Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
006-95 Woodside II Estates - Opequon - Backfile
CASA RECEIPT Date 19 _1_�— 0 0 2 4 7 5 E Received From Address' Dollars $ For ,d. BALANCE MONEY DUE ORDER By AMT. OF ACCOUNT CASH AMT PAID CHECK 1 REtbNIA- CHECKLIST 0 i The application is not complete if the following are not present: SUBMISSION PACKAGE 1. Comment sheets from the following agencies along with any marked copies of the plan: �,/ VDOT Co. San. Auth. Inspection Dept. _l Fire Marshal gl County Attorney V2. Application Form �L 3. Location Map 4. Survey 5. Deed TRACKING DATE CC , ` I j �� 1pplication Received City of Winchester Co. Health Dept. Parks & Recreation Airport Authority �r Co. Engineer 6. Taxes paid statement 7. Sign received 8. _� Fees paid 9. I% Impact statement 10. Proffer statement Consultation held with Planning staff iiRezoning reviewed by Zoning Review Committee -if ��djoiner notifications mailed f r PC pub 'c hearing 1jlezoning heard by PC (Actio ) la i )demo to BOS re: date for public hearing y I 16 6jRezoning heard by BOS (Action a r'��sy�, 2 f3 �9�U � rdinance of amendment with conditions proffered prepaxV� 0*0 / County Administrator's signature rlc f Y p% : l AlG tck h L farder Zoning map amended h ° h ce 6-/2-q6 %3OS f}ct/O'/t: /Ip?r°,/e s U • - _,� �t„ �t S G Yap rsrti r e : 9 _P 0 0 a W � July 3, 1996 G.W. Clifford Associates, Inc. Attn: Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/678-0682 RE: REZONING APPLICATION #006-95 OF WOODSIDE ESTATES, PIN 86-A-21 Dear Steve: This letter is to confirm that on June 12, 1996, the rezoning for Woodside Estates was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Your application for the rezoning of 36.4589 acres, from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, has been unanimously approved with proffers. If you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning, please feel free to call this office. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Interim Planning Director KCT/cg cc: Commissioner of Revenue 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • • REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff. - Zoning Amendment umbers`Y �) Date Received 5 BOS Hearing Date i I PC Hearing Date 2 -tp The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, , Winchester. lcn ►`lorgh V, 1. Applicant: Name: Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates. Inc. Address: 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Telephone: 540-667-2139 2. Representative: Name: Stephen M. Gyurisin Telephone: 540-667-2139 3. Owner: Name: Jeni Company Address: P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Telephone: 540-662-7980 J z= qt4 12 619/nr- • The Code of Vimginia allows us to request full disclosure of ownership in relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Jeni Company P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, Virginia 22604 4. Zoning Change: It is requested that the zoning of the property be changed from RA to RP 5. Current Use of the Property: Vacant Rural Area 6. Adjoining Property: • PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING See Attached Sheet 7. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers): south of the intersection with Route 277 — Fairfax Pike. 0 13 40 "N • • 8. Parcel Identification: 14 Digit Tax Parcel Number: 86 - ((A)) - 02100 9. Magisterial District: Opequon 10. Property Dimensions: The dimensions of the property to be rezoned. Total Area: 36.4589 Acres to be rezoned RP The area of each portion to be rezoned to a different zoning district category should be noted: 36.4589 Acres Rezoned from RA to RP Acres Rezoned from to Acres Rezoned from to Acres Rezoned from to 11. Deed Reference: The ownership of the property is referenced by the following deed: Conveyed from: Joel Stowe Deed Book Number 818 Pages 1770 12. Proposed Use: It is proposed that the property will be put to the following uses. inele Family Homes 13. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map Plat X Deed to property X _ Statement verifying taxes paid X Agency Comments X Fees — X Impact Analysis Statement X_ Proffer Statement X 0 14 • f 14. Signature: • I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued to me (us) when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. ,, Applicant: Owner: Date: • 0 15 �= • • 6 0 Woodside Estates Adjoining Property Owners Herbert M. & Patricia Painter 914 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Louis F. & Betty R. Stelzl 968 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Herbert M. Painter 914 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Linwood Ritter 746 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Charles S. Carbary 784 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Charles W. Racey 387 Ewings Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 James L. Bowman P.O. Box 6 Stephens City, VA 22655 Kenneth E. Wymer 731 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Carlton L. Bartles 749 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Tim B. & Denise Lynn Thomas Rt. 1 Box 372-B Stephens City, VA 22655 Marvin Ola White 849 Grim Road Stephens City, VA 22655 86-A-23 86-A-21 A 86-A-22 85-A-140 86-A-72 :. adl►�:j 86-A-72A 86-A-71 A 86-A-71 �� 9 Woodsidc states Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia • IV APPLICATION FORM • 40 Woodsistates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia • V AGENCY COMMENTS • �h1�181920�j��,�� h x � .b �C� p gilbertw. clifford & associates, inc. 0 U • VI AGENCY COMMENTS Summary of Agency Comments The following summarizes the the Woodside Estates site: Woodside Estates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia agency comments provided for the rezoning of Frederick County Sanitation Authority - "We have an 8" waterline on the west side of SR 641." Town of Stephens City - Traffic implications and improvements to I-81 intersection must be considered and moved forward in time. Traffic backups are becoming more frequent and longer in duration. Frederick County Commonwealth Attorney - "Owners signature needs to be notarized - representative's signature may or may not be notarized." Frederick Count Engineering Department - "...We recommend that stormwater management be implemented during the subdivision design phase of the project..." • Virginia Department of Transportation - "No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Fourth Edition for review. Any work performed on the State's right-of-way must be covered under a Land Use Permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage." Frederick County Parks and Recreation - "The Parks and Recreation Department has no comment on the request to rezone the 33 + acres identified above." Frederick County Inspections Department - Buildings shall comply with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Shall comment on use group at the time of structural plan review." Frederick County Fire and Rescue Department - "...I do not have any specific comments on fire or rescue safety issues, as I will addr of subdivision submittal. I would however, suggest to to fire & rescue be considered in accordance with the used..." C] ess all of those at the time'\ the applicant, that proffers �V impact model_`nv beir��, ` C `J 4 �Q2j' 1 �U 4 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. COUNTY of FREDERICK Public Works Department Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director 703/665-5643 Fax: 703/678-0682 November 9, 1995 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Rezoning 36.46 acres Double Churches Road Woodside Estates Frederick County, Virginia Dear Steve: We understand that you are requesting to rezone 36.46 acres on Route 641 adjacent to Woodside Estates from RA to RP. We further understand that the development of the property will be similar to the Woodside Estates development. Based on our knowledge of the general site conditions, we recommend that stormwater management be implemented during the subdivision design phase of the project. This design should also address improvements to the existing roadside ditches and culverts adjacent to Route 641. A detailed review will be made at the time of the subdivision design submittal. In the interim, we grant our approval for the proposed rezoning. HES:mlh • cc: file Sincerely, HarveE. Strawsnyder, Jr., E. Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (703) 984-4133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 commerce St. in Winchester if you prefer to hand deliver this form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Stephen M. G urisin, Principal - PLANS AND PROJECTS 124 East Cork Street, Winchester, VA 22601 703-665-2155 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Double Churches" Request to rezone 33± acres from RA to RP. Location: • West side of Route 642, south of Route 277 See the attached plat. Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: No ob"ection to rezoning of this o ice will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the T 'r F T-ip Generation Manual, Fourth Edition for review. Any work performed on the State s right-of-way must be covered in-idpr a land >>-gP permit- Zhig permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond cover e. VDOT Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGINEER*PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO APPLICZENTl.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location m • other pertinent information. 3 Ed i nbu.rq Res i deuce 'JDOT�EL : 1 - ��.�7- +84-5r.;0? - , 9C' 1'� �1c' Nc_i .1)0 F� . i)1 �4U1_ , a UL-LI ,tom* 0 0 is gilbert w. Clifford & associates, inc. 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, Va. 22601 Phone: (540) 667-2139 Fax: (540) 66"493 Fax Cover Sheet To: Ai; v g'_- —a' ies -- G� Attn: From: Stephen M. Cyurisin J Re: double Churches Rezonin Number of Pages (Including Cover Sheet): --2- Destination Fax Number. 10:00 a.m. Date: Thursday, 10/26/95 Time: — Remarks: for this project have not changed since 1993. P1g�je let us k1low if your comments on the attached sheet(s) have char,i�_�i nce yokir rgvlew in 1993. Please re21v by return fax, and lease call if you have any questions. F P 0 N FREDERIik Cii. =ANITAT AUTHUF.ITY 10.26.1995F. 1 • As Frederick County sanitation Authority Attht Engineer Diredtor P.O. box fie Winchester, Virginia 22501 (703) 665_3690 The Frederick County Sanitation Authority is located on the 2nd floor of the old Frederick Co. Courthouse in Winchester, if you prefer to hand delivar thin review. Ayplioant'r MM01 address and phone numbers Stephen M. Gyurisin, Principal -- PLANS AND PROJFXTS 124 East Cork Street, Winchester, VA 22602 703,665-2151 Name of ddvelvDmOut and/or desoription of the request r "Double Churches" Request to rezone 33± acres from RA to RP. • Locations West side of Route 641, south of Route 277, See the attached plat. 8anitaltiou uthority commeota s t40 Sanitation Authority Signature & Date (NOTICE TO SANITATION AUTHORITY t,M cn leE TQAP p .I h 4G it is your reSponaibility to complete this form as accurataf� Possible in order to assist the agency with their review. A `� • please attach a Copy of your application form, all other pertinent infA.ormation. location map,., K/a�, I�Y,E yl ��' .,�.Y � Z o.f- r, - t�s% r s�aE' o� s•� I c� L9 FP I : 401 oD I CK CO CT COMMOf4S 1 *f. i 81-3E. P. 01 - 10/_6�1995 10:33 5iu565ua98 w CL.IFFC-AD o, Ace PHuE a2 • O Proderiak County Inspections Department Attni Bvi14ing Official P.O. Box 601 Rincbester, Virginia 22601 (703) 663-5i60 The Frederick County Inspections Department is located at 9 north Loudoun St., 2nd Floor of the Hammon Building in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review. Applicant's name, address and phone numbers Stephen M. Gyurie-in, Principal -- PLANS AND PROJECTS 124 East Cork Street, Winchester, VA 22601 703-665-2155 Name or QevelOpment and/or description of the request: "Double Churches" Requlst to rezone 331 acres frOM RA to RP. Locationt West side of Route 641, south of Route 277. See the attached plat. YAspection Department Commentez Building shall com 1 with the Vtrg1nia Un tale BOCA National Ugildindelliise- r the time of -structural Pla4 review. Building Official Signature & Date: e4'"-.-2 --� (NOTICE TO INSPCCTIONO DEPT. *PLEASE it B O 7►P , ) XMICE TO APPLICANT • rt is your responsibility to Complete this fOM as accuratel as Possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, and all other pertinent information. No a (l I �1 o i10 )st-it` Fax Nota 7671 Dale I/,� � r pegs_ � / fFrom.v,:,, COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA Thomas W. Owens Director November 9, 1995 G. W. Clifford and Associates 200 N. Cameron St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Attn: Steve Gyurisin Dear Steve, FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT 9 N. Loudoun Street, 2nd Floor Winchester, Virginia 22601 Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal I'm writing in reference to a rezoning request for Woodside Estates II & III, formerly submitted as "Double Churches". This plan was originlly reviewed by the Fire and Rescue Dept. in February of 1993. At that time there was not an impact model in use by the county to plan impact costs, and proffer statements. The Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company had discussed proffers similiar to Woodside I, when this application was presented. • At this time, I do not have any specific comments on Fire or Rescue safety issues, as I will address all of those at the time of subdivision submittal. I would however, suggest to the applicant, that proffers to Fire and Rescue be considered in accordance with the impact model now being used by the Planning Dept. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Douglas A. Kiracofe Fire Marshal cc: Jack Lake, Chief: Stephens City Fire and Rescue Co.I 1 file DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 FAX - (703) 678-0682 i COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINI/ FIRE AND RESCUE DEPARTMENT 9 N. Loudoun Street, 2nd Floc Winchester, Virginia 2260 Thomas W. Owens Director is U February 25, 1993 Plans and Projects 124 E. Cork Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Gyurisin, Douglas A. Kiracot Fire Marshal This is in response to your request for rezoning; comments on the property located on Rt. 641 (Double Churches Rd). Rezoning from an RA to an RP Zone drastically increases the density on a piece of property and this has a significant impact on fire and rescue resources. To offset some of this impact, the Fire and Rescue Service provider for the given site, in this case Stephens City Vol. Fire Co. tries to meet with the proposed developer to discuss proffer requests. Said proffers are requested to be used against capital improvements costs encountered with higher density development. Once this meeting takes place, the officers of Stephens City Vol. Fire Co. will write a proffer request and forward copies to you and myself. Those requests or comments become an addendum to my continents to the Planning Dept. Any additional comments on fire and rescue safety issues f,_)r this tract will be addressed on site plan or construction drawings. should you need any additional information, please don't. hesitate to contact. me. Also, your best point of contact at. Stephens City Vol. Fire Co. will be Chief Frank Weller at. 869- 4-576. S i,n—eere,ly, Douglas A. Kiracof� n Fire Marshal k_ DAK: i i c 0 cc : Frank W4�1ler : Chie , Eng . Co. 11 File DIRECTOR - (703) 665-5618 FIRE- MARSHAL - (703) 665-6350 F ,p(,7Q3J�f�, 2 0 • • REQUEST FOR REZONING COMMENTS Frederick County Commonwealth Attorney Winchester -Frederick County Judicial Center 5 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 ( 540 ) 667-5770 The Commonwealth Attorneys office is located in the Frederick County Judicial Center at 5 North Kent Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this form. Applicant's name, address and phone number: Winchester - Street in Name of development and/or description of the request: S5 -G� 7-2i 3a Location: 0 �";7r M Sl4'h&%rt Mg e! MAW hVf 6c A61At,/Zed _ hictper Signature and Date: (NOTICE TO A RT. * PLEAS RE URN THIS FORM TO APPLICANT.) Ao�ne� NOTICE TO APPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map' proffer statement, impact analysis, and all other �pertin t information. h� •!k •, ,t . �. -1 Frederick County parks and Recreation Dept, Attnt Director of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box *6 790 Winchester, Va. 23 " S*C (?-83) 665-5678 The Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department is located on the second floor of the Frederick County Administration Building, 9 Court Square, Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form. Appliaanefs name, address and phone number: Stephen M. Gyurisin, Principal - PLANS AND PROJECTS 1?4 East Cork Street, Winchester, VA 22601 703-665-2155 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Double Churches" Request to rezone 331 acres from RA to RP. • Location: West side of Route 641 south of Route 277. See the attached plot. Parke 6 Recreation Dept. Comments: The Parks and RecreaL.uj, Department- has no ccmjnent on the request to rezone the 33 + ar.ree identified above. ,-iddirlonal ur new cuniment5 n this request. fi26 Parks Siqnature and Da e: )/5 93 (NOTICE TO PARKS - PL S THIS'FOR 0 HE XPPLICAN , OT TO kPPLICANT • It is your responsibility o complete this form as accurately ab possible in order to assist the agency with their review. AlsoyJ please attach a copy of your application forts, impact analysis/1 location nap and all other pertinent information. ,`,/ ,�'� :�0C 1 -,71 • REOU L FOR RU,OINc SO- MZTUM Town of Stephens City, Virginia P.O. Box 250 1033 Locust Street Stephens City, va. 22655 (703) 869-3087 The Town of Stephens City Offices are located at 1033 Locust Street in Stephens City, it you prefer to hand deliver this'rpview form. Applicants name, address and phone number: PLANS AND PROJECTS - Stephen 4. Gyuriain, Principal 1.24 East. Cork Street, Winchester, VA 22601 703-665-2155 Name of development and/or description of the request: "Double Churches" Request to rezone 33t acres from RA to RP. • Location; West side of Route 641, south of Route 277. see the attached plat. Town of 8topheux City Commentss lrtct-S-+ r, ltnp :11 C4 1 cv� :, Fr�Vi) 1/r 1y•.r..t t l` 1— � IN1Pi"h'-'_ r AFQ r ; ;; -n, A .— Town Manager Signature & Date; (NOTICE TO MANAGER PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO THE APP T_.) NOTICE TO APPLICANT Qc, • it is your responsibility to complete this form as accuratelya s possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also,:4 please attach a copy of your application form, location map and all other pertinent information. z • • Woodside Estates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia VII , PROFFER STATEMENT �0a o� gilbert w. clif ford & associates, inc, Woodside Estates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia • VI IMPACT ANALYSIS • 0 • WOODSIDE ESTATES Route 641- Double Churches Road Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia REQUEST FOR REZONING Frederick County, Virginia Board of Supervisors Planning Commission Rezoning Request of JENI Company to rezone 36 ± acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance) for Single Family Homes October,1995 0ON0. (co, pia Prepared by: gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. 200 N. Cameron Street 150 C Old Greenwich Road Winchester, Virginia 22601 Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 (540) 667-2139 (540) 898-2115 C 0 V E R FAX S H E E T To: � DOW n Fax #: Cv`���3LL3 2 1 y Subject: 5 �' (01---y-- A�I4) Date: �J /�7 Pages: , including this cover sheet. COMMENTS: ni�� vn-�:5- oil, r3 i e�5 e- cc� cJ From the desk of... f 1 YO2� Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-665-5651 Fax:540-678-0682 • • gilbert w. cliff ord & associates, inc. INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers Land Planners Surveyors Water Quality Analyses Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive - P. O. Box 781 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 • (540) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, VA 22601 • (540) 667-2139 memorandum To: Review Agencies From: Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. Re: Woodside Estates II Date: November 16, 1995 In support of a rezoning application for Woodside Estates II, the developer has requested that Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. complete a study of the impact of this development on the VA Route 641 (Double Church Road) and VA Route 277 intersection. This study was to estimate existing (1995) and year 2000 volumes and determine what effect an additional 147 single family (Woodside Estates I & II) residential lots would have on the 641 /277 intersection at those periods. The study utilized the following documentation to develop its findings. 1. O.R. George, Traffic Impact Analysis for Rezoning of Wilson Property, Frederick County, Virginia, 1989. 2. ITE Trip Generation, 4th Edition. 3. VDOT Primary and Secondary Road Traffic Tabulation, Frederick County, 1985-1993. 4. TRB Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. The following methodology was followed: 1. Determine 1989 traffic volumes at intersection from O.R. George Study. 2. Establish volume percentage increases for period 1989 to 1995 and 1995 to 2000. 3. Apply these ratios to the 1989 intersection volumes to estimate 1995 and 2000 intersection volumes without development impacts. 4. Using peak hour volumes determine turn ratios at the intersection. 5. Estimate Woodside Estates I & II trip generation. 6. Apply intersection turn ratios to enter and exit trips to --estimate intersection impact. • 0 Woodside Estates II Nov. 16, 1995 7. Apply the impact volumes to year 1995 and 2000 base volumes. 8. Perform planning analysis per Special Report 209, Section 9. The O.R. George Study provided volumes for each movement in the intersection throughout the peak hour periods. From this data, hourly volumes at 15 minute intervals were calculated, and a peak hour was determined. The traffic count summary is provided in Table #1. The peak hour is from 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. In order to transform the 1989 volumes into relevant data, a factor representing the increase in traffic volume at the intersection caused by surrounding development was required. The major factors affecting traffic in this area are the Village at Sherando and Sherando High School. VDOT performs traffic counts on the primary and secondary roads through the County on a roughly bi-annual basis. The volumes for VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 from 1985 to 1993 were analyzed to arrive at the required percentage increases. Since the last count was taken in 1993, after the High School and much of i the Village at Sherando project was opened, this factor was assumed to account for; all pertinent development in the general area. A summary of the data and the percentage increase values for VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 are provided on Exhibit #1. The traffic volumes generated during the peak hour were then calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Code 210, Single Family Detached Housing. The ITE manual provides trips generated during the peak hour of ' the adjacent street as well jj as the percentage of trips entering or exiting the development. It was assumed that !75% of the trips from Woodside would turn toward or arrive from, as is the case during the peak hour, VA Route 277. At the intersection, the trips were further broken down based on the turn volumes in the O.R. George count. The ratio these volumes represented was used to assign the 75% volume, which arrive at Woodside from VA Route 277, to either east bound or west bound Route 277 or south bound Route 641. The additional p.m. peak hour trips which are generated by Woodside, along with the turn ratio and trip generation calculations, are presented on Exhibit #2. A) Project Name: .�oodside Location: Stephens City 100 0:15 Intersection: Va Fite 641/Va Rio 277 Date: Weekday, 10/23/89 Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Fite 641 on VA Rio 277 on VA File 277 Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time Period 22 6 2 30 3 53 5 61 6 55 15 76 184 700 7:15 700 7:15 9 5 3 5 17 24 27 8 4 39 5 50 8 63 8 62 18 88 214 7:15 7:30 7:15 7:30 12 7 6 22 25 7 3 35 4 48 6 58 7 58 17 82 197 7:30 7:45 7:30 7:45 7 9 16 21 5 2 28 3 55 4 62 6 52 11 69 175 7.45 8:00 7:45 8:00 5 7 4 19 3 3 25 1 52 3 56 1 49 15 65 159 800 8:15 800 8:15 8 1 4 13 16 15 1 0 16 1 56 7 64 3 37 7 47 143 8:15 8:30 8:15 8:30 12 2 2 1 16 3 39 3 45 3 40 5 48 116 8:30 8:45 8:30 8:45 3 3 1 7 11 4 3 1 13 5 43 2 50 1 35 8 44 119 8:45 9:00 8:45 900 4 6 2 12 9 1600 16:15 6 12 1 19 13 6 4 23 5 46 3 54 4 54 23 81 177 900 16:15 16:15 16:30 5 9 7 21 12 9 8 29 10 70 13 93 13 57 22 92 235 16:15 16:30 16:30 16:45 8 12 4 24 19 15 7 41 14 71 7 92 6 64 22 92 249 16:30 16:45 9 3 23 19 9 12 40 7 63 12 82 5 70 10 85 230 16:45 17:00 16:45 1700 11 5 15 18 13 4 35 8 78 11 97 11 77 9 97 244 1700 17:15 1700 17:15 3 7 3 26 8 71 10 89 7 81 23 ill 240 17:15 17:30 17:15 17:30 3 10 1 14 14 18 9 9 7 34 9 79 29 117 11 61 21 93 262 17:30 17:45 17:30 17:45 2 11 16 5 3 18 27 21 16 8 45 18 77 23 118 8 67 20 95 285 17:45 18:00 17:45 1800 8 ... •n::v:r ..... .v:.v:::.w:.w:: nxrr: ri :...... n:•4 NOM i::;•:...... '. ..... Counted totals adjusted to hourly volumes Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rio 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rio 277 Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time 600 Period 700 33 28 18 79 95 26 11 132 15 206 23 244 27 227 61 315 770 600 7:00 6:15 7:15 32 24 19 75 92 23 12 127 13 205 21 239 22 221 61 304 745 6:15 7:15 6:30 7:30 32 19 16 67 80 16 8 104 9 211 20 240 17 196 50 263 674 6:30 7:30 6:45 7:45 28 13 11 52 66 13 6 85 8 202 17 227 13 178 38 229 593 6:45 7:45 700 800 27 12 9 48 54 11 5 70 10 190 15 215 8 161 35 204 537 700 8:00 7:15 8:15 19 11 5 35 35 8 2 45 9 138 12 159 7 112 20 139 378 7:15 8:15 7:30 8:30 13 21 4 38 33 13 6 52 13 128 8 149 8 129 36 173 412 7:30 8:30 7:45, 8:45 15 27 10 52 34 18 13 65 20 159 18 197 18 146 53 217 531 7:45 8:45 900 19 33 12 64 44 30 19 93 29 187 23 239 23 175 67 265 661 800 9:00 16100 „17004 30 42 15 87 63 39 31 133 36 250 35 321 28 245 77 350 891 1600 17:00 16:15:- 17:15 27.} 37 19 83 68 46 31 145 39 282 43 364 35 268 63 366 958 16:15 17:15 '16:30' 17:3'0 25 % 38 13 76 70 46 26 142 37 283 40 360 29 292 64 385 963 16:30 17:30 16:45 , 17:45' 19 37 14 70 69 40 26 135 32 291 62 385 34 289 63 386 976 16:45 17:45 17:00 1800 16 44 14 74 71 47 22 140 43 305 73 421 37 286 73 396 1031 1700 18:00 Y' Peak Hr., 16 44 14 74 71 47 22 140 43 305 73 421 37 286 73 396 1031 1700 18:00 : Table #1 O.R. George and Assloclates, Inc. gilbert w. clifford and associates Va Rio 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Tum Movement Volumes November 1995 0 is Percentage Percentage Increase Increase 1985 1987 1991 1993 1995(est) 1987 to 1995 2000(est) at 4% growth per year 1995 to 2000 Year of Count Va Rte 641 South of Intersection 1591 1736 1793 1538 1750 n/a 2129 22`/° Va Rte 641 North of Intersection 865 no count 865 2618 2750 218% 3346 22% Year of Count 1988 1990 1993 22% Va Rte 277 4700 4850 11000 11000 134% 13383AL Use this percentage to Increase O.R. George 1989 intersection volumes Use this percentage to Increase 1995 estimated Intersection volumes to year 2000 volumes gilberj w/ cNfford Ond associates November 1995 Exhibit #1 Determination of Average Daily Volumes on VA Rte 641 and VA Rte 277 Based on VDOT Traffic Count Data 1985 through 1993 • • Determination of Turm Ratios At Va Rio 641/ Va Rio 277 Intersection From 641 Through From 277 Westbound From 277 Eastbound Volume to 641 South A.M. Peak Hr Vol. 89 35 143 267 Movement Ratio 33 % 13 % 53% From 641 Through From 277 Westbound From 277 Eastbound Volume to 641 South P.M. Peak Hr Vol. 140 101 171 411 Movement Ratio 34 % 24% 42% To 641 Through To 277 Westbound To 277 Eastbound Volume to 641 South A.M. Peak Hr Vol. 26 95 11 132 Movement Ratio 20% 72% 8% To 641 Through To 277 Westbound To 277 Eastbound Volume to 641 South • P.M. Peak Hr Vol. 47 71 22 140 Movement Ratio 34% 51% 16% Determination of Increased Traffic Volumes at Va Rio 641/ Va Rio 277 Intersection Due to Woodside Development. Trip Generation by Woodside Developments Proposed Single Family Residential Units = 147 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ITE Trip Generation Rates 0.20 0.55 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.01 Fourth Ed., Code 210 Trip Production 30 81 ill 93 54 148 At Va Rio 641, it is assumed that the trip distribution is as follows: Percentage to/from the north = 75% • Percentage to/from the south = 25% Impact of Traffic From North Development on VA File 641 Lotti Thru Right Time Period : • i 6 00 7;00. � f� .7 117A0 18'00 23 J `� gilbert w cFflorj�nds associates November 1995 Traffic From South on VA Rio 641 Lett Thru Right 44 12 5 21 14 6 Traffic From East on VA Rio 277 Left Thru Right 3 17 Traffic From West on VA Rio 277 Left Thru Right 12 29 Time Period 6:00 7:00 17:00 18:00 Exhibit #2 Va Rio 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Tum Movement Ratios Woodside Estates 13 II Determination of Trip Generation • Woodside Estates H Nov. 16, 1995 The development impact volumes were added to the year 1995 and 2000 base data. The base year peak hour volumes as well as the development affected peak hour volumes are provided on Exhibit #3. In all cases the p.m. peak hour represents the highest intersection volume and those hour volumes are used to evaluate the intersection's performance. Special Report 209 provides a planning analysis methodology for signalized intersections as an alternative to the detail signalization design procedure. The planning analysis checks the critical conflicting volumes and provides an estimate of the condition of the intersection. Three conditions are assigned: under, near, or over capacity. The calculation sheets for each of the four conditions are provided in Appendix A. The results are as follows: 1995 (existing) - under capacity �1995 (with development) - near capacity 2000 (without development) - over capacity 2000 (with development) - over capacity It is the opinion of the writer that Woodside Estates I and II will have a minimal effect on the VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 intersection and will not affect the intersections performance. With continued development along the VA Route 277 corridor, the intersection will begin to provide lower levels of service whether the Woodside Estates II project proceeds or not. If desired, we can provide recommendations for intersection improvements to maintain a near or under capacity condition through the year 2000 for planning use. Any questions regarding the findings, calculations, or references used in this report can be directed to the writer. Determination of Current Va Rte 641/ Va Rio 277 Intersection Volumes: Peak Hour totals from Chart A adjusted to account for increase volumes since O.R. George counts in 1989. Increase factor per Table A, for 1988 - 1995 percentage increase Estimated Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Ex 1995 Vol. on VA Rie 641 on VA Rio 641 on VA Rio 277 Left Thru Right Total Lett Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Time Period 600 - 700 W5 89 57 251 95 26 11 132 35 482 54 571 1700 - 1800 51 140 45 235 71 47 22 140 101 714 171 985 Impact of Development Time Period 600 - 700 1700 - 1800 Traffic From North on VA Rte 641 Leh Thru Right 105 97 57 259 51 163 45 259 Yr 2000 w1oul Traffic From North Development on VA Rte 641 Leh Thru Right Time Period 600 - 700 128 110 70 307 1700 - 1800 62 175 54 291 Yr 2000 with Traffic From North Development on VA Rte 641 Lett, Thru Right Time Period J i 600 7:00 128 11i� 70 315 17:00 ' 18 00'\ 62,J� 199 it, 54 315 gilbert W. 'c#fford and associates November 1995 Traffic From South on VA Rio 641 Lett Thru Right 139 38 16 193 92 61 28 181 Traffic From South on VA Rio 641 Left Thru Right 125 34 14 174 91 60 28 179 Traffic From South on VA Rte 641 Lett Thru Right 169 46 20 234 112 74 35 220 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 38 482 54 574 118 714 171 1002 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 43 587 65 695 126 868 208 1202 Traffic From East on VA Rio 277 Left Thru Right 46 587 65 698 143 868 208 1220 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Total 63 531 143 737 87 669 171 927 Traffic From West on VA Rio 277 Left Thru Right 63 531 155 749 87 669 200 956 Traffic From West on VA Rio 277 Left Thru Right 77 646 176 900 105 814 214 1134 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 77 646 188 912 105 814 243 1163 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 1691 600 7:00 2287 1700 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 1775 600 7:00 2398 1700 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 2076 600 7:00 2807 1700 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 2159 600 7:00 2917 1700 18:00 Exhibit #3 VA Rte 277/ VA Rio 641 Intersection A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Progesslve Volumes 1995 through 2000 • L_J Appendix A Woodside Estates VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 Intersection Special Report 209 Analysis Worksheets 1995 Existing 1995 with Development 2000 without Development 2000 with Development l� lop 'R � • SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS • 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: 7 6 �— Date: w E EK bA Y Analyst: �A �''� Time Period Analvzed: ��4►L 4 �Z- Project No. WOOa"31\ 6E Clty/State: P-2CDeZ %C1L cac iry , VA SB TOTAL N-S STREET Z �s I11 /40 10 r WBTOTAL EB TOTAL EB LT = 8 7 WBTH = G�ZI' WELT = 101 EB TH = // ,, qq OR i7o 14a77 E-W STREET -71 IBC NB TOTAL NB LT = MAXIMUM SB TH = I SUM OF CRMCAL CAPACITY ?C 1 VOLUMES LEVEL SB LT = 0 TO 1,�00 :,- UNDER NB TH = �? OR 1,201 to 1,400 NEAR' ,. . z > 1,400 OVER STATUS? AJEAIZ E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL 9-8 2 • URBAN STREETS is \ CC-7-x 1 Sr► A) G- DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE LANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) 4) 1 O O © O O O " Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing PCE T V, T Equiv. PCE's Volume (TH+RT) Total Lanes on Approach Volume Per Lane Vehicles in LT+TH LT+TH Lane ea. of the Remaining Volume (vph) Lane Lanes 0-199=1.1 200-599=2.0 (3^s) 600-799=3.0 ©x33 +OO C6 a —J 3—S —10 800 — 999 = 4.0 >_ 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT VB LT NB LT � > "� ILA 3 L4 O —7 1 r.. SB y� I �I S� fgS Z`i� Zy l LT r^ - • SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS • 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: 6 z_ Date: W E SIc ►14 Y 1 Q J Analyst: Time Period Analvzed: P m, �6 Ak t't IZ Project No. W00ZS16E City/State: P SLDSZIC1L (.oNNT`/ . VA SB TOTAL N-S STREET 171 ys s► 71H161 r loot WB TOTAL O 1 S 6 GG `i EB TOTAL ?00 EB LT = W B T H = WB LT OR EB TH = !� 4 VAS= -7 E-W STREET NB TOTAL • J NB LT = SB TH SB LT NB TH MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL VOLUMES 0 TO 1,200 1,201 to 1,400 > 1,400 -- CAPACITY LEVEL UNDER_ NEAR OVER 4- ?a STATUS? ' N F 4 K ©• k E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL �', 9-82 URBAN STREETS Y LAME DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) O O �D O T T O O O " Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing Equiv. Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT-TH ea. of the PCE V,T PCE' Volume �r s (TH+RT) Approach Per Lane in LT—TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes 0-199=1.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 600-799=3.0 800 — 999 = 4.0 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT NB LT O2x03 10�o 6 -� I ©�® I've -1.0 LTy� SB �,1 S I S6 Zog Z/y Z6Lj LT ,. • SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS • 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: m7a Date: w E EtC J.4 Y OD ;J Analyst: �� M Time Period Analyzed: 'P M • �6AIC 4 ]Z. Project No. WOO -'!I E City/State: P2F_DF�tetL Cm4Ail-y , VA SB TOTAL N-S STREET l o% Zvi 11 S Z� WB TOTAL E-W STREET EB TOTAL NB TOTAL EB LT = NB LT = �� MAXIMUM WB TH = 07 SB TH SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL WB LT = I L SB LT = �_ 0 TO 1,200 - -UNDER ` OR _ q H OR 1,201 to 1,400 . NEAR EB TH = �� NB TH .T > 1,400 ,� OVER 1 1` + 3 Sa = 5 3 STATUS? a� E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL 9-82 URBAN STREETS LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) O O O © O © O O 1 O @ Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing Equiv. Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume PCE`T V`T PCE"s (TH—RT) Approach Per Lane in LT�TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes 0-199=1.1 200-599=2.0 600-799=3.0 ®x03 ®-05 ®-© J—® ©+( — 1.0 800 — 999 = 4.0 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT 'B LT 5B I LT r I • SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS . 9-8] PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: 6 Z— Date:— w E EK L,),4 Y O Analyst: Time Period Analvzed: Project No. WOOZ�L 6E City/State: VA SB TOTAL N-S STREET 3 15 3Z! Zo8 q r WB TOTAL 6Z-I+Z O 11G3 � EB TOTAL EBLT = 105- NB LT WB TH = 107 � SB TH WB LT = 143 SB LT OR g 19 EB TH = NB TH �7 IIS\ E-W CRITICAL 60 V.+ Z r 2 E-W STREET �t ZZo S S NB TOTAL 60 MAXIMUM _? 1 SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL 3 _ --�— 0 TO 1,200 UNDER.. _ OR 1,201 to 1,400 _ NEAR SS > 1,400 ;' ,s, `OVER :r+ STATUS? o V E tC N-S CRITICAL ;v �- URBAN STREETS `00 L- I µ `..E' C i t ..:'•' �"� ti LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) T T O O T T O T O O " Vp LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing Equiv. Volume Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the PCE�T vLT PCE•s (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT�-TH Lane Remaining Volume Lanes (vph) Lane 0 — 199 = 1.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 600-799=3.0 fix( T+(5) ®—® ©+® —1.0 800 — 999 = 4.0 >_ 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT 'B LT NB LT ?53 Z•o RIZ ZZy 101 LT 4 v�s,� Y 1 (4 v 0 • U 0 Woodside Estates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia I Letter of Request II Location Map III Property Plat IV Application Form V Agency Comments VI Impact Analysis VII Proffer Statement VIII Deed IX Tax Verification gilbertw. clifford & associates, inc. Woodside Estates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia • • 0 • i 0 gilbert w. clif ford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 • Fax: 540-665-0493 October 26,1995 Mr. Bob Watkins, Director Frederick County Planning Department 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning Request: RA to RP Property ID 86 ((A)) 21 Opequon Magisterial District Dear Bob: Please find enclosed all required application materials for rezoning approval of the above. referenced property from RA, Rural Area to RP Residential Performance. This project has been discussed with you and your staff as well as the Planning Commission and it's committees numerous times over the past few years. In • each instance, we have been told that the site appears best suited for single family residential homes. To that end, we wish to proffer single family homes with curb, gutter and sidewalk standards. This fulfills the desires of your Planning Commission for the site located within your designated urban development area now ready for development. Sincerely, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. enclosure cc: Mr. Charles DeHaven Mr. Bill Tisinger 0 c�iGoE � • 0 Woodside Estates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia II LOCATION MAP 4 gilbertw. clifford & associates, inc. 0 0 \N q -6 4NO 14 7 • J5 Frederick County, Virginia for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works. Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the information in this section. Local ordinances and regulations must be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design. Soil properties, site features, and observed performance were considered in determining the ratings in this section. During the fieldwork for this soil survey, determinations were made about grain -size distribution, liquid limit, plasticity index, soil reaction, depth to bedrock, hardness of bedrock within 5 to 6 feet of the surface, soil wetness, depth to a seasonal high water table, slope, likelihood of flooding, natural soil structure aggregation, and soil density. Data were collected about kinds of clay minerals, mineralogy of the sand and silt fractions, and the kind of adsorbed cations. Estimates were made for erodibility, permeability, corrosivity, shrink - swell potential, available water capacity, and other behavioral characteristics affecting engineering uses. This information can be used to (1) evaluate the potential of areas for residential, commercial, industrial, and recreation uses; (2) make preliminary estimates of construction conditions; (3) evaluate alternative routes for roads, streets, highways, pipelines, and underground cables; (4) evaluate alternative sites for sanitary landfills, septic tank absorption fields, and sewage lagoons; (5) plan detailed onsite investigations of soils and geology; (6) locate potential sources of gravel, sand, earthfill, and topsoil; (7) plan drainage systems, irrigation systems, ponds, terraces, and other structures for soil and water conservation; and (8) predict performance of proposed small structures and pavements by comparing the performance of existing similar structures on the same or similar soils. The information in the tables, along with the soil maps, the soil descriptions, and other data provided in this survey can be used to make additional interpretations. Some of the terms used in this soil survey have a special meaning in soil science and are defined in the Glossary. Building Site Development Table 10 shows the degree and kind of soil limitations that affect shallow excavations, dwellings with and without basements, small commercial buildings, local roads and streets, and lawns and landscaping. The limitations are considered slight if soil properties and site features are generally favorable for the indicated use and limitations are minor and easily overcome; moderate if soil properties or site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations; and severe if soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction 75 costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required. Special feasibility studies may be required where the soil limitations are severe. Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for basements, graves, utility lines, open ditches, and other purposes. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. The ease of digging, filling, and compacting is affected by the depth to bedrock or to a very firm dense layer; stone content; soil texture; and slope. The time of the year that excavations can be made is affected by the depth to a seasonal high water table and the susceptibility of the soil to flooding. The resistance of the excavation walls or banks to sloughing or caving is affected by soil texture and the depth to the water table. Dwellings and small commercial buildings are structures built on shallow foundations on undisturbed soil. The load limit is the same as that for single-family dwellings no higher than three stories. Ratings are made for small commercial buildings without basements, for dwellings with basements, and for dwellings without basements. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. A high water table, flooding, shrink -swell potential, and organic layers can cause the movement of footings. A high water table, depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, large stones, slope, and flooding affect the ease of excavation and construction. Landscaping and grading that require cuts and fills of more than 5 to 6 feet are not considered. Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material, a base of gravel, crushed rock, or stabilized soil material, and a flexible or rigid surface. Cuts and fills are generally limited to less than 6 feet. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, a high water table, flooding, large stones, and slope affect the ease of excavating and grading. Soil strength (as inferred from the engineering classification of the soil), shrink -swell potential, frost -action potential, and depth to a high water table affect the traffic -supporting capacity. Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. The ratings are based on soil properties, site features, and observed performance of the soils. Soil reaction, a high water table, depth to bedrock, the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches, and the content of salts, sodium, and sulfidic materials affect plant growth. Flooding, wetness, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer affect trafficability after vegetation is established. � 0 � 0 � 0 Q 4. / r � .,.�II!I �!�' • a liplll II11111� I .�' / RP I �'i,il �II�I•, �,, o Of -� `"• '/ ~��� '�il��I!'II'I,!6'ly�� li''�I�i�I�� II��`�'���-� I ��' !•,IL,, l I�V!I!►''I �''i I �a, 11 I a ,.:r -/ • �.� -+-. - I I„�,�� I�I � I � ! ! ��I�dul,ll�� � I •! I I " �•' w, ' II � a�.'I•.� I I, "'I I • I U I�IIII' •QY .� " �- e. R P o If, ff ,. 1. �' , ; .I , ,' • �, .:�.a.: � - i �� �., • » i .h _ I 85 a•l .ram'' �`� � (z}• \`'+ J I�ti'' � �� Mom- -b ;�r � _ ���1• 1p o.\ ry SITE ��— — — O IOD / I gl/bert w. cllHord & associates, Inc. 540-667-2139 • Fax: 540-665-0493 Woodside Estates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia • • 0 1-1 cip • 4pro O C.,pc 0. v P O ONI 0 b OJQ- pq� ` 1-`IW— PT. 8 EO - ti ao, � N 0402 2' 04"E 192.93 cNo. NOT 5 8'48 " E 2 99. 86' ARc 299.92' r rn _ r�- U') z Iro ti 199.8 8' ARC 199.92, NO3°32'06"E Q-� S 81 ° 14 l09~E- 85.72' I PIN 565.641 IRON ' 5 .000 AG TRACT �189055' 18" W - 8 3.47' LLJ 0 r:�; cNo. N00° 15'46" W - 177. 91' PIN--IAON PIRON PIN f N _ N87014'0_0"E o _ ARC I77.98; �,is/•yRO° 175.07 (153.2 15 IRON PIN 6'f % (FOUND) N 13 ° 51' 49"E cr o IRON PIN I CAROLINE R. CARBARY s�6 96% F,� N 85°16'1 1 "�/ I�—� D. B. 4 74' P. 4 9 I 1110 9 _ c_Ho. N09°31'41 "W-306.61' `p0 Jl A R C F ` �,/• / 8 (� �^�'���\'7 Nam'. ���i.J� --N-16' 02 '59" W P 168.0 5'F �95�£Z�,` Q 000. 0 • November 6, 1995 J Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street 1,9s �7 Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Rezoning Application for Woodside Estates Dear Steve: I am returning the above referenced application and the check for the application fee. As it is currently formatted, the application is unacceptable. First, there is no comment from the County Attorney on the proffers which are offered. This is an absolute must. Second, there are a number of problems with the format of the statement. * The statement references an attached, Addendum "A" - Street Layout for Woodside Estates; there is no such attachment. The diagram enclosed is not labeled as an addendum and is titled Generalized Development Plan. * The monetary amount proffered needs to be broken down into specific dollar amounts for the various departments or agencies. * Also the amount proffered toward the Fire and Rescue Company needs to come to the County rather than directly to the Company. These items in and of themselves would probably not warrant returning the application, however, there are a number of other shortcomings. As you know, the County rezoning process calls for a preapplication discussion to be held between the applicant and the planning staff. Your cover letter to Mr. Watkins indicates that the "project" has been discussed with him and his staff, as well as the Planning Commission. While there may have been discussions of the potential uses of this property with the staff, these • • Page 2 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Re: Woodside Estates Rezoning November 6, 1995 conversations would have taken place years ago. Neither I nor Bob recall the specifics of any conversation(s) let alone whether specifics of a rezoning were covered. In reviewing Planning Commission agendas, I found that the discussion you reference took place in December of 1992, three years ago! Since that time, there have been numerous developments in the area of this proposed rezoning, not to mention turnover among the Commission members themselves. The intent of these preapplication discussions with staff and the Commission is to cover cui-rml issues, discuss concerns and potential impacts. This can be of direct benefit to the applicant in preparing the application and any potential proffers. Most, if not all, of the benefit of the past discussions is lost after such an extended period of time. Finally, the traffic impact component of the application is inadequate. Cumulative impacts of recent developments on the intersection of Routes 277 and 641 have raised concerns over traffic in this area dramatically. The traffic analysis should evaluate the current conditions and level of service at this intersection and forecast the impacts of the proposed development. Before we will accept a rezoning application for this parcel, the proffer statement should be corrected and a comment obtained from the County Attorney, and a detailed traffic impact statement should be produced. I would also strongly advise that a discussion with the Planning Commission be held prior to submitting an application. I will, however, leave this up to you and the applicant to decide. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director KCT/rsa Enclosure 0 gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. 200 N.Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 Fax: 540-665-0493 TO WE ARE SENDING YOU HAND DELIVERED SHOP DRAWINGS ElCOPY OF LETTER Xa ATTACHED CHANGE ORDER ❑ PRINTS ❑ PLATS 0 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PRESENT DATE JOB NO. 11/3/95 IATTENTION Mr. Bob Watkins RE: WnnticidP R07nnino, UNDER SEPARATE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SAMPLES SPECIFICATIONS ❑ PLANS FT] OTHER COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION 1 11 /3/95 Rezoning Application Package 1 10/30/95 1 Application Fee of $1,730.00 (Check # 2760) X❑ ARE TRANSMITTED APPROVED/SUBMITTED 0 FOR APPROVAL APPROVED/AS NOTED ❑ FOR YOUR USE RETURN/CORRECTIONS ❑ AS REQUESTED ❑ FOR REVIEW or COMMENT ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ RESUBMIT___ FOR APPROVAL SUBMITFOR DISTRIBUTION RETURNEDCORRECTED PRINTS LOAN PRINT/ RETURN/WITH COPY TO: Mr. Bill Tisinger SIGNED Stephen M. G u ' in Mr. Tim Petry REV. 2.0 • • Woodside Estates Rezoning Request Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia • VIII DEED • gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. • li�� BlS C 1 3 I G 1 7 7 0 Y` • �� 1994 b and THIS DEED, made this day of ���. Y between JOEL O. STOWE and LUCITA M. STOWE, his wife, by Joel O. Stowe, her Attorney -in -Fact pursuant to Power of Attorney dated December 3, 1979 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 518 at Page 153, of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantors, and JENI COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. 7'WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($1o.o0), cash in hand paid and other valuable co > consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the N s� Ln CD o Grantors do grant and convey, with General Warranty and with 0 a-J o OQ 0 CD English Covenants of Title, unto the Grantee, in fee simple, v Ln • .c ° c together with all rights, rights of way, privileges and a 3 appurtenances thereto belonging, all of that certain lot or N parcel of land containing 33.194 acres, more or less, lying • 0 O1 [ and being situate along the west side of Route 641 about two u miles south of Stephens City in Opequon Magisterial District, m To u a) b Frederick County, Virginia, and being a portion of a same a 4-1 + m property acquired by the Grantors herein by deed from Robert u 0 it. Madigan, et al, dated May 24, 1985 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 599 at Page 203. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaid instruments for a more particular description of the property herein conveyed. This conveyance is made subject to all easements, rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the subject HARRISON L JOHNSTON ......�.� .. property. no G 1 U • • etcBlUrrllll The Grantors hereby covenant that they have the right to convey to the Grantee; that the Grantee shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the said property, free from all liens and encumbrances; and that they will grant such further assurances of title as may be requisite. WITNESS the following si res and seals: (SEAL) _J el O. Stowe j� (SEAL) Lucita M. Stowe by Joel O. Stowe, her Attorney -in -Fact STATE OF VIRGINIA AT LARGE CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 7-n , 1994, by Joel O. Stowe and Lucita M. Stowe, his wife, by Joel O. Stowe, her Attorney -in -Fact. My commission expires Notary'Public VIRGINIA: FREDERICK OOUNTY, SCT. This Instrument o1 writing as produced to me on th0 ^' e'Nod iay of 1 e�att ` thereto � h cerldlcat of knowledgment thereto annexeB- end was admitted to record. Tax unposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of and 58.1-001 have been geld, it assessaCle. Clerk HARRISON i JOHNSTON •IIo�MII/ ♦I l.• Ni• •.YCMI]ll�. vi3Oi NS -2- �, ogg5 N\t11G1 ,v • Woodside Estates Rezoning Request uest Opequon Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia • IX TAX VERIFICATION • I�` c NOV 1995 C RECEIV ED- • MD �EYF�4 gilbertw. clifford & associates, inc. MEMORANDUM TO: Finance Department FROM: Karen A. Clark, Receptionist/Clerk Typist II SUBJECT: Return Of Sign Deposit DATE: February 6, 1997 The amount of $25.00 was deposited in line item #10-1911-08 for the business named below as a deposit for a sign for Rezoning Application #006-95. They have now returned the sign and are therefore entitled to the return of their deposit. You may pay this through the regular bill cycle. Please send a check in the amount of $25.00 to: Jeni Company Attn: Jim Petry P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, VA 22604 Please contact me if you have any questions. RSA/kac 0- 0 AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6 1995 - Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: June 12, 1996 — Approved AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP #006-95 of WOODSIDE ESTATES WHEREAS, Rezoning Application #006-95 of Woodside Estates to rezone 36.4589 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to RA (Rural Area) which is located on the west side of Double Church Road (Route 641) and south of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277), and is designated with PIN 86-A-21 in the Opequon Magisterial District, was submitted for consideration; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on December 6, 1995; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on June 12, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the adoption of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in good zoning practice; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning Ordinance, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 36.4589 acres, designated by PIN 86-A-21, from RP (Residential Performance) to RA (Rural Area) as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 12th day of June, 1996 by the following recorded vote: James L. Longerbeam, Chairman Abstained Richard C. Shickle Nay W. Harrington Smith, Jr. Charles W . Orndoff, Sr. Aye Margaret B. Douglas Aye Robert M. Sager A COPY ATTEST John(-R. ley, Jr. Frede ' County Administrator Aye Aye �, y. W UUN1996 RECEIVE111. REZONING REQUEST PROFFER ,, PEPT. OF PLANNING: Property Identification Number 86-((A))-21 � � C+NU Aml-OPMEN WOODSIDE ESTATES II JENI COMPANY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et. seq., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #006-95 for the rezoning of approximately 36.4589 acres from RA Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors or assigns. General Development Plan The development of the subject property and the submission of any Master Development Plan will provide for a street layout connecting with the State Route 641, known as Double Churches Road, and, as shown on the attached Addendum "A" - Street Layout Plan for Woodside Estates II. Voluntarily proffered as part of the Street Layout Plan are improvements to relocate State Route 641 (Double Churches Road), as shown, adding turn lanes for Woodside Estates II as approved by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). These improvements will be provided as required by VDOT as part of Phase Two of the Woodside Estates II subdivision. The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more than eighty (80) single family home lots and there shall not be constructed thereon more than eighty (80) single family detached houses and no apartments, duplexes or other multi- family buildings shall be constructed on the property. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property deeded from Joel O. and Lucita M. Stowe hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 36.4589 acre tract, lying on the east side of Double Churches Road just South of the intersection of Double Church Road (641) and Fairfax Pike (277) in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County, at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, the sum of three thousand nine hundred and seven dollars ($3,907.00) per approved lot (for Parks and Recreation Department, Schools, and as otherwise directed by the County and PAGE 2 PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 86- ((A))-21 WOODSIDE ESTATES JENI COMPANY shown on attached Addendum "B") plus, twelve dollars and sixty cents ($12.60) per approved lot to be paid directly to the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company. In essence, the total sum of three thousand nine hundred nineteen dollars and sixty cents ($3,919.60) will be paid at the time a building permit is issued for each lot. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of June, 1996, by Billy Joe Tisinger of JENI Company. My Commission expires i �� 0(0 _U J Not r)Public ADDENDUM "A" STREET LAYOUT PLAN a w --V4 "`VA Pro ec t Summate Total Area: 36.4589 Acres Housing Type: Single Family Detached Urban (12,000 si Lots) Total Lots: 79 Lots O 12,000 st 2 Lots O 1 Acres t Open Space Required: 15% Curb do Gutter and Sidewalks Required < I EXISTING �J�L J L_ J WOODSIDE SUBDIVISION r, L J Open op- ex,yf State Route 641 Gilbert W. Clifford Q&nd Associates, Frd.rt7uWO �'d 1Mdw rf+r R' "7-1 r —I L-J r� I LL—J L-i I I L _ J Wr r00DsmB I4tAM Street LcIyout , AT)TIF.NTIIIM "A" STRPPT LAYOUT PLAN 0 0 �� _ �i� . �•� � ).. ��� .Cep' a..._ �' � ` ►ram � ow, WA ,Smum i W. if es.111'ill: }: oo�=� IKomGilbert �� �� ADDENDUM "B" MONETARY IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT BREAKDOWN OF IMPACTS BY CATEGORY SCHOOLS $ 3,316.00 PER UNIT PARKS $ 591.00 PER UNIT FIRE & RESCUE $ 12.60 PER UNIT • • BURR P. HARRISON 1904-1973 WILLIAM A.JOHNSTON H. K. BENHAM III BILLY 1.TISINGER BRUCE E. DOWNING IAN R.D.WILLIAMS TRAVIS JOSEPH TISINGER Mr. Kris Tierney County of Frederick 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 HARRISON & JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 80fl WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 June 21, 1996 Re: Woodside II Subdivision; Dear Kris: STREET ADDRESS: 21 S.LOUDOUN STREET WINCHESTER,VIRGIN IA 22601 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 540 667- 1266 FAX NO. 540-G67-1312 Attached hereto is a revised statement from Jeni Company concerning the payment of the fire and rescue proffered amounts that can be placed in the Woodside II file. Sincerely, I x 5; BJT:jdw illy J. Tisinger Enclosure 4 � r ' JUv'c-96 RECEIVED DEPT. OF PLANNING r A,No DEVELOPMEN[ STATEMENT As a clarification of the proffers heretofore presented, this is to state that the fire and rescue amounts, with regard to the Woodside II rezoning will be paid to Frederick County, on a per lot basis, at the time that a building permit is issued for each lot. JE By I 46 REZONING REQUEST PROFFER S��E' e • Property Identification Number 86- ((A))-21 0� WOODSIDE ESTATES JENI COMPANY Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 491.1 et. seq., of the code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicant hereby proffers that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application #00&95 for the rezoning of approximately 36.4589 acres from RA Zoning District to the RP Zoning District, development of the subject property shall be done in conformity with the terms and conditions set forth herein, except to the extent that such terms and conditions may be subsequently amended or revised by the applicant and such be approved by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors in accordance with Virginia law. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and of no effect whatsoever. These proffers shall be binding upon the applicant and their legal successors or assigns. General Development Plan The development of the subject property and the submission of any Master • Development Plan will provide for a street layout connecting with the State Route 641, known as Double Churches Road, and, as shown on the attached Addendum "A" - Street Layout Plan for Woodside Estates. The rezoned property shall not be subdivided into more than eighty-one (81) lots and there shall not be constructed thereon more than eighty-one (81) single family detached houses and no apartments, duplexes or other multi -family buildings shall be constructed on the property. Monetary Contribution to Offset Impact of Development The undersigned, who owns the above described property deeded from Joel O. and Lucita M. Stowe hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Board of Supervisors for the County of Frederick, Virginia approves the rezoning for the 36.4589 acre tract, lying on the east side of Double Churches Road just South of the intersection of Double Church Road (641) and Fairfax Pike (277) in the Opequon Magisterial District of Frederick County, Virginia from RA to RP, the undersigned will pay to Frederick County, at the time a building permit is issued for each lot, the sum of three thousand nine hundred and seven dollars ($3,907.00) per approved lot (for Parks and Recreation Department, Schools, and as otherwise directed by the County and shown on attached Addendum 'B") plus, twelve dollars and sixty cents ($12.60) per .� approved lot to be paid directly to the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company. In ? essence, the total sum of three thousand nine hundred nineteen dollars and. s cents ($3,919.60) will be paid at the time a building permit is issued for eeacflo ; ' 0 o 40 • • • PAGE 2 PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING REQUEST PROFFER Property Identification Number 86- ((A))-21 WOODSIDE ESTATES JENI COMPANY 6®1-Er r. The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest of the Applicant and Owner. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grant said rezoning and accepts these conditions, the proffered conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully submitted, PR STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE CITY OF WINCHESTER, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i5� day of November, 1995, by Billy Joe Tisinger of JENI Company. My Commission expires Z)ac �, 101,717 Cal,,_t4 ' Mc�' Notary Public COUNTY of FREDERICK i� Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Board of Supervisors FROM: Kris C. Tierney, AICP, Interim Planning Director RE: Woodside Rezoning DATE: June 5, 1996 The applicant is requesting Residential Performance Zoning on roughly 37 acres and proposes to build 80 single family homes. Members will recall that at your February 13, 1996 meeting, there were a number of transportation related concerns expressed by the Board. In response to these concerns the applicant has modified the proposed layout of the subdivision. The entrance onto Route 641 has been relocated to the north in order to achieve better sight distance. The proffer statement has been modified to include the relocation of Route 641, the construction of turn lanes at the entrance location, and the overall revision of the site layout. A new traffic study has been conducted to evaluate the impacts of the development on the Route 277 and 641 intersection. This study concludes that the development will not have a significant impact on the intersection. VDOT has reviewed the analysis and has stated their agreement with the findings. Given the modifications to the site design proffer, the proffered road improvements, and the results of the traffic analysis, staff feels that the concerns raised have been satisfactorily addressed. Attached for your information are: a copy of the updated subdivision layout, a copy of the revised proffer statement, a letter dated May l; 1996 from Robert Childress of VDOT stating their agreement with the conclusions of the traffic impact analysis, and the original staff comments and application materials. Please let me know if there are any other concerns or questions regarding this request. KCT/rsa Attachments 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • P/C Review Date: 12/06/95 BOS Review Date: 2/13/96; 6/12/96 REZONING APPLICATION 9006-95 WOODSIDE ESTATES To Rezone 36.4589 Acres From RA (Rural Areas) To RP (Residential Performance) LOCATION: The property is located on the west side of Double Churches Road (Route 641) and south of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Opequon PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 86-(A)-02100 PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas); Land Use: vacant rural area. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoning: RA (Rural Areas) and RP (Residential Performance): Land Use: Agricultural, residential and vacant. PROPOSED USE: Single Family Homes REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: No objection to rezoning of this property. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plans detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, Fourth Edition for review. Any work performed on the States' right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. This permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Sanitation Authority: We have an eight -inch water line on the west side of Route 641. 0 Page 2 Woodside Estates Rezoning #006-95 Inspections Department: Building shall comply with the Virginia USBC and the BOCA National Building Code/1990. Shall comment on the use group at the time of structural plan review. Fire Marshak Fire and Rescue safety issues will be addressed at the time of subdivision review. County Attorney: The owner's signature needs to be notarized and the representative's signature may or may not be notarized. Parks & Recreation: No comment on the request at this time. Town of Stephens City: Traffic implications and improvements to I-81 intersection must be considered and moved forward in time. Traffic backups are becoming more frequent and longer in duration. County Engineer: See attached letter dated November 9, 1995. Planning & Zonin Location: The parcel is located partially within the Urban Development Area. Roughly half of the southern end of the property lies south of the boundary. Site Suitability: The parcel is relatively level and contains no environmental features as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Sewer and Water is available to the parcel. The impact analysis provided by the applicant states that the soils are Berks channery and Blairton Silt loams and that these are suitable for development purposes. There is also some Clearbrook channery present on the site. The soil survey of Frederick County indicates that of the soils present, all have moderate to severe limitations for building site development. Moderate limitation is defined as "soil properties and site features are not favorable for the indicated use and special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations." Severe limitation is defined as "soil properties are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required." 0 0 Page 3 Woodside Estates Rezoning #006-95 SOIL TYPE Limitations for Building Construction Code Name Dwellings with Basements Dwellings without Basements 113 Berks Channery Silt Loam 2-7% slope Slight Moderate 1C Berks Channery Silt Loam 7-15% slope Moderate Moderate 3B Blanton Silt Loam 2-7% slope Severe Severe 3C Blanton Silt Loam 7-15% slope Severe Severe 9B Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam 2-7% sloe Severe Severe Potential Impacts: The applicant has proffered that no more than 81 single family homes will be constructed on the parcel. The applicant also proffers $3,316.00 for schools, $591.00 for parks and recreation, and $12.60 for fire and rescue to be paid at the time of issuance of a building permit. This amount matches the fiscal impacts projected by the County's impact model. The construction of 81 single family homes would be expected to generate 810 trips per day on Route 641. The majority of these trips would be expected to head north through the light at the intersection of Routes 641 and 277. The applicant has supplied a detailed traffic impact analysis which the staff has forwarded to VDOT for their comments. We hope to have some response from VDOT in time for the Commission's meeting. In general, the report snakes certain assumptions concerning the rate of growth within the Route 277 corridor, the resulting traffic, and the impact that the proposed development would have on the light at the intersection of Routes 277 and 641. The conclusions drawn are that the intersection will become overloaded by the year 2000 with or without the development of the proposed project. Staff feels that it would be appropriate to require the applicant to provide some proportionate share toward the improvements which will become necessary at least in part as a result of the proposed development. While the development alone will contribute only a small percentage of the traffic utilizing the interchange, the critical volume will be reached sooner with the development than it would without. Page 4 Woodside Estates Rezoning #006-95 The problem at this point is that there is no approved plan regarding what the needed improvements will entail. It is therefore, impossible to determine what sort or amount of contribution would be appropriate. This is true not only of this application, but for any future rezoning applications affecting the Route 277 corridor. STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 12\06\95 PC MEETING: Approval, contingent upon receiving satisfactory comments from VDOT on the Traffic Impact Analysis. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF 12/06/95: Six adjoining property owners were present to speak, four of which were in opposition to the rezoning. The other two persons owned residential Lots 21 B and 22 which were surrounded by the parcel to be rezoned. Mr. Ritter, the owner of Lot 21 B, was interested in the developer providing buffering or screening between his lot and the rear of the proposed residential lots. The owner of Lot 22 was interested in hooking onto the sewer line and he also felt that 641 needed major restructuring to remove dips and S-curves. The one major concern shared by all four adjoining property owners in opposition was the traffic problems on Route 641 and the 641/277 intersection. They felt the road needed major improvements and there were serious safety concerns for motorists and school children. Other concerns were existing water problems and foundation damage from blasting. The applicant stated that they would work with Mr. Ritter to provide some type of buffer, eliminate the driveways from the two lots having frontage on Route 641, and make arrangements to hook the two interior lots up to sewer. Members of the Planning Commission concluded that Route 641 was overloaded and unsafe at the present time and would not be able to handle additional traffic without major road improvements. They noted that the additional students at Sherando High School would also add to the traffic. Commissioners anticipated a compatibility problem with the proposed residential subdivision bordering the Agricultural and Forestal District. They were also opposed to driveways accessing Route 641 from the two bottom lots at the west end of the development. The Commission recognized the fact that this was a reputable developer, but felt that the overriding infrastructure issue was a major concern. The Commission's recommendation was for denial by the following majority vote: YES (TO DENY): Ours, Shickle, Morris, Thomas, Romine, Wilson, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, Stone NO: DeHaven BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' ACTION 2/13/96: Tabled until an unspecified date. h 7 7 Soil Survey for Woodside Estates \ 'b K ~�\` 3, n a M " 1 O Rezoning #006-95 v ., .0 a / i 1 B — Berks Channery Silt Loam . L —� 2 to 7 percent slope �21B / / 72B 1C — Berks Channery Silt Loam / 7 to 15 percent slope 22 71 A / 21 3B — Blairton Silt Loam 2 to 7 percent slope A e 3 /// J ❑ 3C — Blairton Slit Loam 7 to 15 percent slope �osJ O 9B — Clearbrook Channery Silt Loam 1 7 to 15 percent slope o� 0 e 3 •_ , . ©p NO �° pp©0pppv • O oQo iap<a�e 0o o DMA o ©p •: 4 adava aAMPon ©Q 0000� ` .•�s lv © �©per O vvoy_ 0 �a � �:o vo��oaoo _., ,dse000 • . D ®a 0 4 .. .o • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Public Works Department Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director 703/665-5643 Fax: 703/678-0682 November 9, 1995 Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 N. Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Rezoning 36.46 acres Double Churches Road Woodside Estates Frederick County, Virginia Dear Steve: We understand that you are requesting to rezone 36.46 acres on Route 641 adjacent to Woodside Estates from RA to RP. We further understand that the development of the property will be similar to the Woodside Estates development. Based on our knowledge of the general site conditions, we recommend that stormwater management be implemented during the subdivision design phase of the project. This design should also address improvements to the existing roadside ditches and culverts adjacent to Route 641. A detailed review will be made at the time of the subdivision design submittal. In the interim, we grant our approval for the proposed rezoning. HES:mlh cc: file Sincerely, - Harve�F. Strawsnyder, Jr., E. Director of Public Works 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 �n a IF, �? COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278 May 1, 1996 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 No -I Lu Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E. RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984.5600 FAX (540) 984.5607 Woodside Estates, Section II Route 641 Frederick County I am writing in response to your revised traffic study of March 1, 1996 and preliminary entrance improvement plan for the referenced project. The information contained in your revised traffic study appears to address the concerns we raised in our February, 1996 review. Although we still do not totally agree with some of the methology you used in the evaluation, we do agree with your conclusions. The rezoning and future development of this property alone will not have a significant impact on the Route 277/641 intersection. The existing intersection configuration will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development of this project. The preliminary entrance improvement plan you have provided us appears to be a workable design. The realignment of existing Route 641, both vertical and horizontal, along with the proposed right and left turn lanes into the project will improve safety for motorists traveling on this section of Route 641 as well as those entering and exiting the development. Of course you are aware with any secondary relocation or improvement project, your client will be responsible through our land use permit policy for obtaining or decucating all necessary rights -of -way, easements, and construction costs for the Route 641 improvements. In summary, we have no overall objections to the rezoning of the property. However, we do reserve final comments until detailed site plans are available for review. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Robert B. Childress Pernuts/SubdiN'rision Spec. Supv. RB C/ rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond, Attn: Mr. K. B. Downs Mr. S..k. Melnikof. . Mr. V4§STPP bfON FOR THE 21 ST C,E_NTI,iP', COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG. VA 22824-0278 May 1, 1996 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. Ref: G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 �,, i th Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E. RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 Woodside Estates, Section II Route 641 Frederick County I am writing in response to your revised traffic study of March 1, 1996 and preliminary entrance improvement plan for the referenced project. The information contained in your revised traffic study appears to address the concerns we raised in our February, 1996 review. Although we still do not totally agree with some of the methology you used in the evaluation, we do agree with your conclusions. The rezoning and future development of this property alone will not have a significant impact on the Route 277/641 intersection. The existing intersection configuration will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development of this project. The preliminary entrance improvement plan you have provided us appears to be a workable design. The realignment of existing Route 641, both vertical and horizontal, along with the proposed right and left turn lanes into the project will improve safety for motorists traveling on this section of Route 641 as well as those entering and exiting the development. Of course you are aware with any secondary relocation or improvement project, your client will be responsible through our land use permit policy for obtaining or deeucating all necessary rights -of -way, easements, and construction costs for the Route 641 improvements. In summary, we have no overall objections to the rezoning of the property. However, we do reserve final comments until detailed site plans are available for review. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, 91011 Robert B. Childress Permits/Subdivision Spec. Supv. RB C/rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond, Attn: Mr. K. B. Downs Mr. S. A. Melnikoff, Mr. TRY2A5PAWaON FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY 05/0i/1996 10:18 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD & ASSOCPAGE 01 Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824-0278 (54o ) 9844133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form Applicant's name, address and phone number: 200 N, Cameron Street, Winchester, Va. 22601 - (540)667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Woodside II. Location: East side of Double Church Road, Route641 just south of Route 277. Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: See attached letter dated May 1, 1996. VDOT Signature and Date: (21161 C-Z"&L1 c' , �/r s g (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGMER*PIWASE RETURN THIS F RM TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE MAPPLICANT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, impact analysis, proffer statcmcni, and all other pertinent information 6 -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------- -- --------------- OUTPUT MODULE Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Costs Impact Credit Capital Costs Net k p.Jact Fire Department $155 $1,587 $0 Rescue Department $276 Elementary Schools $113,835 Middle Schools $34,725 $36,782 $266,447 High Schools $154,668 Parks and Recreation $A9,472 UAK $.4Z2ffi TOTAL $353,131 $0 $40,556 $312,576 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not Covered by County Contributions NOTES: Impact Model Run Date 6/3/96 - EAW JENI Company Rezoning: Assumes 80 SFD on 36 acres zoned RP. $1,009.93 ------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- --------------- -------- ---------------- OUTPUT MODULE Net Credit for Fiscal Taxes to Capital Impact Capital Net Ufa Alt QvaSa ImPaGx Fire Department $143 $1,468 $0 Rescue Department $254 Elementary Schools $105,298 Middle Schools $32,121 $34,023 $246,463 High Schools $143,068 Parks and Recreation $45-7-02 $2�Q22 $4.17..3.Q. TOTAL $326,646 $0 $37,514 $289,132 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM New Capital Costs Not $932.56 Covered by County Contributions NOTES: MODEL RUN DATE 10/27/95 JENI CO. REZONING: ASSUMES 74 SFD ON 36 ACRES REZONED RA TO RP. OCT 7 -95 FP I 9 : 22 *DICK r_.p CT COMMOt4 OUTPUT MODULE Net Fiscal Capital Impact Coals cam Fire Department $143 Rescue Department $254 Elementary Schools $105,298 Middle Schools $32,121 High Schools $143,068 Parks and Recreation S45.762 TOTAL $326,646 FIRE AND RESCUE ADDENDUM 1 70 7,80682 Credit for Taxes to Capital Net C= Impact $1,468 $0 $34,023 $246,463 $2.422 ; 9 $0 $37,514 $289,132 New Capital Costs Not $932.56 Covered by County Contributions NOTES: MODEL RUN DATE 10/27/95 JENI CO. REZONING: ASSUMES 74 SFD ON 36 ACRES REZONED RA TO RP • P. 01 • 0 • FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FOR REZONING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JENI COMPANY PROPERTY Opequon District October 1995 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. The Winchester Towers 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 703-667-2139 0 Fax: 703-665-0493 150C Olde Greenwich Drive. • Fredericksburg, Virginia 2240 703-898-2115 h • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY 3 II. INTRODUCTION 3 III. PLANNING ANALYSIS 4 • Site Suitability • Adjoining Properties • Zoning Review IV. TRAFFIC 5 V. SEWAGE 6 VI. WATER 6 VII. DRAINAGE 6 • VIII. SOLID WASTE 7 IX. HISTORIC SITES 7 X. COMMUNITY FACILITIES 7 • Education • Emergency Services • Parks and Recreation • Other XI, ENVIRONMENT 8 XII. FISCAL 8 XIII. OTHER 8 APPENDIX 9 JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 • IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT Jeni Company Property I. Summary The firm of Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. has been commissioned to evaluate the above referenced project in light of several major planning issues, as outlined and required by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors. This document is prepared to rezone a 36.4589 acre property from present Rural Areas (RA) to Residential Performance (RP) for eighty-one single family detached homes on public sewer and water. The property is suited for Residential Performance (RP) zoning, and is located within the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan designated area as an Urban Development Area (UDA). There is a fiscal development impact. Current zoning, development, and subdivision requirements allow for adequate measures to protect and mitigate any negative impacts to the surrounding properties. Adequate measures are provided for in existing development codes • to provide for protection of all protected environmental features. n LJ II. Introduction The 36 +/- acre property of the Jeni Company is located just south of the intersection of Route 277 and Route 641 on the east side of Route 641. This property adjoins the existing single family development of Woodside. The parcel is identified as tax parcel 86-((A))-21 in the Opequon Magisterial District and is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA). Residential Performance (RP) zoning is planned for the property. The property is located in the Urban Development Area. A preliminary site development evaluation indicates that this site can easily support residential uses of the RP zone, while providing required separation and open space for future uses. Development of this property occurred in 1993 with the Planning Commission indicating that single family homes with curb, gutter and sidewalks was preferred. The attached proffer statement provides for only single family with the design features requested by the Planning Commission. Site acc also an issue. Site access is limited to one main access point at a locatioi site distance is at a maximum level. 0 JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 • III. Planning Analysis Site Suitability - The property has no site specific development limiting factors. The property appears well suited for Residential Performance (RP) zoning use development based on site evaluation of soils, slopes, wetlands, ponds and lakes, flood plains and other site suitability and environmental factors. Soils - The soils are suitable for site development purposes. The USDA Soil Conservation Soil Survey for Frederick County identifies the soils of the property on map sheet 52 as Berks channery silt loam and Blairton silt loams. Prime Agricultural Soils: The property does contain prime agricultural soils as identified by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. Slopes - There are no steep slopes on this property. The topography is ideally suited for industrial type development. Slopes generally range from 2% to 7% with a small portion of the property above 7%. Is Wetlands - There are no wetlands on this property. The property is generally well drained and has no low lying wet areas that wetland vegetation that indicates the presence of a wetland area. Ponds and Lakes - There are no ponds or lakes on the property. Flood Plain - The property is not located within the 100 year HUD designated flood plain as identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan and panel map number 510063- 00200B of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Flood Boundary map. Adooining Properties - Development impacts are slight on adjacent properties. The primary impact concern on adjoining properties is the change of use from open, rural land to a residential subdivision setting. The impacts of the allowed residential uses on the surrounding uses is reduced through existing zoning master planning, distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening and open space regulations. These along with the required zoning dim'-m5k 4 requirements and the planned 15% open space area limits adjoining prWeW impacts. ,�_ JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 The adjoining property to the north is developed as a single family residential subdivision. To the east is VA Route 641, Double Church Road with vacant, rural open land zoned Rural Areas (RA) and currently mixed with rural housing sites. To the south is a single family residence on a large parcel of rural, open undeveloped land; and, to the west is a mix of open rural area and land that is developed as a single family residential subdivision. Zoning Review - The property is within the Urban Development Area designated for urban type growth and development by the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned Rural Areas (RA) allowing by right a variety of uses including five large lot housing units as well as agricultural uses. Agricultural uses are not restricted with setback, parking, screening and buffering restrictions. Under the Residential Performance (RP) zoning regulations a variety of housing types are permitted with limiting performance zoning criteria. The surrounding neighborhoods consist of primarily single family homes. Continuation of the same housing patter, is encouraged with comprehensive planning policies and zoning standards. The proposed housing type of 12,000 square foot lots is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and regulating planning policies. The impacts of the Residential Performance (RP) uses on the surrounding residential uses is greatly reduced through existing zoning distance, setback, buffer, landscaping and screening regulations. IV. Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts are negligible for this property. Impacts of vehicular access and turning movements on the adjoining properties will be minimal. The traffic signal at the intersection of Routes 641 and 277 currently operates near capacity. The Woodside Estates I and II development will not affect the current levels of services. Please see the attached Traffic Study prepared specifically for this planned development of single family hom�� JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 • V. Sewage Conveyance and Treatment Impacts There are no sewage conveyance or treatment problems associated with this project. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future sewer service. Currently this property is served by public sewer service. Sewage service to this site can be provided by Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Sewage will be conveyed to the Wrights Run Treatment Plant. VI. Water Supply Impacts There are no water supply or transmission problems with this property. The property is located within the area identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan covering future water service. Currently this property is served by public water service. Water service is under the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. A minimum • of 8" water service is expected for the type of development. Fire protections measures such as the installation of fire hydrants will be addressed at the site development stage. The installation of fire protection hydrants poses no problems. The installation of fire hydrants on the property will improve the fire protection means of the surrounding properties as well as the enhancing the protection of the property. The fire fighting capabilities of the fire company covering this area will be enhanced with additional fire hydrants. Under current RA zoning this property could be developed without any fire hydrant protection measures. VII. Drainage Facility Impacts Proper storm water management planning will result in minimal or no site drainage impacts. It is recommended that either suitable green space be allowed to reduce run off amounts or that the increased run off would be reduced prior to discharge from the site. In lieu of the above, additional storm water detention calculations should be presented with final design which would show no adverse impacts created by the imposition of this increase storm water on the existing downstream water course. in, Drainage flows generally toward the Crooked Run drainage area to the th Vide= east of the property. Predevelopment runoff rates will be mainta . recognized storm water management standards. JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 • VIII. Solid Waste Cost Solid waste impacts are measured in terms of waste generated based upon five pounds per capita per day. Solid waster collection is not provided on a door to door basis, rather solid waste transfer stations are utilized for individual home disposal. Estimated cost for solid waste disposal is approximately $15,000 per year. IX. Historic Impacts This project area through past development of adjoining property has no known significance. The area has been significantly developed to the west and north. There are no structures currently located on the area to be rezoned that are of historic significance. A review of the National Register, the Virginia Landmarks Register and The Frederick County Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are no known historic structures on this property. • X. Community Facilities Education - This project will generate approximately 60 school age children when the project is completely built out and developed. Total build out time is projected to be within five to seven years. Impact costs are noted on the attached impact model report. Parks and Recreation - This project would result in minimal impact on Parks and Recreational facilities. No additional recreational facilities will be required for the proposed development. Impact costs are noted on the attached impact model report. Emergency Services Cost - There are no additional fire, rescue or sheriff facilities anticipated with the development of the property using RP type uses. Fire protection is available from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company. 0 U • �J • -0 JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 The planned RP rezoning will have all required site development standards required by the fire code, building code and zoning codes. There are no fire protection problems associated with this property. All hydrants and fire protection measures will be installed when the property is developed. Rescue services are provided by the Stephens City Fire and Rescue Squad with service from the Stephens City Volunteer Fire Company. Sheriff Department services protection will be required. XI. Environmental Impacts There are no known major environmental impacts associated with the rezoning of this property from RA to RP. There will be certain minor negative impacts due to the construction activity including run off sediment, noise and traffic movements. These are to be minimized by proper compliance with local and state laws for environmental protection. The effects on the down -stream impoundment and stream are minimal and in accordance with local and state regulations. There is no known loss of irretrievable resources involved with this project. There are no known endangered species of fauna, flora or wildlife which will be effected by this project. Ground water and air quality should be unaffected. A minor impact of a negative nature is associated with lighting for security and business use. These should be closely controlled during planning stage to minimize the adverse impacts on adjacent residential structures and impacts on the traveling public. XII. Fiscal Impacts Fiscal impacts for model prepared Development staff. of this report. XI V. Other the property are determined based upon the fiscal impact by the Frederick County Department of Planning and The fiscal impact model results are attached in the appendix There are no known other impacts. 8 • • gilbert w. cliff ord & associates, inc. INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers Land Planners Surveyors Water Quality Analyses Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive a P. 0. Box 781 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 • (540) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, VA 22601 • (540) 667-2139 March 4, 1996 Mr. Robert Childress Virginia Department of Transportation P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 RE: Woodside Estates Rezoning Traffic Study Dear Bob, I've attached the revised evaluation of the VA Route 277/641 intersection for your review. Your letter of 9 February required these revisions: 1. Existing traffic counts at the intersection to be obtained. 2. Revised the growth rate from 1996 to 2001. 3. Revised the percentage of traffic using VA Route 277. 4. Review the lane configuration at the intersection. 5. Use updated documentation. The revised study incorporates traffic counts taken on 26 February. It uses annual traffic increase percentages based on the George Study and our 96 counts. The percentages of trips using Route 277 was increased to 90% of the Woodside generated traffic. The lane configuration was verified. And finally, the correct versions of the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the Highway Capacity Manual have been consulted. I look forward to your comments, and let me know if you have any questions. Regards, IvAuaaa� - onald A. Mislowsky, P.E. Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. RAM/kf Encl. cc: Kelly Downs B.J. Tisinger BOARD OF DIRECTORS C Thomas J. O'Toole, P. E. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. ,P. E. Earl R. Sutherland, P. E. C P. Duane Brown, C. L. S. William L. Wright, Laboratory Director 0 Trof f +c 5fudy • gilbert w. cliff ord & associates, inc. INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers Land Planners Surveyors Water Quality Analyses Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • P. 0. Box 781 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 • (540) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, VA 22601 • (540) 667-2139 memorandum To: Review Agencies From: Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. Re: Woodside Estates II Date: November 16, 1995 Revised March 1, 1996 In support of a rezoning application for Woodside Estates II, the developer has requested that Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. complete a study of the impact of this development on the VA Route 641 (Double Church Road) and VA Route 277 intersection. This study was to determine existing (1996) and estimate year 2001 volumes and determine what effect an additional 147 single family (Woodside Estates I & II) residential lots would have on the 641 /277 intersection at those periods. The study utilized the following documentation to develop its findings. 1. O.R. George, Traffic Impact Analysis for Rezoning of Wilson Property, Frederick County, Virginia, 1989. 2. ITE Trip Generation, 5th Edition. 3. VDOT Primary and Secondary Road Traffic Tabulation, Frederick County, 1985-1993. 4. TRB Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. The following methodology was followed: 1 Determine 1996 traffic volumes at intersection. 2. Using VDOT Traffic Tabulation, O.R. George Study data and 1996 counts, estimate year 2001 traffic volumes at the intersection. 3. Estimate Woodside Estates I & H trip generation. 4. Using peak hour volumes determine turn ratios at the intersection. 1 0 Woodside Estates II Nov.16,1995 Revised March 1,1996 5. Apply intersection turn ratios to enter and exit trips to estimate intersection impact. 6. Apply the impact volumes to year 1996 and 2001 base volumes. 7. Perform planning analysis per Special Report 209, Section 9. On Monday, 26 February, 1996 traffic counts were taken at the VA Route 641/277 intersection during the peak A.M. and P.M. periods. From this data, hourly volumes at 15 minute intervals were calculated, and a peak hour was determined. The traffic count summary is provided in Table #1. The peak hour is from 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. Two methods were used to estimate annual percentage increases in traffic need to determine year 2001 volumes at the 277/641 intersection. VDOT performs traffic counts on the primary and secondary roads through the County on a roughly bi- annual basis. The volumes for VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 from 1985 to 1993 were analyzed to arrive at an estimate of the annual percentage increases. Since the last count was taken in 1993, after the High School and much of the Village at Sherando project was opened, this factor was assumed to account for all pertinent development in the general area. A value for 1996 was estimated using an assumption that the peak hour traffic determined on Table #1 represented 10% of the average daily volumes. A summary of the data and the percentage increase values for VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 are provided on Exhibit A. In an effort to confirm these percentages, the peak hour volumes from the O.R. George data (See Table #2) and the 1996 counts were also compared to generate another annual percentage increase for the four approaches at the intersection. These calculations are also provided on Exhibit A. As these percentages generally are in conformance with those predicted by the bi-annual data and can be applied to the specific peak hours and approaches, they were used to determine year 2001 peak hour volumes. 0J Project Name: Woodside Location: Stephens City Intersection: Va Rte 641Na Rte 277 Date: Weekday, 2/26/96 Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rte 277 Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time Period T 17 6 5 17 12 2 0 14 0 76 14 90 2 27 2 31 152 6:45 - 7:00 6:45 - 7:00 - 7:00 7:15 27 3 5 24 18 2 5 25 2 73 12 87 1 57 9 67 203 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 35 9 3 47 24 6 10 40 1 82 17 100 4 68 5 77 264 7:15 - 7:30 7:30 - 7:45 77 6 6 89 33 2 15 50 6 166 16 188 2 100 11 113 440 7:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 55 9 6 70 33 4 6 43 5 77 13 95 2 97 10 109 317 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:15 17 4 10 31 20 5 4 29 2 63 11 76 0 77 8 85 221 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 6 2 3 11 10 4 1 15 3 41 10 54 2 42 2 46 126 8:15 - 8:30 8:30 - 8:45 4 1 9 14 17 4 6 27 2 42 13 57 2 60 4 66 164 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 7 4 4 15 11 4 6 21 4 50 5 59 3 71 6 80 175 8:45 - 9:00 9:00 - 9:15 7 11 8 26 19 8 3 30 3 38 10 51 2 58 10 70 177 9:00 - 9:15 15:45 - 16:00 6 9 7 22 16 12 6 34 10 51 19 80 6 89 9 104 240 15:45 - 16:00 16:00 - 16:15 11 9 11 31 24 20 23 67 12 73 20 105 12 82 10 104 307 16:00 - 16:15 16:15 - 16:30 19 10 8 37 29 12 11 52 7 75 17 99 9 85 22 116 304 16:15 - 16:30 16-30 - 16:45 9 12 6 27 16 12 12 40 7 65 16 88 8 60 20 88 243 16:30 - 16:45 16:45 - 17:00 4 9 5 18 23 18 12 53 5 71 25 101 6 81 18 105 277 16:45 - 17:00 17:00 - 17:15 9 14 12 35 16 15 8 39 12 63 23 98 8 92 26 126 298 17:00 - 17:15 17:15 - 17:30 18 4 5 27 16 18 6 40 10 65 22 97 12 87 28 127 291 17:15 - 17:30 17:30 - 17:45 13 9 7 29 12 24 8 44 12 64 17 93 9 88 37 134 300 17:30 - 17:45 17:45 - 18:00 11 10 10 31 13 16 11 40 13 65 15 93 9 66 18 93 257 17:45 - 18:00 18:00 - 18:15 9 9 7 25 19 17 6 42 13 56 13 82 10 65 17 92 241 18:00 - 18:15 Counted totals adjusted to hourly volumes Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rte 277 Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time Period 6:45 - 7:45 156 24 19 199 87 12 30 129 9 397 59 465 9 252 27 288 1081 6:45 - 7:45 7:00 - 8:00 194 27 20 241 108 14 36 158 14 398 58 470 9 322 35 366 1235 7:00 - 8:00 7:15 - 8:15 184 28 25 237 110 17 35 162 14 388 57 459 8 342 34 384 1242 7:15 - 8:15 7:30 - 8:30 155 21 25 201 96 15 26 137 16 347 50 413 6 316 31 353 1104 7:30 - 8:30 7:45 - 8:45 82 16 28 126 80 17 17 114 12 223 47 282 6 276 24 306 828 7:45 - 8:45 • 9:00 8:00 - 9:00 34 11 26 71 58 17 17 92 11 196 39 246 7 250 20 22 277 262 686 642 8:00 8:15 - - 9:15 8:15 - 9:15 24 18 24 66 57 20 16 93 12 171 38 221 9 231 15:45 - 16:45 45 40 32 117 85 56 52 193 36 264 72 372 35 316 61 412 1094 1131 15:45 16-00 - 16:45 - 17:00 16:00 - 17:00 43 40 30 113 92 62 58 212 31 284 274 78 81 393 386 35 31 308 318 70 86 413 435 1122 16:15 - 17:15 16:15 - 17:15 41 45 31 28 117 107 84 71 57 63 43 38 184 172 31 34 264 86 384 34 320 92 446 1109 16:30 - 17:30 16:30 16:45 - 17:30 - 17:45 40 44 39 36 29 109 67 75 34 176 39 263 87 389 35 348 109 492 1166 16:45 - 17:45 17:00 - 18:00 51 37 34 122 57 73 33 163 47 257 77 381 38 333 109 480 1146 17:00 - 18:00 17:15 - 18:15 51 32 29 112 60 75 31 166 48 250 67 365 40 306 100 446 1089 17:15 - 18:15 Peak Hr. - 184 28 25 237 110 17 35 162 14 388 57 459 8 342 34 384 1242 7:15 - 8:15 Table #1 gilbert w. clifford and associates Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Turn Movement Volumes November 1995 Revision 1.0 - 29 February 1996 Annual Year of Count 1985 1987 1991 1993 1996 Increase 2001(est) Va Rte 641 South of Intersection 1591 1736 1793 1538 2380 3.73% 2858 Va Rte 641 North of Intersection 865 no count 865 2618 3190 12.60% 5774 Year of Count 1988 1990 1993 Va Rte 277 4700 4850 11000 8510 6.82% 11836 This value base on assumption that peak hour trips represent 10% of daily trips. See calculations in box below This percentage represents rate of increase over the data gathering period Use this value to increase 1996 estimated volumes to year 2000 volumes Peak Hour Volume on VA Rte 641 south of VA Rte 277 = 238 during 641/277 intersection peak hour Peak Hour Volume on VA Rte 641 north of VA Rte 277 = 319 during 641/277 intersection peak hour Peak Hour Volume on VA Rte 277 west of intersection with 641 = 851 during 641/277 intersection peak hour Assume peak hourly trips are 10% of the daily trips on that road section Base data used to estimate 1996 daily traffic on VARTe's 277 and 641 Percentage Increases based on peak hour traffic counts in 1989 and 1996 VA Rte 277 VA Rte 641 Westbound Eastbound Northbound Southbound P. M. 1989 pk.hr. 421 396 140 74 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. 1996 pk.hr. 389 492 176 109 4:45 - 5:45 p.m. Annual Increase 0.00% 3.15% 3.30% 5.70% Yr 2001 pk.hr. 389 575 207 144 A. M. 1989 pk.hr. 240 263 104 67 6:30 - 7:30 a.m. 1996 pk.hr. 459 384 162 237 7:15 - 8:15 a.m. Annual Increase 9.70% 5.60% 6.60% 19.80% Yr 2001 pk.hr. 729 504 223 585 gl7bert w, clifford and associates Exhibit #A November 1995 Determination of Average Daily Volumes on VA Rte 641 and VA Rte 277 Revision 1.0 - 29 February 1996 Based on VDOT Traffic Count Data 1985 through 1993 0 0 Project Name: Woodside Location: Stephens City Intersection: Va Rte 641Na Rte 277 Date: Weekday, 10/23/89 Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rte 277 Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time Period 7:00 - 7:15 9 5 3 17 22 6 2 30 3 53 5 61 6 55 15 76 184 7:00 - 7:15 7:15 - 7:30 12 7 5 24 27 8 4 39 5 50 8 63 8 62 18 88 214 7:15 - 7:30 7:30 - 7:45 7 9 6 22 25 7 3 35 4 48 6 58 7 58 17 82 197 7:30 - 7:45 7:45 - 8:00 5 7 4 16 21 5 2 28 3 55 4 62 6 52 11 69 175 7:45 - 8:00 8:00 - 8:15 8 1 4 13 19 3 3 25 1 52 3 56 1 49 15 65 159 8:00 - 8:15 8:15 - 8:30 12 2 2 16 15 1 0 16 1 56 7 64 3 37 7 47 143 8:15 - 8:30 8:30 - 8:45 3 3 1 7 11 4 1 16 3 39 3 45 3 40 5 48 116 8:30 - 8:45 8:45 - 9:00 4 6 2 12 9 3 1 13 5 43 2 50 1 35 8 44 119 8:45 - 9:00 16:00 - 16:15 6 12 1 19 13 6 4 23 5 46 3 54 4 54 23 81 177 9:00 - 16:15 16:15 - 16:30 5 9 7 21 12 9 8 29 10 70 13 93 13 57 22 92 235 16:15 - 16:30 16:30 - 16:45 8 12 4 24 19 15 7 41 14 71 7 92 6 64 22 92 249 16:30 - 16:45 16:45 - 17:00 11 9 3 23 19 9 12 40 7 63 12 82 5 70 10 85 230 16:45 - 17:00 17:00 - 17:15 3 7 5 15 18 13 4 35 8 78 11 97 11 77 9 97 244 17:00 - 17:15 17:15 - 17:30 3 10 1 14 14 9 3 26 8 71 10 89 7 81 23 111 240 17:15 - 17:30 17:30 - 17:45 2 11 5 18 18 9 7 34 9 79 29 117 11 61 21 93 262 17:30 - 17:45 17:45 - 18:00 8 16 3 27 21 16 8 45 18 77 23 118 8 67 20 95 285 17:45 - 18:00 Counted totals adjusted to hourly volumes Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rte 277 Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time Period 6:00 - 7:00 33 28 18 79 95 26 11 132 15 206 23 244 27 227 61 315 770 6:00 - 7:00 6:15 - 7:15 32 24 19 75 92 23 12 127 13 205 21 239 22 221 61 304 745 6:15 - 7:15 6:30 - 7:30 32 19 16 67 80 16 8 104 9 211 20 240 17 196 50 263 674 6:30 - 7:30 6:45 - 7:45 28 13 11 52 66 13 6 85 8 202 17 227 13 178 38 229 593 6:45 - 7:45 7:00 - 8-00 27 12 9 48 54 11 5 70 10 190 15 215 8 161 35 204 537 7:00 - 8:00 7:15 - 8:15 19 11 5 35 35 8 2 45 9 138 12 159 7 112 20 139 378 7:15 - 8:15 7:30 - 8:30 13 21 4 38 33 13 6 52 13 128 8 149 8 129 36 173 412 7:30 - 8:30 7:45 - 8:45 15 27 10 52 34 18 13 65 20 159 18 197 18 146 53 217 531 7:45 - 8:45 8:00 - 9:00 19 33 12 64 44 30 19 93 29 187 23 239 23 175 67 265 661 8:00 - 9:00 16-00 - 17:00 30 42 15 87 63 39 31 133 36 250 35 321 28 245 77 350 891 16:00 - 17:00 16:15 - 17:15 27 37 19 83 68 46 31 145 39 282 43 364 35 268 63 366 958 16:15 - 17:15 16:30 - 17:30 25 38 13 76 70 46 26 142 37 283 40 360 29 292 64 385 963 16-30 - 17:30 16:45 - 17:45 19 37 14 70 69 40 26 135 32 291 62 385 34 289 63 386 976 16:45 - 17:45 17:00 - 18:00 16 44 14 74 71 47 22 140 43 305 73 421 37 286 73 396 1031 17:00 - 18:00 Peak Hr.- 16 44 14 74 71 47 22 140 43 305 73 421 37 286 73 396 1031 17:00 - 18:00 Table #2 gilbert w. clifford and associates O.R. George and Assiociates, Inc. Va Rte 6411 Va Rte 277 Intersection Turn Movement Volumes November 1995 0 • Woodside Estates II Nov. 16,1995 Revised March 1,1996 The traffic volumes generated by the development during the peak hour were calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Code 210, Single Family Detached Housing. The ITE manual provides trips generated during the peak hour of the adjacent street as well as the percentage of trips entering or exiting the development. It was assumed that 90% of the trips from Woodside would turn toward or arrive from, as is the case during the peak hour, VA Route 277. The generation data is provided in Appendix A. At the intersection, the trips were further broken down based on the turn volumes in the February 1996 count. The ratio these volumes represented was used to assign the 90% volume, which arrive at Woodside from VA Route 277, to either east bound or west bound Route 277 or south bound Route 641. The peak hour trips which are generated by Woodside, along with the turn ratio and trip generation calculations, are presented on Exhibit B. The development impact volumes were added to the year 1996 and 2001 base data. The base year peak hour volumes as well as the development affected peak hour volumes are provided on Exhibit C. In all cases the a.m. peak hour represents the highest intersection volume and that hour volume was used to evaluate the intersection's performance. Special Report 209 provides a planning analysis methodology for signalized intersections as an alternative to the detail signalization design procedure. The planning analysis checks the critical conflicting volumes and provides an estimate of the condition of the intersection. Three conditions are assigned: under, near, or over capacity. The intersection layout is provided in Exhibit D. The calculation sheets for each of the four conditions are provided in Appendix A. The results are as follows: 1996 (existing) - under capacity 1996 (with development) - under capacity 2001 (without development) - under capacity 2001 (with development) - under capacity 3 Determination of Turm Ratios At Va Rte 6411 Va Rte 277 Intersection From 641 Through From 277 Westbound From 277 Eastbound Volume to 641 Southbound A.M. Peak Hr Vol. 28 14 34 76 Movement Ratio 37% 18% 45% From 641 Through From 277 Westbound From 277 Eastbound Volume to 641 Southbound P.M. Peak Hr Vol. 36 39 109 184 Movement Ratio 20% 21 % 59% To 641 Through To 277 Westbound To 277 Eastbound Volume from 641 Nortbound A.M. Peak Hr Vol. 17 110 35 162 Movement Ratio 10% 68% 22% To 641 Through To 277 Westbound To 277 Eastbound Volume from 641 Nortbound P.M. Peak Hr Vol. 75 67 Movement Ratio 43% 38% 34 19% 176 Determination of Increased Traffic Volumes at Va Rte 6411 Va Rte 277 Intersection Due to Woodside Development. Trip Generation by Woodside Developments Proposed Single Family Residential Units = 147 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ITE Trip Generation Rates 0.19 0.55 0.74 0.66 0.35 1.01 Fifth Ed., Code 210 Trip Production 28 81 109 97 51 148 At Va Rte 641, it is assumed that the trip distribution is as follows: Percentage to/from the north = 90% Percentage to/from the south = 10% Impact of Traffic From North Traffic From South Development on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Time Period a.m. pk hr adj street 9 49 8 16 p.m. pk hr adj street 37 18 20 9 gilbert w. clifford and associates November 1995 Revision 1.0 - 29 February 1996 Traffic From East Traffic From West • on VA Rte 277 on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Time Period 5 11 6:00 - 7:00 19 52 17:00 - 18:00 Exhibit #B Va Rte 6411 Va Rte 277 Intersection Turn Movement Ratios Woodside Estates 1 & II Determination of Trip Generation Determination of Current Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Volumes: Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West Total Ex 1996 Vol. on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 Total on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Total on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Time Period Time Period 7:15 - 8:15 184 28 25 237 110 17 35 162 14 388 57 459 8 342 34 384 1242 7:15 - 8:15 16:45 - 17:45 44 36 29 109 67 75 34 176 39 263 87 389 35 348 109 492 1166 16:45 - 17:45 Impact of Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West Total . Development on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right N,S,E,W Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Time Period Time Period 715 - 815 184 37 25 246 159 25 51 235 19 388 57 464 8 342 45 395 1340 7:15 - 8:15 16:45 - 17:45 44 73 29 146 85 95 43 222 58 263 87 408 35 348 161 544 1320 16:45 - 17:45 Yr 2001 w/out Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West VA Rte 277 Total Development on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right on Left Thru Right N,S,E,W Left Thru Right Time Period Time Period 7:15 - 8:15 454 83 62 598 170 26 54 250 25 616 91 732 11 449 48 508 2089 7:15 - 8:15 16:45 - 17:45 58 59 38 156 82 92 42 215 39 263 87 389 41 406 136 583 1343 16:45 - 17:45 Yr 2001 with Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West Total Development on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right N,S,E,W Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Time Period Time Period 715 - 8:15 454 92 62 608 219 34 70 323 30 616 91 737 11 449 59 519 2186 715 - 8:15 16:45 - 17:45 58 97 38 193 100 111 51 261 58 263 87 408 41 406 188 635 1497 16:45 - 17:45 Exhibit #C gilbert w. clifford and associates VA Rte 277/ VA Rte 641 Intersection A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour November 1995 Revision 1.0 - 29 February 1996 Progessive Volumes 1995 through 2000 V.A. ROUTE 641 (DOUBLE CHURCH RD.) N-S STREET tT" ALL TURNS UNPROTECTED EXCEPT AS NOTED 'WOODSIDE ESTATES VA. ROUTE 277/VA. ROUTE 641 INTERSECTION GEONKRY KMIT D 0 0 ,6' PROTECTED AND PERMITTED gilbert w. clifford NO-0 oeb o.w.aa, or. 7110' 301T IT. NOT TO SCALE & associate*, inc. • Surveyor, 200 MOM Cwnwm A =Slia F" am) 0 Appendix A Woodside Estates VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 Intersection Trip Generation Data 0 Woodside Estates II Nov.16,1995 Revised March 1,1996 It is the opinion of the writer that Woodside Estates I and H will have a minimal effect on the VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 intersection and will not affect the intersections performance. With continued development along the VA Route 277 corridor, the intersection will begin to provide lower levels of service whether the Woodside Estates H project proceeds or not. In analyzing the data, particularly the comparison of the O. R. George peak hour volumes with the February 1996 count data, it is interesting to note that while most of the intersection approaches show some moderate growth, the southbound 641 movement exploded. In both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, that increase is roughly two times the maximum increase found on the other approaches, reflecting the growth in the 641 /647/642 area. Over the next five years, while 641 north of 277 approaches capacity, Routes 277 and 641 south of 277 will continue to operate under capacity. Any questions regarding the findings, calculations, or references used in this report can be directed to the writer. 4 Appendix B Woodside Estates VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 Intersection Special Report 209 Analysis Worksheets 1996 Existing 1996 with Development 2001 without Development 2001 with Development 11 0 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET File name: Date: 3 - 1 - 19 96 Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR (E/W): VA ROUTE 277 (N/S): VAROUTE 641 Analyst : RAM Peak hour factor: .95 Comment: WOODSIDE ESTATES II REZONING APPLICATION EXISTING CONDITIONS EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT 1. LT volume 8 14 110 184 2. Opposing mainline volume 445 376 53 162 3. Number of exclusive LT lanes 1 3560 1 5264 0 5830 0 29808 Cross Product [21 * [11 Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd): E E S S Left Turn Treatment Type: Perm P+P Perm Perm 4. LT adjustment factor 1.0 N/A .95 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A S. LT lane vol RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd) E S E S 25 6. RT volume 34 1 57 N/A 35 1 N/A 7. Exclusive lanes .85 .85 8. RT adjustment factor .85 40 .85 0 41 0 9. Exclusive RT lane volume 67 0 29 10. Shared lane vol 0 THROUGH MOVEMENT 11. Thru volume 342 388 17 1 28 1 12. Parking adjustment factor 1 1 1 1 1 13. No. of thru lanes including shared 1 342 455 17 57 14. Total approach volume 0 0 .87 .78 15. Prop. of left turns in lane group 4.4 3.12 1.35 1.98 16. Left turn equivalence N/A N/A .51 .33 17. LT adj. factor: 342 455 33 170 18. Through lane volume 342 455 41 170 19. Critical lane volume Left Turn Check (if [161 > 8) 20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity: 7200/Cmax N/A N/A N/A 0 • HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET File name: Date: 3 - 1 - 19 96 Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR (E/W): VA ROUTE 277 (N/S): VAROUTE 641 Analyst : RAM EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet Critical through-RT vol: [19] 342 455 41 170 LT lane vol: [5] N/A 15 N/A N/A Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U P U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by '*') Selection Criteria based on the Plan 1: U U U U specified left turn protection Plan 2a: U P U P Plan 2b: P U P U * Indicates the dominant left turn Plan 3a: *P P *P P for each opposing pair Plan 3b: P *P P *P Plan 4: N N N N 2a 1 Min. cycle (Cmin) 70 Max. cycle (Cmax) 110 Timing Plan --- EAST -WEST ---- -- NORTH -SOUTH --- Value Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Movement codes WTL EWT NSG 0 Critical phase vol [CV] 15 440 0 184 0 Critical sum [CS] 639 CBD adjustment [CBD] 1 Reference sum [RS] 1624 3 0 0 Lost time/phase [PL] 3 3 0 Lost time/cycle [TL] 9 Cycle length [CYC] 70 4.4 45 0 20.6 0 0 Green time Critical v/c ratio [Xcm] 0.39 Status Under capacity. • HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET File name: Date: 3 - 1 - 19 96 Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR (E/W): VA ROUTE 277 (N/S): VAROUTE 641 Analyst : RAM Peak hour factor: .95 Comment: WOODSIDE ESTATES II REZONING APPLICATION DEVELOPED IN 1996 EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT 1. LT volume 2. Opposing mainline volume 3. Number of exclusive LT lanes Cross Product [21 * [11 Left Lane Configuration (E=Exc1, S=Shrd): Left Turn Treatment Type: 4. LT adjustment factor 5. LT lane vol RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT 8 19 159 184 445 387 62 235 1 1 0 0 3560 7353 9858 43240 E E Perm P+P 1.0 .95 N/A 20 S S Perm Perm N/A N/A N/A N/A Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd) E S E S 25 6. RT volume 45 1 57 N/A 51 1 N/A 7. Exclusive lanes .85 .85 8. RT adjustment factor .85 53 .85 0 60 0 9. Exclusive RT lane volume 0 67 0 29 10. Shared lane vol THROUGH MOVEMENT 11. Thru volume 342 388 1 25 1 37 1 12. Parking adjustment factor 1 1 1 1 13. No. of thru lanes including shared 1 342 455 25 66 14. Total approach volume 0 0 .86 .75 15. Prop. of left turns in lane group 4.4 3.2 1.41 2.6 16. Left turn equivalence N/A N/A .38 .32 17. LT adj. factor: 342 455 66 205 18. Through lane volume 342 455 66 205 19. Critical lane volume Left 20. Turn Check (if [161 > 8) Permitted left turn sneaker capacity: 7200/CmN/A N/A N/A N/A • 0 HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET File name: Date: 3 - 1 - 19 96 Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR (E/W): VA ROUTE 277 (N/S): VAROUTE 641 Analyst : RAM EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet Critical through-RT Vol: [19] 342 455 66 205 LT lane Vol: [5 ] N/A 20 N/A N/A Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U P U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by '*') Selection Criteria based on the Plan 1: U U U U specified left turn protection Plan 2a: U P U P Plan 2b: P U P U * Indicates the dominant left turn Plan 3a: *P P *P P for each opposing pair Plan 3b: P *P P *P Plan 4: N N N N 2a 1 Min. cycle (Cmin) 70 Max. cycle (Cmax) 110 Timing Plan --- EAST -WEST ---- -- NORTH -SOUTH --- Value Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Movement codes WTL EWT NSG Critical phase Vol [CV] 20 435 0 205 0 0 Critical sum [CS] 660 CBD adjustment [CBD] 1 Reference sum [RS] 1624 0 Lost time/phase [PL] 3 3 0 3 0 Lost time/cycle [TL] 9 Cycle length [CYC] 70 Green time 4.9 43.2 0 21.9 0 0 Critical v/c ratio [Xcm] 0.40 Status Under capacity. HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET File name: Date: 3 - 1 - 19 96 Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR (E/W): VA ROUTE 277 (N/S): VAROUTE 641 Analyst : RAM EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet Critical through-RT vol: [19] 449 723 78 624 LT lane vol: [5] N/A 26 N/A N/A Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U P U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by '*') Selection Criteria based on the Plan 1: U U U U specified left turn protection Plan 2a: U P U P Plan 2b: P U P U * Indicates the dominant left turn Plan 3a: *P P *P P for each opposing pair Plan 3b: P *P P *P Plan 4: N N N N 2a 1 Min. cycle (Cmin) 70 Max. cycle (Cmax) 110 Timing Plan --- EAST -WEST ---- -- NORTH -SOUTH --- Value Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Movement codes WTL EWT NSG Critical phase vol [CV] 26 697 0 624 0 0 Critical sum [CS] 1347 CBD adjustment [CBD] 1 Reference sum [RS] 1624 0 0 Lost time/phase [PL] 3 3 0 3 Lost time/cycle [TL] 9 Cycle length [CYC] 70 4.2 34.6 0 31.3 0 0 Green time Critical v/c ratio [Xcm] 0.81 Status Under capacity. HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET File name: Date: 3 - 1 - 19 96 Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR (E/W): VA ROUTE 277 (N/S): VAROUTE 641 Analyst : RAM Peak hour factor: .95 Comment: WOODSIDE ESTATES II REZONING APPLICATION UNDEVELOPED IN 2001 EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT 1. LT volume 11 25 170 454 2. Opposing mainline volume 707 497 145 250 3. Number of exclusive LT lanes 1 1 0 0 Cross Product [21 * [11 7777 12425 24650 113500 Left Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd): E E S S Left Turn Treatment Type: Perm P+P Perm Perm 4. LT adjustment factor 1.0 N/A .95 26 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. LT lane vol RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd) E S E S 6. RT volume 48 1 91 N/A 54 1 62 N/A 7. Exclusive lanes .85 .85 8. RT adjustment factor .85 .85 0 64 0 9. Exclusive RT lane volume 56 0 73 10. Shared lane vol 0 107 THROUGH MOVEMENT 11. Thru volume 449 616 26 83 1 12. Parking adjustment factor 1 1 1 1 13. No. of thru lanes including shared 1 1 1 26 156 14. Total approach volume 449 723 0 15. Prop. of left turns in lane group 0 8.2 5.68 .87 1.88 •76 2.78 16. Left turn equivalence N/A N/A .33 •25 17. LT adj. factor: 449 723 78 624 18. Through lane volume 449 723 78 624 19. Critical lane volume Left Turn Check (if [161 > 8) 20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity: 7200/Cmax 65.45454 N/A N/A N/A HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD LANE VOLUME WORKSHEET File name: Date: 3 - 1 - 19 96 Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR (E/W): VA ROUTE 277 (N/S): VAROUTE 641 Analyst : RAM Peak hour factor: .95 Comment: WOODSIDE ESTATES II REZONING APPLICATION DEVELOPED IN 2001 EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENT 1. LT volume 11 707 30 508 219 154 454 323 2. Opposing mainline volume 0 0 3. Number of exclusive LT lanes 1 7777 1 15240 33726 146642 Cross Product [21 * [11 Left Lane Configuration (E=Exc1, S=Shrd): E E P+P S Perm S Perm Left Turn Treatment Type: Perm 4. LT adjustment factor 1.0 N/A .95 32 N/A N/A N/A N/A 5. LT lane vol RIGHT TURN MOVEMENT Right Lane Configuration (E=Excl, S=Shrd) E S E 70 S 62 6. RT volume 59 1 91 N/A 1 N/A 7. Exclusive lanes .85 .85 8. RT adjustment factor .85 69 .85 0 82 0 9. Exclusive RT lane volume 0 107 0 73 10. Shared lane vol THROUGH MOVEMENT 449 616 34 92 11. Thru volume 1 1 1 1 12. Parking adjustment factor 1 1 1 13. No. of thru lanes including shared 1 449 723 34 165 14. Total approach volume 0 0 .87 .75 15. Prop. of left turns in lane group 8.2 5.95 1.94 3.61 16. Left turn equivalence N/A N/A .25 .25 17. LT adj. factor: 449 723 136 660 18. Through lane volume 449 723 136 660 19. Critical lane volume Left Turn Check (if [161 > 8) 20. Permitted left turn sneaker capacity: 7200/Cmax 454 N/A N/A N/A HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION PLANNING METHOD SIGNAL OPERATIONS WORKSHEET File name: Date: 3 - 1 - 19 96 Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR (E/W): VA ROUTE 277 (N/S): VAROUTE 641 Analyst : RAM EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND Phase Plan Selection from Lane Volume Worksheet Critical through-RT vol: [19] 449 N/A 723 32 136 N/A 660 N/A LT lane vol: [5] Left turn protection: (P/U/N) U P U U Dominant left turn: (Indicate by '*') Selection Criteria based on the Plan 1: U U U U specified left turn protection Plan 2a: U P U P Plan 2b: P U P U * Indicates the dominant left turn Plan 3a: *P P *P P for each opposing pair Plan 3b: P *P P N *P N Plan 4: N N 2a 1 Min. cycle (Cmin) 70 Max. cycle (Cmax) 110 Timing Plan -- EAST -WEST ---- -- NORTH -SOUTH --- Value Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Ph 1 Ph 2 Ph 3 Movement codes WTL EWT 32 691 0 NSG 660 0 0 Critical phase vol [CV] Critical sum [CS] 1383 CBD adjustment [CBD] 1 Reference sum [RS] 1624 3 0 3 0 0 Lost time/phase [PL] 3 Lost time/cycle [TL] 9 Cycle length [CYC] 70 4.4 33.5 0 32.1 0 0 Green time Critical v/c ratio [Xcm] 0.83 Status Under capacity. ` 0 WCcdl de,JO-Z- 5 VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION THE EDINBURG RESIDENCY /NTRA-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO Mr. J. B. Diamond December 19, 1995 Attn: Mr. K. B. Downs FROM �'. H. Bushman By: R. B. Childress SUBJECT Proposed Rite Aid Pharmacy Ref: Routes 277/641 Frederick County Attached is a traffic impact evaluation dated December 18, 1995 from Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. for the subject project. We would appreciate your review and any comments on the evaluation at your earliest possible convenience. RBC/rf Attachment xc: Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. R. W. Watkins, Attn: Mr. Kris Tierney L POCIU&SON .REALTY INC. TE:No . D04-72,-8929 DE018,95 11:47 No.007 P.01 r FA Realty, Inc... and Commercial Sales 74 W. Mercury Blvd. Suite #t201 Hampton, Virginia 23669 Telephone (804) 723-1972 tAX.- (804) 723-8929 TET I KW Yt OVER 'RHEE1 TO: Name: Ivre4ce— Pukhy -,ice : Y'' 1 Telecopy Number: FRAM: Name: i h �1 � S � Number of pages including cover sheet: r SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:-TY(4-h� b.IL-) VI YN . VI JAI NOTE: If you do not receive all of the pages, or if you detect any problem during transmission, call the telecopy operator whose name and telephone number are shown above, ` Date transmitted: Time transmitted: 804 723 8929 POQUOSON REALTY ' INC . TEL No.804-723-8929 OQc— 18-95 11 : 22A K iml ey—Horn — Szi It imov—e rp- w F1 hillb- M Kimley•Horn and Associates, Inc, Pldnwo Intl Envxonmen!a" Memorandum To: From: Date, Subject: Mr. Phil Sandcrs S & S Development, LLC Katherine W. Falk, P.E..4j_� Kuriley-Horn and Associates, Inc. December 18, 1995 Dec 18,95 11:47 No.007 P.02 410-691--5011 P_05 Traffic impact Evaluation for the Proposed mite Aid site in Stephens Cih•, VA INTRODUCTION Kfinlgy-Horn and Associates was retained to perform a traffic impact vvaluatiorz for the proposed development of a Rite Aid drug stone in StCphons City, Virginia. This aviduation identifies the traffic impact on the c.c.isting street network and provides conclusions and recommendations PROPOSED DE VELOPUENT The proposed development Aill consist of a 11,000 sf free-standing drug store. The pharmacj- wdl include a drive-thru window for customcrx to pick-up pascrtptions. The site is located at the intersection of Routc 277 (!~airtax Pike) and Route 641 (Double Church Road), Driveway access will be provided on bath Route 277 and Route 641. 'Ilia drivgwav access to Route 277 will be located approximately 250 feet east of the intersection with Route 641, white the drivcwoy access to Route 641 «ill be located approximately 200 fact south of the intcnsmtiun with Route 277. Both driveways are. located as far aivay as possible from the Routc 277/641 intersection, while still remainij an the proposed property. The proposed plat provides for right-of-way dedication along bath Route 277 and Route 641 to accommodate one additional lane and a 5 foot wide strip for sidewalk and/or Utilities, ■ Su!la 300 N9 ElkWge CuiOng Row, Unthlcum, Maryland 21090 804 723 8929 POQUOS01d REALTY I1,1C . TEL No . 804-723-8929 DOc-18-95 11:22A Kimley-Hdrn -- Basltimprc PPIF' M I Kimley•Hofn hbl. M F and Associates. Inc. OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS Route 277 Entrance Dec 18,95 11:47 No.007 R.03 410-691 -Sol l P.04 M1, Phil S;wder•,• t.)«'rmbtr 18, I'm5. 1'uhftr 4 The Access drive on Route 277 was further anah,eed regarding the need for turn lane treatment, Based on the VDQTimurn $ andard of hntr,nces Zo tote HiWL31W, it was dewm"ed that a radius Will be sufficient for right -turn movements into the site, This determination was made by comparing a peak hour volume approach total in VPH of 412 to a peal: hour volume of right turns in VPH of 24. Route 641 Entrance The access drive on Route 641 was analyzed regarding the nccd for right turn land treatment as well, Calculations, performed in the satne manner, yielded a peak hour volume approach total in VPH of 231 to a poll; hour volume of right turns in VPH of 15. Again, based on the VDQJ iyin m t» t:,nd`r s bf Fntr,nc�s to Sr�r Hig1]'Vi-Ayl, it was doternuned that a radius «ill be sufficient for tight -turn movements into tho site. CONCLUSIONS Due to the low volume of traffic projected by this site, in comparison to the existing iraffic volumes on Route 277 and 641, the projected traffic %iff have a negligible irmpact on tit.; existing stroet nehworh. The traffic using the existing traffic signal at the intersection -Ai 11 not experience any additional significant delay. In addition, the driveway entrances to the site, of of both Route 641 and 277, can be troated with radius treatments, � 4 723 892.9 F'C�C� M-101•.1 REALTY INC.TEL 10204-723-894 viec.:-ta tzFa 11:;dZH Kim Jay --Horn - Baltimora Dec! 05 11:47 No.007 P.04 410-651-5O11 P.O:3 804 723 8929 • POQUOSON REALTY INC. TEL No . 804-725-8929 u�C-1u-yam 11:21A Kiinit--y-Horn - Ba7tirnory MrIKinmley,Horn and Associates, Inc. EXISTING CONDITIONS 0 Dec 18,95 11:47 No.007 P.05 410--691 -501 1 t' _ 02 Mr. 1'hil tiNtdiYs. 1)arrm1ror ! S. i v,S. Page 1 Route 277 is a two.lanc facility that runs east -west in the town. Route 277 is characterized as a major collector roadway, since it provides access to Interstate A 1 to the west and residential and retail areas to the east. Route 641 i$ also a two-lane facility, holvcN.cr it runs north -south. Currently, turn lanes are provided for Eastbound right and left turns, westbound left turns, and northbound right toms. The intersection is controlled by a traMc signal. Along Route 641 in the northbound dimction, a right -turn Iwo runs the entire length of the proposed development. Turning movement counts were taken at this intersection on Tuesday, Docember 12, 1995 during the PM peak hour, The existing traffic volumes arc displayed on Figure 1, and the proposed development volumes are shown in paicntheses. As shown in Figure 1, the majority of the traffic entering the site approaches from the east. TRIP GENERATION Trip generation analysis for the proposed development was Worn-ed for the weekday PM peak hour of the adjar;ent street traffic (one hour between the hours of 4-6 PM). Because tht proposed development is a relatively new concept, and specific trip generation rates are not contained in Trip Gmtratbn, 1991, Institute of Transportation Engineers, a comparison of Similar uses was performed, Trip generation rates for drive-in baril,:s, grocery stores, and shopping centers were all compared. In an cff'vrt to remain as consmative as possible, the trip �encration equation for a shopping center < 600,000 sf GLA was used. As a result, the trip generation used for the PM peak hour of this particular site was 164 trips, with S0°fo entering t:�e site, and 50% exiting. T his value mpresents an average rate of 14.64 trips per 1000 square feet, which is wnservatively reasonable for this typo of Pose, TRIP DISTIUBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The directional trip distribution was based on turning movement counts taken at the subject intersection. Based out the trip distribution described previously, the projected traMc volumes generated by the development were assigned to the existing road network serving the site. Figure I illustrates the existing and development volumes during the weekday PM peak hour. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Capacihy during the PM peal, hour at the subject intersection was analyzed both with the curroit background i,olumcs and with the development volumes added. In both scenarios, the intersection is shown to operatc at a level of serNice B, As a result, flit proposed developtucnt will not impact the Icvel-of-service at the intersection, JENI COMPANY PROPERTY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA OCTOBER 1995 • APPENDIX 1. TRAFFIC STUDY 2. FREDERICK COUNTY IMPACT MODEL REPORT r� U • • gilbert w. cliff ord & associates, inc. • INCORPORATED 1972 Engineers Land Planners Surveyors Water Quality Analyses Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • P. O. Box 781 Fredericksburg, VA 22401 • (540) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, VA 22601 • (540) 667-2139 memorandum To: Review Agencies From: Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E. Re: Woodside Estates II Date: November 16, 1995 In support of a rezoning application for Woodside Estates II, the developer has requested that Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. complete a study of the impact of this development on the VA Route 641 (Double Church Road) and VA Route 277 intersection. This study was to estimate existing (1995) and year 2000 volumes and determine what effect an additional 147 single family (Woodside Estates I & II) residential lots would have on the 641/277 intersection at those periods. • The study utilized the following documentation to develop its findings. 1. O.R. George, Traffic Impact Analysis for Rezoning of Wilson Property, Frederick County, Virginia, 1989. 2. ITE Trip Generation, 4th Edition. 3. VDOT Primary and Secondary Road Traffic Tabulation, Frederick County, 1985-1993. 4. TRB Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209. The following methodology was followed: 1. Determine 1989 traffic volumes at intersection from O.R. George Study. 2. Establish volume percentage increases for period 1989 to 1995 and 1995 to 2000. 3. Apply these ratios to the 1989 intersection volumes to estimate 1995 and 2000 intersection volumes without development impacts. 4. Using peak hour volumes determine turn ratios at the intersection. 5. Estimate Woodside Estates I & II trip generation. 6. Apply intersection turn ratios to enter and exit trips t tj intersection impact. .��N _ 0 • Woodside Estates II Nov. 16,1995 7. Apply the impact volumes to year 1995 and 2000 base volumes. 8. Perform planning analysis per Special Report 209, Section 9. The O.R. George Study provided volumes for each movement in the intersection throughout the peak hour periods. From this data, hourly volumes at 15 minute intervals were calculated, and a peak hour was determined. The traffic count summary is provided in Table #1. The peak hour is from 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. In order to transform the 1989 volumes into relevant data, a factor representing the increase in traffic volume at the intersection caused by surrounding development was required. The major factors affecting traffic in this area are the Village at Sherando and Sherando High School. VDOT performs traffic counts on the primary and secondary roads through the County on a roughly bi-annual basis. The volumes for VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 from 1985 to 1993 were analyzed to arrive at the required percentage increases. Since the last count was taken in 1993, after the High School and much of the Village at Sherando project was opened, this factor was assumed to account for all pertinent development in the general area. A summary of the data and the percentage increase values for VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 are provided on f Exhibit #1. The traffic volumes generated during the peak hour were then calculated using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Code 210, Single Family Detached Housing. The ITE manual provides trips generated during the peak hour of the adjacent street as well jj as the percentage of trips entering or exiting the development. It was assumed that J 75% of the trips from Woodside would turn toward or arrive from, as is the case 1 during the peak hour, VA Route 277. At the intersection, the trips were further broken down based on the turn volumes in the O.R. George count. The ratio these volumes represented was used to assign the 75% volume, which arrive at Woodside from VA Route 277, to either east bound or west bound Route 277 or south bound Route 641. The additional p.m. peak hour trips which are generated by Woodside, along with the turn ratio and trip generation calculations, are presented on Exhibit #2. 0) Location: Stephens City, 1:00 00:15 Project Name: oodside Intersection: Va Rte 641/Va Rte 277 Date: Weekday , 10/23/89 Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 on VA Rte 277 Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total N,S,E,W Time Period Time Period 22 6 2 30 3 53 5 61 6 55 15 76 184 7:00 7:15 7-00 7:15 9 5 3 17 4 39 5 50 8 63 8 62 18 88 214 7:15 7:30 7:15 7:30 12 7 5 24 27 8 4 48 6 58 7 58 17 82 197 7:30 7:45 7:30 7:45 7 9 6 22 25 7 3 35 3 55 4 62 6 52 11 69 175 7:45 8:00 7:45 8*00 5 7 4 16 21 5 2 28 1 52 3 56 1 49 15 65 159 8-00 8:15 8-00 8:15 8 1 4 13 19 3 3 25 1 56 7 64 3 37 7 47 143 8:15 8:30 8:15 8:30 12 2 2 16 15 1 0 16 3 39 3 45 3 40 5 48 116 8:30 8:45 8:30 8:45 3 3 1 7 11 4 1 16 5 43 2 50 1 35 8 44 119 8:45 9:00 8:45 9100 4 6 2 12 9 3 1 13 6 12 1 19 13 6 4 23 5 46 3 54 4 54 23 81 177 9-00 16:15 16:00 16:15 12 9 8 29 10 70 13 93 13 57 22 92 235 16:15 16:30 16:15 16:30 5 9 7 21 7 41 14 71 7 92 6 64 22 92 249 16:30 16:45 16:30 16:45 8 12 4 24 19 15 12 40 7 63 12 82 5 70 10 85 230 16:45 17:00 16:45 17,00 11 9 3 23 19 9 35 8 78 11 97 11 77 9 97 244 17:00 17:15 17,00 17:15 3 7 5 15 18 13 4 26 8 71 10 89 7 81 23 111 240 17:15 17:30 17:15 17:30 3 10 1 14 14 9 3 7 34 9 79 29 117 11 61 21 93 262 17:30 17:45 17:30 17:45 2 11 5 18 18 9 16 8 45 18 77 23 118 8 67 20 95 285 17:45 18:00 17:45 18:00 8 16 3 27 21 Counted totals adjusted to hourly volumes Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Traffic From West on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Left Rte 277 Thru Right Total on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Total Total N,S,E,W Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Time Period Time Period 33 28 18 79 95 26 11 132 15 206 23 244 27 227 61 315 770 6:00 - 7:00 6U0 - 7U0 32 24 19 75 92 23 12 127 13 205 21 239 22 221 61 304 745 6:15 7:15 6:15 7:15 16 67 80 16 8 104 9 211 20 240 17 196 50 263 674 6:30 7:30 6:30 7:30 32 19 66 13 6 85 8 202 17 227 13 178 38 229 593 6:45 7:45 6:45 7:45 28 13 11 52 54 11 5 70 10 190 15 215 8 161 35 204 537 7-00 8:00 7:00 8:00 27 12 9 48 35 8 2 45 9 138 12 159 7 112 20 139 378 7:15 8:15 7:15 8:15 19 11 5 35 33 13 6 52 13 128 8 149 8 129 36 173 412 7:30 8:30 7.30 8:30 13 21 4 38 52 34 18 13 65 20 159 18 197 18 146 53 217 531 7:45 8:45 7:45 e:45 15 27 00 9:00 J19 33 10 12 64 44 30 19 93 29 187 23 239 23 175 67 265 661 8.00 9:00 16-00 17:00 �1g �7-OW �-30 42 15 87 63 39 31 133 36 250 35 321 28 245 77 350 891 958 16:15 17:15 46 !1rS 27 37 19 83 68 46 31 145 39 282 43 40 364 360 35 29 268 292 63 64 366 385 963 16: 17: ACV 7(( 25 38 a� 13 76 70 46 26 142 37 283 62 385 34 289 63 386 976 16:4455 17:4455 s tf `' 5 19 37 14 70 69 40 26 135 32 291 73 396 1031 17,00 18:00 17, 44 14 74 71 47 22 140 43 305 73 421 37 286 'tip Hr_ 0. 44 14 74 71 47 22 140 43 305 73 421 37 286 73 396 1031 17 00 18:00 gilbert w. cliHord and associates November 1995 Table #1 O.R. George and Assiociates, Inc. Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Turn Movement Volumes • • • • Year of Count 1985 1987 1991 1993 Va Rte 641 South of Intersection 1591 1736 1793 1538 Va Rte 641 North of Intersection 865 no count 865 2618 1988 1990 1993 Percentage Percentage Increase Increase 1995(est) 1987 to 1995 2000(est) at 4% growth per year 1995 to 2000 1750 rVa 2129 22% 2750 218% 3346 22% Year of Gaunt 22% Va Rte 277 4700 4850 11000 11000 134% 13383 Use this percentage to increase O.R. George 1989 intersection volumes Use this percentage to increase 1995 estimated intersection volumes to year 2000 volumes gilbert w, cliNord and associates November 1995 Exhibit #1 Determination of Average Daily Volumes on VA Rte 641 and VA Rte 277 Based on VDOT Traffic Count Data 1985 through 1993 01 CM EA C, Determination of Turm Ratios At Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection From 641 Through From 277 Westbound A.M. Peak Hr Vol. 89 35 Movement Ratio 33 % 13% From 641 Through From 277 Westbound P.M. Peak Hr Vol. 140 101 Movement Ratio 34% 24% To 641 Through To 277 Westbound A.M. Peak Hr Vol. 26 95 Movement Ratio 20% 72% To 641 Through To 277 Westbound P.M. Peak Hr Vol. 47 71 Movement Ratio 34% 51% From 277 Eastbound 143 53 % From 277 Eastbound 171 42% To 277 Eastbound 11 8% To 277 Eastbound 22 16% Volume to 641 South 267 Volume to 641 South 411 Volume to 641 South 132 Volume to 641 South 140 Determination of Increased Traffic Volumes at Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Due to Woodside Development. Trip Generation by Woodside Developments Proposed Single Family Residential Units = 147 A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total ITE Tri Generation Rates 0.20 0.55 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.01 La P Fourth Ed., Code 210 Trip Production 30 81 111 93 54 148 At Va Rte 641, it is assumed that the trip distribution is as follows: Percentage to/from the north = 75% • Percentage to/from the south = 25% Impact of Traffic From North Development on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right Time Period s oo "-`,o'�77 Uo !9 7 �.9s 700 18-00 23. gilberf w. clifford and associates November 1995 Traffic From South on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 44 12 5 21 14 6 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 3 17 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Lett Thru Right 12 29 Time Period 6-00 7:00 17-00 18:00 Exhibit #2 Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Turn Movement Rados Woodside Estates I & II Determination of Trip Generation • Woodside Estates 11 Nov. 16, 1995 The development impact volumes were added to the year 1995 and 2000 base data. The base year peak hour volumes as well as the development affected peak hour volumes are provided on Exhibit #3. In all cases the p.m. peak hour represents the highest intersection volume and those hour volumes are used to evaluate the intersection's performance. Special Report 209 provides a planning analysis methodology for signalized intersections as an alternative to the detail signalization design procedure. The planning analysis checks the critical conflicting volumes and provides an estimate of the condition of the intersection. Three conditions are assigned: under, near, or over capacity. The calculation sheets for each of the four conditions are provided in Appendix A. The results are as follows: 1995 (existing) - under capacity > 1995 (with development) - near capacity 2000 (without development) - over capacity 2000 (with development) - over capacity It is the opinion of the writer that Woodside Estates I and II will have a minimal effect on the VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 intersection and will not affect the intersections performance. With continued development along the VA Route 277 corridor, the intersection will begin to provide lower levels of service whether the Woodside Estates II project proceeds or not. If desired, we can provide recommendations for intersection improvements to maintain a near or under capacity condition through the year 2000 for planning use. Any questions regarding the findings, calculations, or references used in this report can be directed to the writer. • Determination of Current Va Rte 641/ Va Rte 277 Intersection Volumes: Peak Hour totals from Chart A adjusted to account for increase volumes since O.R. George counts in 1989. Increase factor per Table A, for 1988 - 1995 percentage increase Estimated Traffic From North Traffic From South Traffic From East Ex 1995 Vol. on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 641 on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Lett Thru Right Total Time Period 690 - 7:00 105 89 57 251 95 26 11 132 35 482 54 571 17-00 - 18.00 51 140 45 235 71 47 22 140 101 714 171 985 Impact of Development Time Period 6-00 - 7-00 17-00 - 18-00 Traffic From North on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 105 97 57 259 51 163 45 259 Yr 2000 w!out Traffic From North Development on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right Time Period 6-00 - 7:00 128 110 70 307 17-00 - 18-00 62 175 54 291 Yr 2000 with Traffic From North Development on VA Rte 641 ,Left ru Right WSJ Time Period 6:00 7.00 128 70 315 17,00 t8 0A('N 62- 199 4 315 99S ^,'7 Traffic From South on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 139 38 16 193 92 61 28 181 Traffic From South on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 125 34 14 174 91 60 28 179 Traffic From South on VA Rte 641 Left Thru Right 169 46 20 234 112 74 35 220 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 38 482 54 574 118 714 171 1002 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 43 587 65 695 126 868 208 1202 Traffic From East on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 46 587 65 698 143 868 208 1220 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right Total 63 531 143 737 87 669 171 927 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 63 531 155 749 87 669 200 956 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Lett Thru Right 77 646 176 900 105 814 214 1134 Traffic From West on VA Rte 277 Left Thru Right 77 646 188 912 105 814 243 1163 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 1691 6-00 7:00 2287 17:00 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 1775 6:00 7:00 2398 17:00 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 2076 6U0 7:00 2807 17:00 18:00 Total N,S,E,W Time Period 2159 6:00 7:00 2917 17-00 18:00 Exhibit #3 VA Rte 277/ VA Rte 641 Intersection A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour Progessive Volumes 1995 through 2000 0 No • Appendix A Woodside Estates VA Route 641 and VA Route 277 Intersection Special Report 209 Analysis Worksheets 1995 Existing 1995 with Development 2000 without Development 2000 with Development C7 0 0 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS • 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET 1/ 6F— � Sr1tiv-, Intersection:VA Zr 6 L Date: W E EK t-,�,4 Y 1 Analyst: �AM Time Period Analyzed:. �41C ttlZ- Project No. City/State: P2cDE► kC_V_ C4PL4Nry , VA VA 12i tr G`i i SB TOTAL N-S STREET 9 ( 5 WBTOTAL �A 7E z77 E-W STREET EB TOTAL � -7 ' NB TOTAL EB LT = NB LT = CC)' MAXIMUM WB TH = D r SB TH = I SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL WB IT = SB LT = 0 TO 1,200 .,c��NDER EB TH = _ OR NB TH = % OR 1,201 to 1,400 ti AR • 7 � ✓ > 1,400 OVER A Z + STATUS? � F A 1Z 01 E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL ' 9-82 iURBAN STREETS • C-7-xlsrj A)U-� 0 C] LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) V LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing Equiv Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume PCE " PCE's (TH+RT) Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes 0 — 199 = 1.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 600-799=3.0 2,x 3 a)+OO ©=© ©-® ( +OO -1.0 800 — 999 = 4.0 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT %' B LT l.r Li- �► �$ �� �y� 3 �� O � 1 ?5� • ILTI 0 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 0 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: VA M z,7 2164Z Date: W E EK. t14 Y �o Analyst: IZAM Time Period Analyzed: P m • �64k 4 IZ - Project No. W00Z'5tDE City/State:__ E F-LJSZICIL CoNNTY ,VA SB TOTAL N-S STREET Z S ci zG� ICI y s-� � s► '7 � --- I oo z I I , WB TOTAL } 21 s6 GG `i EB TOTAL ?oo E-W STREET l� I 4, NB TOTAL EB LT = �12 Z NB LT = "' MAXIMUM WB TH = �� SB TH = LGq SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL WB LT = OR SB LT = Q_ 0 TO 1,200 h"\I SUNDER EB TH = L NB TH = l OR 1,201 to 1,4 ~� O, R e- V �b STATUS. E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL 9-gvzz �/V c' .. h..IT 9-82 URBAN STREETS LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) • APPROACH O O O O C'- © O O LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing Equiv. Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume PCE V'- PCE's (TIC—RT) Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining Lane Lanes 0-199=1.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 600-799=3.0 Zx (1 4J+OO J=© a0—® (s ( +Oe 5)--o i _ 1.0 800 — 999 = 4.0 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. • EB LT ti' B LT o � Z l 8 �i Z � 3 3 °1 � O `� Z `-I 5 I\13 r gz > I S6 Zoe � SB 61 �,' J `, 1 LT 8Z 9 5'v l- SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 0 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET �i� R� z�� 6� Z Date: WEEICbAY ZOC�U Intersection: ' 1 Analvst: 2 A M Time Period Analvzed: Project No. W001". 6 City/State:- P-2B6EZ%c-V- CoNNr-`/ , VA SB TOTAL N-S STREET »s EB TOTAL EBLT = IQS� WBTH ='��� W B LT =� OR EB TH = 1 NB LT 2 1 SB TH SB LT NB TH rWB TOTAL E-W STREET 91 �D fD 7� NB TOTAL MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL o To 1,200 w 212 D 1,201 to 1,400 ay NEAR > 1,400 ,� OVER 1 1 F k + 350 STATUS? O V F (t E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL 9.82 URBAN STREETS Ll • FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE LANE DISTRIBUTION APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) O ® 5 G O O O (9 „ Vo LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing Equiv. Volume Total Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume PCE�T �', . PCE's (TH+RT) Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (vph) Lane Lanes 0-199=1.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 600-799=3.0 2ox33 ®+OO © -T 'J-® 03 + (I 800 — 999 = 4.0 > 1,000 = 5.0 APPR LB lT LT �o Qs 0 a 0 SIGNALIZED INTERSEC IONS is 9-81 PLANNING APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: V Z-ra Z 7 6 4 Z- Date: w E E y- J4 Y a d a 0 Analyst: A M Time Period Analvzed: _ ? M . �641L 41z - Project No. W004'-)Sk 6E- City/State: 9-2aDF� ►CLL CoNNty . VA SB TOTAL N-S STREET WBTOTAL GZ-I�Z O EB TOTAL 60 i1Z-GZ. VA k-,>f F l 1 E-W STREET ZZo r NB TOTAL EB LT = I05- WB TH = �U7 WB LT = NB LT = SB TH = SB LT = MAXIMUM SUM OF CRITICAL CAPACITY VOLUMES LEVEL 0 TO 1,200 _ UNDER OR EB TH = 519 OR NB TH = 1,201 to 1,400 '� NEAR p t- > 1,400 �flVER STATUS. DV ��1J o � o E-W CRITICAL N-S CRITICAL Q- --�Y • � 0 � 0 4 �� URBAN STREETS ` �%�• ;f' C I t 1 'i •' 0 LANE DISTRIBUTION FOR SHARED LEFT/THRU LANES ON A MULTILANE APPROACH WITH PERMITTED LEFT TURN LANES (OPTIONAL WORKSHEET) l4J © ( 11 V LT Total No. of Equiv. Thru Vol. in Vol. in Opposing PCE Equiv. Volume Lanes on Volume Vehicles LT+TH ea. of the Volume V, CE's (TH+RT) Total Approach Per Lane in LT+TH Lane Remaining (` ph) Lane Lanes 0 — 199 = 1.1 200 — 599 = 2.0 600 — 799 = 3.0 800 — 999 = 4.0 > 1,000 = 5.0 APPR. EB LT NB LT �T ?s� z o I � ? zzy 1 o I 33, 3 ��� o i►Z ?s' 513 LT (9Z 3Z1 1 �S ZS3 ;Z1 f �J URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY .T ENVIRONMENTAL OPEN SPACE , \ RURAL RURAL COMM AGRIC INDUS' RURAL 0 POTEN COMMI INTERC AREA BUSINE CORRIE Homp, Hcray W to 1 GEOHGE � 43f�l�Y aL ,yhJnJn�lc1J/I C,LV L FREDERICK DEPARTMEUT W NTY, VIRGINIA 4G AND DEVELOPMENT CENTIMETERS INCHES ` I { 7 MAP 0 112 I 2 0 1200 2100 3600 4BOO 6000 GROONO 5000 IOpOn 20111. METERS ,EET a • USE PLAN • T A X R E C E I P T - Y E A R COUNTY OF FREDERICK C. WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR P.O. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604 1995 REAL ESTATE 31.75 ACRES 86 A JENI COMPANY P 0 BOX 2598 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 1 9 9 5 Ticket #:001b2J2Uuul Date 6/02/95 Register: J1<N1VJD Trans. #: 46717 Dept # RE9501 ACCT# 25495 Previous Principle ?_1 Balance $ 136.70 Principal Being Paid $ 436.70 Penalty $ .00 Interest $ .00 Amount Paid $ 436.70 *Balance Due as of 6/02/95$ .00 C1< Ff.] 2614 ANY BALANCE DUE DOES NOT INCLUDE PENALTY AND INTEREST. (DUPLICATE) lu �u • 0--6 giert w. clif ford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 9 Fax: 540-665-0493 May 8, 1996 Mr. John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Woodside II - Request for Rezoning Dear John: Please place the Woodside II rezoning on your next possible public hearing agenda. I understand that this may be as soon as June 12, 1996 depending upon proper public notice procedures. We have included in our request for Woodside II, improvements for Route 641, Double Church Road. These improvements address Planning Commission concerns of transportation safety by realigning the existing road, both vertical and horizontal, and providing for left and right turn lanes. A copy of the proposed improvements are enclosed as an addition to our rezoning as well as the most recent VDOT comments and approval from Mr. Bob Childress for the rezoning. Sincerely, gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. StepheGyurisin SWS:cls endosures cc: Mr. Jim Longerbeam, Chairman C1 b � 'v Mr. Bob Sager, Supervisor k , Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Planner cjR P��g96 Mr. Bill Tisinger, Attorney at Law G� NON Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. �t� uF ENt o pE� • �E�� COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY DAVID R. GEHR 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER P.O. BOX 278 EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278 May 1, 1996 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., V.P. G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Chuck: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P.E. RESIDENT ENGINEER TELE (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984.5607 Ref Woodside Estates, Section H Route 641 Frederick County I am writing in response to your revised traffic study of March 1, 1996 and preliminary entrance improvement plan for the referenced project. The information contained in your revised traffic study appears to address the concerns we raised in our February, 1996 review. Although we still do not totally agree with some of the methology you used in the evaluation, we do agree with your conclusions. The rezoning and future development of this property alone will not have a significant impact on the Route 277/641 intersection. The existing intersection configuration will be adequate to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development of this project. The preliminary entrance improvement plan you have provided us appears to be a workable design. The realignment of existing Route 641, both vertical and horizontal, along with the proposed right and left turn lanes into the project will improve safety for motorists traveling on this section of Route 641 as well as those entering and exiting the development. Of course you are aware with any secondary relocation or improvement project, your client will be responsible through our land use permit policy for obtaining or dedicating all necessary rights -of -way, easements, and construction costs for the Route 641 improvements. In summary, we have no overall objections to the rezoning of the property. However, we do reserve final comments until detailed site plans are available for review. If you have any questions or if we can be of fin-ther assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Robert B. Childress Permits/Subdivision Spec. Supv. RB C/rf lc: Mr. J. B. Diamond, Attn: Mr. K. B. Downs - - — ,.. _t.__1__1ar T'T.- V r r;o,-r.-i 05/01/1996 10:18 5406650493 G W CLIFFORD & ASSOC 0 PAGE 01 Virginia Department of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer P.O. Box 278 Edinburg, Virginia 12824-0278 (540) 98"133 The local office of the Transportation Department is located at 1550 Commerce Street in Winchester, if you prefer to hand deliver this review form Applicant's name, address and phone number: 200 N, Cameron Street, Winchester, Va. 22601 - (540) 667-2139 Name of development and/or description of the request: Woodside IZ Location: East side of Double Church Road, Route641 lust south of Route 277. Va. Dept. of Transportation Comments: See attached letter dated May 1, 1996. VDOT Signature and Date: � C��L�'�-�"'� oz # s i g (NOTICE TO RESIDENT ENGMER*PIWASE RETURN THIS l~ RM TO APPLICANT.) NOTICE TO-PPLIC iYT It is your responsibility to complete this form as accurately as possible in order to assist the agency with their review. Also, please attach a copy of your application form, location map, impact analysis, proffer statement, and all other pertinent information I egn,Er,T SUMMARY TOTAL AREA - 3123M All YIN, LOT AREA PER DMEI.UNO DETACHED 0,000 p11STER TOTAL / OF LOTS EO • 10.000 fi OPEN ACE REOUMM: 25X CURB GUTTER AND 81UEWALK9 REQURED i 15 itall Ong trft-, ;wo 0, ISO 1 1 1 '111 : ESTAW _ �• 1 1 ,/ =.fford ... %I. VIt. 6 0 - gilbert w. cli f ford & associates, inc. 200 North Cameron Street e Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 • Fax: 540-665-0493 February 9,1996 Mr. John Riley, Frederick Co. Administrator Frederick County Board of Supervisors 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Woodside II Estates Rezoning Application - #006-95 Dear John: We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors table the above referenced rezoning request scheduled for public hearing on February 13, 1996 until March 13, 1996. This should provide sufficient time for completion of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) review of the traffic impact analysis submitted as part of this rezoning application. Acceptance of the rezoning application by the Planning staff was contingent upon our submittal of a traffic impact analysis. A traffic impact analysis was prepared by our firm in November, 1995 and submitted for planning reviews. VDOT comments on the report are pending and are anticipated within the next two weeks. Tabling this request will allow VDOT to complete review of our report and provide comments for planning impacts. The Planning staff recommendation for this rezoning was approval, contingent upon receiving satisfactory comments from VDOT on the traffic impact analysis. We would welcome the opportunity to review VDOT's comments prior to public discussion. Mr. John Riley _ Woodside II Estates Rezoning Application - #006-95 February 9,1996 • Page 2 Thank you in advance for consideration of our request. Sincerely, gilbert w. rlifford & associates, inc. Stephen . Gyurisin cls cc: Mr. Billy Joe Tisinger Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Board of Supervisors James L. Longerbeam W. Harrington Smith, Jr., Robert M. Sager Charle W. Orndoff, Sr. Margaret B. Douglas Richard C. Shickle 'N �! O!{y,' d� a COMMONWIEALTH ®f ` IRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE DAVID R. GEHR P.O. BOX 278 COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, 22824-0278 February 9, 1996 Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director C/O Frederick County Planning Dept. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22604 Dear Kris: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P. E. RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 Ref: Woodside Estates Subdivision Section II Route 641 Frederick County Our Traffic Engineering Office in Staunton has attempted to review the traffic impact analysis for the referenced development which you submitted to us in late November, 1995. The analyst, G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., used data from a traffic impact analysis prepared by O. R. George in 1989 to begin the analysis for this development. Since existing volumes could readily be secured by field methods, we consider this unacceptable. The analysis indicated a growth of 134% between 1987 and 1995 and a growth rate of only 4% each year between 1995 and 2000. Indications are that traffic will continue to increase rapidly on Route 277 and we consider the 4% growth rate to be rather low. The analyst indicated only 75% of the generated traffic would use Route 277 with the other 25% using Route 641 going to the southeast. We believe 90% to 95% of the traffic will use the Route 277 corridor since very few motorists will elect to travel 5 miles or so on a secondary road when a primary route is in close proximity. The analyst should also review the number and configuration of the lanes at the existing intersection as some movements use a shared lane(s). This is not evident in the sketches. The Fifth Edition of the Trip Generation Manual and the Third Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual should be use in the analysis. Since the outbound traffic may have a more adverse impact on the operation of the signalized intersection, the A.M. peak hour should also be included in the analysis. TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY Mr. Kris Tierney Ref: Woodside Estates Subd., Section II February 9, 1996 Pacre 2 Distribution of traffic should also be reviewed and based on current traffic patterns. Through copy of this letter to Mr. Ron Mislowsky at G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. we are apprising him of our comments. Once the above comments have been addressed, we will be more than happy to re-evaluate the analysis. Should you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, William H. Bushman Trans. Resident Engineer By: Robert B. Childress Trans. Permits & Subdivision Specialist Supervisor RBC/rf xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr. S. A. Melnikoff Mr. Ron Mislowsky COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE DAVID R. GEHR PO BOX 278 COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, 22824-0278 December 12, 1995 Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Director Frederick Co. Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22604 Dear Kris: WILLIAM H. BUSHMAN, P. E. RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984.5607 Ref: Woodside Estates, Section II Route 641 Frederick County I am writing in response to your fax of November 27, 1995 concerning the traffic impact analysis for the referenced project. I understand you have discussed the analysis with Bill Bushman one day last week. We have forward the information on to Mr. J. B. Diamond's, our District Traffic Engineer in Staunton, Office for review and comment. Since our receipt of your fax we have met with representatives of Rite Aid to discuss their project at the intersection of Route 277/641. Since this project will have impact on the intersection as well, we suggested they contact G. W. Clifford's office to combine their trip generation estimates within the Woodside study. We felt this would more accurately reflect the potential impacts on the intersection. We will keep you apprised of our review and any other information we may receive. In the meantime if you have any questions, please give us a call. Sincerely, J "' • . t Robert B. Childress ` `J Cl Z Trans. Permits & Subdivision W 1 Specialist Supervisor 7 ti RBC/rf 2 a y xc: Mr. J. B. Diamond Mr S. A. Melnikoff TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY 0 • John T. Stelzl Post Office Box 572 560 Grim Road Stephens City, Virginia 22655 December 2, 1995 Frederick County Planning Department Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Planning Director 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Dear Mr. Tierney: Telephone (703) 869-0643 LC z .r My name is John Stelzl, and I reside in the Opequon District. Due to a conflict in scheduling, I will be at the Frederick County Farm Bureau Board of Directors meeting Tuesday evening instead of at the Public Hearing for the latest rezoning on Double Church Road. Please relay my comments to the Planning Commission in my absence. The information pertinent to this rezoning is: Application Number: 006-95 Acreage: 36.4589 PIN: 86-A-21 Opequon District The request to rezone this land from RA to RP would, as I understand, not only allow for denser housing development (as in adjoining Woodside Estates), but reduce the residential set back from 100 feet to 10 feet from the adjoining property line. I am firmly against the rezoning of this parcel, but since it is in the Urban Development Area, I know it is inevitable. Therefore, I recommend the following requirements be made of the developer as a compromise between the interests represented in this situation: 1. Increase the RP set back from 10 feet to 75 feet from property lines 2. Require the installation of a barrier fence (chain link, for example) for those newly created parcels of land which border the Double Churches Agricultural District. • 3. Require the installation of an evergreen screen along the perimeter of the Double Churches Agriculture District (for example, Leyland Cypress plantings 3 rows deep). The reasons for the above are not arbitrary. Since this parcel is adjacent to the UDA and to the Double Churches Agricultural District, I believe the above suggestions would decrease nuisance ordinance type complaints and help to lessen trespass incidences. The farther south you go on Double Church Road, the more rural it becomes and the likelihood for fast-moving vehicles to meet with slow moving farm equipment greatly increases. Since safety is of utmost importance to life-long as well as new members of our community, I would recommend that all egress and ingress traffic be channeled through Woodside Estates' one, existing, main entrance, and no new entrances be opened onto Double Church Road. In planning for the placement of lots, please consider placing larger tracts of land near the border of the Double Churches Agricultural District. This would help to increase the set back as well as to make for a more aesthetic blending of rural and urban areas. For the reasons brought forth herein, as well as the strains increased development place on our local resources (schools, fire, rescue, etc,), I urge you to vote against the rezoning of this land. I do recognize that this land lies in the UDA which makes that unlikely. As a panel, you do have an option: you may make requirementsof the developers, such as those listed here, which will act as compromises between the development interest and that of many lifelong residents, taxpayers and landowners along Double Church Road and in the community at large. Sincerely �y John T. Stelzl cc: Mr. Bob Morris, Member, Planning Commission ertw 0 gilb..� ord & associates, inc. cli 200 North Cameron Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-667-2139 • Fax: 540-665-0493 December 19, 1995 Mr. John Riley, County Administrator County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Woodside, Section II Rezoning Route 641, Frederick County Dear John: /� e This item is scheduled for public hearing at the first Board of Supervisor's meeting in 1996. The owner hereby requests a deferral of this public hearing until the hearing in February, 1996 in order to obtain and study VDOT comments which have been requested by the Planning Department staff in their staff comment to the Planning Commission. Thank you for the courtesy of deferring this hearing. Should yo have any questions or comments, please call. Sincerely, gilbert w. cliff ord & associates, inc. C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. ice President CEM/cls cc: Mr. Bill Tisinger U C \ , —10 —P I %\ o r\ I (\h • • John T. Stelzl Post Office Box 572 560 Grim Road Stephens City, Virginia 22655 December 2, 1995 Frederick County Planning Department Mr. Kris Tierney, Deputy Planning Director 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22604 Dear Mr. Tierney: Telephone (703) 869-0643 My name is John Stelzl, and I reside in the Opequon District. Due to a conflict in scheduling, I will be at the Frederick County Farm Bureau Board of Directors meeting Tuesday evening instead of at the Public Hearing for the latest rezoning on Double Church Road. Please relay my comments to the Planning Commission in my absence. The information pertinent to this rezoning is: Application Number: 006-95 Acreage: 36.4589 PIN: 86-A-21 Opequon District The request to rezone this land from RA to RP would, as I understand, not only allow for denser housing development (as in adjoining Woodside Estates), but reduce the residential set back from 100 feet to 10 feet from the adjoining property line. I am firmly against the rezoning of this parcel, but since it is in the Urban Development Area, I know it is inevitable. Therefore, I recommend the following requirements be made of the developer as a compromise between the interests represented in this situation: 1. Increase the RP set back from 10 feet to 75 feet from property lines 2. Require the installation of a barrier fence (chain link, for example) for those newly created parcels of land which border the Double Churches Agricultural District. 0 3. Require the installation of an evergreen screen along the perimeter of the Double Churches Agriculture District (for example, Leyland Cypress plantings 3 rows deep). The reasons for the above are not arbitrary. Since this parcel is adjacent to the UDA and to the Double Churches Agricultural District, I believe the above suggestions would decrease nuisance ordinance type complaints and help to lessen trespass incidences. The farther south you go on Double Church Road, the more rural it becomes and the likelihood for fast-moving vehicles to meet with slow moving farm equipment greatly increases. Since safety is of utmost importance to life-long as well as new members of our community, I would recommend that all egress and ingress traffic be channeled through Woodside Estates' one, existing, main entrance, and no new entrances be opened onto Double Church Road. In planning for the placement of lots, please consider placing larger tracts of land near the border of the Double Churches Agricultural District. This would help to increase the set back as well as to make for a more aesthetic blending of rural and urban areas. For the reasons brought forth herein, as well as the strains increased development place on our local resources (schools, fire, rescue, etc.), I urge you to vote against the rezoning of this land. I do recognize that this land lies in the UDA which makes that unlikely. As a panel, you do have an option: you may make requirementsof the developers, such as those listed here, which will act as compromises between the development interest and that of many lifelong residents, taxpayers and landowners along Double Church Road and in the community at large. Sincerely, v -V� John T. Stelzl cc: Mr. Bob Morris, Member, Planning Commission C 0 V E R S H E E T To: Fax #: Subject: c©p-qt:"en4Y c Date: Pages: 1 ;? , including this cover sheet. COMMENTS: FAX AfAP- From the desk of... Frederick County Planning Departint 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 540-665-5651 Fax:540-678-0682 0 2 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 January 31, 1996 TO THE APPLICANT(S) AND /OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: WOODSIDE ESTATES, SECTION II REZONING Rezoning Application #006-95 to rezone 36.4589 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family detached homes. This property is located on the west side of Double Churches Road (Route 641) and south of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) in the Opequon District, and is identified as PIN 86-A-02100. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of February 13, 1996, at 7:15 p.m., in the board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Director KCT/cg 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on January 31, 1996 from Department of Planning and De pment, Frederick ' County, Virginia: / G.W. CLIFFORD ASSOCIATES J ATTN: STEVE GYURISIN f� 200 NORTH CAMERON STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 JENI COFXANY V P.O. BOX 2598 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 HERBERT & PATRICIA PAINTER 914 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 LOUIS & BETTY STELZL ✓ 968 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 LINWOOD RITTER v 746 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 CHARLES CARBRAY 784 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 TIM & ➢ENISE THOMAS ROUTE 1 BOX 372—B STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 i CHARLES RACEY 387 EWINGS LANE STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 jArjt 5 BoWMAN P.O. BOX 6 STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 KENNETH WYMER 731 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 CARLTON BARTLES 749 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 MARVIN WHITE ✓849 GRIM ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 Kris C. Tie e put Frederick County Dept. Planning STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director, for the Department of Planning a�n/dJ Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated .,5/ has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the ie in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this D day of , res on 1 My commission expi�1 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 TIM & DENISE THOMAS ROUTE 1 BOX 372—B STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 NiX1t LJO91 1 RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH NUMBER UNABLE TO FORWARD i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 January 31, 1996 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND /OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of WOODSIDE ESTATES, SECTION II REZONING Rezoning Application #006-95 to rezone 36.4589 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family detached homes. This property is located on the west side of Double Churches Road (Route 641) and south of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) in the Opequon District, and is identified as PIN 86-A-02100. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of February 13, 1996, at 7:15 p.m., in the board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Director KCT/cg 107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX:540/678-0682 November 22, 1995 TO THE APPLICANT(S) AND /OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of: WOODSIDE ESTATES Rezoning Application #006-95 to rezone 36.4589 acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located on the West side of Double Church Road (Route 641) and South of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and is identified with PIN 86-A-21 in the Opequon District. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission at their meeting of December 6, 1995. The meeting will be in the board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m. Any interested parties wishing to attend this meeting may do so. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Director KCT/dc 107 North Kent Street o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 is is to certify at the attached -correspondence �.s mailed to the following on m1 �C�lp ' the Department of Planning anwvelopment, Frederick Countv. Virginia. G.W. CLIFFORD ASSOCIATES ATTN: STEVE GYURISIN 200 NORTH CAMERON STREET WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 JENI COMPANY P.O. 2598 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604 HERBERT M. & PATRICIA PAINTER 914 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 LOUIS F. & BETTY R. STELZL 968 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 LINWOOD RITTER 746 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 CHARLES CARBARY 784 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 CHARLES RACEY 387 EWINGS LANE STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 JAMES BOWMAN P.O. BOX 6 STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 KENNETH WYMER 731 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 CARLTON BARTLES 749 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 TIM & DENIS� THON,AS ROUTE 1, BOX 372—B STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 MARVIN WHITE 849 GRIM ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, alo'lrp (%qV, a Notary Public in and for the state and county aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director, for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated N�lfp ((�``j , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my state and county foresaid. Given under my hand this @DA day of Noarno'el, , `q CJ My commission expires on T� ���� �j q 9 1 NOTARY PUBLIC COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 KENNETH WYMER 731 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VIRGINIA 22655 i 1G� ` CDtr COUNTY of FREDERICK w n Department of Planning and Development ® 540/665-5651 „1738, FAX: 540/ 678-0682 November 22, 1995 TO THE APPLICANTS) AND /OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) The Application of WOODSIDE ESTATES Rezoning Application #006-95 to rezone 36.4589 acres from RA (Rural Area) to RP (Residential Performance). This property is located on the West side of Double Church Road (Route 641) and South of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and is identified with PIN 86-A-21 in the Opequon District. This rezoning application will be considered by the Frederick County Planning Commission- at their meeting of December 6, 1995. The meeting will be in the board room of the old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia, at 7:00 p.m. Any interested parties wishing to attend this meeting may do so. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Director KCT/dc 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 V� 0 • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING May 29, 1996 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #006-95 OF WOODSIDE ESTATES, SECTION II On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on June 12, 1996, at 7:15 p.m., in the board room of the Old Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia. This hearing is to consider the application of Woodside Estates Section II to rezone 36.4589 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family detached homes. This property is located on the west side of Double Churches Road (Route 641) and south of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) in the Opequon Magisterial District and identified with Property Identification Number 86-A-02100. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this meeting. A copy of the application is available for review at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia. Please contact our department if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Kris C. Tierney, AICP Interim Planning Director KCT/cg 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on a 9, from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick C nty, Virginia: MARVIN WHITE 849 GRIM ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 JAMES BOWMAN P.O. BOX 6 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 LINWOOD RIDDER 746 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 JENI COMPANY P.O. BOX 2598 WINCHESTER, VA 22604 KENNETH WYMER 731 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK CARLTON BARTLES 749 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 CHARLES RACEY 387 EWINGS LANE STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 LOUIS & BETTY STELZL 968 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 CHARLES CARBRAY 784 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 TIM & DENISE THOMAS 781 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 is C. iern , AI Frederick Co. Planning Dept. I, I'�' T! I Ann U 1 , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated Mav 0 C) . ( C1 R(,L, has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State anCounty aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of `1 "l My commission expires on m HERBERT & PARTICIA PAINTER I 914 DOUBLE CHURCH ROAD STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655 ARY PUBLIC G.W. CLIFFORD & ASSOCIATES ATTN: STEVE GYURISIN 200 NORTH CAMERON STREET WINCHESTER, VA 22601 41G� J co COUNTY of FREDERICK w 0 ® � � Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 PAX: 540/ 678-0682 1738 February 21, 1996 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND /OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION OF WOODSIDE ESTATES, SECTION II On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified that the rezoning application of Woodside Estates, Section H has been tabled indefinitely and will not be heard at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on February 28, 1996. You will be notified when a meeting date and time is scheduled for this application. Rezoning Application #006-95 of Woodside Estates, Section II, is a request to rezone 36.4589 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single family detached homes. This property is located on the west side of Double Churches Road (Route 641) and south of the intersection with Fairfax Pike (Route 277) in the Opequon District, and is identified as PIN 86-A- 02100. Sincerely yours, / / 1 Kris C. Tierney, AICP Deputy Planning Director KCT/rsa 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 R This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on February 21, 1996 from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: Marvin White 849 Grim Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Carlton Bartles 749 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Kenneth Wymer 731 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 James Bowman P.O. Box 6 v Stephens City, VA 22655 Charles Racey 387 Ewings Lane Stephens City, VA 22655 Tim & Denise Thomas 7B) Double GitUYGJ,PS Rd . Stephens City, VA 22655 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK Linwood Ritter 746 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Louis & Betty Stelzl 968 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Herbert & Patricia Painter 914 Double Church Road Stephens City, VA 22655 Jeni Company P.O. Box 2598 Winchester, VA 22604 Charles Carbray 784 Double Church Road V Stephens City, VA 22655 G.W. Clifford Associates Attn: Steve Gyurisin 200 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 L is C. T y ICP Frederick Co. nnii ept. 1, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County afore aid, do hereby certify that Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 111)/ , Im" has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and Count aforesaid. Given under my hand this ld t day of 4 My commission expires on c31 �' NO� ARY P16BLIC