PC 08-05-20 Meeting Agenda1.Call to Order
2.Adoption of Agenda – Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting.
3.Meeting Minutes
3.A.June 3, 2020 Meeting Minutes
4.Committee Reports
5.Citizen Comments
6.Public Hearings
6.A.REZ #02-20 for Pippin Industrial Park
Submitted by GreyWolfe, Inc. to rezone 19.885+/- acres from the RA (Rural
Area) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District with proffers. The
property is located at 4440 Valley Pike, Stephens City, Virginia in the Back
Creek Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number
75-A-27A.
6.B.2020-2025 Agricultural and Forestal District Update
This Public Hearing is to consider the renewal of the Albin, Apple Pie Ridge,
Double Church, Green Spring, Red Bud, South Frederick and South Timber
Ridge Districts. The renewal of these Districts will establish a total of 10,779.34
acres. This Public Hearing is to also consider the establishment of two (2)
additional Districts. The Back Mountain District with a total of 489.91 acres and
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2020
7:00 PM
THE BOARD ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
PC08-05-20MinutesJune3.pdf
PC08-05-20REZ02-20.pdf
PC08-05-20REZ02-20TrafficStudyReport.pdf
1
Reliance District with a total of 203 acres. The total 11,472.25 acreage within
the Agricultural and Forestal District Program for the ensuing five period.
Properties that are incorporated into an Agricultural and Forestal District are
guaranteed certain protection as specified in Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of
Virginia.
6.C.Draft Update of the 2020-2021 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road
Improvement Plans
The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for
improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick
County. Comments from the Transportation Committee will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities
adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth
Transportation Board for consideration. Persons wishing to speak at this public
hearing should contact the Frederick County Planning Department at 540-665-
5651.
7.Information/Discussion
7.A.Ordinance Amendment - Day-Care Facilities
8.Adjourn
PC08-05-20Ag&ForestalDistrictUpdate2020-2025.pdf
PC08-05-20InterstateandPrimaryRoadImprovementPlans2020-2021.pdf
PC08-05-20OADayCareFacilities.pdf
2
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: August 5, 2020
Agenda Section: Meeting Minutes
Title: June 3, 2020 Meeting Minutes
Attachments:
PC08-05-20MinutesJune3.pdf
3
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3702
Minutes of June 3, 2020
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on June 3, 2020
PRESENT: Kevin Kenney, Chairman; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S.
Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; William H. Cline, Stonewall District;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; J. Rhodes Marston, Back
Creek District; John F. Jewell, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Alan L.
Morrison, Member at Large; Kathleen Dawson, Red Bud District; Roderick B. Williams, County
Attorney.
ABSENT: Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District.
STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Director; Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director; John A.
Bishop, Assistant Director Transportation; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; M.
Tyler Klein, Senior Planner.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Kenney called the June 3, 2020 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Kenney commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
4
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3703
Minutes of June 3, 2020
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Kenney called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comments portion of the meeting.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning #01-20 for RCS Investments, LLC., submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc. to rezone
12.61+/- acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the M2 (Industrial General) District with
proffers. The property is located at 220 Imboden Drive (Route 1327) at the terminus of cul-de-sac
in the Stonewall magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number 54-7-7A.
Action – Recommend Approval
Candice E. Perkins, Assistant Director reported, this application is to rezone 12.61+/-
acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the M2 (Industrial General) District with proffers. She
noted the subjected property is located at 220 Imboden Drive and is part of the Baker Lane Industrial Park
which was subdivided in 1985. Ms. Perkins provided a little site history of the property: The property
was originally zoned M2 and identified on the original zoning maps, it was then downsized to R-3 with
the Comprehensive Rezoning of Frederick County; In 1984 the property was rezoned to the M1 District
with rezoning #06-84. She provided a locations map of the property. Ms. Perkins continued; the site is
located within the limits of the Northeast Frederick Land Use Plan of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Ms.
Perkins noted the Plan identifies the property with an industrial land use designation, therefore the
existing M1 Zoning as well as the requested M2 Zoning are both generally consistent with the goals of
the Plan. Ms. Perkins concluded, with this request the Applicant has proffered:
• The Owner proffers to limit the land uses on the property to the following:
o All uses allowed in the M-1 Light Industrial District
o Recycling Operations (No SIS Code)
• Prohibit outdoor storage of material utilized in Recycling Operations on the
property.
• Prohibit waste transfer stations in conjunction with Recycling Operations on the
property.
• A Monetary Contribution of $0.10 per building square foot for County Fire and
Rescue services.
Chairman Kenney inquired is this outside storage of raw materials. Ms. Perkins
explained this is anything that is brought in as part of the recycling operation. Chairman Kenney asked
would containers be permissible. Ms. Perkins stated, the containers are part of the M-1 use so that is an
allowed storage with the current M-1 use; this would be bulk items that are brought in for the recycling.
Mr. Evan Wyatt of Greenway Engineering, Inc., representing the Applicant provided a
brief overview of the intent of the application. He provided photos offering a visual of the operation.
5
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3704
Minutes of June 3, 2020
Commissioner Morrison stated this is a necessary process, however, if items do end up
outside of the facility is there something in the process of the proffers to ensure things will be cleaned up
promptly. Mr. Wyatt explained, the operation would be responsible and if something were to end up
outside, they have the manpower to clean it up.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Dawson
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of Rezoning #01-20 for RCS Investments, LLC., submitted by Greenway Engineering, Inc. to rezone
12.61+/- acres from the M1 (Light Industrial) District to the M2 (Industrial General) District with
proffers. The property is located at 220 Imboden Drive (Route 1327) at the terminus of cul-de-sac in the
Stonewall Magisterial District and is identified by Property Identification Number 54-7-7A.
(Note: Commissioner Mohn was absent from the meeting).
Conditional Use Permit #02-20 for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) submitted to
construct a commercial telecommunication facility consisting of a 199 foot monopole
telecommunication facility. The property is located at 141 Fairview Road, Gore, Virginia and is
identified with Property Identification Number 26-A-29 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Mark R. Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, reported this is a request to
construct a 199 ft. monopole commercial telecommunication facility with accessory structures. He
continued; the property is located at 141 Fairview Road in Gore VA and consists of 14 acres that are
zoned RA (Rural Areas); the site is in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. Mr. Cheran noted, the
Comprehensive Plan identifies this area of the County to remain rural and is not part of any current land
use study. He presented a zoning map of the property. Mr. Cheran presented the conditions of the
Conditional Use Permit as recommended by Staff:
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers.
3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the Applicant or property owner within twelve
(12) months of abandonment of operation.
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months
of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid.
6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new Conditional Use
Permit.
Chairman Kenney inquired what is considered a personal wireless service provider. Mr.
Cheran explained it is resources such as Cingular, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Mr. Doug Sampson, legal
counsel for AT&T came forward and provided an overview of the need of this service in Frederick
County. He noted, the need has never been higher; with people working from home and students being
taught at home. He highlighted that this is a First Net sight; what that means is First Net is a
6
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3705
Minutes of June 3, 2020
congressionally authorized public safety network, which provides emergency broadband to emergency
providers and emergency personnel. Mr. Sampson stated the application materials are accurate and
comprehensive and fairly show what the project is. He noted, they show compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code of Frederick County.
Commissioner Triplett asked if this will give good coverage to the Back Creek valley
area. Mr. Sampson explained, it will be in and around the Gore VA area and the Virginia, West Virginia
border, specifically along Route 50 and Route 259 as part of the coverage area. He stated, the request for
the 199 ft. tower is to maximize the coverage area.
Commissioner Morrison inquired if this is a self-collapsing monopole. Mr. Sampson
replied, these towers are designed to have a fall radius, and designed to telescope within themselves.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Dawson
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #02-20 for New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T) submitted to construct
a commercial telecommunication facility consisting of a 199 foot monopole telecommunication facility.
The property is located at 141 Fairview Road, Gore, Virginia and is identified with Property Identification
Number 26-A-29 in the Gainesboro Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Mohn was absent from the meeting).
Conditional Use Permit #03-20 for Foxglove Solar LLC submitted to construct a 668.5 acre (370
acres disturbed area) utility scale solar power generating facility. The properties are generally
located along Marlboro Road, Hites Road, Klines Mill Road, Clark Road, and Vaucluse Road and
are identified with Property Identification Numbers 73-A-21, 84-A-39, 84-A-40, 84-A-40A, and 84-
A-50 and are in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action – Recommend Approval
Commissioner Marston would abstain from all discussion on this item for a possible
conflict of interest.
M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported this is a project located in the Back Creek
Magisterial District, generally located south of Marlboro Road (Route 631), east and west of Hites Road
(Route 625), north of Klines Mill Road (Route 633), north of Clark Road (Route 638) and south of
Vaucluse Road (Route 638). He continued, the property is zoned RA (Rural Areas), the current land use
is Agricultural/Vacant/Agricultural and Forestal District (South Frederick), and the proposed use is
Utility-Scale Solar Power Generating Facility. Mr. Klein presented a zoning map of the area. He
explained, the Board of Supervisors added “utility-scale” solar power generating facilities” as a
conditional use to the Zoning Ordinance on January 8, 2020. He noted, this is an application for a
Conditional Use Permit (Cup) to enable construction of a 370 acre utility-scale solar power generating
facility (disturbed area) located on property totaling approximately 668.5 acres. Mr. Klein reported, this
project will generate 75 megawatts (MWS) of photovoltaic (solar) energy. He continued, 370.1 acres will
be utilized for the installation of rows of ground mounted photovoltaic modules, commonly known as
7
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3706
Minutes of June 3, 2020
solar panels, other necessary equipment for facility operations, access paths, security fencing and
landscaping. Mr. Klein explained, the power generated will be combined, converted, and increased to
allow delivery to the adjacent First Energy 138 kilovolt (KV) transmission line. He noted, the proximity
to the First Energy transmission line was instrumental in the siting of this project and why these parcels
were selected as part of the application. Mr. Klein continued, the 2035 comprehensive Plan envisions this
area of the County to remain primarily rural in nature and for agricultural land to be preserved for future
generations; the project is generally compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, with the rural character of
the area, and with the adjoining agricultural and residential uses. He noted the preservation of the
underlying land maintains the ability for agricultural uses in the future.
Mr. Klein reported in regard to the Zoning Ordinance Conformance: Setbacks for the
solar arrays (panels) will conform to the setback requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance for
principle uses in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District (§165-401.07).
• 60-FT front setbacks from right-of-way streets and roads
• 50-FT side/rear setback from adjoining parcels 6-acres or less
• 100-FT side/rear setback from adjoining parcels of more than 6-acres
• 200-FT side/rear setback from Agricultural & Forestal Districts more than 6-
acres and orchards (regardless of size)
Mr. Klein noted, Zoning Ordinance requirements for “Public Utilities” including utility-
scale solar power generating facilities (§165-204.26 specifies the Zoning Administrator has the authority
to determine appropriate setbacks for lots. Mr. Klein reviewed Site Plan and approval under Article VIII:
Preliminary Site Plans (conceptual) submitted with the application; Landscaping/screening provided
through a “landscape screen” as defined in the Zoning Ordinance, a mix of deciduous trees, evergreen
trees and shrubs; Chain-link security fence; Access to the site is proposed through three (3) entrances
from paved public roads – Marlboro Road, Clark Road, and Hites Road. Mr. Klein pointed out, the Site
Plan is conceptual and subject to all requirements of Article VIII of the Zoning Ordinance and at such
time a Site Plan is submitted the Applicant will seek approval from VDOT for the entrances for
construction and project operations. He provided a locations map reflecting the Site Plan. Mr. Klein
reviewed the Decommissioning Plan procedures: A Decommissioning Plan submitted with the
application; Provisions for removal of all equipment, site restored to “pre-development condition”;
Specifies entering into a written agreement and “financial security” with Frederick County for life of the
project in conformance with Zoning Ordinance requirements and the Code of Virginia; Estimated costs
are reviewed and updated every five (5) years.
Mr. Klein continued, in addition to requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance, the
Applicant is concurrently pursuing a “Permit-by-Rule (PBR) through the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). He explained, the PBR is a state-level administrative review and approval
process, including environmental and cultural review and study. Mr. Klein noted, one component of the
state required PBR review is local jurisdiction “approval” of solar project siting; this CUP application, if
approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, would satisfy that requirement enabling
completion of a PBR process for this project. Mr. Klein concluded, should the Planning Commission find
this use to be appropriate, Staff recommends the following Conditions of Approval:
1. All review agency comments provided during the review of this application shall
be complied with at all times.
2. An engineered site plan, in accordance with the requirements of Article VIII of
the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted to and subject to
approval by Frederick County prior to the establishment of the use. The site plan
8
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3707
Minutes of June 3, 2020
shall address additional regulations for specific uses outlined in §165-204.26 of
the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and be in general conformance with the
Preliminary Site Plans, included with the CUP application, prepared by Timmons
Group, dated April 17, 2020.
3. Buffers and screening shall be provided around the perimeter of the project in
general conformance with quantity of the proposed plantings depicted on Sheet 5
of the Preliminary Site Plan, “Landscaping/Vegetative Screening Detail,” include
with the CUP application, prepared by Timmons Group, dated April 17, 2020.
Buffers and screening shall fulfill the landscape screening requirements of §165-
203.02(B)(1) of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
4. Prior to the site plan approval, the owner shall enter into a written agreement
with Frederick County to decommission solar energy equipment, facilities, or
devices pursuant to the terms and conditions of §15.2-2241.2(B) of the Code of
Virginia. The written agreement shall be updated every five (5) years and in
general conformance with the Decommissioning Plan, included with the CUP
application, prepared by Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh, revised April 21,
2020.
5. Batteries, for the purposes of mass storage of electricity that will eventually be
transferred to the grid, are prohibited as part of this CUP.
6. Any expansion or modification of this land use will require the approval of a new
CUP.
Mr. Klein concluded, any recommendation for approval should include a statement
affirming that the proposed solar facility is in substantial accord with the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Oates inquired why batteries are prohibited. Mr. Klein explained,
batteries are not part of their project and they do not intend to have any. There has been some discussion
and concern from the neighbors about the use of batteries for environmental impacts, therefore the
Applicant has agreed to prohibit that. He confirmed, there are batteries proposed that are only used for
the tracking of the panels and their motion, but no batteries will be used for the purpose of mass storage.
Mr. Klein added, Planning Commissioners were provided all of the written comments that have been
received by Staff, provided answers to questions that Commissioner Jewell compiled on behalf of the
neighbors, and other supplemental material that was provided by the Applicant.
Commissioner Thomas stated the CUP applies to the entire 600+ acre parcel and the
Applicant is going to put solar panels on 380 acres; if at some point they would want to put additional
solar panels on the remaining acreage would they have to reapply. Mr. Klein commented that is correct,
the Applicant would have to come back through the CUP process.
Mr. John H. Foote, of Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley & Walsh, representing the Applicant
came forward and provided an overview of the Application. He noted, Virginia has adopted an
aggressive energy policy. Mr. Foote introduced Mr. Rob Propes.
Mr. Rob Propes, Development Manager for Urban Grid came forward and began by
providing an overview of the Urban Grid company. He explained the steps in identifying a site for solar
viability. Mr. Propes shared the Permit by Rule process and a Project Development Timeline. He
reviewed the natural resource management and share the benefits of solar development.
Commissioner Thomas asked if there will be below grade concrete to anchor the panels.
Mr. Propes explained, the foundations supporting the solar panels will be H beams and no concrete; there
will be some concrete pads to hold the invertors and the below grade H beams will be removed once
9
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3708
Minutes of June 3, 2020
decommissioned. Commissioner Thomas asked if fruit trees along Hites Road will be preserved. Mr.
Propes noted, for cost effective purposes they will try to utilize what trees and buffers may already be
there and available. Commissioner Oates commented regarding the fruit trees; most orchardists do not
want trees that are not being maintained as this becomes a breeding ground for bugs and things and would
not be a good idea to spray insecticides around the solar panels.
Commissioner Triplett inquired what is the lifespan of this project. Mr. Propes noted, it
is anticipated the life span to be about 35 years. Commissioner Jewell shared, the setbacks are a major
concern and he encourages Urban Grid to look at that and make adjustments to accommodate the
neighbors if at all possible. Commissioner Morrison is concerned with the access points and a narrow
setback that is close to houses. He commented what is considered substantial plantings to some may not
be considered substantial to others. Mr. Propes noted, Urban Grid is no longer considering that location
as a construction access point since receiving all the feedback from citizens.
Chairman Kenney asked for clarification on hundreds of jobs being created during
construction. Mr. Propes explained, at the height of construction it typically approaches a couple hundred
jobs and that is not unrealistic. Chairman Kenney inquired where all these employees would park. Mr.
Propes stated in the lay down area on the site. Commissioner Oates asked are there plans to do a lot of
grading on the site. Mr. Propes commented, they are currently doing an analysis and have engaged a firm
to take a look at the conceptual layout and to help determine how to do the least amount of grading.
Chairman Kenney inquired what the financial commitment is to a project this size. Mr. Propes responded
it is projected to be approximately a $101 million dollar investment.
Commissioner Thomas asked is there any reflection off the panels; what spectrum of rays
are generated. Mr. Propes explained, the panels are designed to absorb the vast majority of light and they
have non-reflective coating. Commissioner Thomas inquired is there any heat radiated back; is there a
microclimate developed. Mr. Propes commented, he has not seen any research to suggest there is a
heating of the area because of the solar panels. Commissioner Thomas asked if the owners of the
property are going to utilize the rest of the property. Mr. Propes stated he does not know what the owners
are going to do with the excess property, and they can use however they wish. Commissioner Thomas
asked, regarding the panel technology being used, where does it come from. Mr. Propes explained a lot
of the panels are sourced from Asia, but a vendor has not been selected and there is another possibility in
Ohio. Commissioner Thomas inquired, as the panels deteriorate does it put off any pollutants into the
soil. Mr. Propes stated there are no toxins that come off of the panels.
Commissioner Morrison inquired, of the labor needed for this project, how much will be
local or brought in from out of the area. Mr. Propes explained, they contract with an Engineering
Procurement Construction firm to do the actual build of the project; part of the requirements with them is
to source as much local labor as possible and they will host a job fair in advance.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time.
Ms. Layne Link came forward and provided and brief history of her family farm,
Woodbine Farm. She shared how the solar facility would help the farm thrive; they feel the facility
would be the least adverse to the community, it would also keep t heir land out of land development and
housing. She explained, installing a solar field would allow them to maintain ownership of the property
while leasing it for the duration of the project and areas not used for this project will continue to remain in
agricultural use. Ms. Link concluded, they may consider grazing sheep on the project site and possibly
raising honeybees.
10
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3709
Minutes of June 3, 2020
Mr. Paul Anderson came forward and commented he feels it is the best use for the land
and a lot better than houses being built there. He encouraged the Planning Commission to support this.
Ms. Danielle Shomaker shared she feels as though this project is being pushed through
during a pandemic. She continued, on a virtual call hosted by Urban Grid, she asked how this project will
benefit her and she was told her taxes would drastically be reduced. Ms. Shomaker wonders what
happens to the jobs this will create after the project is finished. She stated, she has done a lot of research
on solar farms and they can be the cause of soil erosion and flooding on neighboring land. Ms. Shomaker
concluded; some consideration should be given to the surrounding property owners. Mr. William
Shomaker shared his concerns with this property: if this is put in he will be surrounded on three sides by
the solar farm; he would like to have a 300’ buffer on his property; this will take away his ability to hunt
on his land and provide for his family; and the work schedule timing and noise. Ms. Kayden Shomaker
shared, through her FFA class she has done research on solar farms and the negatives found were;
flooding, loss of habitat for wildlife, and loss of agriculture.
Mr. Glen Redmiles commented what is disturbing to his family is the planned location of
the sub-station; not only is it at the highest point of the project site but it is directly across from his home
and a 200’ buffer that is already cleared with an existing transmission line. He continued, the visibility of
this project on the hilltop will be an eyesore from his property. He recommends a design change to
negate the impacts of the substation to his property. Mr. Redmiles believes there are other locations more
practical; and is looking for sensitivity from the Applicant.
Ms. Patricia Campbell shared the history of her family and her love of the area and her
home. She is concerned with the value of her home decreasing and opposes this application.
Ms. Lisa Higgs is concerned how the character of the area will not be changed with a
project that requires a decommissioning plan that includes removal of PV modules, racking systems,
mounting posts, electrical wires, invertors, transformers, and fencing. Mr. Charles Higgs commented the
proposed project would be in front and back of his property. He is concerned with the proposed setbacks.
He stated, he understands that farming has become difficult however a solar farm does not make or keep
this agricultural in use. He commented, if this project moves forward, he proposes a 300’ setback with
native vegetation and trees from day one and he also suggests the fencing be green weave vinyl chain-
link. Mr. Higgs concluded, there is already another big project (Carmeuse) nearby in the Back Creek
district and he feels folks in this area have sacrificed enough.
Mr. Ron Allwine shared his concerns with the number of panels and the possible
chemical leak from these. He doesn’t feel a construction timeframe of 9 months will generate much
revenue for the County. He shared his concerns of storm water runoff and the effects this may have on
property values in the area.
Mr. Frank Jenkins explained his concerns with the stormwater management, the chemical
make-up of the panels, construction times being too long during the day, and how often this will be
inspected. He fees this should have been a rezoning and not a conditional use permit.
Mr. David Linscomp commented it would have been helpful if Urban Grid had printed
and shared a portfolio with neighbors. He noted regarding landscaping, several areas need to be
addressed and he is concerned as to where this energy will be transmitted out of the area.
Ms. Amanda Compton commented she feels this project will be detrimental to the
residents in the area and their property values and to the rural aspect of the community. She is very
concerned with the entrance and construction traffic. Ms. Compton stated this project will hinder her
11
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3710
Minutes of June 3, 2020
business that she runs from her home. She would choose this project over housing but would like to see it
done in a better way.
Ms. Nancy Trantman shares two concerns; energy produced, and EMS emitted in the air.
She asked who will benefit most.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public comment
portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Oates commented, this should not be a CUP process; he then discussed the
by-right use. He explained, there is enough land here that can support 133 houses by-right; if you build
roads and houses then the farm is gone forever and up until now that was the only recourse that farmers
and orchardists had to survive. He feels this is the perfect solution because the land stays intact, it is not a
pollutant, there is not traffic, and a short duration for construction. He stated he supports this project and
feels it should be a by-right use.
Commissioner Thomas commented, if there is a large investment in a CUP it becomes
very difficult for the County to enforce any violation; there needs to be a way to control solar panels in
the County. He stated, solar panels have a good use, they are a good diverse power source. He noted, he
would like to see a requirement that solar panels be on all new construction, but he does not like to see
600 acres taken out of agriculture to put solar panels on it. He feels in this case it is an acceptable use; to
put houses out there would be a lot more disruption than solar panels. Commissioner Thomas stated he
would like to see a few changes: in regards to the pile driving, it should end earlier than 7:00 p.m.; a
condition be placed for adjacent properties to do a crack survey or a building integrity survey before the
pile driving starts. He concluded, the benefits out weight the cons on this project.
Commissioner Jewell commented, agriculture needs to change along with everything
else; if we do not help agriculture, it will be lost. He stated, this is an opportunity for the County to get
income with no services attached, help agriculture, and help citizens. He feels things can be worked out
to satisfy most.
Commissioner Morrison stated he supports this for a variety of reasons, two that are in
the forefront are; if the developers listen to these suggestions, they can mitigate a lot of the negativity, and
it would be a worse situations for the neighbors if houses were to be put there.
Chairman Kenney commented, our local agriculture industry is challenged in many ways.
He feels this should not have been a CUP, but he does believe this will be a win win for the agriculture
industry and the County.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Jewell and seconded by Commissioner Thomas
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #03-20 for Foxglove Solar LLC submitted to construct a 668.5 acre (370 acres
disturbed area) utility scale solar power generating facility. The properties are generally located along
Marlboro Road, Hites Road, Klines Mill Road, Clark Road, and Vaucluse Road and are identified with
Property Identification Numbers 73-A-21, 84-A-39, 84-A-40, 84-A-40A, and 84-A-50 and are in the
Back Creek Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioner Mohn was absent from the meeting).
12
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3711
Minutes of June 3, 2020
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I General
Provision; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits; Part 101 General Provisions, §165-101.08
Violations and penalties; enforcement.
Action – Recommend Denial
M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported this is a proposed amendment to Chapter 165-
Zoning Ordinance and to the Development Review Fee Schedule to reduce the fee for a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for commercial telecommunication facilities. He noted, the purpose of this reduction in
fees is to encourage commercial telecommunication facilities to locate in underserved areas of the
County, in particular those rural areas west of Interstate 81. Mr. Klein explained, in December 2019, the
Board of Supervisors adopted the two-track process for review/approval of telecommunication facilities:
By-right towers up to 50’ in height, approved administratively; Standard process projects (51’ or greater)
require a CUP. Mr. Klein pointed out, CUP fees for these types of uses were identified as a potential
barrier to local service providers in applying for telecommunication facility permits and the Board of
Supervisors further directed Staff to re-evaluate the fees with the intention of reducing the fee.
Mr. Klein reported, the DRRC discussed this item at their February 27, 2020 meeting
with a Staff proposal for a tower greater than 50’ in height a fee of $750. He continued, at their March
25, 2020 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted a temporary code amendment (through May 24,
2020) changing the CUP application fee for commercial telecommunication facilities to $750 (was $7,000
regardless of height). The Planning Commission discussed this item on May 6, 2020 and concurred with
the DRRC recommending tiered fees based on tower height. Mr. Klein concluded, the Board of
Supervisors discussed this item on May 27, 2020 and directed a fee of $750 be advertised for Public
Hearing; the Board stated the fee should only cover those costs for advertising, signage, and notifying
adjacent property owners.
Commissioner Thomas commented the Board of Supervisors direction was to cover the
fees and costs directly associated with the application; he inquired does our fee structure cover the rest,
because the fees for rezoning and other applications are much higher at times. He asked, are we being
capricious setting our fee schedule; if we reduce this for communication towers, what does that do to the
rest of our fee structure. Mr. Klein responded, he could not speak on the other fees, however he
explained, this amendment is to bring the cell tower fee in line with other Conditional Use Permit
applications. He continued, under the Development Review Fee Schedule, all the other conditional uses
with the exception of cottage occupations is $750; the fees for advertising and notifications is closer to the
$750 for Conditional Use Permits than it is to the $7,000 that currently exists for telecommunication
facilities.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Jewell commented, the one argument that is being heard time and time
again is there are individuals and families that cannot get internet and they want a tower. He inquired is it
possible to structure it where personal use is at $750, small internet providers at $1,500, and the large
providers at $7,000. He feels there should be something in place to separate this and to be more specific.
Mr. Klein explained there was similar discussion at a prior Planning Commission meeting as well as a
DRRC discussion; the DRRC decided on height being the determining factor and the Board of
Supervisors consensus was to bring the fee down to increase the ability of providers to locate in those
underserved areas of the County where broadband service is limited or non-existent. He noted, certainly
an alternative recommendation can be made.
13
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3712
Minutes of June 3, 2020
Commissioner Oates commented, we are going to see a lot of these towers coming
forward. He noted, it would be nice if people would be informed that there is internet available through a
satellite and it would be cheaper as compared to building a tower.
Commissioner Morrison stated he believes inaccurate information has been distributed
throughout the County as to how this is working; he feels the primary objective is to facilitate the process
where each individual or family can gain access to the internet as reasonably as possible, or there will be a
push for the County to pay for it all.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates to deny and seconded by Commissioner
Thomas
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does recommend denial of the
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE I General
Provision; Amendments; and Conditional Use Permits; Part 101 General Provisions, §165-101.08
Violations and penalties; enforcement.
Yes: Oates, Thomas, Cline, Jewell, Marston, Triplett, Molden, Kenney
No: Ambrogi, Manuel, Dawson, Morrison
(Note: Commissioner Mohn was absent from the meeting).
Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE II
Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses; part 204
Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-101.08 Violations and penalties; enforcement.
Action – Recommend Approval
M. Tyler Klein, Senior Planner, reported presently the County enforces the Zoning
Ordinance through the misdemeanor process, but state law also permits the use of civil penalties. He
continued, if the County adopted civil penalties for specified violations, state law would require the
County to pursue civil penalties for those violations, up to an accumulated fine limit of $5,000, before
pursuing the misdemeanor process for those violations. Mr. Klein explained, if the objective foro
revisions to the Zoning Ordinance is to maximize fines in such a way to create a disincentive for
violations, proceeding sooner to the $1,000, $1,500, and then repeated $2,000 fines for the subsequent 10-
day periods a violation remains the most effective approach. Mr. Klein shared, the DRRC discussed this
item at their February 27, 2020 meeting; the Planning Commission discussed this item on May 6, 2020
and agreed increasing the fees under the misdemeanor process; the Board of Supervisors discussed this
item ono May 27, 2020 and were in agreement with increasing the fees to the maximum permitted in
order to discourage repeat violations.
Chairman Kenney called for anyone who wished to speak regarding this Public Hearing
to come forward at this time. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Kenney closed the public
comment portion of the hearing.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Jewell
14
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3713
Minutes of June 3, 2020
BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does unanimously recommend approval
of the Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning, ARTICLE II
Supplementary Use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses; part 204
Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §165-101.08 violations and penalties; enforcement.
(Note: Commissioner Mohn was absent from the meeting).
-------------
CANCELATION OF REGULAR MEETING
Chairman Kenney announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s June 17, 2020 meeting and it will be canceled.
-------------
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Kevin W. Kenney, Chairman
____________________________
Michael T. Ruddy, Secretary
15
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: August 5, 2020
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: REZ #02-20 for Pippin Industrial Park
Attachments:
PC08-05-20REZ02-20.pdf
PC08-05-20REZ02-20TrafficStudyReport.pdf
16
REZONING APPLICATION #02-20
PIPPIN INDUSTRIAL PARK
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 19.885+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial
Transition) District with proffers.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the western side of Valley Pike, adjacent to AppleLand
Sports which has an address of 4490 Valley Pike, Stephens City.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is an application to rezone 19.885+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial
Transition) District with proffers. This site is located within the limits of the Kernstown Area Plan
(Bartonsville South) of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan and is within the Sewer and Water Service Area.
The Kernstown Area Plan identifies this property as future general commercial. In general, the
Applicant’s proposed B3 zoning could be consistent with the current land use supported by the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff would note however, that as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of
the B3 District “is to provide for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or
wholesaling, in locations that are separate from but in the vicinity of business and industrial areas”.
While some uses span both the B2 (General Business) and the B3 District; this rezoning allows for all
the uses in the B3, including heavy intensive uses. The development is also titled “Pippin Industrial
Park” and the impact statement shows “the planned uses are office and warehouses for contractors and
material storage”. It appears that the proposed use of this property is planned to be heavier in nature
than “general commercial” and therefore, it is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Elements of the rezoning application have been identified in this report that should be carefully
evaluated to ensure that they fully address the impacts associated with this proposal and its
conformance to the Comprehensive Plan.
The proffers associated with this rezoning request are as follows. Staff comments are shown in italics.
Proffer Statement – Dated June 15, 2020:
1. Transportation – Total Vehicle Trips per Day shall not exceed 646. To be determined at Site
Plan submission utilizing the current ITE Trip Generation Manual.
a. The owner hereby proffers to construct a two-lane rural collector road as shown on the
GDP (Pippin Lane) and the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The road shall be completed in
phases and each phase must be completed to the proposed entrance of each building
prior to the issuance of its occupancy permit. The road shall be designed for rolling
17
Rezoning #02-20 Pippin Industrial Park
July 23, 2020
Page 2
terrain, a traffic count of 1,475 VPD’s for future growth, and a minimum radii of 446’
per VDOT standards. Final design to be approved by VDOT and ultimate buildout will
be to the western property line. See 1.d below for dedication.
b. Entrances on Route 11, other than Pippin Lane, will not be allowed.
c. The owner hereby proffers to dedicate a 20’ strip along Route 11 for a 5’ sidewalk and
future road improvements prior to the first occupancy permit.
d. The owner herby proffers to reserve a 50’ right of way through the development as
shown on the GDP for Pippin Lane as shown on the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. Said
right of way shall be dedicated, when completed or requested by the County of
Frederick in writing, within 90 days.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan calls for a 4-lane divided roadway through the
property. The proffered right of way will not accommodate this roadway. The
Comprehensive Planned roadway eventually connects to Tasker Road over I -81 and the
future Stephens City bypass. While those eventual connections are long term in nature, it’s
important to preserve the connection as planned while interim development occurs. The
proffer currently does not do that. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan calls for new and
redeveloped roadways to be ‘open, available, and safe to all modes of transportation’, the
proffers as written do not accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
2. Corridor Enhancements along Route 11
a. The owner hereby proffers not to construct parking, outdoor storage, or a building
within 50’ of the right-of-way of Route 11. This area shall be left open and used only
for landscaping, placement of underground utilities, and other uses as defined in the
County Zoning Ordinance as acceptable within buffer areas.
b. The buffer shall contain a 6’ berm covered in grass to provide screening and a 6’ shade
tree planted every 40’.
c. The owner hereby proffers not more than one freestanding monument style tenant sign
along the frontage of Route 11.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan calls for buffering along Route 11 South – from
Stephens City to Bartonsville. The intent is that, through a combination of setbacks, vegetative
screening, planting of shade trees along the edge of the right-of-way and pedestrian access,
the corridor would have a parkway-like appearance. It does not appear that the proffers
adequately address the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: This site is highly visible from Route 11, in a pristine rural environment with
adjacent historic and environmental areas. Consideration should be given to building
materials, building placement, bay door locations and screening materials for outdoor storage
to lesson its visual impact.
3. Fire and Rescue – Monetary Contributions
a. The owner hereby proffers a cash contribution to Frederick County for Fire and Rescue
purposes of $0.10 per building square foot to be disbursed to the Frederick County Fire
and Rescue Department. The term “building square foot” shall be the combined floor
18
Rezoning #02-20 Pippin Industrial Park
July 23, 2020
Page 3
area for each story.
4. Sanitary Sewer.
a. The owner hereby proffers to utilize Health Department approved drainfields, if
available and allowed at the time of development. Otherwise, Public Sewer will be
used.
Staff Note: The Comprehensive Plan states that land within the UDA and SWSA is expected to
be served by public water and sewer. Furthermore, Chapter 144-20 – Subdivision of Land,
states that “in the sewer and water service area designated by the Frederick County
Comprehensive Plan or where public sewer and water is available, such service shall be
extended by the developer to all lots within a subdivision and throughout the limits of the
property to adjoining properties. Therefore, the use of drainfields for this site is not
permissible.
5. Excluded Uses.
a. The owner hereby proffers to exclude the following uses on the property.
i. Restaurants
ii. Food Stores
iii. Motion Picture Theater
A recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be
appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the
Planning Commission.
19
Rezoning #02-20 Pippin Industrial Park
July 23, 2020
Page 4
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to pro vide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this
application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues
concerning this application are noted by Staff where relevant throughout this Staff report.
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 19.885+/- acres from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial
Transition) District with proffers.
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the western side of Valley Pike, adjacent to AppleLand
Sports which has an address of 4490 Valley Pike, Stephens City.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek
PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-27A
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District
PRESENT USE: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Vacant
South: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Commercial (AppleLand)
East: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Vacant
West: RA (Rural Areas) District Use: Residential/Agricultural
20
Rezoning #02-20 Pippin Industrial Park
July 23, 2020
Page 5
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see email from Bradley S. Riggleman, P.E.
Winchester-Frederick County Health Department: I have reviewed your request and this office
would have no objections to the proposed rezoning of the subject property.
If the owner wishes to utilize an onsite sewage disposal system to accommodate the projected 2,000
gallons per day of sewage generated at the development, he will need to consult with a DPOR licensed
private Onsite Soil Evaluator (OSE) to determine the feasibility. If adequate conditions do not exist to
allow for onsite sewage disposal, connection to an approved public sewer system will be required.
If the existing wells are to be maintained for irrigation purposes, there can be no cross connection to the
public water system. If the existing wells are to be abandoned to allow for onsite sewage disposal or
for any other reason, a permit from this department is required.
Frederick Water: Please see letter from Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Executive Director dated February
26, 2020.
Frederick-Winchester Service Authority: FWSA defers comments to Frederick Water.
Frederick County Department of Public Work: A comprehensive review of plan shall occur if a
site plan is submitted. Stormwater and erosion and sediment shall comply with County Code Chapter
143.
Fire and Rescue Company: Recommend proffer monies be partially earmarked for Stephens City as
the burden for increased service will be shared between Stephens City and Frederick County. No
objection to rezoning. (Staff Note: Proffer dollars are required to be provided to the Frederick County
Fire and Rescue Department)
Frederick County Fire Marshal: Plan approved.
Winchester Regional Airport: No comment.
County of Frederick Attorney: Please see letter from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney dated
March 9, 2020.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the
subject parcel as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County’s agricultural zoning
districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of
an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989.
21
Rezoning #02-20 Pippin Industrial Park
July 23, 2020
Page 6
2) Comprehensive Plan
The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County.
The 2035 Comprehensive Plan is an official public document that serves as the Community's
guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key
components of Community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the
living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to
plan for the future physical development of Frederick County.
The Area Plans, Appendix I of the 2035 Comprehensive Plan, are the primary implementation
tool and will be instrumental to the future planning efforts of the County.
Land Use
This site is located within the limits of the Kernstown Area Plan (Bartonsville South) of the
2035 Comprehensive Plan and is within the Sewer and Water Service Area. The Kernstown
Area Plan identifies the Bartonsville South area where this property is located to develop with
“general commercial land uses” (Page 79 – Appendix I). In general, the Applicant’s proposed
B3 zoning could be consistent with the current land use supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff would note however, that as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the B3
District “is to provide for heavy commercial activities, involving larger scale marketing or
wholesaling, in locations that are separate from but in the vicinity of business and industrial
areas.”
While some uses span both the B2 (General Business) and the B3 District; this rezoning allows
for all the uses in the B3, including heavy intensive uses. The development is also titled
“Pippin Industrial Park” and the impact statement shows “the planned uses are office and
warehouses for contractors and material storage”. It appears that the proposed use of this
property is planned to be heavier in nature than “general commercial” and therefore it is not in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use – Buffering of Route 11 South and Historic Bartonsville
The Kernstown Area Plan calls for enhanced buffering along Route 11 and the
acknowledgement and protection of the significant historic resources in this area.
One of the significant elements of this plan is the buffering of Route 11 South. This
southern section of the corridor from Stephens City, north to Bartonsville is intended to
be set apart from the existing commercial development along the northern third of the
corridor. The intent is that, through a combination of setbacks, vegetative screening,
planting of shade trees along the edge of the right-of-way, and the provision of bike way
and pedestrian access, the corridor would have a parkway-like appearance. (Page 80 –
Appendix I)
22
Rezoning #02-20 Pippin Industrial Park
July 23, 2020
Page 7
This parcel is highly visible from Route 11 and Bartonsville, in a pristine rural environment with
adjacent historic and environmental areas. Developments adjacent to this area should be
sensitive to those resources and buffered from adjacent development activities (Page 79 –
Appendix I). The Applicant should consider including architectural and site standards for the
development. These standards could include building placement, building materials, bay door
locations and screening materials for outdoor storage to lessen its visual impact. In regard to the
visibility from Route 11, the Applicant is proffering a six-foot grass berm, one deciduous tree
every 40’, and a 50’ grass strip between Route 11 and any parking or outdoor storage. It does
not appear that this proffer addresses the buffering envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan of a
parkway like appearance.
Transportation
The Eastern Road Plan shows an urban 4 lane divided roadway through the property that
connects Tasker Road on the east side of I-81 to the future Stephens City bypass. This
represents an important long-term network improvement in the transportation plan. In addition,
and important goal of the Eastern Road Plan is “To promote the development of new roadways
and the redevelopment of existing roadways in a manner that makes them open, available, and
safe to all modes of transportation.” The inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations in
the development of this roadway will be an important element of meeting that goal.
Per the Kernstown Area Plan, “A planted median strip is also envisioned when this section
of Route 11 South becomes four lanes. Uses locating within this section of the corridor
would be expected to have no direct access to Route 11 South, but rather would access a
proposed east-west connector road which in turn would intersect Route 11 South.”
A recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be
appropriate. The Applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the
Planning Commission.
23
£¤11
75 A 27A
4506VALLEYPIKE
371SPRINGDALE DR
4656VALLEYPIKE
4527VALLEYPIKE
4273VALLEYPIKE
4330VALLEYPIKE
4324VALLEYPIKE
115SPRINGDALE RD
117SPRINGDALE RD 124SPRINGDALE RD
140SPRINGDALE RDSPRINGDALE RD
V A L L E Y
P I K E
Application
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service A rea µ
Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 10, 202 0
Stephens City
V A L L E Y P I K ESPRINGDALE RD
T A S K E R R D
§¨¦81
£¤11
0 350 700175 Feet
REZ # 02 - 20: Pippin Industrial ParkPIN: 75 - A - 27ARezoning from RA to B3Zoning Map
REZ #02-20
24
£¤11
75 A 27A
4506VALLEYPIKE
371SPRINGDALE DR
4656VALLEYPIKE
4527VALLEYPIKE
4273VALLEYPIKE
4330VALLEYPIKE
4324VALLEYPIKE
115SPRINGDALE RD
117SPRINGDALE RD 124SPRINGDALE RD
140SPRINGDALE RDSPRINGDALE RD
V A L L E Y
P I K E
Application
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service A rea µ
Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 10, 202 0
Stephens City
V A L L E Y P I K ESPRINGDALE RD
T A S K E R R D
§¨¦81
£¤11
0 350 700175 Feet
REZ # 02 - 20: Pippin Industrial ParkPIN: 75 - A - 27ARezoning from RA to B3Location Map
REZ #02-20
25
£¤11
75 A 27A
4656VALLEYPIKE
371SPRINGDALE DR
4506VALLEYPIKE
4527VALLEYPIKE
4273VALLEYPIKE
4330VALLEYPIKE
4324VALLEYPIKE
115SPRINGDALE RD
117SPRINGDALE RD 124SPRINGDALE RD
140SPRINGDALE RDSPRINGDALE RD
V A L L E Y
P I K E
Application
Parcels
Sewer and Water Service A reaLong R ange Land Use
Business
Sensitive Natural Areas µ
Frederick C ounty Planning & Development107 N Kent StWinchester, V A 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 10, 202 0
Stephens City
V A L L E Y P I K ESPRINGDALE RD
T A S K E R R D
§¨¦81
£¤11
0 350 700175 Feet
REZ # 02 - 20: Pippin Industrial ParkPIN: 75 - A - 27ARezoning from RA to B3Long Range Land Use Map
REZ #02-20
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Traffic Impact Study
Pippin Industrial Park Rezoning
February 17, 2020
Prepared for
Gregory, Ralph S. Trustee
Gregory’s, Inc.
5368 Main Street
Stephens City, VA 22655
Prepared by
Stowe Engineering, PLC
103 Heath Court
Winchester, VA 22602
2/19/20
68
Executive Summary
This Traffic Impact Study supports the rezoning request for the land owned by Gregory, Ralph S.,
Trustee. The land is south of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA. The rezoning, if approved, will lead to
development that will create 19.88 acres of office/warehouse uses.
The subject property is south of the unincorporated area of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA And on
the west side of Route 11 just north of the Apple Land complex. Access to the site will be through a new
entrance on Route 11.
This study found that the light traffic volumes on this section of Route 11 and the small traffic volume
generated by the proposed development can be accommodated on the existing roadway network.
With the improvements proffered, it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of
this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting.
69
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Background Information ............................................................................................................................... 1
Development Description ............................................................................................................................. 1
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 3
Current Zoning .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Study Area Description ................................................................................................................................. 4
Proposed and Existing Uses .......................................................................................................................... 5
2020 Existing Traffic Conditions .................................................................................................................... 6
2030 Background (No‐Build) Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................... 9
Trip Generation and Distribution ................................................................................................................ 13
2030 Build Conditions ................................................................................................................................. 16
Design Year (2036) ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Recommended Roadway Improvements.................................................................................................... 19
Queue Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 220
Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic ................................................................................................................... 242
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 253
Appendices
Appendix A Pre‐Scope of Work Meeting Form
Appendix B Traffic Count Data
Appendix C Synchro LOS and Queue Reports
Appendix D Cost Estimate
Appendix E Generalized Development Plan
70
Introduction
Purpose
This Traffic Impact Study supports a rezoning request for the land located south of Kernstown in
Frederick County, VA, that is owned by Gregory, Ralph S., Trustee. The rezoning, if approved, will lead to
development that will create 19.88 acres of office/warehouse uses.
Study Objectives
The objectives of this study are to identify:
1.Impacts on traffic operations that may result from the project.
2.Future connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Background Information
Transportation Improvements Assumed to be in Place
For this study, Renaissance Drive is assumed to be complete from its current terminus to Shady Elm
Road before the build‐out year of this proposed project.
Transportation Improvements Planned
A review of the VDOT Six Year Improvement Plan shows that VDOT has one planned construction project
near this proposed rezoning, the extension of Renaissance Drive, UPC 91847. Schedule information for
the project is not provided in the VDOT online database.
According to the Frederick County 2019‐2020 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2019‐2020
Primary Road Improvement Plan, one planned roadway improvement projects are near the site. This is:
The extension of Renaissance Drive from 0.24 miles west of Route 11 to Shady Elm Road. It is
assumed that this improvement will be in place before 2030.
Development Description
Site Location
The subject property is south of the unincorporated area of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA. The site
is west of Route 11, south of Springdale Road and north of the Apple Land complex. Figure 1 shows the
location of the property and its surrounding land uses. Access to the site will be through a new entrance
onto Route 11.
1 71
Figure 1 Project Location (n.t.s.)
Description of the Parcel
The subject rezoning area encompasses 19.88 acres with frontage along Route 11. The site terrain is
rolling, and the land is currently undeveloped. The property lies within the Frederick County Sewer and
Water Service Area.
General Terrain Features
The site and its surrounding areas have rolling terrain that slopes north toward Opequon Creek.
Location within Jurisdiction and Region
The subject property is in the Back Creek Magisterial District of Frederick County, VA.
Agriculture use
2 72
Comprehensive Plan Recommendations
The 2035 Frederick County Comprehensive Plan – Kernstown Plan, identifies the future land use on the
site to be business. Surrounding properties are designated sensitive Natural Areas to the north and east,
and business to the south and west. Figure 2 shows the Future Land Use Plan near the rezoning area.
Figure 2 Future Land Use map (n.t.s.)
Project Location
3 73
Current Zoning
The current zoning on the property is RA (Rural Agriculture), and the property is undeveloped. The
current land uses and zoning for the surrounding properties are:
Table 1 Surrounding zoning and land use
Direction Zoning Use
North RA agricultural
East RA agricultural
South RA family entertainment
West RA family entertainment
The current zoning map is shown in figure 3.
Figure 3 Existing Zoning Map (n.t.s.)
Study Area Description
Study Area
For this Traffic Impact Study, the study extends along Route 11 from Springdale Road on the north to the
north corporate limits of Stephens City on the south. There are no additional major intersections within
2000 feet of the site that are not being studied and the only intersection being studied is the proposed
site entrance.
PROJECT
LOCATION
4 74
Figure 4 Location of Study Intersections
Proposed and Existing Uses
Existing Use
The property is currently undeveloped.
Proposed Uses & Access
The proposed use for the property is office/warehouse (ITE land uses 110), which will include a mix of
warehouse/office facilities. A plan of the proposed development at an engineering scale is included in
Appendix E of this report.
Access to the property will be through a proposed commercial entrance on Route 11 which will be the
only access to the site.
PROJECT
LOCATION
Tube count
site
5 75
Nearby Uses
The existing land uses near the proposed site are:
• North –agricultural land that is zoned Rural Agricultural.
• West – family entertainment that is zoned Rural Agricultural.
• South – family entertainment that is zoned Rural Agricultural.
• East ‐ Dog training that is zoned Rural Agricultural.
Existing Roadways
Figure 4 shows the location of the existing roadways near the subject property. The typical section
attributes for these roadways is as follows:
Table 2 Existing Roadway Attributes
Road Name Number of Through
Lanes
Lane Width
(ft.)
Shoulders Functional
Classification
Route 11 ‐ Valley Pike 1 NB and 1 SB thru
lanes w/ two‐way left‐
turn lane in the center
12 Gravel shoulders with
variable width in
some sections
Major Arterial
Future Transportation Improvements
The subject property is in the Virginia Department of Transportation’s Staunton District, and Edinburg
Residency area of responsibility. A review of the VDOT Six‐Year Improvement Plan shows that VDOT has
one planned construction project near this proposed rezoning, the extension of Renaissance Drive, UPC
91847. Schedule information for the project is not provided in the VDOT online database.
According to the Frederick County 2019‐2020 Secondary Road Improvement Plan and the 2019‐2020
Primary Road Improvement Plan, one planned roadway improvement projects are near the site. This is:
The extension of Renaissance Drive from 0.24 miles west of Route 11 to Shady Elm Road. It is
assumed that this improvement will not be in place before the build‐out year of 2030.
2020 Existing Traffic Conditions
Data Collection
To analyze the existing traffic conditions, 24‐hour tube counts were performed on Route 11 adjacent to
the site in January 2020. Count data were collected independently for the northbound and southbound
directions. Data from Tuesday and Wednesday are used in this analysis and reporting. This data are
summarized in table 3 below and the count reports are in Appendix B of this report.
6 76
Table 3 Summary of Tube Count Data for Route 11
Direction AADT % Trucks AM Peak
Vol
PM Peak
Vol
NB 3410 8.8% 353 292
SB 3939 11.6% 262 405
For this report, a ‘K factor’ of 0.095 was computed based on the PM peak hour volumes from the tube
counts.
Analysis
The capacity of Route 11 during the AM and PM peak hour volumes was analyzed using the HCM2000 2
Lane Highway software. The existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes and levels of service are
shown in figure 5.
Route 11 is a major north‐south corridor that parallels I‐81 through Frederick County. In the study area,
a golf course, driving range, put‐put golf, batting cages, and go‐cart track exist adjacent to the project
location. The TWTL provides a safe area for left‐turning vehicles entering this business location.
7 77
Fi
g
u
r
e
5
Pippin Industrial Park
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
(2
0
2
0
)
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
an
d
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Frederick County, VA
SI
T
E
1
ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE
353/292
2
6
2
/
4
0
5
C/C
C
/
C
AM
PE
A
K
HO
U
R
PM
PE
A
K
HOUR
00
0
/ 00
0
8
78
2030 Background (No‐Build) Traffic Conditions
Background traffic conditions are those expected to occur without the proposed rezoning. These traffic
conditions are established by increasing the existing 2020 traffic volume by 0.5% per year to the build‐
out year of 2030. The growth factor of 0.5% was determined by VDOT Staunton District Planning staff
and is based on the historical and anticipated growth in traffic volumes in the project area. Traffic
volumes from the nearby Carbaugh development were also added to the background traffic volumes
since the development is planned to be completed by 2030.
The 2030 highway capacity was analyzed using HCS 2000 software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic
volumes, level of service, and the lane geometry are shown in Figure 6.
Analysis
The traffic modeling shows that traffic continues to operate smoothly with acceptable levels of service
under the no‐build conditions.
9 79
Fi
g
u
r
e
6
Pippin Industrial Park
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
(2
0
3
0
)
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
an
d
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Frederick County, VA
SI
T
E
1
ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE
402/320
2
8
5
/
4
6
0
C/C
C
/
C
AM
PE
A
K
HOUR
PM
PE
A
K
HOUR
00
0
/ 00
0
10
80
Trip Generation and Distribution
Trip Generation
The ITE Method of trip generation for the project uses was developed using Trip Gen 10 software based
on the 10th edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The peak traffic volumes on the adjacent streets
for the AM and PM periods were used for forecasting the new traffic. Land use and trips generated using
the ITE rates are summarized in the table on the following page. Ten percent of the new traffic
associated with the development is assumed to be heavy trucks based on information presented in the
ITE Trip Generation Handbook data for industrial parks.
There were no pass‐by trip reductions applied to the forecasted traffic volumes.
Trip Distribution
Trips generated by the development were distributed on the roadway network based on proximity to
logical transportation corridors and commuter patterns.
The trip distribution percentages are shown in figure 1, and the assignment of the new peak hour trips
are shown in figure 7.
11 81
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Open Date:Analysis Date:2/19/2020 2/19/2020
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
i
p
p
i
n
I
n
d
.
P
a
r
k
A lt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
:
A lt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
Ph
a
s
e
:
IT
E
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
En
t
e
r
E
x
i
t
E
n
t
e
r
E
x
i
t
En
t
e
r
E
x
i
t
Total
To
t
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
*
*
*
We
e
k
d
a
y
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
s
We
e
k
d
a
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
o
f
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
11
0
F
i
v
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
S
F
t
o
t
a
l
15
0
1
0
0
0
S
q
.
F
t
.
G
F
A
31
3
3
1
3
6
2
6
5
3
7
6
0
6
4
3
4
9
Un
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
31
3
3
1
3
6
2
6
53
7
6
0
6
4
3
4
9
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
T
r
i
p
s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
3
3
1
3
6
2
6
53
7
6
0
6
4
3
4
9
Pa
s
s
-
B
y
T
r
i
p
s
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
d
d
e
d
t
o
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
To
t
a
l
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
=
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
o
f
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
=
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
o
f
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
=
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
P. 1
TR
I
P
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
1
0
,
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
W
A
R
E
,
L
L
C
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
u
a
l
1
0
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
-
C
u
s
t
o
m
r
a
t
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
t
i
m
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
*
12
82
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
Pi
p
p
i
n
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
Park
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
Fr
e
d
e
r
i
c
k
County, VA
SI
T
E
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE
SI
T
E
1
19/2
3
4
/
4
5/
2
8
2/
1
5
AM
PE
A
K
HO
U
R
PM
PE
A
K
HOUR
00
0
/ 00
0
13
83
2030 Build Conditions
The 2030 build‐out conditions combine the background traffic for the year 2030, and the new traffic
that is forecasted to result from the development of this property. This is commonly referred to as the
“Build Condition,” which is forecasted to occur in the year 2030.
The Build Condition takes into account the completion of Pippin Drive and the associated improvements
on Route 11.
Analysis
The 2030 Build Condition AM and PM peak hour turning movements were analyzed using the Synchro
10 traffic modeling software. The AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, level of service, and lane
geometry are shown in Figure 8.
14 84
Fi
g
u
r
e
8
Pippin Industrial Park
Bu
i
l
d
(2
0
3
0
)
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
an
d
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Frederick County, VA
SI
T
E
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE
SI
T
E
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE
SI
T
E
1
402/320
19/2
3
4
/
4
2
8
5
/
4
6
0
A/A
B/
B
B/
B
5/
2
8
2/
1
5
AM
PE
A
K
HO
U
R
PM
PE
A
K
HOUR
00
0
/ 00
0
15
85
Design Year (2036)
The design year for the project is six years beyond the Build Conditions of the project, which in this case,
is the year 2036.
Analysis
The 2036 Design Year AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements were analyzed using the
Synchro 10 traffic modeling software. AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, LOS and lane geometry,
are shown in Figure 9 and the PM peak hour 95th percentile queue length is shown in figure 36.
16 86
Fi
g
u
r
e
9
Pippin Industrial Park
De
s
i
g
n
Ye
a
r
(2
0
3
6
)
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Vo
l
u
m
e
s
an
d
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Frederick County, VA
SI
T
E
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE
SI
T
E
EN
T
R
A
N
C
E
ROUTE 11 ‐ VALLEY PIKE
SI
T
E
1
414/330
19/2
3
4
/
4
2
9
4
/
4
7
3
A/A
B/
B
B/
B
5/
2
8
2/
1
5
AM
PE
A
K
HO
U
R
PM
PE
A
K
HOUR
00
0
/ 00
0
17
87
Ta
b
l
e
4
Le
v
e
l
s
of
Se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
De
l
a
y
Su
m
m
a
r
y
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
/
L
a
n
e
Gr
o
u
p
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(2
0
2
0
)
1
No
‐Bu
i
l
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(2
0
3
0
)
1
Bu
i
l
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(2
0
3
0
)
2
De
s
i
g
n
Year Conditions (2036)2
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
PM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
AM
Pe
a
k
Hour PM Peak Hour
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
)
LO
S
De
l
a
y
(s
)
LO
S
Delay (s) LOS Delay (s)
1.
Pi
p
p
i
n
Dr
& Ro
u
t
e
11
NB
T
C
C
C
C
NB
L
A
8
A
8.
3
A
8 A 8.3
SB
T
C
C
C
C
EB
R
B
10
B
11
.
4
B
10.1 B 11.5
EB
L
B
12
.
7
B
13
.
5
B
12.9 B 13.7
No
t
e
s
:
1.
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
fo
r
20
2
0
an
d
20
3
0
no
‐bu
i
l
d
ye
a
r
s
is
ba
s
e
d
on
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Ma
n
u
a
l
us
i
n
g
HC
M
20
0
0
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
2.
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
fo
r
20
3
0
bu
i
l
d
an
d
20
3
6
de
s
i
g
n
ye
a
r
is
ba
s
e
d
on
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
us
i
n
g
HC
M
20
1
0
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
18
88
Recommended Roadway Improvements
Since the proposed entrance and Route 11 operate at an acceptable level of service, the focus for
roadway improvements has directed towards the entrance roadway. The recommended improvements
are:
Construct a southbound right turn lane on Route 11 at the new entrance.
Change the pavement markings to remove the two‐way‐left‐turn lane and replace it with a
northbound left‐turn lane.
Provide a left turn lane from Pippin Drive to Route 11 northbound.
With these improvements proffered by this developer, it is the opinion of this engineer that the
transportation impacts of this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and
acceptable for this project setting.
19 89
Queue Analysis
At stop signs a queue forms while vehicles wait to advance. An analysis was performed to evaluate the
back of the queue for the 50th and 95th percentile of the queue. The 50th percentile maximum queue is
the maximum back of the queue on a typical traffic signal cycle and has a probability of happening 50%
of the time. The 95th percentile maximum queue is the maximum back of the queue with 95th percentile
traffic volumes when traffic does not move for two signal cycles and has the probability of happening 5%
of the time. The queues associated with the 95th percentile maximum queues using the Proposed Trip
Generation method are shown in Table 5.
20 90
Ta
b
l
e
5
Qu
e
u
e
Su
m
m
a
r
y
No
t
e
s
:
1.
Qu
e
u
e
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
is
ba
s
e
d
on
Sy
n
c
h
r
o
us
i
n
g
HC
M
20
1
0
me
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
.
Th
e
qu
e
u
e
is
re
p
o
r
t
e
d
in
ca
r
le
n
g
t
h
s
.
50
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
95
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
50
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
95
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
50
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
95
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
50
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
95
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
50
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
95
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
50
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
95
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
50
t
h
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
95th Percenti l50th Percenti l95th Percentile
1.
Pi
p
p
i
n
Dr
&
Ro
u
t
e
11
NB
T
NB
L
1
0
0
0.
1
0
.
1
SB
R
1
0
0
EB
R
0.
1
0
.
1
EB
L
1
0
0
0.
2
0
.
2
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
P
M
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
A
M
Pe
a
k
Hour
P
M
Peak Hour
Ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
/
L
a
n
e
Gr
o
u
p
St
o
r
a
g
e
Le
n
g
t
h
(f
t
)
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(2
0
2
0
)
N
o
‐Bu
i
l
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(2
0
3
0
)
B
u
i
l
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
(2
0
3
0
)
D
e
s
i
g
n
Year Conditions (2036)
AM
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
P
M
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
A
M
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
P
M
Pe
a
k
Ho
u
r
21
91
Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic
The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map was reviewed to identify any previously
planned pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities in the project area. The plan shows a multi‐use trail is
planned for the east side of Route 11 in the area of this project.
22 92
Conclusions
This Traffic Impact Study supports the rezoning request for the land owned by Gregory, Ralph S.,
Trustee. The land is south of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA. The rezoning, if approved, will lead to
development that will create 19.88 acres of office/warehouse uses.
The subject property is south of the unincorporated area of Kernstown in Frederick County, VA And on
the west side of Route 11 just north of the Apple Land complex. Access to the site will be through a new
entrance on Route 11.
This study found that the light traffic volumes on this section of Route 11 and the small traffic volume
generated by the proposed development can be accommodated on the existing roadway network.
Levels of Service for the turning movements at the proposed entrance will be A or B in the design year
2036.
With the improvements proffered it is the opinion of this engineer that the transportation impacts of
this rezoning and its resulting development are both manageable and acceptable for this project setting.
23 93
Appendix A
Pre-Scope of Work Meeting Form
94
It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding
geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting.
PRE-SCOPE OF WORK MEETING FORM
Information on the Project
Traffic Impact Analysis Base Assumptions
The applicant is responsible for entering the relevant information and submitting the form to VDOT and the
locality no less than three (3) business days prior to the meeting. If a form is not received by this deadline,
the scope of work meeting may be postponed.
Contact Information
Consultant Name:
Tele:
E-mail:
Stowe Engineering, PLC
540.686.7373
timstowe@stowecompanes.com
Developer/Owner Name:
Tele:
E-mail:
Pippin, LLC
540.667.2001
greywolfeinc@aol.com
Project Information
Project Name: Pippin Industrial Park Locality/County: Frederick
Project Location:
(Attach regional and site
specific location map) West side of Route 11, 1.27 miles south of Route 37
Submission Type Comp Plan Rezoning Site Plan Subd Plat
Project Description:
(Including details on the land
use, acreage, phasing, access
location, etc. Attach additional
sheet if necessary)
Rezone 19.88 acres from Rural Agriculture RA to Business B-3
Proposed Use(s):
(Check all that apply; attach
additional pages as necessary)
Residential Commercial Mixed Use Other
Residential Uses(s)
Number of Units:
ITE LU Code(s):
Commercial Use(s)
ITE LU Code(s): 110
Square Ft or Other Variable:
150K
Other Use(s)
ITE LU Code(s):
Independent Variable(s):
Total Peak Hour Trip
Projection: Less than 100 100 – 499 500 – 999 1,000 or more
95
It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding
geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting.
Traffic Impact Analysis Assumptions
Study Period Existing Year: 2020 Build-out Year: 2030 Design Year: 2036
Study Area Boundaries
(Attach map)
North: Route 649 Springdale Rd South: NCL of Stephens City
East: Route 11 West: Route 11
External Factors That
Could Affect Project
(Planned road improvements,
other nearby developments)
none
Consistency With
Comprehensive Plan
(Land use, transportation plan)
Yes
Available Traffic Data
(Historical, forecasts) VDOT published volumes
Trip Distribution
(Attach sketch)
Road Name: Route 11 north 65% Road Name: Route 11 south 35%
Road Name: Road Name:
Annual Vehicle Trip
Growth Rate: -1%
Peak Period for Study
(check all that apply) AM PM SAT
Peak Hour of the Generator AM
Study Intersections
and/or Road Segments
(Attach additional sheets as
necessary)
1.Entrance and Route 11 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
Trip Adjustment Factors Internal allowance: Yes No
Reduction: % trips
Pass-by allowance: Yes No
Reduction: % trips
Software Methodology Synchro HCS (v.2000/+) aaSIDRA CORSIM Other
Traffic Signal Proposed
or Affected
(Analysis software to be used,
progression speed, cycle length)
None
96
It is important for the applicant to provide sufficient information to county and VDOT staff so that questions regarding
geographic scope, alternate methodology, or other issues can be answered at the scoping meeting.
Improvement(s)
Assumed or to be
Considered
None assumed outside of VDOT entrance requirements
Background Traffic
Studies Considered
Carbaugh development
Plan Submission Master Development Plan (MDP) Generalized Development Plan (GDP)
Preliminary/Sketch Plan Other Plan type (Final Site, Subd. Plan)
Additional Issues to be
Addressed
Queuing analysis Actuation/Coordination Weaving analysis
Merge analysis Bike/Ped Accommodations Intersection(s)
TDM Measures Other
NOTES on ASSUMPTIONS: This rezoning will generate minimal traffic. Future rezonings of other portions of
the property should be considered on a case-by-case basis. There are no near-term plans for additional
rezonings.
SIGNED: _________________________________ DATE: ______________
Applicant or Consultant
PRINT NAME: _____________________________
Applicant or Consultant
1/3/20
Tim Stowe
97
Tr
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
Open Date:Analysis Date:1/3/2020 1/3/2020
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
:
P
i
p
p
i
n
I
n
d
.
P
a
r
k
A lt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
:
A lt
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
1
Ph
a
s
e
:
IT
E
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
En
t
e
r
E
x
i
t
E
n
t
e
r
E
x
i
t
En
t
e
r
E
x
i
t
Total
To
t
a
l
T
o
t
a
l
*
*
*
We
e
k
d
a
y
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
s
We
e
k
d
a
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
o
f
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic
11
0
F
i
v
e
L
i
g
h
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
S
F
t
o
t
a
l
15
0
1
0
0
0
S
q
.
F
t
.
G
F
A
31
3
3
1
3
6
2
6
5
3
7
6
0
6
4
3
4
9
Un
a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
V
o
l
u
m
e
31
3
3
1
3
6
2
6
5
3
7
6
0
6
4
3
4
9
In
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
T
r
i
p
s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
3
3
1
3
6
2
6
5
3
7
6
0
6
4
3
4
9
Pa
s
s
-
B
y
T
r
i
p
s
Vo
l
u
m
e
A
d
d
e
d
t
o
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
To
t
a
l
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
i
p
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
=
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
o
f
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
=
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
To
t
a
l
W
e
e
k
d
a
y
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
o
f
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
S
t
r
e
e
t
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
a
p
t
u
r
e
=
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
P. 1
TR
I
P
G
E
N
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
1
0
,
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
W
A
R
E
,
L
L
C
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
T
r
i
p
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
u
a
l
1
0
t
h
E
d
i
t
i
o
n
-
C
u
s
t
o
m
r
a
t
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
t
i
m
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
*
98
Ye
a
r
A
A
D
T
20
1
0
8
8
0
0
20
1
1
8
2
0
0
20
1
2
8
3
0
0
20
1
3
8
4
0
0
20
1
4
7
6
0
0
20
1
5
7
9
0
0
20
1
6
8
3
0
0
20
1
7
8
0
0
0
20
1
8
7
8
0
0
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
a
l
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Gr
o
w
t
h
on
Ro
u
t
e
11
fr
o
m
:
NC
L
of
St
e
p
h
e
n
s
Ci
t
y
to
:
Ro
u
t
e
37
/
S
C
L
of
Wi
n
c
h
e
s
t
e
r
70
0
0
72
0
0
74
0
0
76
0
0
78
0
0
80
0
0
82
0
0
84
0
0
86
0
0
88
0
0
90
0
0
20
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
2
0
1
5
2
0
1
6
2
0
1
7
2
0
1
8
A
A
D
T
Ye
a
r
AA
D
T
99
65%35%REZONINGAREAFREDERICK COUNTY STEPHENS CITY
D
A
T
E
:
S
C
A
L
E
:
C
H
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
:
S
H
E
E
T
1
O
F
1
LOCATION MAP
PIPPIN INDUSTRIAL PARK
LOT 75 A 27A
BACK CREEK MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
T
S
S
1
1
9
4
.
0
103 Heath Court
Winchester, VA 22602
(540) 686-7373
fax (540) 301-1100T
S
S
A
S
S
H
O
W
N
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
3
,
2
0
2
0
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
:
STOWE ENGINEERING, PLC
A
L
L
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
S
T
O
W
E
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
A
R
E
I
N
S
T
R
U
M
E
N
T
S
O
F
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
I
N
R
E
S
P
E
C
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
T
H
E
Y
A
R
E
N
O
T
I
N
T
E
N
D
E
D
T
O
B
E
S
U
I
T
A
B
L
E
F
O
R
R
E
U
S
E
B
Y
T
H
E
O
W
N
E
R
O
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
O
N
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
O
F
T
H
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
O
R
A
N
Y
O
T
H
E
R
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
.
A
N
Y
R
E
U
S
E
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
V
E
R
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
R
A
D
A
P
T
A
T
I
O
N
B
Y
S
T
O
W
E
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
W
I
L
L
B
E
A
T
T
H
E
U
S
E
R
S
S
O
L
E
R
I
S
K
.
S
c
a
l
e
:
1
"
=
5
0
0
'
100
101
Appendix B
Traffic Count Data
102
Printed: 02/08/2020 at 09:00
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Rte 11 NB 0.19 mi n. of Stephens City limit
Stowe Engineering 2
Tuesday, 02/04/2020
Northbound
Volume
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
AM Peak Time
AM Peak Volume
PM Peak Time
PM Peak Volume
3
7
6
13
32
59
141
303
323
265
225
229
277
234
233
249
237
221
139
76
57
51
21
9
3410
07:39 - 08:38
353
12:21 - 13:20
292
Page 1103
Printed: 02/08/2020 at 09:00
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Rte 11 NB 0.19 mi n. of Stephens City limit
Stowe Engineering 2
Wednesday, 02/05/2020
Northbound
Volume
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
AM Peak Time
AM Peak Volume
PM Peak Time
PM Peak Volume
1
4
10
14
31
68
127
280
314
247
219
211
279
234
212
232
263
245
156
74
76
29
14
12
3352
07:37 - 08:36
347
12:25 - 13:24
291
Page 2104
Printed: 02/08/2020 at 09:00
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Northbound Classes Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Rte 11 NB 0.19 mi n. of Stephens City limit
Stowe Engineering 2
Tuesday, 02/04/2020
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 Total
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
Percent of Total
Percent of AM
Percent of PM
0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7
0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
0 9 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
0 22 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
1 46 6 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 59
0 96 29 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 141
0 234 44 2 15 4 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 303
0 253 40 4 19 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 323
0 201 37 1 21 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 265
0 165 33 1 22 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 225
0 177 30 3 15 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 229
0 215 46 0 13 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 277
1 178 36 1 14 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 234
0 175 37 2 16 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 233
1 198 26 1 21 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 249
1 190 30 0 12 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 237
0 179 23 1 12 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 221
0 119 15 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 139
0 62 7 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 76
0 45 5 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
0 41 8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 51
0 13 5 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 21
0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
4 2638 469 18 220 20 1 7 32 0 0 0 1 3410
0.1 77.4 13.8 0.5 6.5 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.1 75.7 14.4 0.8 7.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100
0.2 78.9 13.2 0.3 5.8 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Motorcycles - 2 Axles
Passenger Cars - 2 Axles
Pickup Trucks, Vans - 2 Axles
Buses
Single Unit - 2 Axles, 6 Tires
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Single Unit Truck - 3 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles or Less
Double Unit - 5 Axles
Double Unit - 6 Axles or More
#11
#12
#13
Multi-Unit - 5 Axles or Less
Multi-Unit - 6 Axles
Multi-Unit - 7 Axles or More
Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1)
Truck Summary:
Total Trucks: 299 % Trucks: 8.8 AM % Trucks: 9.9 PM % Trucks: 7.8
Page 1105
Printed: 02/08/2020 at 09:00
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Northbound Classes Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Rte 11 NB 0.19 mi n. of Stephens City limit
Stowe Engineering 2
Wednesday, 02/05/2020
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 Total
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
Percent of Total
Percent of AM
Percent of PM
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
0 8 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 14
0 23 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
0 48 13 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 68
0 91 23 0 10 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 127
0 223 32 2 15 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 280
0 238 34 2 31 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 314
0 175 42 0 19 6 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 247
0 162 29 0 23 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 219
0 158 33 5 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 211
1 213 34 4 18 4 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 279
0 173 33 1 20 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 234
0 165 23 1 16 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 212
1 181 26 4 15 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 232
1 193 38 0 24 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 263
2 191 31 1 11 1 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 245
2 128 18 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156
0 61 6 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 74
0 67 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
0 24 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 29
0 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
8 2557 435 21 241 33 1 10 45 0 0 0 1 3352
0.2 76.3 13.0 0.6 7.2 1.0 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.0 74.6 14.1 0.6 7.9 1.2 0.0 0.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100
0.4 77.7 12.0 0.7 6.6 0.8 0.1 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Motorcycles - 2 Axles
Passenger Cars - 2 Axles
Pickup Trucks, Vans - 2 Axles
Buses
Single Unit - 2 Axles, 6 Tires
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Single Unit Truck - 3 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles or Less
Double Unit - 5 Axles
Double Unit - 6 Axles or More
#11
#12
#13
Multi-Unit - 5 Axles or Less
Multi-Unit - 6 Axles
Multi-Unit - 7 Axles or More
Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1)
Truck Summary:
Total Trucks: 352 % Trucks: 10.5 AM % Trucks: 11.3 PM % Trucks: 9.9
Page 2106
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Northbound Speeds (MPH)
Posted Speed: 45
Printed: 02/08/2020 at 09:00
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Rte 11 NB 0.19 mi n. of Stephens City limit
Stowe Engineering 2
Tuesday, 02/04/2020
5-
14
15-
19
20-
24
25-
29
30-
34
35-
39
40-
44
45-
49
50-
54
55-
59
60-
64
65-
69
70-
74
75-
79
80-
99 Total
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
Percent of Total
Percent of AM
Percent of PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 4 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 13
0 0 0 0 1 5 7 7 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 32
0 0 0 0 0 1 13 30 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 59
0 0 0 1 3 7 35 65 26 4 0 0 0 0 0 141
0 0 0 1 0 10 72 166 48 5 1 0 0 0 0 303
0 0 0 0 0 23 101 146 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 323
0 0 0 0 3 20 67 124 38 12 1 0 0 0 0 265
0 0 0 1 0 16 83 93 28 2 2 0 0 0 0 225
0 0 0 0 3 19 71 94 34 7 1 0 0 0 0 229
0 0 0 1 2 19 88 120 43 4 0 0 0 0 0 277
0 0 0 1 5 27 75 91 25 10 0 0 0 0 0 234
0 0 0 2 0 28 76 93 29 5 0 0 0 0 0 233
0 0 0 0 13 20 77 95 40 4 0 0 0 0 0 249
0 0 0 0 3 27 76 98 26 6 1 0 0 0 0 237
0 0 0 0 6 15 62 109 22 6 1 0 0 0 0 221
0 0 0 0 0 15 47 47 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 139
0 0 0 0 0 10 22 25 17 2 0 0 0 0 0 76
0 0 0 0 1 11 15 23 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 57
0 0 0 0 2 2 23 14 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 51
0 0 0 1 1 0 6 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 21
0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 9
0 0 0 8 44 277 1025 1458 500 88 9 1 0 0 0 3410
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.3 8.1 30.1 42.8 14.7 2.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.7 6.3 28.4 45.6 15.8 2.6 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.8 9.8 31.5 40.2 13.6 2.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
Standard Deviation:
Mean Speed:
5.1 MPH
46.0 MPH
Median Speed: 46.2 MPH
Modal Speed: 47.5 MPH
Ten Mile Pace: 40 to 49 MPH
Percent in Ten Mile Pace: 72.8%
85th Percentile: 50.9 MPH
15th Percentile: 40.9 MPH
90th Percentile: 52.6 MPH
95th Percentile: 54.3 MPH
Page 1107
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Northbound Speeds (MPH)
Posted Speed: 45
Printed: 02/08/2020 at 09:00
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
Rte 11 NB 0.19 mi n. of Stephens City limit
Stowe Engineering 2
Wednesday, 02/05/2020
5-
14
15-
19
20-
24
25-
29
30-
34
35-
39
40-
44
45-
49
50-
54
55-
59
60-
64
65-
69
70-
74
75-
79
80-
99 Total
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
Percent of Total
Percent of AM
Percent of PM
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 10
0 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 14
0 0 0 0 0 4 9 9 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 31
0 0 0 0 0 1 23 31 10 2 1 0 0 0 0 68
0 0 0 0 1 7 45 51 21 2 0 0 0 0 0 127
0 0 0 0 1 13 100 124 36 4 2 0 0 0 0 280
0 0 0 0 2 32 126 115 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 314
0 0 0 0 2 18 104 105 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 247
0 0 0 1 4 20 92 68 31 3 0 0 0 0 0 219
0 0 0 2 4 24 81 79 13 5 2 1 0 0 0 211
1 0 0 2 7 33 105 99 28 1 1 0 1 0 1 279
0 0 0 0 1 26 86 89 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 234
0 0 0 0 0 9 71 100 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 212
0 1 0 0 3 18 63 105 36 5 1 0 0 0 0 232
0 1 0 0 0 27 84 102 43 6 0 0 0 0 0 263
1 0 0 2 3 11 76 90 52 9 1 0 0 0 0 245
0 1 0 1 1 21 39 59 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 156
0 0 0 0 2 3 16 36 12 4 1 0 0 0 0 74
0 0 0 0 1 7 28 32 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 76
0 0 0 0 0 1 13 7 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 29
0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
1 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 12
3 3 0 8 33 278 1178 1319 461 53 12 1 2 0 1 3352
0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.0 8.3 35.1 39.3 13.8 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 100
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.0 7.8 38.7 38.7 11.8 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 100
0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 1.0 8.7 32.2 39.9 15.4 1.9 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 100
Standard Deviation:
Mean Speed:
5.3 MPH
45.6 MPH
Median Speed: 45.7 MPH
Modal Speed: 47.5 MPH
Ten Mile Pace: 40 to 49 MPH
Percent in Ten Mile Pace: 74.5%
85th Percentile: 50.3 MPH
15th Percentile: 40.8 MPH
90th Percentile: 52.1 MPH
95th Percentile: 53.9 MPH
Page 2108
Printed: 01/31/2020 at 20:28
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
US Route 11 0.19 MI N. of Stephens City limits
Stowe Engineering 2
Tuesday, 01/28/2020
Southbound
Volume
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
AM Peak Time
AM Peak Volume
PM Peak Time
PM Peak Volume
9
9
5
11
15
28
67
149
192
161
239
218
287
254
308
369
399
340
228
171
116
77
34
31
3717
10:01 - 11:00
241
15:35 - 16:34
415
Page 1SB Tube Count data.tvp 109
Printed: 01/31/2020 at 20:28
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
US Route 11 0.19 MI N. of Stephens City limits
Stowe Engineering 2
Wednesday, 01/29/2020
Southbound
Volume
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
AM Peak Time
AM Peak Volume
PM Peak Time
PM Peak Volume
9
10
9
8
14
31
62
166
223
194
235
261
278
316
304
393
361
385
250
171
130
66
35
28
3939
10:53 - 11:52
262
16:51 - 17:50
405
Page 2SB Tube Count data.tvp 110
Printed: 01/31/2020 at 20:28
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Vehicle Volume Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
US Route 11 0.19 MI N. of Stephens City limits
Stowe Engineering 2
Thursday, 01/30/2020
Southbound
Volume
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
AM Peak Time
AM Peak Volume
PM Peak Time
PM Peak Volume
12
12
8
7
10
21
49
149
187
164
224
240
294
277
282
388
380
349
229
158
112
72
42
39
3705
10:59 - 11:58
241
15:29 - 16:28
423
Page 3SB Tube Count data.tvp 111
Printed: 01/31/2020 at 20:28
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Southbound Classes Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
US Route 11 0.19 MI N. of Stephens City limits
Stowe Engineering 2
Tuesday, 01/28/2020
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 Total
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
Percent of Total
Percent of AM
Percent of PM
0 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
0 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
0 7 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 11
0 9 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15
0 14 1 4 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 28
0 46 12 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 67
0 99 28 5 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 149
1 133 27 4 26 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 192
0 113 22 1 19 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 161
0 174 29 2 31 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 239
0 161 26 2 27 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 218
0 224 35 2 24 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 287
0 184 33 0 35 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254
2 229 37 2 35 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 308
0 287 39 6 35 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 369
0 328 48 3 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 399
1 280 35 1 21 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 340
0 187 19 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 228
0 140 18 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171
0 96 12 1 5 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 116
0 59 10 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 77
0 26 2 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
0 26 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
4 2842 439 35 361 12 0 17 7 0 0 0 0 3717
0.1 76.5 11.8 0.9 9.7 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.1 70.4 13.4 1.7 12.5 0.5 0.0 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.1 79.0 11.1 0.6 8.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Motorcycles - 2 Axles
Passenger Cars - 2 Axles
Pickup Trucks, Vans - 2 Axles
Buses
Single Unit - 2 Axles, 6 Tires
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Single Unit Truck - 3 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles or Less
Double Unit - 5 Axles
Double Unit - 6 Axles or More
#11
#12
#13
Multi-Unit - 5 Axles or Less
Multi-Unit - 6 Axles
Multi-Unit - 7 Axles or More
Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1)
Truck Summary:
Total Trucks: 432 % Trucks: 11.6 AM % Trucks: 16.1 PM % Trucks: 9.7
Page 1SB Tube Count data.tvp 112
Printed: 01/31/2020 at 20:28
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Southbound Classes Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
US Route 11 0.19 MI N. of Stephens City limits
Stowe Engineering 2
Wednesday, 01/29/2020
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 Total
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
Percent of Total
Percent of AM
Percent of PM
0 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
0 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
0 10 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
0 20 3 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
0 41 8 1 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 62
0 101 27 5 32 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 166
0 144 34 2 37 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 223
0 130 38 0 23 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 194
1 161 38 1 32 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 235
0 195 36 0 26 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 261
0 211 36 4 26 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 278
1 236 37 1 37 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 316
0 238 30 0 31 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 304
0 296 57 2 34 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 393
0 291 40 2 27 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 361
0 333 33 0 18 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 385
0 210 20 0 18 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 250
0 137 20 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 171
0 107 14 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130
0 52 6 0 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 66
0 31 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
0 21 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 28
2 2995 485 22 396 8 2 17 12 0 0 0 0 3939
0.1 76.0 12.3 0.6 10.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.1 68.1 15.2 1.1 14.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.0 79.6 11.0 0.3 8.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Motorcycles - 2 Axles
Passenger Cars - 2 Axles
Pickup Trucks, Vans - 2 Axles
Buses
Single Unit - 2 Axles, 6 Tires
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Single Unit Truck - 3 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles or Less
Double Unit - 5 Axles
Double Unit - 6 Axles or More
#11
#12
#13
Multi-Unit - 5 Axles or Less
Multi-Unit - 6 Axles
Multi-Unit - 7 Axles or More
Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1)
Truck Summary:
Total Trucks: 457 % Trucks: 11.6 AM % Trucks: 16.6 PM % Trucks: 9.3
Page 2SB Tube Count data.tvp 113
Printed: 01/31/2020 at 20:28
TrafficViewer Pro v1.6.4.124
PicoCount 2500 V2.35 (s/n# 16060645)
Daily Southbound Classes Report
Location:
Unit ID:
Study Date:
US Route 11 0.19 MI N. of Stephens City limits
Stowe Engineering 2
Thursday, 01/30/2020
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 Total
00:00 - 00:59
01:00 - 01:59
02:00 - 02:59
03:00 - 03:59
04:00 - 04:59
05:00 - 05:59
06:00 - 06:59
07:00 - 07:59
08:00 - 08:59
09:00 - 09:59
10:00 - 10:59
11:00 - 11:59
12:00 - 12:59
13:00 - 13:59
14:00 - 14:59
15:00 - 15:59
16:00 - 16:59
17:00 - 17:59
18:00 - 18:59
19:00 - 19:59
20:00 - 20:59
21:00 - 21:59
22:00 - 22:59
23:00 - 23:59
Totals
Percent of Total
Percent of AM
Percent of PM
0 9 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
0 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
0 5 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
0 7 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10
0 13 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 21
0 36 6 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
0 103 24 5 16 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 149
0 126 28 3 28 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 187
0 109 29 1 24 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164
1 161 28 2 27 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 224
0 177 33 0 26 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 240
0 209 45 3 35 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 294
0 207 36 0 31 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 277
0 220 25 1 33 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 282
0 285 58 3 39 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 388
0 307 48 1 21 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 380
0 282 39 0 24 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 349
0 203 13 1 9 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 229
0 126 17 1 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 158
0 96 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112
0 57 9 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 72
0 38 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 42
0 34 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 39
1 2829 454 26 354 16 0 17 8 0 0 0 0 3705
0.0 76.4 12.3 0.7 9.6 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.1 70.6 14.0 1.5 12.4 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
0.0 78.7 11.5 0.4 8.4 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Motorcycles - 2 Axles
Passenger Cars - 2 Axles
Pickup Trucks, Vans - 2 Axles
Buses
Single Unit - 2 Axles, 6 Tires
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Single Unit Truck - 3 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles
Single Unit - 4 Axles or Less
Double Unit - 5 Axles
Double Unit - 6 Axles or More
#11
#12
#13
Multi-Unit - 5 Axles or Less
Multi-Unit - 6 Axles
Multi-Unit - 7 Axles or More
Classification Scheme: FHWA (ID: 1)
Truck Summary:
Total Trucks: 421 % Trucks: 11.4 AM % Trucks: 15.2 PM % Trucks: 9.8
Page 3SB Tube Count data.tvp 114
Appendix C
Synchro LOS and Queue Reports
115
HCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1d
Tim Stowe
Stowe Engineering
103 Heath Court
Winchester, VA 22602
Phone: 540.336.0656 Fax:
E-Mail: timstowe@stowecompanies.com
___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________
Analyst Tim Stowe
Agency/Co. Stowe Engineering
Date Performed 2/16/2020
Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour
Highway Route 11
From/To Kernstown/NCL Stephens City
Jurisdiction Frederick County
Analysis Year 2020
Description Pippin Ind Park
___________________________________Input Data_________________________________
Highway class Class 2
Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 %
Segment length 0.6 mi % Recreational vehicles 2 %
Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 100 %
Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 14 /mi
Up/down %
Two-way hourly volume, V 615 veh/h
Directional split 57 / 43 %
____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________
Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00
PCE for trucks, ET 1.2
PCE for RVs, ER 1.0
Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.977
Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 685 pc/h
Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 390 pc/h
Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:
Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h
Observed volume, Vf - veh/h
Estimated Free-Flow Speed:
Base free-flow speed, BFFS 45.0 mi/h
Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h
Adj. for access points, fA 3.5 mi/h
Free-flow speed, FFS 41.5 mi/h
Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 3.5 mi/h
Average travel speed, ATS 32.7 mi/h
116
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________
Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00
PCE for trucks, ET 1.1
PCE for RVs, ER 1.0
Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.988
Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 676 pc/h
Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 385
Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 44.8 %
Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 18.4
Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 63.2 %
________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________
Level of service, LOS C
Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.21
Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 97 veh-mi
Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 357 veh-mi
Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 3.0 veh-h
______________________________________________________________________________
Notes:
1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate
analysis-the LOS is F.
117
HCS2000: Two-Lane Highways Release 4.1d
Tim Stowe
Stowe Engineering
103 Heath Court
Winchester, VA 22602
Phone: 540.336.0656 Fax:
E-Mail: timstowe@stowecompanies.com
___________________Two-Way Two-Lane Highway Segment Analysis__________________
Analyst Tim Stowe
Agency/Co. Stowe Engineering
Date Performed 2/16/2020
Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour
Highway Route 11
From/To Kernstown/NCL Stephens City
Jurisdiction Frederick County
Analysis Year 2020
Description Pippin Ind Park
___________________________________Input Data_________________________________
Highway class Class 2
Shoulder width 6.0 ft Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92
Lane width 12.0 ft % Trucks and buses 12 %
Segment length 0.6 mi % Recreational vehicles 2 %
Terrain type Level % No-passing zones 100 %
Grade: Length mi Access points/mi 14 /mi
Up/down %
Two-way hourly volume, V 697 veh/h
Directional split 58 / 42 %
____________________________Average Travel Speed______________________________
Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00
PCE for trucks, ET 1.2
PCE for RVs, ER 1.0
Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, 0.977
Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 776 pc/h
Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 450 pc/h
Free-Flow Speed from Field Measurement:
Field measured speed, SFM - mi/h
Observed volume, Vf - veh/h
Estimated Free-Flow Speed:
Base free-flow speed, BFFS 45.0 mi/h
Adj. for lane and shoulder width, fLS 0.0 mi/h
Adj. for access points, fA 3.5 mi/h
Free-flow speed, FFS 41.5 mi/h
Adjustment for no-passing zones, fnp 3.1 mi/h
Average travel speed, ATS 32.4 mi/h
118
__________________________Percent Time-Spent-Following________________________
Grade adjustment factor, fG 1.00
PCE for trucks, ET 1.1
PCE for RVs, ER 1.0
Heavy-vehicle adjustment factor, fHV 0.988
Two-way flow rate,(note-1) vp 767 pc/h
Highest directional split proportion (note-2) 445
Base percent time-spent-following, BPTSF 49.0 %
Adj.for directional distribution and no-passing zones, fd/np 15.6
Percent time-spent-following, PTSF 64.6 %
________________Level of Service and Other Performance Measures_______________
Level of service, LOS C
Volume to capacity ratio, v/c 0.24
Peak 15-min vehicle-miles of travel, VMT15 110 veh-mi
Peak-hour vehicle-miles of travel, VMT60 404 veh-mi
Peak 15-min total travel time, TT15 3.4 veh-h
______________________________________________________________________________
Notes:
1. If vp >= 3200 pc/h, terminate analysis-the LOS is F.
2. If highest directional split vp >= 1700 pc/h, terminate
analysis-the LOS is F.
119
HCM 2010 TWSC
1: Route 11 & Pippin Dr 02/19/2020
2030 Build Conditions AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Light Report
Stowe Engineering Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 402 285 0
Future Vol, veh/h 5 2 19 402 285 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 100 - - 100
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 2 9 12 2
Mvmt Flow 5 2 21 437 310 37
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 789 310 347 0 - 0
Stage 1 310 -----
Stage 2 479 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.5 6.3 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.5 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.5 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 3.39 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 349 712 1212 - - -
Stage 1 726 -----
Stage 2 607 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 343 712 1212 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 454 -----
Stage 1 714 -----
Stage 2 607 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.2 0.4 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1212 - 454 712 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.012 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 - 13 10.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0 0 - -
120
HCM 2010 TWSC
1: Route 11 & Pippin Dr 02/19/2020
2030 Build Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Light Report
Stowe Engineering Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 320 460 0
Future Vol, veh/h 28 15 2 320 460 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 100 - - 100
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 2 9 12 2
Mvmt Flow 30 16 2 348 500 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 852 500 504 0 - 0
Stage 1 500 -----
Stage 2 352 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.5 6.3 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.5 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.5 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 3.39 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 320 555 1061 - - -
Stage 1 593 -----
Stage 2 694 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 319 555 1061 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 435 -----
Stage 1 592 -----
Stage 2 694 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.1 0.1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1061 - 435 555 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.07 0.029 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - 13.9 11.7 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 0.1 - -
121
HCM 2010 TWSC
1: Route 11 & Pippin Dr 02/19/2020
2036 Design Yr Conditions AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Light Report
Stowe Engineering Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.3
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 414 294 0
Future Vol, veh/h 5 2 19 414 294 34
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 100 - - 100
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 2 9 12 2
Mvmt Flow 5 2 21 450 320 37
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 812 320 357 0 - 0
Stage 1 320 -----
Stage 2 492 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.5 6.3 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.5 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.5 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 3.39 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 338 703 1202 - - -
Stage 1 718 -----
Stage 2 598 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 332 703 1202 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 445 -----
Stage 1 706 -----
Stage 2 598 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 12.3 0.4 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1202 - 445 703 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - 0.012 0.003 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8 - 13.2 10.1 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - 0 0 - -
122
HCM 2010 TWSC
1: Route 11 & Pippin Dr 02/19/2020
2036 Design Yr Conditions PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Light Report
Stowe Engineering Page 1
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 0 0 0 330 473 0
Future Vol, veh/h 28 15 2 330 473 4
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 00000
Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Free Free
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length 100 0 100 - - 100
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 92 92 92 92 92 92
Heavy Vehicles, % 10 10 2 9 12 2
Mvmt Flow 30 16 2 359 514 4
Major/Minor Minor2 Major1 Major2
Conflicting Flow All 877 514 518 0 - 0
Stage 1 514 -----
Stage 2 363 -----
Critical Hdwy 6.5 6.3 4.12 - - -
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 5.5 -----
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 5.5 -----
Follow-up Hdwy 3.59 3.39 2.218 - - -
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 309 545 1048 - - -
Stage 1 584 -----
Stage 2 686 -----
Platoon blocked, % - - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 308 545 1048 - - -
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver 426 -----
Stage 1 583 -----
Stage 2 686 -----
Approach EB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 13.3 0.1 0
HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBL NBTEBLn1EBLn2 SBT SBR
Capacity (veh/h) 1048 - 426 545 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.002 - 0.071 0.03 - -
HCM Control Delay (s) 8.4 - 14.1 11.8 - -
HCM Lane LOS A - B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - 0.2 0.1 - -
123
Appendix D
Cost Estimate
124
No.Description Units Quantity Unit Value Value
1 Right of way dedication for Route 11 AC 0.5 $100,000 $45,914
2 Right of way for Pippin Dr AC 2.0 $100,000 $197,658
3 Construction of Pippin Drive LS 1 $577,500 $577,500
4 Construct 550 ft of 5' sidewalk LS 1 $22,000 $22,000
5 Pavement restripe - Route 11 LS 1 $10,000 $10,000
TOTAL $853,072
Cost Estimate for Transportation Improvements
Gregory, Ralph S., Trustee - Pippin Industrial Park Trust
Frederick County, VA
19-Feb-20
125
Appendix E
Generalized Development Plan
126
127
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: August 5, 2020
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: 2020-2025 Agricultural and Forestal District Update
Attachments:
PC08-05-20Ag&ForestalDistrictUpdate2020-2025.pdf
128
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Mark R Cheran, Zoning Administrator
RE: Public Hearing: 2020–2025 Agricultural and Forestal Districts Renewal
and Additions
DATE: July 17, 2020
Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires that
Agricultural and Forestal Districts be reviewed by the local government every five years
after establishment. Furthermore, the Code of Virginia requires the local governing body
to establish an Agricultural District Advisory Committee for the purpose of reviewing
proposals that establish or renew districts to ensure conformity with the provisions of
Section 15.2-43000. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with
modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal
District.
In working with members of the community and the Extension Services, staff has
circulated forms for the renewal of, additions to and deletions from, the Agricultural and
Forestal Districts to the property owners. These forms are important aspects of the
Agricultural and Forestal District Program; the program is voluntary, enabling property
owners the right to participate should they be interested.
The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) met on June 25, 2020, and
unanimously recommended the creation of two new agricultural and forestal districts and
the renewal of seven existing agricultural and forestal districts. The following items are
included in your agenda:
1) Update of the 2020-2025 Albin, Apple Pie Ridge, Double Church, Green
Spring, Red Bud, South Frederick, South Timber Ridge Agricultural and
Forestal District.
2) Creation of the Back Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
3) Creation of the Reliance Agricultural and Forestal District.
129
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
ALBIN DISTRICT UPDATE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this application. It may also be useful to other interested in this matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended
Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To update and renew the 2020-2025 Albin Agricultural and Forestal District.
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District
and currently contains 1014.00+/- acres. It is generally located west of Route 37, and North and
South of Route 522, near the Albin Rural Community Center. The proposed 2020-2025 District
would contain 1014.00+/- acres which is consistent with its last renewal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to update and renew the Albin
Agricultural and Forestal District. Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
as amended, requires that these Districts be reviewed by the local government every five years
after establishment. The Albin Agricultural and Forestal District during the last renewal
consisted of 1,014.00+/- acres.
This proposed District renewal meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2035
Comprehensive Plan. This renewal provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to
conduct long range planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a
reserve of agricultural land through the year 2025. Once renewed the 2020-2025 Albin
Agricultural and Forestal District will consist of 1,014.00+/- acres and will be valid until August
12, 2025. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with modifications, or denies
the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal District. The Agricultural
District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended approval of the
1,014.00+/-acre 2020-2025 Albin Agricultural and Forestal District at their meeting on
June 25, 2020.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
130
Page 2
Albin Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: The District is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. The
District currently contains 1,014.00+/- acres. This District is generally located west of Route 37,
and North and South of Route 522, near the Albin Rural Community Center. The proposed 2020-
2025 District would contain 1,014.00+/- acres.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The District is 90 percent agriculture
(livestock, orchards, and crop harvest) and 10 percent open space/woodlands. The land within
the District is rural in nature.
LAND USE: All parcels within the District contain agricultural or residential land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County provides
guidance when considering land use actions. The District is located within the limits of the
Route 37 West Land Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan. The Route 37 West Land Use Plan
identified a study area which encompassed 645-acres bounded by Route 522 to the north, Route
37 to the east and the Round Hill Community Land Use Plan bound to the south. The Plan
identified 120 acres of that study area for potential business uses and the remaining 525-acres
within the study area was proposed to remain rural.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s
economy and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area.
The Comprehensive Plan can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in
Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Comprehensive Plan supports the renewal of the District
for it provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning
efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land
through the year 2025.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies primarily within the Abrams Creek drainage
area. The establishment of this District will further assist with managing the quality of the
County’s water resources.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from broad rolling hills to the west and, gently
rolling hills to the north and east. This District lies within the Abrams Creek watershed and
water is available from ponds, wells and springs. Most of the area within the District is in
pasture, orchards, livestock, and few areas are woodland.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within
the District is Frederick-Poplimento.
131
£¤50
£¤522
£¤522
£¤522
Winchester
¬«37
¬«37
¬«37
P O O R H O U S E R D
F O X D R
B
R
Y
A
R
L
Y
R
D
B
ET
H
EL
G
R
A
N
G
E R
D
GLENDOBBIN RD
GOLDSHILL RD
N A T I O N A L
L U T H E R A N
B L V D
D I C K S H O L L O W R D
A P P L E P I E R I D G E R D
T H W A I T E L N
M A R P L E R D
O L D B E T H E L
C H U R C H R D
INDIAN HOLLOW RD
B U R N T C H U R C H R D
Future Route 37 Byp ass
Albin
Pa rce ls
2020-20 25 AlbinAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.55 1.10.2 75 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 16, 2020
PIN Owner Acres41 A 170 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 274.1642 A 61 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 2.5042 A 62 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 199.1442 A 180 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 105.2642 A 190 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 7.8842 A 191 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 16.7842 A 192 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 1.0442 A 193 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 6.2252 A 48 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 24.5052 A 49 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 8.5053 A 1 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 92.8553 A 2 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 145.9353 A 3 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 8.3453 A 69 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 120.90
132
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
APPLE PIE RIDGE DISTRICT UPDATE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning
Commission, and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It
may also be useful to other interested in this matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended
Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To update and renew the 2020-2025 Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal
District.
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Stonewall District and currently contains
889.00+/- acres. It is generally located along Payne Road (Route 663) to the north, Welltown Road
(Route 661) to the east, Apple Pie Ridge Road (Route 739) to the west, and Glendobbin Road (Route
673) to the south. The proposed 2020-2025 District would contain 889.00+/- acres which is consistent
with its last renewal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to update and renew the Apple Pie Ridge
Agricultural and Forestal District. Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, requires that Agricultural and Forestal Districts be reviewed by the local government every five
years after establishment. The Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District was established in 2010
and subsequently updated in 2015.
This proposed District renewal meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This
renewal provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning efforts
for the management of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land through the year
2025. Once renewed the 2020-2025 Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District will consist of
889.00+/- acres and will be valid until August 12, 2025. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves,
approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal
District. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended
approval of the 889.00+/-acre 2020-2025 Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District at their
meeting on June 25, 2020.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the
Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
133
Page 2
Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Stonewall District and currently contains
889.00+/- acres within 34 parcels (one property owner). It is generally located along Payne Road (Route
663) to the north, Welltown Road (Route 661) to the east, Apple Pie Ridge Road (Route 739) to the west,
and Glendobbin Road (Route 673) to the south. The proposed 2020-2025 District would contain
889.00+/- acres which is consistent with its last renewal.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The District is 90 percent agricultural
(livestock, orchards, and crop harvest) and 10 percent open space/woodlands. The area within the District
is rural in nature.
LAND USE: All parcels within the District contain agricultural or residential land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County provides guidance
when considering land use actions. The location of this District lies outside the Urban Development Area
(UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is not part of any land use plan or study by the
County. It is noted that the Stonewall Industrial Park is located on the south boundary of this District.
The area of the County where this District is located is intended to remain rural. The intent of the Rural
Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s economy, and to maintain the
rural character of areas outside of the UDA. The Apple Pie Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District is
agriculturally significant as outlined in the Agricultural and Forestal District Act.
The Eastern Frederick County Road Plan is the major transportation component of the Comprehensive
Plan. This road plan identifies the future transportation needs within Frederick County. A major
component of this road plan is Route 37, which will provide direct limited east to west access around the
City of Winchester. This proposed roadway will need, at a minimum, a 350-foot right-of-way. Staff
would note that parcel 43-A-11 has previously been included in the District, the ADAC should be aware
that a portion of this property lies within the right-of-way for future Route 37.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies primarily within the Hiatt Run drainage area. The
establishment of this District will further assist with managing the quality of the County’s water
resources.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from rolling hills to ridges to the north and west and flat
and gentle rolling hills to the south and east. This District lies within the Hiatt Run watershed and water
is available from ponds, wells and spring.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within the
District is Frederick-Poplimento.
134
§¨¦81
STONECRESTCT
F A I R L N
C L E A R V I E W D R
U P P E R
R I D G E R D W I L T O
N
D R
S
T
E
R
R
E
T
T
L
N
BABBSRUN LN
T Y L E R D R
Q U A K E R
L N
W I D E N E R
D R
G L E N D O B B I N R D
U N I O N V I E W L N
VIEW WEST LN
W E L L T O W N R D
P A Y N E R D
HIATT RD
A P P L E P I E R I D G E R D
Future Route 37 Byp ass Ap ple Pie Ridg e Pa rce ls
2020-2025 Apple Pie RidgeAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.35 0.70.1 75 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 16, 2020
PIN Owner Acres PIN Owner Acres PIN Owne r Acre s43 1 A1 BE CON INC 29.30 31 A 180 KSS LC 70.00 43 12 3 11 KSS LC 5.0043 1 A2 BE CON INC 3.50 42 A 356 KSS LC 303.81 43 12 3 12 KSS LC 5.0043 1 B1 BE CON INC 16.56 42 A 357 KSS LC 23.04 43 12 3 13 KSS LC 5.0043 A 4 BE CON INC 127.00 43 11 4 1 KSS LC 5.51 43 12 3 14 KSS LC 5.1243 A 10A BE CON INC 53.43 43 11 4 2 KSS LC 5.00 43 12 3 15 KSS LC 5.0043 A 11 DTS LC 84.50 43 11 4 3 KSS LC 5.00 43 12 3 16 KSS LC 5.3343 A 12 DTS LC 4.00 43 11 4 4 KSS LC 5.00 43 12 3 17 KSS LC 5.0543 A 13 DTS LC 8.00 43 11 4 5 KSS LC 5.86 43 12 3 18 KSS LC 5.0043 A 14 DTS LC 9.66 43 11 4 6 KSS LC 5.2543 A 69 DTS LC 5.00 43 12 3 7 KSS LC 5.0143 A 70 DTS LC 57.66 43 12 3 8 KSS LC 5.0031 A 170 KSS LC 0.34 43 12 3 9 KSS LC 5.0031 A 171 KSS LC 1.07 43 12 3 10 KSS LC 5.00
135
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
DOUBLE CHURCH DISTRICT
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the ,
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this application. It may also be useful to other interested in this matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To update and renew the 2020-2025 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal
District.
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District located in the Opequon Magisterial District and is
generally located along Double Church Road (Route 641), Canterburg Road (Route 636), Grim
Road (Route 640), and Wise Mill Lane (Route 737). The District currently contains 889.85+/-
acres and would be reduced to 878.62+/- acres with this update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to update and renew the Double
Church Agricultural and Forestal District. Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires that these Districts be reviewed by the local government
every five years after establishment. The Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District
during the last renewal consisted of 889.85+/- acres.
This proposed District renewal meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2035
Comprehensive Plan. This renewal provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to
conduct long range planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a
reserve of agricultural land through the year 2025. With this update the acreage will be reduced
by 11.23-acres; six parcels are being removed and three added. Once renewed the 2020-2025
Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District will consist of 878.62+/- acres and will be
valid until August 12, 2025. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with
modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal District.
The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended approval of the
878.62+/-acre 2020-2025 Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District at their meeting on June
25, 2020.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
136
Page 2
Double Church Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District located in the Opequon Magisterial District and is
generally located along Double Church Road (Route 641), Canterburg Road (Route 636), Grim
Road (Route 640), and Wise Mill Lane (Route 737). The District currently contains 889.85+/-
acres. With this renewal, six parcels have requested to be removed from the District, totaling
76.28+/- acres. Three parcels have requested to be included into the District and total 65.05+/-
acres. Therefore, after these changes, the District size will be reduced from 889.85+/- acres to
878.62+/- acres.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The agricultural operations in the
District are 75 percent livestock and cultivation of hay and 25 percent open space/woodlands.
The area within the District is rural in nature.
LAND USE: All parcels within the District contain agricultural or residential land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County provides
guidance when considering land use actions. The Plan identifies this District as an area that is
outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA).
The District will be impacted by future transportation improvements as noted within the Route
277 Land Use Plan approved by the Board of Supervisors. The parcels in this District have no
land use designation, which indicates the area should remain rural.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s
economy and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area.
The Comprehensive Plan can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in
Agricultural and Forestal District. The Comprehensive Plan supports the additions and renewal
of the Districts, for it provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long
range planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing reserve of
agricultural land through the year 2025.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies primarily within the Stephens Run drainage
area. The District will assist with managing the quality of the County’s water resources.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from a broad rolling valley to flat lands, and
water is available from ponds, wells and springs. Most of the soils are suited to a wide variety of
farms uses. Most of the area is in pasture, cultivated crops and hay with few woodland areas.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: The prime agricultural soil located within the District is
Blairton.
137
£¤11
§¨¦81
Stephens City ¬«277
D
O
U
B
L
E
C
H
U
R
C
H
R
D
T O W N R U N L N
V A L L E Y
P I K E
FAIRFAX PIKE
R I D I N G S M I L L R D
S
A
L
E
M
C
H
U
R
C
H
R
D
FAMILY DR
C A N T E R B U R G R D
V I R G I N I A D R
W I S E M I L L L N
G R I M R D
Existing Do uble Chu rch Double Ch urch Additions Pa rce ls
2020-2025 Double ChurchAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.4 0.80.2 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 16, 2020
PIN Owner Acres PIN Owner Acres86 A 245 BOOTH, JOHN H & VIRGINIA G 0.50 85 A 139A SCOTHORN, GARY L & LINDA O 1.29 PIN Owner Acres86 A 71 BORROR, LINDA 5.26 85 A 139 SCOTHORN, GARY L & STEPHEN P 103.60 86 A 230A GORE, JEFFERY M & JOSEPH F 0.9786 A 38 BORROR, LINDA W ETALS 20.66 86 A 71B SHILEY, ROBERT L 20.84 86 A 230D GORE, JEFFERY M 15.2786 A 35 FAI RVI EW-SPRI NGHI LL FARMS HOG GROUP LLC 105.39 85 A 131A STELZL, BETTY R 24.74 86 A 42 GORE'S RENTALS LLC 48.8186 A 230 GORE, FRED B ET ALS 37.93 86 A 25 STELZL, BETTY R 142.9586 A 231 GORE, FRED B ET ALS 2.50 86 A 25A STELZL, BETTY R 7.0486 A 27 LESTER, JACK L 10.50 86 A 33 STELZL, BETTY R 0.1285 A 125 RITENOUR FARM LLC 125.00 86 A 35A STELZL, JOHN T & SARAH R 5.0085 A 130 RITENOUR FARM LLC 55.00 86 A 70 WYMER, KENNETH E 28.9885 A 131 RITENOUR FARM LLC 178.67 86 A 72B WYMER, KENNETH E 10.2185 A 132 RITENOUR, SANDRA R 3.67
*Additions
138
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
GREEN SPRING UPDATE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this application. It may also be useful to other interested in this matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To update and renew the 2020-2025 Green Spring Agricultural and Forestal
District.
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District and
currently contains 385.63+/- acres within two (2) parcels managed by two (2) property owners.
It is generally located along Glaize Orchard Road (Route 682) to the south and Green Spring
Road (Route 671) to the east. The proposed 2020-2025 District would contain 385.63+/- acres
which is consistent with its last renewal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) to
update and renew the Green Spring Agricultural and Forestal District. Chapter 43, Section 15.2-
4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires that these Districts be reviewed by the
local government every five years after establishment. The Green Spring Agricultural and
Forestal District during the last renewal consisted of 385.63+/- acres.
This proposed District renewal meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2035
Comprehensive Plan. This renewal provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to
conduct long range planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a
reserve of agricultural land through the year 2025. Once renewed the 2020-2025 Green Spring
Agricultural and Forestal District will consist of 385.63+/- acres and will be valid until August
12, 2025. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with modifications, or denies
the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal District. The Agricultural District
Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended approval of the 385.63+/-acre 2020-2025
Green Spring Agricultural and Forestal District at their meeting on June 25, 2020.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
139
Page 2
Green Spring Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District and
currently contains 385.63+/- acres within two (2) parcels managed by two (2) property owners.
It is generally located along Glaize Orchard Road (Route 682) to the south and Green Spring
Road (Route 671) to the east. The proposed 2020-2025 District would contain 385.63+/- acres
which is consistent with its last renewal.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The agricultural operation in the
District are 40 percent agriculture (livestock, and crop harvesting) and 60 percent open
space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in nature.
LAND USE: All parcels within the District are vacant and woodland.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County provides
guidance when considering land use actions. The location of this proposed District lies outside
the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is not part
of any land use plan or study by the County. The land use within this District of 385.63+/- acres
is vacant. This current land use should remain in its present land use of pristine condition with
land use of vacant and woodland.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s
economy and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area.
The Comprehensive Plan can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in
Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Comprehensive Plan Supports the renewal of the District
for it provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning
efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land
through the year 2025.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies within the Green Springs and Babbs Run
drainage areas. These two bodies of water are tributaries to Back Creek. This District will
further assist with managing the quality of County’s water resources.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from rolling hills to ridges to the south, west,
and north. Flat and gentle rolling hills are to the east. This District lies within the Green Springs
and Babbs Run drainage area and water is available from ponds, wells and springs.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within
District is Weikert-Gainesboro-Berks.
140
E S T A T E D R
W
E
L
L
D
R
I
L
L
E
R
S
L
N
F R O G H O L L O W R D
E V E N I N G L N
B A I L E Y S F O R D L N
H
U
N
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
R
D
E Y L E S L N
WHISPERINGKNOLLS DR
GLAIZE ORCHARD RD
P
E
E
P
E
R
L
N
G R E E N S P R I N G R D
BELL HOLLO
W RD
Green Sprin g
Pa rce ls
2020-2025 Green SpringAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.3 0.60.15 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 16, 2020
PIN Owner Acres21 A 36 DEHAVEN, CHARLES STUART JR 168.0221 A 25 ZUCKERMAN, STANLEY C & SANDRA E 217.61
141
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
RED BUD DISTRICT
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Agricultural District Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors to
assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to other interested in
this matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended
Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To update and renew the 2020-2025 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District.
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Stonewall Magisterial District and
currently contains 1,007.34+/- acres. The District is generally located along Red Bud Road. With
this renewal, five parcels have requested to be removed from the District, totaling 44.85+/- acres.
Eleven parcels have requested to be added to the District, totaling 58.56+/- acres. The total acreage
of the District after considering additions and subtraction would be increased from 1,007.34+/- acres
to 1,021.05+/- acres.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to update and renew the Red Bud
Agricultural and Forestal District. Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, requires that these Districts be reviewed by the local government every five years after
establishment. The Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District during the last renewal consisted of
1,007.34+/- acres.
This proposed District renewal meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2035 Comprehensive
Plan. This renewal provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range
planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural
land through the year 2025. With this update the acreage will be increased by 13.71 acres; five
parcels are being removed and eleven added. Once renewed the 2020-2025 Red Bud Agricultural
and Forestal District will consist of 1,021.05+/- acres and will be valid until August 12, 2025.
Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with modifications, or denies the proposal
to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal District.
The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended approval
of the 1,021.05+/-acre 2020-2025 Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District at their meeting
on June 25, 2020.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the
Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
142
Page 2
Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Stonewall Magisterial District and
currently contains 1,007.34+/- acres. The District is generally located along Red Bud Road. With
this renewal, five parcels have requested to be removed from the District, totaling 44.85+/- acres.
Eleven parcels have requested to be added to the District, totaling 58.56+/- acres. The total acreage
of the District after considering additions and subtraction would be increased from 1,007.34+/- acres
to 1,021.05+/- acres.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The predominantly agricultural operations
in the District are 75 percent agriculture (livestock, horses and crop harvest) and 25 percent open
space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in nature.
LAND USE: All parcels within the District contain agricultural or residential land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County provides
guidance when considering land use actions. The District lies in an area that is outside the Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The area is located within
the limits of the Northeastern Land Use Plan. Approximately half of the District is designated as a
Developmentally Sensitive Area in the Northeast Land Use Plan. The remaining parcels have no
land use designation, which indicates the area should remain rural.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s
economy and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the UDA. The Comprehensive Plan
can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in Agricultural and Forestal
District. The Plan supports the addition/renewal of the Districts, for it provides an opportunity for
the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning efforts for the management of their
operations, while providing reserve of agricultural land through 2025.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies primarily within the Redbud Run drainage area, and
partially within the Hiatt Run drainage area. The District will assist with managing the quality of the
County’s water resources.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from a broad rolling valley to the west of Devils
Backbone, to very steep forested land on the eastern parcels and along Redbud Run. This District is
within the Redbud Run watershed and water is available from ponds, wells and springs. Most of the
soils, with the exception of those on the steeper slopes, are suited to a wide variety of farm uses.
These steeper slopes are mostly forested and are heavily wooded. Most of the area is in pasture,
cultivated crops and hay with few woodland areas.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: There is a limited amount of prime agricultural soils located
within the District, which are Blairton, Carbo, Frederick, Guernesy and Massanetta.
143
£¤522
£¤50
£¤11
£¤11
£¤522
£¤11
§¨¦81
Winchester
¬«7 ¬«7
¬«7
¬«7
¬«37
CLARKECOUNTYVIRGINIA
BROOKE RD
F
O
R
T
C
O
L
LI
E
R
R
D
SNOWDENBRIDGE BLVD
J
O
R
D
A
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
D
F O R T R E S S D R
SENSENY RD
W E L L T O W N R D
VALLEY MILL RD
REDBUD RD
FIRSTWOODS DR
PIN E R DWOODS M I L L R D
E D D Y S L N
Future Route 37 Byp ass Existing Re d Bud Red Bu d Additions Pa rce ls
2020-2025 Red BudAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.65 1.30.3 25 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 16, 2020
PIN Owner Acres PIN Owner Acres PIN Owner Acres44 A 28C BODEN, ROBERT R, JR & MARSHA 4.30 44 A 28A JOBE, ALLEN B & VELDA D 20.46 55 A 138 SEMPELES, STEPHANIE M 21.5044 A 28D BODEN, ROBERT R, JR & MARSHA 5.00 44 A 28G JOBE, ALLEN B & VELDA D 5.00 55 A 139 SEMPELES, STEPHANIE M 7.3154 A 87 BRITZ, WILLIAM D & CLAUDIA J 20.00 55 A 7B OATES, GARY K & CONSTANCE J 7.49 43 A 154 SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATI ON 36.2755 A 182D DIMASI, ANTHONY J & LORI L 5.00 55 A 7C OATES, GARY K & CONSTANCE J 5.00 54 A 88 SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATI ON 181.0355 A 151 GAMBINO, MATTHEW G & MYERS, CARRIE RUTH 19.00 55 A 7D OATES, GARY K & CONSTANCE J 5.00 54 A 89C SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATI ON 100.0055 A 151A GAMBINO, MATTHEW G & MYERS, CARRIE RUTH 5.00 55 A 7E OATES, GARY K & CONSTANCE J 5.02 54 A 90 SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATI ON 41.0055 A 152 GAMBINO, MATTHEW G & MYERS, CARRIE RUTH 45.00 55 A 7 OATES, GARY K & CONSTANCE JOBE 13.47 55 A 3 SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATI ON 83.2955 A 129A GREGG, A KATHERINE, TRUSTEE 33.00 55 A 7A OATES, GARY K & CONSTANCE JOBE 9.37 55 A 4 SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATI ON 126.5255 A 5 HERRING, KEVIN L 33.43 55 A 117 R & J LAND DEVELOPMENT LLC 4.33 43 A 159 UPTONS CHARGE LLC (SVBF)2.0055 A 5D HERRING, KEVIN L 1.21 55 A 181B SCHULLER, WILLIAM H & GENEVIEVE C 11.12 44D 2 6 WILLIS, CHARLES I 2.3755 A 5A HERRING, STACY ALAN & CLAUDIA JEAN 3.56 55 A 179 SCHULLER, WI LLI AM H, JR & BEVERLEY PEYTON 12.8655 A 5C HERRING, STACY ALAN & CLAUDIA JEAN 17.01 55 A 178A SCHULLER, WILLIAM H, SR & GENEVIEVE 1.2855 A 5B HERRING, VERA J 1.00 55 A 178 SCHULLER, WILLIAM H, SR & GENEVIEVE 2.9955 A 6 HULVER, JOSEPH F T, JR 24.04 55 A 181A SCHULLER, WILLIAM H, SR & GENEVIEVE 4.4155 A 109B JENKINS, JEFFREY G & ROSEANNA M 8.82 55 A 177 SCHULLER, WILLIAM HAMPTON, JR 0.3855 A 115 JENKINS, JEFFREY G & ROSEANNA M 1.75 55 A 8 SCHWARTZMAN, BERNARD, TRUSTEE 25.90
PIN Owner Acres43 A 155 SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 1.0043 A 159A SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 5.0054 A 1 SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 10.1754 A 1B SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 4.0054 A 1C SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 4.6154 A 99F SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 26.2954 A 99P SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 1.1354 A 99Q SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 1.1354 A 99R SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 1.1354 A 99S SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 1.1356 A 18A SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS FOUNDATION 2.97
*Additions
144
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
SOUTH FREDERICK DISTRICT
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information
to the Agricultural District Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors
to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to other interested in this
matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended
Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To update/renew the 2020-2025 S. Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District.
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Back Creek Magisterial District and
currently contains 5,764.21+/- acres. It is generally located along Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622),
Middle Road (Route 628), Marlboro Road (Route 631) and Hites Road (Route 625). With this renewal,
13 parcels have requested to be removed from the District, totaling 1,016.32+/- acres. Thirty-two parcels
have requested to be added to the District, totaling 862.15+/- acres. The total acreage of the District after
considering additions and subtraction would be decreased from 5,764.21+/- acres to 5,610.04+/- acres.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to update and renew the South Frederick
Agricultural and Forestal District. Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, requires that these Districts be reviewed by the local government every five years after
establishment. The South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District during the last renewal consisted of
5,764.21+/- acres.
This proposed District renewal meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This
renewal provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning efforts
for the management of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land through the year
2025. With this update the acreage will be decreased by 154.17-acres (13 parcels are being removed and
32 added). Once renewed the 2020-2025 South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District will consist
of 5,610.04+/- acres and will be valid until August 12, 2025. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors
approves, approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and
Forestal District. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously
recommended approval of the 5,610.04+/-acre 2020-2025 South Frederick Agricultural and
Forestal District at their meeting on June 25, 2020.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to the
Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
145
Page 2
South Frederick Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Back Creek Magisterial District and
currently contains 5,764.21+/- acres. It is generally located along Cedar Creek Grade (Route 622),
Middle Road (Route 628), Marlboro Road (Route 631) and Hites Road (Route 625). With this renewal,
13 parcels have requested to be removed from the District, totaling 1,016.32+/- acres. Thirty-two parcels
have requested to be added to the District, totaling 862.15+/- acres. The total acreage of the District after
considering additions and subtraction would be decreased from 5,764.21+/- acres to 5,610.04+/- acres.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The agricultural operation in the District are 90
percent agriculture (orchard, and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open space/woodlands. The area within
the District is rural in nature.
LAND USE: All parcels within the District contain agricultural or residential land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County provides guidance
when considering land use actions. The District is outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and
Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is not part of any land use plan or study by the County. The
current land use should remain in its present land use with orchards, agricultural, and residential.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s economy
and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area. The Comprehensive
Plan can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in Agricultural and Forestal
Districts. The Comprehensive Plan Supports the renewal of the District for it provides an opportunity for
the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning efforts for the management of their
operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land through the year 2025.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies primarily within the Opequon Creek and Stephens Run
drainage area. The District will further assist with managing the quality of the County’s water resources.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from rolling hills to ridges to the north, west, south and
east. This District lies within Opequon Creek watershed and water is available from ponds, wells and
springs.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within the
District is Frederick-Poplimento.
146
£¤11
£¤11
£¤11 §¨¦81
Winchester
Stephens City
¬«37
¬«37
M E R R I M A N S L N
T
A
S
K
E
R
R
D
W H I S S E N S R I D G E R D
J
O
N
E
S
R
D
M I D D L E R D
SPRINGDALE RD
S H A D Y E L M R DCEDAR C R E E K G R
LAUREL GROVE RD
B A C K
M O U N T A I N R D
W A R D E N S V I L L E G R
W O O D C H U C K L N
Future Route 37 Byp ass Existing South Fred erick So uth Frederick Add itions Pa rce ls
2020-2025 South FrederickAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 1 20.5 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 16, 2020
PIN Owner Acres PIN Owner Acres PIN Owner Acres73 A 90B ANDERSON, DANIEL W & SANDRA K 7.92 61 A 96 M & M RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 69.27 61 A 17 WRIGHT, VERNON C 88.2861 A 21 BHS LC 34.00 61 A 96D M & M RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 100.00 61 A 22 WRIGHT, VERNON C 86.0361 A 23 BHS LC 154.75 61 A 120 M & M RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 9.9261 A 23A BHS LC 1.00 61 A 126 M & M RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 11.00 PIN Owner Acres61 A 24 BHS LC 20.16 61 A 126A M & M RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 4.81 72 A 44 DOGWOOD KNOLL LLC 6.7561 A 25 BHS LC 5.50 61 A 127 M & M RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 100.00 72 A 46 DOGWOOD KNOLL LLC 28.0061 A 26 BHS LC 4.50 61 A 127A M & M RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 68.45 73 A 4A DOGWOOD KNOLL LLC 45.4061 A 27 BHS LC 4.00 61 A 43E MELBY, CAROL F 1.00 73 A 9 DOGWOOD KNOLL LLC 19.5061 A 29 BHS LC 1.25 62 A 21 MILLER, JUSTIN T & JULIE P 9.15 62 12 5 49 M & M LOT HOLDINGS LLC 3.3973 A 10 BHS LC 190.80 62 A 27 MOON, KUNDUCK 1.30 62 12 5 50 M & M LOT HOLDINGS LLC 2.9873 A 10A BHS LC 5.00 73 12 11 MURPHY, CHARLES R & VICKY O 2.86 62 12 5 51 M & M LOT HOLDINGS LLC 2.9273 A 63 BHS LC 240.17 61 A 31 NELSON, LINDA K 52.32 62 12 5 52 M & M LOT HOLDINGS LLC 3.8273 A 88 BHS LC 78.00 62E 1 6 25 NERANGIS, NI CHOLAS J & KATHLEEN B, TRUSTEES 5.01 62 12 5 54 M & M LOT HOLDINGS LLC 3.1773 A 39 CLARK, PAUL C & CHRISTINE M 10.87 62E 1 6 26 NERANGIS, NI CHOLAS J & KATHLEEN B, TRUSTEES 10.00 62 12 5 66 M & M LOT HOLDINGS LLC 4.3073 A 64A DILLENDER, HOLLY B & SAMUEL C, JR 2.32 62E 1 6 27 NERANGIS, NI CHOLAS J & KATHLEEN B, TRUSTEES 5.10 62 A 26 MOON, KUNDUCK 2.5272 A 45 DOGWOOD KNOLL LLC 5.25 73 A 38 ORNDORFF, MARK & ROXANNA M 3.57 62 A 28 MOON, KUNDUCK 73.9973 A 4 DOGWOOD KNOLL LLC 50.00 61 A 44 SNAPP, JOSEPH D & MARY V 2.20 61 A 8 NELSON, WALTER & BARBARA SNAPP 32.6860 A 73 FAWCETT, BETTY JEAN, TRUSTEE 116.72 60 A 75 TRIPLE S ASSOCIATES 39.03 61 A 40 NELSON, WALTER & BARBARA SNAPP 17.3161 A 45 FAWCETT, BETTY JEAN, TRUSTEE 29.97 62E 1 3 14 WHETZEL, SHELLEY S, TRUSTEE 5.41 61 A 43A NELSON, WALTER & BARBARA SNAPP 36.9960 A 73B FAWCETT, ROBERT L 18.87 61 A 30 WOODBINE FARMS INC 44.00 61 A 43B NELSON, WALTER & BARBARA SNAPP 10.0052 A 300 FRUIT HILL ORCHARD INC 305.43 61 A 37 WOODBINE FARMS INC 11.60 61 A 43C NELSON, WALTER & BARBARA SNAPP 10.0062 A 34 GREGORY, K SCOTT, TRUSTEE & RUTH C, TRUSTEE 107.79 61 A 128 WOODBINE FARMS INC 137.50 61 A 43D NELSON, WALTER & BARBARA SNAPP 13.0662 12 5 53 M & M LOT HOLDINGS LLC 97.21 61 A 129 WOODBINE FARMS INC 48.00 61 A 7 SNAPP, JOSEPH D & MARY V 30.3061 A 106 M & M ORCHARD PROPERTIES LLC 42.00 61 A 130 WOODBINE FARMS INC 30.00 61 A 8A SNAPP, JOSEPH D & MARY V 5.0061 A 107 M & M ORCHARD PROPERTIES LLC 19.00 61 A 131 WOODBINE FARMS INC 7.75 61 A 9 SNAPP, JOSEPH D & MARY V 82.9461 A 116 M & M ORCHARD PROPERTIES LLC 44.92 73 A 66 WOODBINE FARMS INC 280.01 61 A 10 SNAPP, JOSEPH D & MARY V 23.4961 A 117 M & M ORCHARD PROPERTIES LLC 29.00 73 A 67 WOODBINE FARMS INC 23.00 61 A 13 SNAPP, JOSEPH D & MARY V 69.3161 A 118 M & M ORCHARD PROPERTIES LLC 77.50 60 A 89 WRIGHT, VERNON C 41.80 61 A 41 SNAPP, JOSEPH D & MARY V 54.0061 A 119 M & M ORCHARD PROPERTIES LLC 16.00 61 A 15 WRIGHT, VERNON C 50.30 61 A 42 SNAPP, JOSEPH D & MARY V 43.05
*Additions
147
£¤11
£¤11
§¨¦81
Stephens City
SHENANDOAHCOUNTYVIRGINIA
C
E
D
A
R
C
R
E
E
K
G
R
H I T E S R D
M A R L B O R O R D
M I D D L E R D
LAUREL GROVE RD
Existing South Fred erick So uth Frederick Add itions Pa rce ls
2020-2025 South FrederickAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.75 1.50.3 75 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 16, 2020
PIN Owner Acres PIN Owner Acres PIN Owner Acres73 A 29 ANDERSON, PAUL G, JR & MARY EDNA 41.38 84 A 53C MCDONALD, JASON S & JENNIFER A 16.51 72 A 3 RIDINGS, L VERNON, RESIDUAL TRUST 33.5073 A 100 ANDERSON, PAUL G, JR & MARY EDNA 100.00 84 A 53D MCDONALD, JASON SCOTT & JENNIFER ANNE 31.84 73 A 24 RIDINGS, L VERNON, RESIDUAL TRUST 10.0073 A 30B ANDERSON, SHIRLEY K 5.95 84 A 53E MCDONALD, JASON SCOTT & JENNIFER ANNE 26.08 73 A 28 RIDINGS, L VERNON, RESIDUAL TRUST 4.0073 A 30O ANDERSON, SHIRLEY K 51.16 84 A 47B MCDONALD, ROY E & LORETTA G, TRUSTEES 121.85 84 A 44 RIDINGS, L VERNON, RESIDUAL TRUST 51.9574 A 12 BARLEY, MARY KLINE 9.00 84 A 49B MCDONALD, ROY E & LORETTA G, TRUSTEES 10.00 73 A 94 RI DINGS, L VERNON, RESIDUAL TRUST & RUBY 12.3572 A 58 BAUGHMAN, MICHAEL H & GROSS, MARY K 168.50 84 A 49G MCDONALD, ROY E & LORETTA G, TRUSTEES 5.00 73 A 30 RINKER, DUDLEY H 4.8372 A 59 BAUGHMAN, MICHAEL H & GROSS, MARY K 20.00 84 A 48 MCDONALD, ROY E, TRUSTEE & LORETTA G, TRUSTEE 204.09 73 A 30E RINKER, DUDLEY H 1.0173 A 17 BHS LC 160.00 84 A 48A MCDONALD, ROY E, TRUSTEE & LORETTA G, TRUSTEE 6.34 73 A 30I RINKER, DUDLEY H 6.4373 A 27 COOLEY, MARTHA & COURTNEY BENJAMIN 4.00 85 A 3 MCDONALD, ROY E, TRUSTEE & LORETTA G, TRUSTEE 175.00 73 A 13 SNAPP, ALFRED L & SON INC 84.6983 A 100 HASKINS, ROBERT D & MARY E 14.11 85 A 3A MCDONALD, ROY E, TRUSTEE & LORETTA G, TRUSTEE 4.52 84 A 40 SNAPP, ALFRED L & SON INC 69.3073 12 23 HLAVINKA, DAVID D & PATRICIA E 2.98 72 A 53 MCDONALD, SYLVIA F, TRUSTEE 197.00 84 A 40A SNAPP, ALFRED L, JR & BETTY V 46.0074 A 14 HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W 2.00 72 A 82 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 12.00 72 A 29L STOUT, JEFFREY T & DONNA J 15.8574 A 15A HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W 1.23 72 A 83 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 0.50 73 A 30H SWACK, JOSEPH J & PHYLLIS S 6.1574 A 15 HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W & LEWIS, PAMELA W 3.00 84 A 2 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 66.50 73 A 103 WAVELAND FARM LLC 24.4074 A 15B HUMPHRIES, CHERYL W & LEWIS, PAMELA W 32.34 84 A 6 MEAGHER, CONSTANCE M 60.00 73 A 104 WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING INC 103.8573 A 34 KENNEY PAULETTE V 4.80 84 A 42A RAMEY, WADE 6.00 74 A 18 WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING INC 109.1473 A 16 KSS LC 134.21 84 A 41 REDMILES, DONALD R & STELLA M, TRUSTEES 6.00 74 A 18A WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING INC 80.0084 A 6D MCDONALD, JASON S & JENNIFER A 95.98 83 A 81A REZIN, JEFFREY L & SHARON K 25.67 74 A 18B WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING INC 58.3984 A 49E MCDONALD, JASON S & JENNIFER A 5.40 83 A 87 REZIN, JEFFREY L & SHARON K 20.57 85 A 1 WINCHESTER WAREHOUSING INC 122.29
PIN Owner Acres84 A 28A BENTLEY, CHARLES & ROBIN 64.1472 A 54 BRUMBACK, PHILI P & MARGARET, TRUST 105.0073 A 103A LAYMAN, CYNTHIA 8.0072 A 29D MCDONALD, SYLVIA F, TRUSTEE 41.4984 A 40C SHOMAKER, WILLIAM 10.2373 14 1 6 WAVELAND FARM LLC 4.3873 14 1 7 WAVELAND FARM LLC 4.04
*Additions
148
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT
SOUTH TIMBER RIDGE DISTRICT UPDATE
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Agricultural District Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the Board of
Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to
other interested in this matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended
Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To update and renew the 2020-2025 South Timber Ridge Agricultural and
Forestal District.
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District and
currently contains 17 parcels and 981.08+/- acres managed by one (1) property owner. It is
generally located along Hollow Road (Route 707) to the north, Muse Road (Route 610) and Gold
Orchard Road (Route 708) to the east. The proposed 2020-2025 District would contain
981.08+/- acres which is consistent with its last renewal.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to update and renew the South
Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District. Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires that these Districts be reviewed by the local government
every five years after establishment. The South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District
during the last renewal consisted of 981.08+/- acres.
This proposed District renewal meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2035
Comprehensive Plan. This renewal provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to
conduct long range planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a
reserve of agricultural land through the year 2025. Once renewed the 2020-2025 South Timber
Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District will consist of 981.08+/- acres and will be valid until
August 12, 2025. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves, approves with modifications,
or denies the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and Forestal District. The
Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) unanimously recommended approval of the
981.08+/-acre 2020-2025 South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District at their meeting on
June 25, 2020.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
AGRICULTU
RAL &
FORESTAL
DISTRICT
UPDATE
149
Page 2
2020-2025 Agricultural and Forestal District Update
South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: This District is located within the Gainesboro Magisterial District and
currently contains 17 parcels and 981.08+/- acres managed by one (1) property owner. It is
generally located along Hollow Road (Route 707) to the north, Muse Road (Route 610) and Gold
Orchard Road (Route 708) to the east. The proposed 2020-2025 District would contain
981.08+/- acres which is consistent with its last renewal.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The agricultural operations in the
District are 90 percent agriculture (orchard and crop harvesting) and 10 percent open
space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in nature.
LAND USE: All parcels within the District contain agricultural or residential land uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County provides
guidance when considering land use actions. The location of the District lies outside the Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and is not part of any
land use plan or study by the County. The land use within the District is agricultural and
residential and nature. The current land use should remain in its present condition with land use
of orchards, agricultural, and residential.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s
economy and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area.
The Comprehensive Plan can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in
Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Comprehensive Plan supports the renewal of the District
for it provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning
efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land
through the year 2025.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies primarily within the Gainesboro drainage area.
The District will further assist with managing the quality of the County’s water resources.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from rolling hills to ridges to the north, west,
south and east. The District lies within the Gainesboro watershed and water is available from
ponds, wells and springs.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within
the District is Weikert-Berks-Blairton.
150
¬«259
¬«259
ISAACDRK
E
N
D
A
L
L
D
R
ANCHORAGELN
HAMPSHIRE CO UNTYWEST VIRGINIA
SUNRISEDR
HARNERS
CT
A
A
R
O
N
D
R
B
R
Y
C
E C
T P A R I S H V I L L E R DFLETCHER R D
OWL LN
LO
RIS
C
T WHITHAM DR
G O L D O R C H A R D R D
HOLLOW RD
H
A
R
R
Y
H
I
E
T
T
L
N
C A R P E R S P I K E
WHITLOCK LN
M U S E R D
So uth Timb er Ridge
Pa rce ls
2020-20 25 South Timber RidgeAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.35 0.70.1 75 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 16, 2020
PIN Owne r Acres PIN Owner Acre s26 A 42 CKW RENTALS LLC 0.53 26 A 64 CLW HOLDINGS LLC 81.0626 A 43 CKW RENTALS LLC 2.89 26 A 65 CLW HOLDINGS LLC 7.6126 A 43A CKW RENTALS LLC 11.23 37 A 1 CLW HOLDINGS LLC 176.0326 A 45 CKW RENTALS LLC 0.31 37 A 1A CLW HOLDINGS LLC 10.0026 A 46 CKW RENTALS LLC 141.04 37 A 74 CLW HOLDINGS LLC 20.5426 A 49 CKW RENTALS LLC 85.29 37 A 72 SPRING RIDGE LLC 162.4626 A 61 CLW HOLDINGS LLC 100.16 37 A 73 SPRING RIDGE LLC 106.0926 A 62 CLW HOLDINGS LLC 35.30 26 A 61A WATT, CORDELL L & KIMBERLY K 2.0026 A 63 CLW HOLDINGS LLC 38.54
151
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
BACK MOUNTAIN DISTRICT – PROPOSED NEW DISTRICT
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on
this application. It may also be useful to other interested in this matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To create a new Agricultural and Forestal District – “2020-2025 Back Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District”.
LOCATION AND SIZE: The proposed District is located within the Back Creek Magisterial
District and fronts Back Mountain Road (Route 600) and borders the Mountain Falls Subdivision
to the west. This proposed District would consist of one parcel that totals 489.91+/- acres.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) to
create the Back Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, comprising a total of 489.91+/-
acres. This District meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of Virginia,
1950, as amended, and has been evaluated in conjunction with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan.
This creation provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range
planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural
land through the year 2025.
Once created the 2020-2025 Back Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District will consist of
489.91+/- acres and will be valid until August 12, 2025. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors
approves, approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew an
Agricultural and Forestal District. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC)
considered this request during their meeting on June 25, 2020. The ADAC unanimously
recommended that the one parcel totaling 489.91+/- acres be established as the 2020-2025
Back Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
152
Page 2
Back Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District Renewal
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: The proposed District is located within the Back Creek Magisterial
District and fronts Back Mountain Road (Route 600) and borders the Mountain Falls Subdivision
to the west. This proposed District would consist of one parcel that totals 489.91+/- acres.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The District is 80 percent agriculture
(livestock and crop harvest) and 20 percent mature woodlands. The area within the District is
rural in nature.
LAND USE and ZONING: The use of the parcel is agricultural and residential. The parcel of
this District is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The surrounding properties are
zoned RA (Rural Areas) District and R-5 (Residential Recreational Community) District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County (Comp Plan)
provides guidance when considering land use actions. The location of this proposed District lies
outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water and Service Area (SWSA)
and is not part of any land use plan or study by the County. The land use within this proposed
District of 489.91+/- acres is residential and agricultural. The current land use should remain in
its present land use of pristine condition with land use of agricultural, and residential.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s
economy and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area.
The Comprehensive Plan can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in
Agricultural and Forestal District. The Comprehensive Plan support the additions and renewal of
the Districts, for it provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range
planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing reserve of agricultural
land through the year 2025.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies primarily within the Cedar Creek drainage area.
The establishment of this District will further assist with managing the quality of the County’s
water resources. There is a large pond on the parcel.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from broad rolling hills to the west and, gently
rolling hills to the north and east. This District lies within the Cedar Creek watershed and water
is available from ponds, streams, and springs. Most of the area within the District is in pasture,
livestock, and woodland.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within
the District is identified as Hazleton.
153
CHIPMONK
TRL
B O B C A T
C T
GREYHAWKDR
F A L C O N
D R
BRIERRABBITCT
OPOSSUMTRL
58 A 32D
BE ARCT
D O E C T
ITHACADR
KRAGDR
MAUSERDR
SAVAGEDR
GATLINGDR
E A G L E
W A Y
MARLINDR
BUNTLINEDR
HENRY DR
G A Z E L L E
T R L
OUTBACKTRL
C O U G A R
T R LPUMA T R L
MOUNTAIN
LODGE DR
WINCHESTER DR
P A N T H E R D R
R A C C O O N D R
REMINGTON DR
B L U E B I R D T R L
Q U A I L D R
G R O U S E D R
C A R D I N A L D R
F A W N D R
MOUNTAIN FALLS BLVD
P H E A S A N T D R
F O X R U N L N
C R O W D R
DIAMONDBACK LN
R A S P B E R R Y L N
B A C K M O U N T A I N R D
Establishment
Pa rce ls
2020-2025 Back Mountain EstablishmentAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.25 0.50.1 25 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 12, 2020
PIN Owner Acres58 A 32D HULVER, GREGORY & HULVER, MICHAEL 489.91
154
155
156
2020-2025 AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL DISTRICT UPDATE
RELIANCE DISTRICT – PROPOSED NEW DISTRICT
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: July 23, 2020
Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator
This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the
Agricultural District Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the Board of
Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to
other interested in this matter.
Reviewed Action
Agricultural District Advisory Committee: 06/25/20 Recommended
Approval
Planning Commission: 08/05/20 Pending
Board of Supervisors: 09/09/20 Pending
PROPOSAL: To create a new Agricultural and Forestal District – “2020-2025 Reliance
Agricultural and Forestal District”.
LOCATION AND SIZE: The proposed District is within the Opequon Magisterial District and
is generally located fronting Huttle Road (Route 636) and Headley Road. This proposed District
would consist of five parcels that contain 203+/- acres.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/05/20 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING:
This is a request to the Frederick County Planning Commission to create the Reliance
Agricultural and Forestal District, comprising a total of 203+/- acres. This District meets the
intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-433 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has been
evaluated in conjunction with the 2035 Comprehensive Plan. This creation provides an
opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range planning efforts for the
management of their operations, while providing a reserve of agricultural land through the year
2025.
Once created the 2020-2025 Reliance Agricultural and Forestal District will consist of 203 +/-
acres and will be valid until August 12, 2025. Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors approves,
approves with modifications, or denies the proposal to establish or renew an Agricultural and
Forestal District. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee (ADAC) considered this
request during their meeting on June 25, 2020. The ADAC unanimously recommended
that the five parcels totaling 203+/- acres be established as the 2020-2025 Reliance
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Following a public hearing, a recommendation from the Planning Commission to forward to
the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate.
157
Page 2
Reliance Agricultural and Forestal District
July 23, 2020
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
LOCATION AND SIZE: The proposed District is within the Opequon Magisterial District and
is generally located fronting Huttle Road (Route 636) and Headley Road. This proposed District
would consist of five parcels that contain 203 +/- acres.
AGRICULTURAL & FORESTAL SIGNIFICANCE: The District is 90 percent agriculture
(livestock, and crop harvest) and 10 percent open space/woodlands. The area within the District
is rural in nature.
LAND USE and ZONING: The five (5) parcels of this District are currently zoned RA (Rural
Areas) Zoning District and contain agricultural and residential land uses. All surrounding
properties are also zoned RA (Rural Areas) District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2035 Comprehensive Plan of Frederick County (Comp Plan)
provides guidance when considering land use actions. The location of this proposed District lies
outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water and Service Area (SWSA)
and is not part of any land use plan or study by the County. The land use within this proposed
District of 203+/- acres is residential and agricultural. The current land use should remain in its
present land use of pristine condition with land use of agricultural, and residential.
The intent of the Rural Areas is to maintain agriculture as a significant portion of the County’s
economy and to maintain the rural character of areas outside of the Urban Development Area.
The Comprehensive Plan can accomplish this by promoting the inclusion of additional land in
Agricultural and Forestal District. The Comprehensive Plan support the additions and renewal of
the Districts, for it provides an opportunity for the agribusiness community to conduct long range
planning efforts for the management of their operations, while providing reserve of agricultural
land through the year 2025.
LAKES/PONDS/STREAMS: The District lies primarily within the Opequon Creek drainage
area. The establishment of this District will further assist with managing the quality of the
County’s water resources.
TOPOGRAPHY: The District generally varies from slight rolling hills with open land and
woodland. The eastern portion of the District is woodland. This District lies within the Abrams
Creek watershed and water is available from streams and springs. Most of the area within the
District is in pasture and livestock with areas that are woodland.
PRIME AGRICULTURE SOIL: The largest amount of prime agricultural soils located within
the District is Weikeert-Berks-Blairton.
158
92 A 17
92 A 18
92 A 19
92 A 19
92 A 25
92 A 27
W
A
Y
S
I
D
E
M
IL
L L
N
R
E
L
I
A
N
C
E
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
H U T T L E R D HEADLEY RD
Establishment
Pa rce ls
2020-2025 Reliance EstablishmentAgricultural & Forestal District
I 0 0.15 0.30.0 75 Miles
Note:Frederick County Dept of Planning & Development107 N Kent St. Suite 202, Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: June 12, 2020
PIN Owner Acre s92 A 18 JUDY, JAMES, JR.102.9392 A 19 JUDY, JAMES, JR.44.2592 A 25 JUDY, JAMES, JR.28.0092 A 27 JUDY, JAMES, JR.22.6692 A 17 JUDY, JAMES, III 5.16
159
160
161
162
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: August 5, 2020
Agenda Section: Public Hearings
Title: Draft Update of the 2020-2021 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road
Improvement Plans
Attachments:
PC08-05-20InterstateandPrimaryRoadImprovementPlans2020-2021.pdf
163
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Assistant Director - Transportation
RE: Update of the Interstate and Primary Road Plans
DATE: July 20, 2020
This is a public hearing item to consider the update of the 2020 – 2021 Interstate and Primary
Road Plans. The Secondary Road Plan update will come at a future date once VDOT has finished
updating statewide revenue projections.
Summary of Changes:
Updates to the priorities which are being recommended are for the reasons of consistency
between the plans and for continuity and support of the Board’s SmartScale applications.
Interstate Plan Updates are as follows:
1. Updated Language for Exit 317 to a more general description that will adequately address
the fact that multiple improvements are being sought.
2. Clarify the need for improvements to existing Exit 307, as well as, the desire for the
eventual relocation of Exit 307
Primary Plan Updates are as follows:
1. Remove the first Segment of the Route 277 improvements since that is now beginning
construction.
The Transportation Committee is reviewing this item on July 27th and Staff will update the
Planning Commission at the meeting regarding their discussion. Staff is seeking a
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors on the plans.
Attachments
JAB/pd
MEMORANDUM
164
2020-2021
INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
for
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Frederick County Transportation Committee:
Frederick County Planning Commission:
Frederick County Board of Supervisors:
165
I-81 Improvements:
Provide additional travel lanes on the main line, evaluate collector-distributor lanes
adjacent to the main line, modifications to existing interchange areas, and develop new
interchange areas and bridge crossings of the main line as recommended by the WinFred
MPO Long Range Plan.
In addition, as the State continues to work toward an ultimate plan for the I-81 widening,
the County of Frederick continues to support the study of Eastern Route 37 as a potential
corridor on new location as an alternative for that effort.
Moreover, the County of Frederick supports exploration of the potential for rail
transportation as a component of the Interstate 81 Corridor improvements.
Interchange Priorities
1. Exit 313 - Bridge reconstruction, safety improvements, and capacity expansion.
2. Exit 317 – Interchange Upgrade and Redbud Road realignment to accommodate
interchange upgrade.
3. Exit 310 - Phase 2 of the FHWA approved interchange modifications.
4. Exit 307 – Safety and capacity improvements to the existing facility while
continuing to promote the future relocation further south to the South Frederick
Parkway.
5. Exit 307 – Ramp Relocation
Interstate Widening Priorities
1. Widen I-81 from Route 50/17 Exit 313 to Route 11 Exit 317
2. Widen I-81 from Route 277 Exit 307 to Route 50/17 Exit 313. This should
include the relocation of Exit 307.
3. Widen I-81 in Frederick County from Route 11 Exit 317 to the West Virginia
State line
4. Widen I-81 in Frederick County from Route 277 Exit 307 to the Warren County
Line in the South
Intelligent Transportation Systems and Incident Management
1. Increase of VDOT safety patrols.
2. Implement more variable message signs along the I-81 corridor and approaches.
166
¬«7
¬«277
¬«37
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
£¤11
£¤50
£¤522
£¤11
£¤50
£¤522
£¤11
£¤522
£¤522
£¤50
£¤11
£¤522
Winchester
Middletown
StephensCity
0 2.5 51.25 Miles
2020 - 2021Interstate RoadImprovement Plan
Widening Priorities
Priority 2Widen I-81 fromExit 307 to Exit 313
Priority 1Widen I-81 fromExit 313 to Exit 317
Widen Remainder of I-81 SouthPriority 4Widen Remainder of I-81 NorthPriority 3
Priority 5
!(Exit 307 Ramp Relocation
Interchange ImprovementPriorities
Priority 3Exit 310 Phase II of theInterchange Upgrade!(
Priority 1Exit 313 Bridge Reconstruction,Safety Improvements, andCapacity Expansion!(
Priority 4
!(Exit 307 Safety and CapacityImprovements to Existing Locationand Promote Future Realignment
Priority 2
Exit 317 Interchange Upgradeand Redbud Rd Realignment toAccomodate InterchangeUpgrade
!(
167
2020-2021
PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
for
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Frederick County Transportation Committee:
Frederick County Planning Commission:
Frederick County Board of Supervisors:
168
All upgrades to primary system roadways that are not limited access should include
implementation of access management principles to improve safety and efficiency wherever
possible.
1) Route 37 Bypass
A. Route 37 - Phase 1
Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction
phase schedule for the southern segment of the Route 37 Eastern Bypass from Interstate
I-81 to Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South).
B. Route 37 - Phase 2
Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction
phase schedule for the preferred alternative between existing Route 11 North and Route
7.
C. Route 37 - Phase 3
Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction
phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Route 7 and Route 522.
D. Route 37 – Phase 4
Initiate final engineering and design, acquire right-of-way, and establish a construction
phase schedule for the preferred alternative between Existing Route 37 around Stonewall
Industrial Park to Route 11 North.
2) Route 11 (North and South of Winchester)
A) Establish an Urban Divided Six Lane System:
From: Northern limits of the City of Winchester
To: Intersection of Cedar Hill Road
B) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System:
From: Southern limits of the City of Winchester
To: Renaissance Drive
C) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System:
From: Intersection of Cedar Hill Road
To: West Virginia line
3) Route 277 (East of Stephens City)
Upgrade of the overall corridor to a 4-lane divided system with improved access
management and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
169
A) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System:
From: Double Church Road
To: Warrior Drive
B) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System:
From: Warrior Drive
To: White Oak Road
C) Establish an Urban Divided Four Lane System:
From: White Oak Road
To: Route 277
4) Route 7 – Establish a 6 Lane Cross Section:
From: Exit 315 Interchange
To: Future Route 37 Interchange
5) Route 50 East and West
A) Establish a 6 Lane Cross Section:
From: The Interchange at Exit 313
To: The Future Route 37 Interchange
B) Establish a 6 Lane Cross Section:
From: The Interchange with Route 37
To: Poorhouse Road
6) South Frederick County Parkway:
From: Relocated Exit 307
To: Intersection with Route 277 approximately 1 mile west of the intersection of
Route 277 and Route 522
This is a new planned roadway with limited access points serving a mixture of
predominantly commercial and industrial development.
There is a need to study this project in conjunction with the Exit 307 relocation and
planning for Route 277 improvements noted in item 3.
Phasing of this project is not yet clearly defined; however general phasing would be from
West to East with the clear first phase being from relocated Exit 307 to Warrior Drive.
170
7) Route 522 and Costello Drive
Add additional left turn lane capacity on Route 522 southbound for turns onto Costello
Drive.
8) Commuter Park and Ride Lots
Establish a new park and ride facility along the Berryville Pike (Route 7) corridor. Work
with the Northern Shenandoah Valley Regional Commission to determine appropriate
locations for park and ride facilities at other strategic locations within the County’s Urban
Development Area. For Park and Ride locations in Frederick County, the primary goal
should be that they are situated in such a manner that they reduce traffic in Frederick
County in addition to adjacent localities.
171
1A
1B
1C
5A
5B
4
6
2A
2B
2C
1D
3A 3B
3C
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
¬«277
¬«277
¬«37
¬«7
¬«7 ¬«7
¬«37
¬«37
£¤50
£¤11
£¤50
£¤522
£¤11
£¤522
£¤522
£¤11
Winchester
Stephens City
2020 - 2021Primary RoadImprovementPlan
0 1 20.5 Miles
Route 37 Bypass Phases
Priority 1A
Priority 1B
Priority 1C
Priority 1D
Route 11 North & South
Priority 2A
Priority 2B
Priority 2C
Route 277 East of Stephens City
Priority 3A
Priority 3B
Priority 3C
Route 7
Priority 4
Route 50
Priority 5A
Priority 5B
South Frederick County Parkway
Priority 6
Route 522 & Costello Dr
!(Priority 7
Commuter - Park & Ride Lots
!(Priority 8
2A
172
Planning Commission
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: August 5, 2020
Agenda Section: Information/Discussion
Title: Ordinance Amendment - Day-Care Facilities
Attachments:
PC08-05-20OADayCareFacilities.pdf
173
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: M. Tyler Klein, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amendment – Day-Care Facilities
DATE: July 22, 2020
This is a request from a local engineering firm to expand the definition for “Day-Care Facility” to
include “adult-care.” The current definition for “Day-Care Facility” limits this service to children
only. An amendment to the definition is proposed as follows:
A facility in which more than five children and/or adults, not including persons children
who are related by blood, marriage or adoption to the people who maintain the facility, are
received for care, protection and guidance during only part of the twenty-four-hour day.
The Development Review and Regulations (DRRC) discussed this item on June 25th. The DRRC
generally supported the proposed ordinance amendment to expand the definition for “Day-Care
Facility” to include “adult-care” noting a pressing need in the community for care of elderly and/or
disabled adults during the workweek.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the
DRRC (with bold italic for text added). Staff is seeking direction from the Planning
Commission on this Zoning Ordinance text amendment.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Cover Letter from Greenway dated
June 11, 2020
3. Adult-Day Care & In-Home Care Cost Comparison Table
MTK/pd
174
Draft 6/12/2020
ARTICLE I
General Provisions, Amendments and Conditional Use Permits
Part 101
General Provisions
§165-101.02 Definitions and word usage.
Day-Care Facility
A facility in which more than five children and/or adults, not including persons children who are related
by blood, marriage or adoption to the people who maintain the facility, are received for care, protection
and guidance during only part of the twenty-four-hour day.
175
176
177
178
Adult Day Care vs. In-Home Care Cost Comparison
2019 National Average Costs
Type of Service
Daily Median Cost
Monthly Median Cost
Annual Median Cost
Adult Day Care Service
$75
$1,625
$19,500
In -Home Care Service
$141
$4,290
$51,480
Source: Genworth Financial, Inc. Cost of Care Survey
179