture and 2 houses East of 4. The property has a road frontage of 117 5 feet and a depth of feet and consists of 7S acres. (Please be exact 5. The property is owned by _ o s e p h an -d 1,I an i f a Smith as evidenced by deed from recorded previous owner) in deed book no. 778 on page 677 registry of the County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. 55BOOA-600D-0014 Magisterial District Stonewall Current Zoning 1 _3 - 2 7. Adjoining Property: ONING 1 North USE Z - _ ` East 3-" West� South 1d-G��✓ -r- —2. Ag -2 C. page --2- CUP Application August, 1990 t �� I Dut,T5 _ �C ��I-N5I � 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) A f2ri1ity rmm.priserl of R harm At the present time to hnu5,emhiilatfu4- l7haiaer�,c rPsidentS t.h fpr 3 more residents fortotal of 11 eds. 9. It is -propose that the following buildings will be constructed: W n p e 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property sought to be permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 -DIGIT NUMBER. NAME Address Denny's Furniture, Inc. Property ID# , Va. 22691 55BOOA-0000-0015 Joseph C. Smith Address Property ID# 55BOOA-0000-0013 Juanita Smith Lewis and Dorothy Address P.O. Box 2181 Winchester Va. 22601 property ID# ' 55BOOA-0000-0016 Hogdson Address _ Property ID# Address Property ID# I iAddress ti Property ID# page -3- CUP Application August, 1990 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. PT, 7 page -4- CUP Application August, 1990 12. Additional comments, if any: The community tai i s in need of A Spg j ai fy rpre ,[Di t_ fnr Al hei men's ipatients. 'None exists at 4 p-rggant Ai7hPimar rPsidPnts do better with a quiet controlled `y QAiZenmentglirh ag thi �, unit would provide I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and maintained so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' public hearing. _ Signature of Applicant C Signature of Owner Owners' Mailing Address Rt_ 1 Box 1985 Berryville, Virginia 22611 Owners' Telephone No. Home 955-31342 Work 662-0869 Work 667-5323 r r% y O CS 0.. CEF,r� �ur� i r7i le Route 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #003-•93 JOSEPY C. SMITH i a A ! //; % �/� � - / , /' .`ao ��eh�n` fir.:. i � a ,�•, � � .»--,� - { i GNCNETY OFSTER �� 1J �Wir " 1 e . �, -• �.t s A ' ♦ +.2 � . "g z � o =oma c r m � oma. - � A•1,, � �� a a m. 1 /y/ � ! �� Xu ,` ux ' Y •fire. "-'sr M { I� P/C Review Date: 4/07/93 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #004-93 CHARLES H. & BETTYE G. VIOLETTE COTTAGE OCCUPATION -- AUDIO/VIDEO STUDIO LOCATION: 1 - 1/2 miles south of Gore on Route 259. (Second house on right off of Route 50). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER 27 -A -15A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned - RA (Rural Areas) Use - Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned - RA (Rural Areas) Use - Ag./Vacant/Forest PROPOSED USE: Cottage Occupation -- Audio/Video studio for editing videotape and filming small interview sessions. This will entail remodeling an existing 3 -car garage. REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to Conditional Use Permit for this property. Existing entrance is adequate for proposed use. However, should use ever expand in the future, the entrance may have to be upgraded to VDOT minimum commercial standards. County Building Official: Building shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and Section 303, Use Group B (Business), of the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Other codes that apply are Title 28 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 36 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities. Will require a Change of Use permit for the existing building. Health Department: No objection to proposed use as long as septic system capacity is not exceeded. Violette C.U.P page 2 County Fire Marshal: Emergency Vehicle Access is adequate. No Fire Lanes are required. No special hazards noted. Additional Comments: To ensure optimum fire -fighting efforts, access to all structures must be maintained at all times. If cellulose nitrate film is used in excess of 25 pounds at any time, a permit is required from the Fire Marshal's office. Use and storage of cellulose nitrate film shall comply with NFPA 40 at all times. Approval of this C.U.P. will have no significant impact on fire and rescue resources. Planning Department: The proposed use meets the criteria set forth in the Zoning Ordinance for Cottage Occupations. The applicant has stated that there will not be, and staff does not expect that there would be, any unusual level of vehicular traffic generated by this use. There are no other residences nearby, so there is no apparent likelihood that this use would disturb people in the general area. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR April 7, 1993 PC MEETING: Approval, with the following conditions: 1. Adequate fire -fighting access to this structure must be maintained at all times. 2. If the scope of business expands beyond what has been represented by the applicants, a new Conditional Use Permit will be required. Submittal Deadline P/C Meeting BOS Meeting APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA 1. Applicant (The applicant if the owner other) NAME: C�IzYf�/�L�S / Y , 'C % �� 6 • ADDRESS:d2 f ?�-Rp&�t I /. E < QZG -7 7 TELEPHONE 70�} = 0015—f 1 2. Please list all owners, occupants, or parties in interest of the property: l /Ble 3. The property is located at: (please give exact directions) 112 IWILs PJC7-'w Al r 4. The property has a� road frontage of feet and a depth of f a 00 feet and consists of , 6 2 acres. (Please be exact) 5. The property is owned by 9y ,< e&71 -yl (:5�, l�4 as evidenced by deed fromZF&/"e� , y+ljp�„,* L'. - 1/,� recorded (previous owner) in deed book no. 5',P4 on page registry of the County of Frederick. 6. 14 -Digit Property Identification No. a 7 00o _ &0&00 O /S'4 Magisterial District f}ck G�REt Current Zoning y 7. Adjoining Property: USE North East South West ZONING R.A page -2- CUP Application August, 1990 8. The type of use proposed is (consult with the Planning Dept. before completing) �ZZ2!��C- Qe-4-'u.P.4 r (PAy -- Aupto- Vi pm �rvaro rzl,e 6RIT1964 VIP60AAJQ 6-oNayGT/N& SMA' -L 11yr(-111EW SEe,S(onJs pN 9. It is -proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: ONI-% S?/el(C Tu e e /,v 7--0 57''r P> 0 10. The following are all of the individuals, firms, or corporations owning property adjacent to both sides and rear and in front of (across street from) the property sought to be permitted. (Continue on back if necessary.) These people will be notified by mail of this application: (PLEASE LIST COMPLETE 14 --DIGIT NUMBER.) NAME 14o7k-� F n0121T i S o A✓ Address 7S3 Cd-APElU c Property ID# .2 7 0 v 0, 4_ a o o v- o o_/ G �} =Y T4 . k -0* c5 Address 1 1 p x,11 NtV C ! RCL Property ID# a? BOd DDD o • Q o • /_t Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# Address Property ID# L page -3 - CUP Application August, 1990 11. Please use this page for your sketch of the property. Show proposed and/or existing structures on the property, including measurements to all property lines. w�so �� Pr F S fit 7- Ai page -4- CUP Application August, 1990 12. Additional comments, if any: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the governing body of Frederick County, Virginia to allow the use described in this application. I understand that the sign issued to me when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at ast seven (7) days prior to the first public hearing and mai ai ed so as to be visible until after the Board of Supervisors' bl'c aria Signature of Applicant j�'`t✓ - Signature of Owner r Owners' Mailing AddressD 4 ?-z637 Owners' Telephone No. 7.- FJ7'3a i� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #004-93 CHARLES & BETTY VIOLETTE r � t 'A A I j , u 1 � r •-I 1 U M m No 9 •\\j, a O r 't O O A d COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 144 and Chapter 165 DATE: March 19, 1993 The Frederick County Planning Department requested that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) conduct a comprehensive review of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this comprehensive review was to address items of concern that have been expressed since the Zoning Ordinance was amended in February, 1990. The DRRS discussed these various items throughout 1992, as well as January, 1993. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed amendments during a worksession on February 3, 1993. The Planning Commission recommended that the proposed amendments be scheduled for public hearing following review by the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. Jay Cook, Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, met with staff on March 17, 1993, to discuss the proposed amendments. Mr. Cook felt that all proposed amendments in Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, were fine; however, he expressed concerns with two (2) of the definitions in Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cook believes that the definitions of "inoperable vehicle" and "mobile home" should parallel language specified in the Code of Virginia. His main concern is that the new definitions may be interpreted to be more restrictive than those in the Code of Virginia. Mr. Cook feels that this will complicate matters if these definitions are challenged in General District Court. The DRRS has included an amendment to Article X, Business and Industrial District, that was not a part of the February 3, 1993 discussion. This proposed amendment would permit industrial launderers to operate in the M-1 Light Industrial District. Attached are the proposed amendments for Chapters 144 and 165. Each chapter specifies the article and section number, and provides a brief explanation for each amendment. Staff asks that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendments and forward this information to the Board of Supervisors for final disposition. ') forth Loudoun Strcet P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 226(14 COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE ARTICLE H, Definitions SUBDIVISION, MAJOR RURAL SUBDIVISION, MINOR RURAL It was discovered that there was a definition for minor rural subdivision, but not for major rural subdivision. It was also discovered that the definition for minor rural subdivision was not current. Therefore, staff has created definitions to clarify this issue. ARTICLE IV, Subdivision Review Procedures 144-11. Preliminary sketches. New language has been created to require preliminary sketches for subdivisions containing state maintained roads or rural preservation lots. ARTICLE V, Design Standards 144-31B(2). Major rural subdivisions Access Current language requires all roads within a major rural subdivision to be built to state standards. The intent is to have all roads serving lots to be built to state standards. Under the current requirements, a road passing through a parcel that will be subdivided, but does not serve lots, would have to be built to state standards. 1 ARTICLE VI, Plan Requirements 144-37Z. Final plats. The proposed language requires the subdivider to indicate the portion of permitted density which is conveyed from a parent parcel to each new lot on the plat. This will allow staff to track the permitted density. The permitted density may differ from parcel to parcel based on the history of subdivision for each parcel. 144-37AA. Final plats Notarized owners certification as required by section 15.1-477 of the Code of Virginia 144-39A(8). Minor rural subdivisions This language has been created for the same reason as section 144-37Z. Final plats. The proposed language would also replaces the current language under section 144-39A(8). This language addresses one time divisions; however, one time divisions were eliminated by previous amendments to this Chapter. 144-39A(10). Minor rural subdivisions. Notarized owners certification as required by section 15.1-477 of the Code of Virginia. 2 AMENDMENT Approvals: PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 144, Subdivision, of the Frederick County Code, Article II, Definitions, Article IV, Subdivision Review Procedures, Section 144-11, Article V, Design Standards, Section 144-31B(2) and Article VI, Plan Requirements, Sections 144-37Z, 144-37AA, 144-39A(8) and 144-39A(1O) was referred to the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on April 7, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on 1993; and RHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: That Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Code, Subdivision, Article II, Definitions, Article IV, Subdivision Review Procedures, Article V, Design Standards and Article VI, Plan Requirements, is amended as described on the following attachment. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 144, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE ARTICLE H, Definitions SUBDIVISION. MAJOR RURAL - Any subdivision resulting in the cumulative total of four (4) or more traditional five (5) acre lots, family division lots, agricultural lots, or rural preservation lots from a single parcel in the RA Rural Area District. SUBDIVISION. MINOR RURAL - Any subdivision resulting in the cumulative total of three (3) or less traditional five (5) acre lots, family division lots, agricultural lots, or rural preservation lots from a single parcel in the RA Rural Area District. ARTICLE IV, Subdivision Review Procedures 144-11. Preliminary sketches. A preliminary sketch may be required for any subdivision that does not require a Master Development Plan. Within the Rural Areas (RA) zone, a preliminary sketch shall be required for any proposed subdivision which contains roads intended for dedication to the Virginia Department of Transportation for state maintenances or rural preservation lots. Preliminary sketch plans, complete with all materials required by section 144-35 of this chapter, shall be submitted to the Subdivision Administrator for review and comment prior to preparation of final plans. ARTICLE V, Design Standards 144-31B(2)Major rural subdivisions. Access. All roads serving lots within a major rural subdivision shall be built to the Tertiary Subdivision Street Standards of the Virginia Department of Transportation and dedicated to Frederick County for eventual acceptance into the state secondary road system. 1 ARTICLE VI, Pian Requirements 144-37Z. Final plats. An indication of the portion of the allowable density from the parent tract, (as determined by section 165-52, Permitted residential density; exception; of Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code) which is to be allocated to each parcel resulting from the subdivision. 144-37AA. Final plats Notarized owners certification as required by section 15.1-477 of the Code of Virginia. 144-39A(8). Minor rural subdivisions A statement indicating the portion of the allowable density of the parent tract, (as determined by section 165-52, Permitted residential density; exception; of Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code) which is to be allocated to each parcel resulting from the subdivision. 144-39A(10). Minor rural subdivisions Notarized owners certification as required by section 15.1-477 of the Code of Vir inia. 2 This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this day of , 1993. A Copy Teste John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator COMMENTS REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 165, ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE ARTICLE II, Amendments 165-9A Applications 165-9D Procedures. These two sections have been revised to assist the applicant with procedures related to rezoning applications. ARTICLE III, Conditional Use Permits 165-16GG Conditions. This condition needs to be removed. This is something that can be voluntarily offered by an applicant, but not required by the county. ARTICLE IV, Supplementary Use Regulations 165-23G Setback requirements (pg. 16528) The proposed language includes berms as an exemption. 165-24B(6) Height limitations; exceptions Language was created to protect adjoining property owners from potential damage from tall structures. z 165-26B(3) Accessory dwellings. Language has been modified to avoid confusion with permitted temporary or permanent housing for workers on operating farms. 165-26E Accesso , uses. Language has been created to eliminate the possibility of using mobile homes as storage buildings or other uses. ARTICLE IV, Supplementary Use Regulations (Continued) 165-27D Vehicle parking restrictions. Heading has been changed from Tractor -trailer parking, and has been amended to include buses, dump trucks, and the R-5 Zoning District. 165-27E(7) Entrance requirements. THIS SECTION HAS BEEN RENAMED ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS. IT IS CURRENTLY NAMED DRIVEWAY ACCESS. NO LANGUAGE WITHIN THIS SECTION HAS BEEN AMENDED. 165-30J Sign permits. Language has been revised to assist the applicant with procedures related to sign permit applications. E 165-30J(I) Sin ermits. HRAB has asked that the County consider an exemption for commemorative plaques and historical markers, because this type of sign is voluntarily pursued by the property owner. If the property owner qualifies, various applications have to be reviewed and approved by the state. HRAB believes it is excessive to require the properly owner to then file and pay for a building permit. 165.47C(2) Inoperative motor vehicles Current language reads ':..screened by fences, landscaping, natural vegetation, or other means...': Or other means has been removed from this language to avoid problems such as using a tarp or similar item to screen the inoperative vehicle. ARTICLE V, RA Rural Areas District The proposed amendments to this section attempt to clarify required setbacks in the RA Rural Area District. Current language has caused confusion for property owners, as well as staff in determining the correct setback for structures within this zoning district. ARTICLE VII, R4 Residential Planned Community District Language has been drafted to allow for flexibility in the design of a development using R-4 standards. 165-72B(1) Alternative dimensional requirement plan 165-72G(l) Alternative buffer and screening plan 165-72M(3) Phasing. 3 ARTICLE X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts M-1 Allowed Uses W -C-1 Industrial Launderers 7218 ARTICLE XX, Definitions INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLE MOBILE HOME OPAQUE SEMITRAILER TRACTOR TRUCK TRACTOR TRUCK TRAILER TRUCK The Commonwealth Attorneys Office advised staff to revise the definitions for inoperable motor vehicle and mobile home to have them parallel language within the Code of Virginia. The Commonwealth Attorney believes that this is necessary to circumvent challenges in General District Court. 4 Approvals: PLANNING COMAUSSION BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AMENDNMNT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE CHAPTER 165, ZONING WHEREAS, An ordinance to amend Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article II, Amendments, Sections 165-9A and 165-91), Article III, Conditional Use Permits, Section 165-16GG, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Sections 165-23G, 165-24B(6), 165- 26B(3), 165-26E, 165-271), 165-27E(7), 165-30J, 165-30J(1) and 165-47C(2), Article V, RA Rural Areas District, Sections 165-55, 165-55A, 165-55A(1), 165-55A(2), 165-55B, 165-55B(1), 165-55B(2), 165-55B(3), 165-55C, 165-551), 165-56(A), Article VII, R4 Residential Planned Community District, Sections 165-72B(1), 165-72G(1) and 165-72M(3), Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning District, Allowed Uses, and Article XX, Definitions was referred to the Planning Commission on April 7, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on April 7, 1993; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this ordinance adoption on 1993; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this ordinance to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, convenience, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors as follows: That Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article II, Amendments, Article III, Conditional Use Permits, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Article V, RA Rural Areas District, Article VII, R4 Residential Planned Community District, Article X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts and Article XX, Definitions, is amended as described on the following attachment. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 165, ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE ARTICLE II, Amendments 165-9A Applications. Petitions for changes in zoning district boundaries (rezonings) shall be filed with the Department of Planning and Development. Such requests shall be on a standard form provided for this purpose. Such petition shall include an adequate survey or other legal description of the land area to be rezoned. Every application or reapplication shall be signed by the landowner and applicant if the applicant is not the landowner. The Department of Planning and Development may require that the application for rezoning be reviewed by various agencies concerned with the use of the land. 165-91) Procedures. As soon as a completed application and Planning and Development shall advertise available Planning Commission meeting Virginia, as amended. ARTICLE III, Conditional Use Permits 165-16GG Conditions. fees have been received, the Department of the application for a public hearing at the next according to the requirements of the Code of Cash contributions for road improvements or for planned facilities identified in the Frederick County Capital Improvements Plan. REMOVE THIS CONDITION FROM ZONING ORDINANCE ARTICLE IV, Supplementary Use Regulations 165-23G Setback requirements (pg. 16528) Fences, free-standing walls, and berms shall be exempt from the setback requirements. ARTICLE IV, Supplementary Use Regulations (Continued) 165-24B(6) Height limitations, exceptions. If any of the above exceptions exceed the height limitation of the proposed zoning district, the structure shall be required to be setback the normal setback plus one foot for every foot over the maximum allowed height of that zoning district. 165-26B(3) Accessory dwellings. In no case shall a mobile home be allowed as an accessory dwelling in the RP Residential Performance District, R4 Residential Planned Community District, and R5 Residential Recreational Community District. 165-26E Accessory uses. In no case shall a mobile home or temporary trailer be allowed as an accessory use, unless it is used for temporary or permanent housing on a bona fide, operating farm. 165-27D Vehicle parking restrictions. No part of a tractor truck, tractor truck trailer, semitrailer, bus, or dump truck shall be parked or stored within the RP Residential Performance District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, or the MH 1 Mobile Home Community District. Any truck with a total length of twenty-five (25) feet or greater shall not be parked or stored within the RP, R5, or MH1 Zoning Districts. 165-27E(7) Entrance requirements. THIS SECTION HAS BEEN RENAMED ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS. IT IS CURRENTLY NAMED DRIVEWAY ACCESS. NO LANGUAGE WITHIN THIS SECTION HAS BEEN AMENDED. 165-30J Sign permits. Before a sign may be constructed, reconstructed or altered, a sign permit shall be obtained from the Frederick County Building Official. 165-30J(.1)Sign permits. Commemorative plaques and historical markers shall be exempt from obtaining sign permits. 2 ARTICLE IV, Supplementary Use Regulations (Continued) 165-47C(2) Inoperative motor vehicles Inoperable motor vehicles permitted to be stored outside of a totally enclosed building shall be completely screened from public roads or surrounding properties. Permitted screening shall include opaque fences, opaque landscaping, or opaque natural vegetation. ARTICLE V, RA Rural Areas District 165-55 Setback requirements The following setback requirements shall apply to all parcels within the RA Rural Areas Zoning District. 165-55A Traditional five acre lots Setbacks from traditional five acre lots shall be set out below. 165-55A(l) Front setbacks. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure located on a traditional five acre lot shall be sixty (60) feet from the property line or right-of-way of the street, road, or ingress/egress easement. 162) Side or rear setbacks The minimum side or rear setback for any principal use or structure shall be determined by the primary use of the adjoining parcel as follows: ADJOINING LAND USE residential/vacant agricultural orchard 3 SETBACK Side and Rear 50 feet 100 feet 200 feet ARTICLE V, Rural Area Districts (Continued) 165-55B Rural preservation lots. The minimum setbacks from rural preservation lot lines which adjoin other rural preservation lots shall be set out below. Side and rear setbacks from rural preservation lot lines which adjoin any parcel other than another rural preservation lot shall be determined by section 165-55A(2) of this chapter. 165-55B(t) Front setback. The front setback for any principal or accessory use or structure shall be sixty (60) feet from the right-of-way of any existing state maintained road, and forty-five (45) feet from the right- of-way of any existing private ingress/egress easement or state maintained road constructed to serve the subdivision. 165-55B(2) Side setback. No principal use or structure shall be located closer than fifteen (15) feet from any side lot line. 165-55B(3) Rear setback. No principal use or structure shall be located closer than forty (40) feet from any rear lot line. 165-55C Existing structures. The side or rear setbacks for any lot created around an existing use or structure, or any family division lot shall be fifty (50) feet from all lot lines. 165-55D Accessory uses. The minimum setback for any accessory use or structure shall be fifteen (15) feet from any side or rear property line of a traditional five acre lot or any side or rear property line of a rural preservation lot. 165-56(A) Minimum width. The minimum width for rural preservation lots, fronting on roads proposed for dedication shall be two hundred (200) feet at the front setback, with the exception of lots fronting on the turn- around of a cul-de-sac, which shall have a minimum width of one hundred (100) feet at the cul-de-sac. The minimum width for all other lots shall be two hundred fifty (250) feet at the front setback line. 4 ARTICLE VII, R4 Residential Planned Community District 165-72B(l) Alternative dimensional requirement 121an. An alternative dimensional plan may be included with the master development plan for the development. This plan shall describe a system of dimensional requirements for all planned uses in the development. When these dimensional requirements are approved, they shall constitute enforceable amendments to this chapter, applying to the land included in the development, and shall replace other dimensional requirements contained in this chapter. Such alternative dimensional requirements shall be based on general concepts described by the plan submitted. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall only approve an alternative plan if the plan meets all of the intentions of this chapter, conforms with policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and follows generally accepted good planning practices. 165-72G(.1) Alternative buffer and screening plan. An alternative plan for buffers and screening and the separation of uses may be included with the master development plan for the development. This plan shall describe a specific system of buffers, screening and use separation for all planned uses in the development. When these dimensional requirements are approved, they shall constitute enforceable amendments to this chapter applying to the land included in the development and shall replace other buffer and screening requirements contained in this chapter. Such alternative requirements shall be based on general concepts described by the plan submitted. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors shall only approve an alternative plan if the plan meets all of the intentions of this chapter, conforms with policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, and follows generally accepted good planning practices. Buffer and screening requirements for the perimeter boundary of the planned community shall not be included in the alternative buffer and screening plans. 165-72M(3) Phasing. A reasonable balance shall be maintained between residential and non-residential uses. The phasing plan for the development shall include a reasonable portion of the non-residential uses in all phases of the development. ARTICLE X, Business and Industrial Zoning Districts M-1 Allowed Uses SIC Industrial Launderers 7218 5 ARTICLE XX, Definitions INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLE - A vehicle which is not legally operable due to lack of licensing, as required by the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles, and/or lack of safety inspections, as required by the Virginia State Police Department. MOBILE HOME - A structure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which in travel mode is eight (8) body feet or more in width or forty (40) body feet or more in length or, when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet and which is built in a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation. OPAQUE - Not transparent or translucent. SEMITRAILER - Every vehicle of the trailer type so designed and used in conjunction with a motor vehicle that some part of its own weight and that of its own load rests on or is carried by another vehicle. TRACTOR TRUCK - Every motor vehicle designed and used primarily for drawing other vehicles and not so constructed as to carry a load other than a part of the load and weight of the vehicle attached thereto. TRACTOR TRUCK TRAILER - The portion of a tractor truck without motive power, designed for carrying property or passengers wholly on its own structure. TRUCK - Every motor vehicle designed to transport property on its own structure independent of any other vehicle and having a registered gross weight in excess of 7,500 pounds. f� This ordinance shall be in effect upon its passage. Passed this day of , 1993. A Copy Teste John R. Riley, Jr. Frederick County Administrator COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II RE: Prince Frederick Office Park Discussion DATE: March 30, 1993 The Frederick County Planning Commission reviewed and approved a preliminary Master Development Plan for the Prince Frederick Office Park on March 3, 1993. The motion for approval stated that the business park would contain a four -lane access road, traffic lights (when warranted by VDOT), and that the applicant would address all review agency comments, and all concerns of staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors. The applicant has requested time during the April 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting to discuss issues regarding traffic and storm water management. Staff and Bill Bushman, of VDOT, met with the applicants on March 25, 1993, to review an updated traffic analysis. This analysis, dated March 8, 1993, is included in your agenda package. The applicant has also provided the Planning Commission with two summary sheets. This information summarizes the street classification, trip generation, and storm water management within the proposed office park. The project engineer has revised the Prince Frederick Office Park Master Development Plan since the March 3, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Revisions include the following: 1) Extension of the two cul-de-sacs to be built as close to the adjoining properties as possible. 2) Provisions for an 80 foot right-of-way along the east -west access road within the boundaries of the proposed office park. 3) Conceptual design to indicate ingress/egress from the proposed office park onto Route 50 East. 1) North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Vv'inchcster. VA 22601 Winchcstcr, VA 22604 r*1F1Fe. —teSEE. — = F Rl 1 1 - r- JE: EI}=_ F' _ 47z PR.INTCF. FREDERICK OFFICE PARK STRPFT CLASSIFICATION & TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY PARK DESCRIPTION - The Prince Frederick Office Park is zoned B-2 and is planned as an office and research/development park designed in a campus type setting. TOTAL AN -D USABLE ACREAGE - The total acreage for the park is appromMately 92 aures, but approximately 32 acres contain steep slopes, flood plain, highway dedication, or other unusable areas leaving approximately 60 acres for developmerit. FLOOR AREA RATIO - In a typical office and research/development park-, approximately, 50% of the space is used as office and 50% of the space is needed for R & D type uses. The Corps of Engineers building is a typical project where the 92,060 square foot space plan includes 42,000 square fe: t for offices and 50,00 square feet for R & D. The Corps project is a one and tNO story building and has floor area ratio of .16. The maximum FAR for this type of project is typically about 0.2. TOTAL PROJFCTED SPACE - Assuming the buildable area at 60 acres and aft FAR of .2 %%ith 50% office and 50% R & D space, the total proposed office space would be 261,360 square feet and the R & D,spac� would be 261,360 square feat fora grand total for the building area of��2,720 square feet. VEHmI.E TRIPS PER DAY - The I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual lists 11.104 trips per day for 1,000 square feet of offi,�e, or 2,976 tPD, and 6.040 trips pet day for R & D uses or 1,5$9 TPD. The total trips per day generated from the park `would be 4,565. STREET CLASSIFICATION - 'There are four planned entrances into the site, -but this modl assumes a worst case scenario with only the two entrances constructed to Route 50. Assuming equal uses of the entrances, the°entrance streets would hdndle 2,283 TPD which can be serviced with a major collector street that handles up to 3,000 TPD with two lanes and a 60 foot R -O -W. Capacity analysis indicates that a'two lane road is adequate if additional turn lanes are added at Route 50. PROPOSED FAR - Based on the above model and the Technical Analysis and VDOT Read Guidelines, the proposed park could be bui)t to a .26 FAR or 700,00 square feet and still only require a major collector street.. The developers are prepared to limit the maxinnum FAR to a _26 aridior a combination) o usf USf cs tat wou r1;11tt tl Cat the 1)1' i- en ranee r s o ,t sIOLT 6e ncf6d tfla 2a beFAR on the 60 useable acres e. rates -to -a 17 FAIZ for the total acreage. It shou4ld also be noted VDOT only regUireS you to handle the trigs generated on your site. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS - The devrlopc> s also agree to build additional turn lanes (one right and two left) and provide traffic signals in Please I and 'also Phase It as determined by the actual trips generated on the site. This would permit easy access both north and soutlt on Route 50. The dev6lopers also agree to dedi6it4 a 86' R -O -tib' as sh()wn ort tale master plan t0 accoltllltoda,te future potential re -glottal traffic den.and. PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SUMMARY WATERSHED DESCRIPTION - The total water shed that contributes to the existing Route 50 pond at the Carpers Valley Golf Course entrance is approximately 1,100 acres. Of this acreage approximately 460 acres are in the Sulfur Springs Run watershed and 640 acres of contribution flows from north to south under Route 50 just above or at the pond. Based on the current "C" factors, 38% of the water thru the Route 50 pond flows from Sulphur Springs Run and 62% flows under Route 50. CONTRIBUTION FROM OFFICE PARK - Prince Frederick Office Park contains 92 acres or 20 % of the Sulfur Springs Run flow and 7.6 % of the total flow thru the existing Route 50 pond. Per the county ordinance each site or subdivision is required to retain storm water equal only to the difference between pre and post development. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN - The developers propose to provide storm water management (SWM) ponds as shown on the revised master plan. The developers will also dedicate the area along the Sulphur Springs Run as shown on the master plan for a regional SWM facility to be developed by the county under a future regional SWM ?� plan. The developer further agrees to contribute its pro -rated share of the regional facility for any sites developed after the approval and/or construction of the regional facility. I _ E 2 5 March 8, 1993 Mr. Robert W. Watkins, Director Department of Planning & Development County of Frederick P.O. Box 601 9 Court Square Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PHR&A F-8149-10 Dear Mr. Watkins: Based on comments from staff, the County's Planing Commission, and VDOT, we have analyzed the local roadway impacts associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park Master Plan on U.S. Route 50 near Winchester, Virginia. We have updated our conclusions to respond to specific VDOT comments, which should address the traffic concerns discussed by the Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 3, 1993. The analysis demonstrates the adequacy of the proposed roadway improvements to support site development for safe access. Detailed information regarding implementation conditions and design details can be addressed with construction plans and/or subdivision plans, when more specific site development plans are available. The analysis was prepared to respond to VDOT comments, dated January 13, 1993 as part of the original subnuttal of the subject master plan requesting a trip generation analysis. The VDOT comments focused on turn lanes at Route 50 and documentation of site characteristics. Based on discussions with VDOT representatives, the trip generation analysis is focused to the peak hour characteristics and intersection capacities. Daily volumes have also been computed for link assessments. Since the 91.9 acres is master -planned for office/employment uses, a regional traffic analysis is not included to respond to VDOT and County access issues. Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 2 Regional elements of the property and the related travel impacts to the roadway network can be assessed through on-going VDOT/Frederick County regional planning, which are incorporated into the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS). Therefore, the study scope is restricted to the proposed public street locations at Route 50. As stated to the Planning Commission, specific land -use assumptions for the property have been calculated by PHR&A, based on the roadway capacity of the proposed improvements. As tenants begin to occupy the property, the mix and intensity of the site development may vary; However, the County can utilize these traffic forecasts as a basis for comparisons should future development be modified from the assumptions presented herein. As revised for review by Frederick County, the internal street network is designed to allow for future construction by others to connect the on-site streets with other collector roads. The eastern site entrance, opposite Route 781 median crossover, ends in a cul-de-sac adjacent to the Winchester Regional Airport. To the west, the on-site roadway system includes a cul-de-sac with R -O -W reservation should the collector be extended towards U.S. Route 522, by others. Analysis of this scenario is not included. W', $I XW&GIM s7 The approved Eastern Frederick County Regional roadway plan does not envision new Major Collectors or Arterials in the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Route 50/Route 522 intersection. The proposed development of the Prince Frederick Office Park envisions a campus style office/business ppark of 91.9 acres south of Route 50 to be served by two (2) collector roads, two (2) lanes in width. R -O -W for the collectors are shown on the Master Plan with a 60 foot width. The site is currently served by two (2) private driveways south of Route 50 and is divided by the Sulpher Spring Run. To the east, the site has access to the Route 50 median crossover at Route 781. The GW Motors car dealership is located southwest of the intersection. Route 50 is a four (4) lane divided facility with shoulders. The site also has access to Ryco Lane, a private entrance just west of the Route 791/Route 50 intersection. Ryco Lane serves as the eastern parking lot entrance to the Big Lot retail outlet and as the access to a car wash, auto service places, and industrial/warehouse uses behind the Harley-Davidson store. To the west of Route 791, Route 50 is a four (4) lane undivided road with a continuous eastbound right turn lane and two (2) continuous left turn lanes starting just east of the intersection and extending to Route 522. To test the adequacy of the roadway system, PHR&A developed trip generation scenarios, and intersection assignments for the site as described below, to support the Master Plan development. Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 3 ANALYSIS APPROACH The determining factor for the amount of site development which could be supported was the PM Peak Hour capacity of the northbound left movement at the Prince Frederick Drive intersection along Route 50. Due to the site's limited amount of frontage with access to Route 50, the proposed access adjacent to the GW Motors facility would dictate the potential vehicles. Using standard trip generation rates, the peak hour vehicle trips were converted to building sizes. To analyze the turn capacity, PHR&A initially approximated site densities using general turn lane and link capacities. Subsequent intersection analyses refined the site trips to achieve acceptable operations using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The left turn lane capacity of approximately 300 vph per lane is a VDOT "rule -of -thumb" value for design and planning proposes. The following methodology was used to develop development scenarios for the property, as documented below: 1. Evaluate existing traffic operations, 2. Determine Background traffic conditions without the Prince Frederick Drive Office Park, 3. Determine Site Traffic trip rates, 4. Assign site traffic to the roadway network, and 5. Compute intersection operations and evaluate turn lane and link operations. Based on the analysis methodology, three (3) scenarios were investigated: Scenario A: Single site access for Phase 1 development opposite the Route 781 median cross-over. Separate left turn lanes on the northbound and westbound approaches with a separate right turn lane on eastbound Route 50. Scenario B: Two (2) site access locations for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development on-site. Additional access from Scenario A with Ryco Lane reconstructed to VDOT street standards without additional turn lanes. Scenario C: In addition to the Scenario B development thresholds, PHR&A calculated the additional site development potential assuming Prince Frederick Drive would have three (3) northbound approach lanes. This scenario will require additional ROW and allow double left turn lanes from Prince Frederick Office Park to westbound Route 50. For capacity purposes, intersection analyses assumed that the intersections on U.S. Route 50 would be signalized. Due to the through traffic on Route 50, there is not available 'gap -acceptance' for the side streets to operate at desirable LOS for existing or future conditions. VDOT typically determines the implementation of traffic signal installation based on standards in the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devises (MUTCD) based on traffic conditions beyond the peak periods examined in this report. Mr. Robert W. Watkins - March 8, 1993 Page 4 PHR&A assumed a three (3) year build -out to assess the traffic impacts of Scenario A. A 10 -year horizon was assumed for Scenarios B and C. The design years allow for growth on Route 50 not associated with the Prince Frederick Office Park. Long-term impacts for a 2010 or 2015 horizon are best addressed in the WATS study, since the property is proposed for development consistent with the site's zoning designation. Background Traffic The background traffic was computed by applying a growth factor to existing volumes. Current VDOT traffic data for U.S. Route 50 shows approximately 15,000 ADT (Average Daily Traffic) east of Route 522 in 1991. To assess peak hour conditions adjacent to the property, PM peak hour counts were conducted on February 3, 1993 at both intersection locations by PHR&A (See Appendix A). The existing counts were increased at a rate of four (4) percent per year for the years 1996 and 2003. This percent is the growth that has occurred over the past five (5) years along Route 50 adjacent to the site, and was calculated from the annual VDOT 24-hour counts. Site Traffic The trips generated by the build -out of the proposed site were estimated using the trip equations from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition (1991). For a conservative estimate of site generated trips, the ITE Codes 750 for Office Park and 710 for General Office were assumed. Other uses, such as Business Parks, R&D, or flex -industrial parks could have larger building sizes with the equivalent traffic volumes. The land -use codes applied for the site are based on an office park or campus uses with an assumed building square footage. Since the type and intensity of uses are not known, PHR&A applied two (2) assumptions to test site development potential: 1. Use Tvne - The ITE Manual defines an Office Park as "Office Parks are generally suburban subdivisions or planned unit developments containing general office buildings and support services such as banks, savings and loan institutions, restaurants, and service stations, arranged in a park- or campus -like atmosphere." In relation to other employment uses that could be applied to the property, the office park trip equations translate into a higher trip rate per 1,000 gross square feet (gsf) for the PM peak hour in comparison to Industrial Parks, Corporate Headquarters, Research and Development Centers. The Daily trip rates are consistent with office trip rates in ITE. Since less intense traffic uses can be mixed into the property, the Office Park equations from ITE were used. PHR&A did modify the trip rates for approximately 90,000 square feet of office space, to account for a potential user under consideration by the owners. Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 5 -- . 2. Use Intensity - The maximum development of any property varies subject to topography, roadway dedication, parking requirements, and building uses. Since site development plans are not available for the property, PHR&A initially assumed a development between 0.15 and 0.35 FAR (Floor -Area -Ratio). For the subject site, the densities could range between 600,000 gsf and 1,400,000 gsf. Additional review of the site, accounting for the steep slopes and existing 100 -year floodplain, the potential site development may only achieve a 0.15 to 0.25 FAR. Initial development concepts for the site's initial office building show an effective FAR between 0.15 and 0.19, which is consistent with ITE Trig Generation Manual ratios of 1,000 gsf/acreage for R&D Centers and Business Parks. For this analysis, the effective building square footages were determined based on the carrying capacities of the roadways for each scenario. Using the Office and Office Park trip equations, Table 1 shows the maximum square footage permitted for each scenario, and gives the resulting trips generated by the site during the AM and PM peak periods for each phase. SCENARIO B (Phase 1 & 2_@ effective 01 FAR) Office Park -310,329 SF Table 1 64 70 399 3,737 Prince Frederick Office Park 64 29 140 Trip Generation Total 400,329 SF 673 83 99 AM Peak PM Peak Effective Rate > Land Use IN OUT IN OUT ADT SCENARIO A (Phase 1 effective 012 FAR) Office Park -125,000 SF 248 31 33 188 11,749 Office - 90,000 SF 152 64 29 140 1,263 Total 215,000 SF 400 95 62 328 3,012 Effective Rate > 1.86 0.23 0.29 1.53 14.01 SCENARIO B (Phase 1 & 2_@ effective 01 FAR) Office Park -310,329 SF 521 64 70 399 3,737 Office - 90,000 SF 152 64 29 140 1,263 Total 400,329 SF 673 83 99 539 4,999 Effective Rate > 1.68 0.21 0.25 1.35 12.49 SCENARIO C (Phase 1 & 2 effective 0175 FAR) Office Park -610,577 SF 906 112 123 697 6,575 Office - 90,000 SF 152 64 29 140 1,263 Total 700,577 SF 1,059 131 152 837 7,838 Effective Rate > 1.52 0.19 0.22 1.19 11.19 Trip rates shownare effective rates per 1,000 gsf. FAR computations did not include reduced site area for unbuildable areas or roadway dedication. Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 6 Trip Assignment The distribution of site generated trips was based upon information supplied to PHR&A by VDOT Transportation Planning Division long-range trip tables for the vicinity. Based on this information, PHR&A determined that the site trips will be oriented 80 percent to/from the west of the site and 20 percent to/from to the east along Route 50. Route 50 existing volume splits during the PM Peak Hour are oriented 60/40 to the west. The site's Scenario A generated trips plus background volumes account for the Total 1996 volumes shown in Figure 1. Effective roadway operations are shown in Figure 2 as described below. Figures 3 and 5 show the Total 2003 volumes which include the site's Scenarios B and C volumes, respectively. LEVEL OF SERVICE Capacity analysis was performed at the two (2) access points along Route 50 for the weekday AM and PM peak hours assuming the total volumes for each Scenario. AM peak hour conditions for the background volumes were factored from the PM peak hour assignments. The methodology assumed for this analysis was the Highway Capacity Software, version 1.5 (HCM). Intersection turn lane storage was computed based on AASHTO and VDOT standards. The following narrative describes Level of Service and Queue conditions that would be observed in each scenario assuming the lane configurations shown in Figures 2, 4, and 6: Scenario A: o The Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive intersection will operate signalized at Level of Service B during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound approach will consist of a separate 350' left turn lane and a shared through/right lane. Also, a 270' eastbound right turn lane and a 275' westbound left turn lane will be required. The southbound approach will remain unchanged from the existing conditions. Scenario B: o The Route 5011'rince Frederick Drive intersection will operate signalized at Level of Service B during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound approach will consist of a separate 350' left turn lane and a shared through/right lane. Also, a 250' eastbound right turn lane and a 275' westbound left turn lane will be required. The southbound approach will remain unchanged from the existing conditions. Mr. Robert W March 8, 1993 Page 7 Watkins o The Route 50/Ryco Lane intersection will require signalization and will operate at Level of Service B during the AM peak hour and C during the PM peak hour. The northbound approach will consist of a single shared left/right lane. Also, left and right turns into the site will be required to achieve this acceptable LOS. The Route 50 turn lanes are already constructed. Scenario C: o The Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive intersection will operate signalized at Level of Service B during the AM peak and C during the PM peak hour. The northbound approach will consist of separate 370' left turn lane, a shared left/through lane and a separate right turn lane. Also, a 250' eastbound right turn lane and a 275' westbound left turn lane will be required. The southbound a,pproach will again remain unchanged from the existing conditions and it will operate at LOS E during both peak periods. o The Route 50/Ryco Lane intersection will again require signalization and operate at Level of Service B during the AM and PM peak hours. The northbound approach will consist of a single left/right lane. Also, left and right turns into the site will be required to achieve this acceptable LOS. Figures 2, 4, and 6 also illustrate the individual approach peak hour Level of Service at each intersection for each phase and scenario. The HCM Level of Service worksheets are included in Appendix B. The link capacities to justify the two (2) lane approaches away from the arterial intersections were evaluated based on the Daily Traffic Volumes on the site links. Accounting for the existing uses and the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park uses as discussed for each scenario, the total roadway daily traffic volumes range between 3,000 and 5,500 vehicles per day. VDOT typically requires an ADT of 8,000 vehicles per day to justify additional through lanes; therefore, the site volumes as shown for the proposed site development do not justify additional through lanes if site development does not exceed approximately 700,000 gsf (or the traffic equivalent as shown in Table 1). Additional right turn lanes may be warranted at individual site entrances to the office park, subject to building configuration. Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 8 If the Scenario C development is realistic, the ultimate northbound Prince Frederick Drive cross-section should be built initially adjacent to Route 50 to avoid construction disruptions. However, the phasing analyses presented here detail that the turn lanes can be added later when capacity warrants the additional lanes, if the design accommodates the improvements with incremental grading and R -O -W. This incremental approach also would facilitate the distribution of on-site roadway costs as the project develops. SUMMARY This analysis was based on the levels of service of the peak hour intersection turning movements instead of daily link capacities. Therefore, the site's land -use square footages were determined by the peak hour capacity of northbound approach lanes assumed at each intersection. VDOT recommends Prince Frederick Drive be classified as a Major Collector. Also, according to the Frederick County Standards, a major collector is a street within a subdivision which may be required to serve as access to adjoining property or to connect with streets in an adjoining subdivision. This definition accurately describes the function of Prince Frederick Drive, therefore, the proposed ROW of 60 feet is adequate. If a four (4) lane cross-section is pursued, either through additional site development or by the construction by others of off-site links to the west or the south, the 60 foot R -O -W could accommodate a four (4) lane undivided roadway with an ultimate curb -and -gutter section (52 feet between face -of -curb) with sidewalks and/or utilities outside of the R -O -W. Responses to VDOT Comments Based on the trip generation analysis, the following responses to the VDOT issues are appropriate (details of the design elements are best addressed at construction stage): 1. Traffic Signals - If warranted by VDOT, the signals would improve access to the site, as documented by the intersection LOS. 2. Route 50 Turn Lanes at Prince Frederick Drive - Separate eastbound right turn lane and westbound left turn lanes are warranted with initial site development. Based on the queue analysis and roadway design features, we recommend a 275 foot westbound left and 250 foot eastbound right turn lane to be constructed next to the existing Route 50 through lanes. Mr. Robert W. Watkins March 8, 1993 Page 9 3. Route 50 Eastbound Right Turn Lane - A continuous frontage lane is not warranted based on the Route 50 operations. A separate turn lane at the Eastern site entrance is justified and an existing turn lane is available at the Ryco Lane location for eastbound site trips. The subject owners do not own the properties between the Harley-Davidson shop and GW Motors frontage. 4. Curb -and -Gutter Design - Will be considered at design stage adjacent to Route 50. 5. Guardrail Relocation Responsibility - Subject to construction plan approval, the applicant will be responsible for modifications. 6. Route 50 Median - The sight distance issue should be addressed with the construction plans for the westbound left turn lane. If signal control is approved by VDOT, the intersection safety would be improved. In conclusion, based on the technical traffic assumptions in this analysis, the development of high-tech employment uses on the property can be justified with the proposed Master Plan at an approximate 0.175 Floor -Area -Ratio. The resultant intersection and link performances demonstrate safe access for the Prince Frederick Office Park with two (2) public street access connections to Route 50. Subject to design and construction approvals, the on-site roadway network is oriented to promote interparcel access and allow for roadway widening, if justified by other development. The applicant will be responsible for implementing access requirements to support the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Prince Frederick Office Park. If you have any questions regarding the technical analyses, please call our Fairfax Office (703) 273-8700 or our Project Manager, Mr. John Hash at (703) 828-2616. Sincerely, PATTON, HARRIS, RUST & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Corporation o4� %,-z� D. Lance Hartland Douglas R. Kennedy, P.E. Transportation Engineer Senior Project Manager cc: William H. Bushman - VDOT Lewis M. Costello Carl J. Rinker Jr. Michael R. Martin Enclosures DLH/DRK/dkjr word/rhodes.175 gJ-9986r ` 0 r oq)A�, LEGEND 123 AN Peak Noor Traffic Volumes (466) PN Peak Noor Traffic Volumes 3010 Twenty-four (24) Hour: Volumes_ (ADT) Ta U pe Iadr bprrL��i. A P7TRK No Scale 1996 SCENARIO A Figure TOTAL PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 1 OF LEGEND A AN Peat Hour Level of Service • 6 PN Peat Hour Level of Service ;}; Traffic Signal Total LOS -13 123' TURN LANE QUEUE LENGTH To �i UA ddJe �er�lilr rs � A No -Scale PHRIA 1996 SCENARIO A Figure PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 and LANE CONFIGURATION J To rda�ebcr rG�. r� L 123 AM' Peak. Hour Traffic Volumes (456) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes [3-60 07Twenty-four(24)Hour Volumes (ADT) PHR-A_ No Scale 2003. SCENARIO B Figure TOTAL PEAK DOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3 Total LOS -B •B A PBRIA LEGEND A AM Peak Hour Level of Service . B PM Peak Hour Level of Service + Traffic Signal Total LOS -B6 123'- TURN LANE QUEUE LENGTH epb et No -Sca_ , 2003 SCENARIO B Figure PEAK HOUR LEVEL 'OF SERVICE 4 and LANE CONFIGURATION 7 ;� Tp ,y. Up \6 erGl °rs t 123 AM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes (456) PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3004 Twenty-four(24)Hour Volumes (ADT) A No Scale PHRA 2003 SCENARIO C Figure TOTAL PEAK DOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 5 /Alo i I-entu. LEGEND A AM Peak Hour Level of Service . B PM. Peak Hour level of Service + Traffic.Signa I Total LOS -B .0 123': - TURN LAKE QUEUE .LENGTH 2003 SCENARIO C Figure PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE 6 and. LANE- CONFIGURATION APPENDIX A & B ROUTE 50 PM PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS and SCENARIOS A,B, & C HCM SUMMARY WORKSHEETS PHR&A TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PRINCE FREDERICK OFFICE PARK Frederick County, Va. Revised March 1993 8149-10 — Vil, nnnnIJ, RVJI MHU M7JVl,IAIC: NTERSECTION: Route 50 & Route 781 'ITY & STATE: Winchester, Virginia JEATHER: Sunny :OUNTER: DLH 4:45PM - 6:15PM CUMULATIV_ COUNTS -!__ NUM^cR: 8149-10 ATF OF COUNT: 02/03/93 ;:'Krc: =E.'T DOE: 42/04/93 NORTH BOUND SOUTH BOUND _=:T FOUND WE:T BOUND PERIOD Route 781 Route 781 Rol.z ;Ii Route PERIOD BEGIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LEFT THRU RIGHT ; LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT "r,RL' RIGH-. LEFT TF'U RIG*iT TOTAL 4:45 3 0 2 0 5:00 5 0 3 0 18 5:15 6 0 5 0 25 2 1^ 5:30 7 0 5 4 V77 5:45 7 0 5 0 46 1- =?: 3 :1 -- 6:00 7 0 2 6 0 55 1': ^1 1 -+,.n, iiAiuitJ, W)i ANU A55OC1AIES r INTERSECTION: Route 50 a Route 781 CITY & STATE: Winchester, Virginia FILE .NUMBER: 8149 -in WEATHER: Sunny DATE OF COUNT: 02/0t;ot COUNTER: DLH WORKSHEET D r r _ Ai_: 02,04/93 4:45PM - 6:15PM 15 MINUTE VOLUMES PERIOD , NORTH to Route �__ 781 BOUND BOUND `•0'ITH BOUND EAST 1.1 , __0N[ WEST BEGIN LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL Routs LEFT 71 THRU KICHT TOTAL � 5r Route ;0 ' PERIO D -------------------- 50 THRU RIGHT T071_ Route -------1----- -------------- PERIOD _EF7 THPU R:':HT ii''= LEFT THF.0 RIG=" TOTAL TOTAL 5: 00 3 0 2 0 1 4 2 r, 4 --------------------------------- 6 1 c ! n? n , - i 6 `---175 ----1 -----305 -- 5:15 ! ! n2 n 5 n 37 14 !� 29 137 i 1:: 2no - ?1.2 395 5:30 ! 0 ! 0 2 ,; 4 3 J ='f !08 , 1:_ ! !80 _ 155 332 5:45 0 0 1 n n p �. �., !� o, 1 126 133 262 6:00 n n ! , � n '' a 0 13 92 !: 130 � - 132 247 1 C, .r. A 148 15i 260 PEAK 15 MINUTE INTERVAL 8 5 - -- _ 0 .7 42 94 444 0 5;: ----�==631===2====7',5=====__________= 5:00 2 0 n 2 ----------------- 14 1; 29 137 n __ -_ , 209 2 12 95 4:45PM - 6:15PM HOURLY VOLUMES PERIOD Route NORTH 781 BOUND ISOUTH BOUNDm EAST rrUNO WEST BOUND 'FGIN LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL Route LEFT 781�ute THRU RIGHT TOTAL ^ a LEFT 50 THRU RIGHT T071_ Route 50 PERIOD --------------- ----- ------ -- ----------------------------------- - LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:45 5:00 7 4 D p 1 p 8 5 n 37 42 94 444 0 5. _ ------- 3 581 ----------------------- 22 706 1294 5:15 2 0 1 4 3 3 n 42 45 89 434 1___ ? 645 I5 663 1236 3 C, 37 40 78 377 1 4=: 2 584 16 602 1101 PEAK HOUR 4:45 7 0 1 8 5 - -- _ 0 .7 42 94 444 0 5;: ----�==631===2====7',5=====__________= 1294 PATTON, HARRIS, RUST AND ASSOC!ATES INTERSECTION: Route 50 1 wyc,, Lance CITY 4 STATE: Winchester, Virgini? WEATHER: Sunny, Warm COUNTER: DRK 4:45PM - 6:30PM 15 MINUT% VOLUMES F1LE NUMBER: SATE OF COUNT:-'IAVQo UORYz:HEET ^ATF; _2N4;J? PEAK 15 MINUTE INTERVAL 5:15 i3 i, _ 1: n ?51 1 200 0 201 4;- 4:45PM - 6:30PM HOURLY VOLUME: NORTH BOUND SO.-= BOUND ZOUND :==T FOUND n_ri1f:.l ' WEST BOUND ' PERIOD Ryco Lane Ryco Lan= Route :: Route 50 PERI": - PERIr;: BEGIN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU =:SHT TSTA! LEFT T-=1! RTrHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:45 5 0 ! 6 0 r 0 _ 0 452 t 27 2 65 0 67 C. 5:00 12 G1 r, n n 0 :'3 7 540 10 714 0 52 5 223 0 228 ?9: 5:15 13 C 0 r, n n 7 587 6 656 0 662 251 1 200 0 201 46- 5:30 8 Cl- n __q n 427 r p 594 105= 122 2 1.37 0 139 2i: 5:45 9 0 2 11 115 2 1.54 0 156 2x: 6:00 6 0 _ >"_ n 0 n n qq 1 16; 0 166 6:15 n li? 91 1 132 0 133 _-- PEAK 15 MINUTE INTERVAL 5:15 i3 i, _ 1: n ?51 1 200 0 201 4;- 4:45PM - 6:30PM HOURLY VOLUME: PEAK HOUR 5:00 42 0 9 51 n r. r, n 0 ;33 7 540 in 114 0 124 131` NORTH BOUND 50t:-= ZOUND ; _s_T n_ri1f:.l ' WEST BOUND ' PERIOD Ryco Lane Ryco Lane Route ': Route 50 PERI": - BEGIN -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEFT THRU PIrHT TOTAL LEFT THRL: ==GHT TOTAL LEFT s'?r!iT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 6:45 38 Cl A. 46 r, : 11 n ; J _ - 452 10 625 0 635 11.': 5:00 42 0 9 51 n r, n n 0 :'3 7 540 10 714 0 724 13'.-5 5:15 36 0 7 43 0 C 0 r, n n 7 587 6 656 0 662 129: 5:30 29 n 9 M 0 F. n n n __q s 427 6 588 0 594 105= PEAK HOUR 5:00 42 0 9 51 n r. r, n 0 ;33 7 540 in 114 0 124 131` P "TON, HARRIS, RUST AND ASSOCIATES INTERSECTION: Route 50 h Ryco lane CITY & STATE: Winchester, Virginia WEATHER: Sunny, Warm COUNTER: DRK 4:45PM - 6:30PH CUMULATIVE COUNT; FILE NU"_ER: 8149-IC1 DATE OF f 'Ni: 02/03'03 WORKSHEET ('r IE: n2164/91 NORTH BOUND ; :_!TH BOUND EAST BOUND WEZT BOUN. PERIOD Ryco Lane Rycc .ane Route 50 Rete +O PERIOD BEGIN LEFT THRU RIGHT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEF- -HRU RIGHTi�F LEFT THR.0 T R.._ IGH u T ' RU Ri =i TOTAL 4: 4 5 _'c• ;5 5:00 17 n 5 n n n 77 _ 88 5:15 30 0 7 n n n :2F. 5:30 38 8n 0 n_ 4461 5:45 47 0 in A 559 6:00 53 L'• 12 0 n 0 657 f,z ;i4 6:15 ; 59 0 16 0 n n 74 12 14 _176 - 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS UMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-22-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 1996 - --------------------------------------------------------------- PFOP Phase 1 @ 0.12 FAR - Run 1 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 28 81 48 22 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TTR 12.0 TH 689 449 1 4 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 RT 347 5 13 71 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------- . 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. RR. TYPE (%) (o) YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------- N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH-! PH--2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 63.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 7.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.057 0.617 6.9 B 13.0 B T 0.423 0.533 12.9 B R 0.477 0.533 13.7 B WB L 0.225 0.617 7.9 B 11.1 B TR 0.279 0.533 11.7 B NB L 0.133 0.333 21.2 C 21.1 C TR 0.030 0.333 20.5 C SB LTR 0.302 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.250 27.9 D 27.9 D -NTERSECTION: Delay = 13.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.379 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION-Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE .......... 02-22-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 1996 - PFOP Phase 1 @ 0.12 FAR - Run 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 79 16 294 6 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 499 766 3 1 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 RT 49 25 67 42 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) M YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 Iii 28.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.1V PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 6.0 65.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.260 0.625 7.9 B 10.6 B T 0.297 0.550 11.1 B R 0.065 0.550 9.6 B WB L 0.034 0.625 6.6 B 12.5 B TR 0.473 0.550 12.6 B NB L 0.171 0.325 22.1 C 22.0 C TR 0:157 0=325 21-9 C SB LTR 0.156 0.250 26.7 D 26.7 D ------------------------------------------------------------=------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.349 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.1 FAR - RUN 3 VOLUMES _--------------------- GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 37 102 48 29 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 916 659 1 7 : T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 RT 304 7 12 93 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- . 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (96) (96) YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.0 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT x X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 63.0 0.,0 0.0 GREEN 7.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. VIC GIC DELAY LOS AFP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.099 0.617 7.1 B 13.9 B T 0.562 0.533 14.5 B R 0.418 0.533 13.0 B WB L 0.413 0.617 10.1 B 12.5 B TR 0.409 0.533 12.8 B NB L 0.143 0.333 21.3 C 21.1 C TR 0.028 0.333 20.5 C SB LTR 0.401 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.250 28.9 D 2R.9 n INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.470 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.1 FAR - RUN 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 104 19 283 7 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 12.0 TH 711 1018 5 1 T 12.0 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 RT 39 33 55 55 T 12.0 TR 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (96) (%) YIN Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 16.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 28.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120.E PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT x RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 65.0 0.0 010 GREEN 6.0 29.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.269 0.633 7.7 B 11.5 B T 0.423 0.550 12.1 B R 0.052 0.550 9.5 B WB L 0.053 0.633 6.3 B 14.4 B TR 0.628 0.550 14.6 B NB L 0.267 0.317 23.5 C 23.3 C TR 0.137 0.317 22.3 C SB LTR 0.208 0.242 27.7 D 27.7 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.0 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.461 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Rcute 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE.... -OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 2003 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PFOP @ 0.175 FAR - Run 4 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 22 230 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 848 1551 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 71 0 55 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 • 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 5.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 5.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 20.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- N 0 0 0.90 5 N 20.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X. PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 7.0 43.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.568 0.489 12.7 B 11.8 B R 0.063 0.822 1.1 A WB L 0.074 0.600 5.7 B 13.4 B T 0.846 0.600 13.5 B NB LR 0.773 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.333 26.6 D 26.6 D INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.820 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTT-ON..Route 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.1 FAR - RUN 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 46 38 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 1180 747 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 325 0 22 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE W (%) YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.( PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 6.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 29.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.-0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.756 0.511 14.6 B 11.9 B R 0.286 0.833 1.3 A WB L 0.205 0.611 6.0 B 6.9 B T 0.400 0.611 6.9 B NB LR 0.168 0.322 16.6 C 16.6 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.494 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT 1NTERSECTION..Route 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 2003 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PFOP @ 0.1 FAR - RUN 3 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 20 251 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 823 1294 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 50 0 67 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE {%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 6.0 42.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.10 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.564 0.478 13.1 B 12.4 B R 0.044 0.833 1.0 A WB L 0.071 0.578 6.4 B 11.5 B T 0.733 0.578 11.6 B NB LR 0.809 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.356 27.4 D 27.4 D INTERSECTION: Delay = 13.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.762 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 2003 - PFOP @ 0.175 FAR - Run 4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 37 160 89 29 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 11.0 TH 914 644 1 11 : T 12.0 T 12.0 LT 12.0 12.0 RT 454 7 24 93 T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 R 12_.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) YIN Nm Nb YIN min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 120. PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 7.0 62.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 18.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 0.'0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.099 0.608' 7.5 B 12.5 B T 0.570 0.525 15.0 B R 0.493 0.675 7.5 B WB L 0.338 0.608 9.4 B 12.4 B TR 0.407 0.525 13.2 B NB L 0.199 0.150 34.0 D 33.0 D LT 0.194 0.150 34.0 D t\ A AV V .J O5 V• (0 �2AV 0V 2 9'7d. 1 1 ri ✓ SB LTR 0.644 0.167 39.6 D 39.6 D -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.539 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT NTERSECTION..Route 50/Prince Frederick Drive .%REA TYPE ..... OTHER A14ALYST....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... PM Peak Hour COMMENT....... 2003 - ----------------------------------------------------------------- PFOP - 0.175 FAR - Run 4 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 104 27 540 7 : L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 LTR 11.0 TH 699 1016 8 2 : T 12.0 T 12.0 LT- 12.0 12.0 RT 59 33 127 55 : T 12.0 TR 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (96 ) A) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 3 SB 0.00 2.00 ----------------------------------------------------------------- N 0 0 0.90 0 N 23.5 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 121.0 -PH-1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -d_ PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 -B LT X X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT- X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 6.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 28.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 4.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.421 0.579 12.2 B 14.3 B T 0.454 0.504 14.8 B R 0.086 0.504 11.8 B WB L 0.084 0.579 8.6 B 17.8 C TR 0.684 0.504 18.0 C NB L 0.777 0.231 39.6 D 37.1 D LT 0.775 0.231 39.5 D R 0.332 0.281 26.4 D SB LTR 0.456 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.116 39.4 D 39.4 D INTERSECTION: Delay = 21.9 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.658 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..Route 50/Ryco Lane AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST ....... PHR&A DATE.......... 02-19-93 TIME.......... AM Peak Hour COMMENT....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2003 -- PFOP @ 0.175 FAR - Run4 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 65 35 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 LR 12.0 12.0 TH 1364 787 0 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 479 0 20 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PRG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE M (96) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 IST 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 5 N 25.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90. PH -1 PH --2 PH -3 PH -4 PH -1 PH -2 PH -3 PH -4 EB LT NB LT X TH X TH RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 8.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 17.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.0 0.'0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C GIC DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.718 0.622 9.6 B 7.7 B R 0.433 0.811 2.0 A WB L 0.252 0.744 2.9 A 3.0 A T 0.346 0.744 3.0 A NB LR 0.263 0.189 23.8 C 23.8 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.565 LOS = B COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703 / 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Planning Commission FROM: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II `�j RE: Meeting Regarding Performance Standards For Truck or Freight Maintenance Facilities In The M-1 Light Industrial District. DATE: March 26, 1993 The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) discussed an application to allow truck or freight maintenance facilities as a principle use in the M-1 Zoning District on March 11, 1993. This type of facility is permitted, provided the use is accessory to a trucking operation. In other words, an operation such as Ryder Trucking may maintain its fleet, but not other commercial vehicles. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) credits Frederick County's trucking operations as a real strength in attracting distribution operations. However, the EDC and several persons involved in industrial operations see the separation of truck or freight maintenance facilities and distribution operations as a disadvantage. The DRRS believes that this type of operation should be permitted in the M-1 Zoning District with performance standards. The greatest concern of the DRRS is the potential for this type of operation to evolve into a truck stop. The DRRS asked staff to create performance standards for this proposal and distribute the language for review. An ad hoc committee consisting of June Wilmot, George Romine, Douglas Toan, Tom Gilpin, Wayne Miller and myself worked to create the following language: ARTICLE X - Business and Industrial Zoning Districts M-1 Light Industrial District Allowed Uses Truck or freight maintenance facilities (No SIC Code) 9 North Loudoun Strcct P_0. Box 601 W'inchcster, VA 22601 Winchcstcr, VA 22604 Page -2- Planning Commission Memo March 26, 1993 ARTICLE IV - Supplementary Use Regulations Truck or freight maintenance facilities Where allowed, truck or freight maintenance facilities shall meet the following requirements: A. Truck or freight maintenance facilities shall be permitted in master planned industrial parks. Truck or freight maintenance facilities proposed for land zoned M-1 which is not part of a master planned industrial park shall require approval by the Planning Commission. C. Truck or freight maintenance facilities may have diesel fuel service provided that it is limited to one storage tank of 10,000 gallons or less. D. All repair and maintenance operations shall occur within a completely enclosed structure. E. Outdoor storage of parts associated with repair and maintenance shall not be permitted. F. Retail sales shall not be permitted. G. The Planning Commission may require additional buffers and screening other than those defined in section 165-37 of this Chapter. The proposed performance standards were created to address concerns and comments made by the ad hoc committee. The committee concluded that this use was desirable for the compatible uses found in a planned industrial park, but should be looked at carefully in other M-1 areas. The committee felt that restrictive covenants could be utilized in industrial parks if this use was not desirable. The committee also concluded that the potential for this use to evolve into a truck stop would be minimal if fuel sales were controlled, and retail sales were prohibited. All agreed that repair work, maintenance and parts storage should be indoors. Finally, the committee decided that there should be a provision to require additional buffers and screening to protect adjoining land use of a lesser intensity. Page -3- Planning Commission March 26, 1993 Staff discussed the proposed amendments on March 25, 1993. The only staff concern with the proposed language regards item B under the Supplementary Use Regulations. This language provides the Planning Commission with the option of permitting this use on certain parcels zoned M-1, but not others with the same zoning classification. Staff questions the legality of the Planning Commission permitting or denying uses without due process procedures similar to a Conditional Use Permit. Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission consider item B with three options: 1) Permit this use in industrial parks only. This can be accomplished because there is a clear definition for industrial parks. 2) Permit this use in the entire M1 Light Industrial District. 3) Do not permit this use in the M1 Light Industrial District Please review the proposed language and contact Wayne Miller or myself to discuss any comments or concerns you may have. Staff will conduct an informal discussion regarding this item during the April 7, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703 / 665-5651 Fax 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Directo RE: Discussion of Preliminary MDP for Henkel Harris Co. DATE: March 24, 1993 G. W. Clifford and Associates has requested a preapplication conference with the Planning Commission to discuss a proposed Master Development Plan for 66 acres of M-2 zoned land situated on the south side of Shawnee Drive. The property is the site of the old Capital Records building. KCT/slk attachment 9 North Loudoun Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 gilbeit w. clifford & associates, inc. I_ao �/ l� om reen 6.wePm•nt cenld ay 1 N/F Nv u�Os 6* - _/�_— fK,�rns1:OW11_� L- _ ' E 1 RICHARD A. & JOLEEN G - - I Funs• Tbe• gym•* Nm --� D' cl. I DB 7J4 PG 6(Fred. Co.)•1 • _ RARER, n 7= rel. um, Er. l0• c;- W 1 i ny v0oT Ind,*ww cr �' pa F . ueD, , ZONED: Rp Acca* rand* ca* L}i• USEFOmilY Sig oJl n le STA RW 652 R --t. \ _ - 652) � ur uN 7 lTl — 1:761 .70 •�-a--c�-- -- I � . s• sn 4 � �Wr •� �� — Project Area T ' USE a 30' ROAOM�. Y[py*• B I - i'. - �6 0 l -� i fi DL uN e- AMERI A M CQ RPORA TION j I FUTURE MOENr/C TO N• NV_ 705.Y0\ DB ry •1�-r' / 15ECRON 6 1RAMC rAMMTS 1 I CjI"1 G 54 1 N D - - • I ` N/F I I ( Ex. Distnbutian y. a. H.C. CADLER, INC. DB 485 PG 852 Vicinity Map ZONED: M2 - y/_703.7 use s z II Z, Scale: 1" = 2000' I .S rc i 144 -t LS W-1'ate '•6 o • 1.OS NN. 02 o Fl F'leln / I p J vj^ °"°"d a� � � s srJ6•z�-e _ —� I� SIZE 6 \•-. -\-- -.- - _ o i we 2 10 CL Faro ,fai, I \ r N/F __ -- -- `1. . 7J° r H.C. CABLER, INC. I� /` I I nchetty t / DB 281 PG 159 Wlncha�tw ZONED: M2 725 ,- _ s — - USE: - ._ f I,•- Zi k ANNA 4EE FRYE ARE E -G 91 p7 C756 DB ZONUOE o � SlTE 4 / I / o �� Manufacturing P" I Sl1E 3 ��j5 X � / I / / i \ 1 e 11\\ , J PROJECT SUMMARY R R1�p� OB 10pE0 M'2 \ / !R-� ��_� - Total ,Area = 66.43 Acres use / Ex. Zoning = M-2 jEMERC A6 A71� Adjoining Zoning: M-2, B-3 & RF / uw r Gbh Proposed Use: Industrial �NEF FRS p0PRp6 PG 2 USE. 11 6025+0SWMP \ 1 s Henkel Harris Company ZONED'M \I I RA ROAp I\ EX'DlSTOR NIF R Gy{RI5IAPN I FLEX -O -GLASS. INC. I \ N NRCdN a DB J95 PG 576 / I W. - Preliminary Master Plan IP _ 1 MERVEL W ADAMS s ZONED- USE ONED:UteM2 I ZONED: M2 . USE: / / I Frederick County, Virginia s Scale: 1" = 200' March, 1993