Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout004-05 Senseny Village - 73.79 Acres - Red Bud - Backfile (2)m 0 m En a i 0 v DATE .- NO. - , 8 214 RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS DOLLARS S FOR � Jill .� 7DUE 70RDER BY _ c � c • REZONING TRACKING SHEET Check List: Application ,Form t� Proffer Statement L� Impact Analysis Adjoiner List ✓' Fee & Sign Deposit " Deed il- Plat/Survey Taxes Paid Statement Impact Model Run DATE j� OS Application received/file opened a3 O S Reference manual updated/number assigned 3 3 o S D-base updated ,3 01 O'a Copy of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification Four sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing -� a � a 5 One 81/z" x I I" black and white location map ordered from Mapping ,3 •oZ y • O 5 File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary . 3 os PC public hearing date ACTION: 'AP'R4)Mn o l� BOS public hearing date ACTION: a' OPPRny2n - — Signecfcopy-of resolution- for- amendment of ordinance, with conditions proffered [if applicable], received from County Administrator's office and given to office manager for placement in the Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no proffers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers Notebook.) Action letter mailed to applicant / 5� G� Reference manual and D-base updated 0jC ,3� File given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) File given to Mapping/GIS to update zoning map Zoning map amended U \Carol\Common\vackmg rez Revised 05/09/02 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING Redbud District Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Parcel 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 68.6 Acres November 22, 2004 Applicant: Current Owners: Contact Person: Taylor Grace, LLC Hazel C. Lambert BGW, Incorporated Evan A. Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering November22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of two parcels comprising a total of 68.6-acres, a 50-acre parcel owned by Hazel C. Lambert and an 18.6-acre parcel owned by BGW, Incorporated. Taylor Grace, LLC is the contract purchaser of both parcels and the rezoning applicant. The subject properties are accessed from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and a previously planned connection from Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). The current zoning of the 18.6-acre parcel is RP, Residential Performance District (un-proffered) and the applicant intends to retain this designation and place conditional zoning proffers upon the property. The current zoning of the 50-acre parcel is RA, Rural Areas District. The applicant proposes to rezone the 50-acre Lambert parcel to RP, Residential Performance District for the purpose of combining with the adjoining 18.60-acre BGW, Incorporated property and developing a residential subdivision. The development consists of a total build out of 285 residential units (145 single-family detached and 140 townhouse dwelling units) by year 2008. Please refer to�hed Proposed Zoning Map x 1 lt. r v..v Basic information Location: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736), and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) Magisterial District: Redbud Property ID Numbers: 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 Current Zoning: RP, Residential Performance District and RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Residence and unimproved Proposed Use: 285 residential units Proposed Zoning: RP, Residential Performance District Total rezoning area: 68.6-acres File #3924/F-AWajc 2 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the Land Use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The subject area is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states suburban residential land use will occur in the UDA. &_nbt,,- Kr-$,-k 'F> A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access Tax parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via Rossum Lane (Route 736), which currently terminates in a cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of the subject property. Rossum Lane is to be extended into the property as a VDOT maintained street. Access is provided from Senseny Road via Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). This access point off Glenridge Drive utilizes a platted inter -parcel connection Shat was established to provide access to the BGW, Incorporated property. G��i -� �,K-v� cv% urn Flood Plains° The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0120-B. The entire subject property is located "Zone C". The FEMA NFIP map identifies "Zone C" as "area outside the 100-year flood plain". Wetlands The County GIS database identifies one wetland area on the 50-acre parcel, which is a manmade impoundment. The existing pond will be drained and filled. A detailed wetlands delineation study will occur on the subject property subsequent to rezoning approval and will be identified as a component of the Master Development Plan. Steep Slopes There are no steep slopes (50% or greater). on the subject site. Mature Woodlands Woodland areas exist on the subject property, as well as open fields and scrub brush. It is anticipated that these areas will be impacted by the future development of road systems, utility infrastructure and residential structures. The master development plan for Senseny Village will meet the requirements of the County ordinance that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2003. The master development plan and subsequent Subdivision Design Plans for the subject property site will comply with these standards. fobs File ##3924/EAWajc 3 ��� Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Soil Types The Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service was consulted to determine soil types contained in this tract. The subject site is located on map sheet number 37, and contains the following soil types: 1C Berks Channery silt loam 7-15 % slopes 3B Blairton silt loam 2-7 % slopes 9B Clearbrook Channery silt loam 2-7 % slopes 41D Weikert-Becks Channery silt loam 15-25 % slopes 41E Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam 25-65 % slopes Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County identifies 3B Blairton silt loam as prime farmland soils. The first four soil types are identified as gently sloping to moderately steep, shallow and moderately deep, well -drained soils that have a medium textured or fine textured subsoil. The last, 41E, is moderately deep, steep and very steep, well -drained soils on side slopes and ridges. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned Residential Performance (RP) District Use: Residential South: Zoned Rural Areas (RA) District Use: Unimproved East: Zoned Residential Performance (RP) District Use: Residential Zoned Rural Areas (RA) District Use: Unimproved West: Zoned Residential Performance (RP) District Use: Residential C. TRANSPORTATION The subject properties are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). Senseny Road is identified as a major collector road and has excellent sight distance to the east and west at the Senseny Road intersections of both Rossum Lane and Twin Brook Circle. Channing Drive, approximately a mile to the west, will be completed to connect to Route 7. Vt/ File #3924/EAWa c / 4 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Senseny Village community by Patton Harris Rust, which is dated November 19, 2004 and included as a component of the Impact Analysis Statement. The TIA as.sum�ps the total build out of 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) as a single transportation phase by year 2010. gXV.�,�The TIA provides for a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, as well as Average Daily Trip volumes for existing, background and build out conditions. The TIA studies Senseny Road and its intersections with Twinbrook Circle, Rossum Lane, and Greenwood Road. rig � The TIA concludes the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Se Village are acceptable and manageable. All intersection, xcept enseny Road/Twinbrook Circle, will maintain levels of service of "C" or better during 0 build -out conditions. The signal warrant analysis indicates signalization is not warranted at Twinbrook Circle. The applicant is proffering (A) a monetary contribution with a potential maximum amount of �`' �{ �' 0 1.145 million dollars for Senseny Road improvements and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass, (B) right turn lanes on Senseny Road at Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle, (C) improvements to Rossum Lane, and (D) two points of access to Senseny Road for all lots ll within Senseny Village. l a—�— D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT %0 G The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Existing 12" and 8" sanitary sewer mains are located on this property as is the Burning Knolls 1 Pumping Station. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has a sewer transmission line that directs sewage effluent to the 15" Hogue Run Sewer Interceptor, which flows to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility. This treatment facility has a hydraulic capacity of 2.0 MGD, which is currently operating at approximately 75% capacity. The FCSA has approved a plan to expand the capacity of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility to at least 3.0 MGD, which is anticipated to be complete in 2007. A second expansion phase is contemplated to increase the capacity of the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility to between 4.0-5.0 MGD. At this time, this phase is contemplated to be complete by 2010. The on -site sewer infrastructure required to convey effluent to the treatment facility will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance, including the construction of a regional pump station. The impact of rezoning the subject property can be based on comparable discharge patterns of 225 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on the sewage conveyance and treatment systems. Q = 225 GPD per household Q = 225 GPD x 285 residential units Q = 64,125 GPD projected at total residential build out File #3924/EAWaje 5 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning The proposed rezoning is projected to increase flows to the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility by 64,125 GPD at total build out. The applicants' have proffered to develop the Senseny Village community through a phased plan, which limits the number of building permits that can be obtained on an annual basis. This phasing plan limits development to a maximum of 70-75 residential lots through calendar year 2008, when the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility hydraulic capacity is anticipated to be 3.0 MGD. Therefore, it is projected that Senseny Village will utilize 64,125 GPD of the available 3.0 MGD of capacity, which represents 2% of the capacity in year 2007 at build out of the Senseny Village community. Adequate capacity for sewage conveyance and treatment will be available throughout the development of the Senseny Village project as a result of the infrastructure improvements provided by the applicants and the FCSA. C� U. WATER SUPPLY The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Water is readily available to the subject development through the extension of existing lines on adjacent properties. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has an 8" water line along Rossum Lane and an 8" water line is stubbed at the subject property line along the undeveloped street right-of-way off Glenridge Drive. Water service will be provided from the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Plant. These systems currently provide approximately 6 MGD. The on -site water infrastructure required to convey potable water to the proposed residential lots in the Senseny Village community will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. 1,(A� a-/ The impact of rezoning the 68.6-acre site can be based on comparable water usage of 275 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on the water supply and treatment systems. Q = 275 GPD per household Q = 275 GPD x 285 residential units Q = 78,375 GPD projected at total residential build out The projected water usage for the proposed rezoning is 78,375 GPD at total build out. This projection represents approximately 1% of the unutilized capacities at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Treatment Plant. Therefore, the available water source and infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the capacity needs of the proposed 68.6-acre residential development at total build out. File #k3924/EAWaje 6 8 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning F. DRAINAGE The dominant drainage pattern for the 68.6-acre site is to the east, running along the southern parameter of 65-((A))-55 and through the central portion of 65-((A))-49B through an unnamed tributary that drains to the Opequon Creek. Senseny Village will be designed with curb and gutter lined streets, which will convey storm water through an underground storm sewer system. Storm water management will be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local storm water management requirements and erosion and sedimentation control requirements. The design of the stormwater management system will occur during the subdivision design process, and will require approval by the Frederick County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation. p� G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Q G O-A- (— -' The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4th edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) that is projected to develop over a 4-year period: AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per household AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 285 households AV = 1,539 Cu. Yd. at residential build out, or 1,077 tons/yr at build out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected 4-year build out of the subject site will generate on average 269 tons of solid waste annually. This represents a 0.13% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year, which can be accommodated by this regional facility. The townhouse portion of Senseny Village (140 units) will be provided with community dumpsters; therefore, tipping fees will be received by the Regional Landfill to mitigate approximately 50% of the impacts of solid waste disposal by the Senseny Village community. ` `wce�iv H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any existing structures V on or near the subject property as potentially significant. Furthermore, there are no structures in the vicinity that qualify for the national or state register of historic places, nor does the subject site fall within core battlefield area boundaries or areas that would potentially qualify as historic districts. File #3924/EAWaje 7 A Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of the subject property based on a proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse). The results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model identify that the build out of the Senseny Village community will create a negative fiscal impact of $8,987.00 for each residential unit. The applicants' proffer statement provides a monetary contribution to Frederick County in the amount of $10,000.00 for each detached single-family residential unit and $8,000 for each townhouse residential unit, to mitigate the fiscal impacts to County services. Furthermore, as outlined in the Transportation Section of this report, the applicants' proffer statement provides an additional 1.145 Million Dollars ($5,000.00 for each detached single-family residential unit and $3,000 for each townhouse residential unit) to be used for land acquisition and construction improvements to Senseny Road and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass. Therefore, the monetary contributions provided for in the applicants' proffer statement adequately mitigate impacts to capital facilities costs and transportation impacts associated with this project. File #3924/EAWajc N. I OUTPUT MODULE j APPLICANT: Senserly Village I LAND USE TYPE RP Residettlla REAL EST VAL $28,823,500 J FiRE&RESCUE= 4 1 I Fire and Rescue Department ElementarySchoofs I Middle Schools I High Schools Parks and Recreation I PUNIc Library i Sheriffs Offroes Administration Building I Othet Miscellaneous Facilities I f SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT l NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Net Fiscal Impact Costs of Impact Credit• Required (entered in vital F2ciffts car sum only) $227.763 $1,098.857 $668,384 $571,097 3393,4£8 $68,402 $40,483 $51,953 $6%281 $3,486,682 $0 I t Credits to be taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPV) Taal Potential Adjustmen! Far I Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cep, Future CIP/ Tax Credits Reveal-.- Net Capital Net Cost Per l Oper Cap Equip 1_xoendmebt S. 'faxes, Other (UrradJustBd) Cost Balance Facilities Impact Dwelling Unit I $0 $177.493 , 861,620 .51,039,114 .588,672 $86,672 $19,130 $19,130 $36,861 $0 $8,268 $45,150 $a $0 $71,1163 $78,463 $149,531 $285,442 $940,084 $116.071 $1,341,597 $0 I .. I 1 INDEX "1.0 1f Cap- Equip included 1.0 i INDEX:'1.0' if Rev -Cast Bal, Mil" irRatio to Cc Avg: 0.0 I PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.0 MEMOLICLOGY: — 1- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model - r 2- Net Fiscal Impact NPV front operations calculations Is input in roar total of second column (zero If negative); Included are the one-11me taxestfees for onzyear only at full value. 1 3- NPV of hrture oper cap equip [axes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4. NPV of fulure capital expenditure taxes paid In fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. I 5. NPV of future Was paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as 1 calculated for each new fadilly. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital I facilities requirements. These are adjusted iorpercen[ of costs covered by the revenues I J from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). Rev -Cost Bat = Ratio to Co Avg $0 $227,768 I $799 � $716.748 B1.921,590 i 56,742 $6JJ53 $332,293 $1,166 i S13,193 $55,206 $194 j $31,143 K340 $32 $0 551,953 $182 I $103,142 $0 $0 I $9251351 $2,561,291 I $8.987 $0 0 �Q i .62,551,291 $8.987 i 0.514 1 t I 0.690 j 1 I 1 I J t I 1 I i NOTE: PioffercdcL e[lons do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt finanoed. � I- -- ---- -- ------ -- - --- - — - ------------ ------^--- - - - - - - --- -- - - -- NOTES: Mode] Run Data 11/E9/04 MTR - - - -'-- -- - - --^- --�- M ---- - j 1 1 i Prgiect Description: Assumes t45 Single Family Detached homes and 140 Sinle Family Attached homes on 68.6 acres zoned RP District (4.15 dweaing units per acxe). 1 I I r I I Due to changing conditions associated with development In the County, the results of this ( Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 1 cn .A C) 011 cn m W Ln cn T rr rr C CJ G "a r D Z Z H Z 9) d m z x c R CS W r9 W IV t.. ;u a �71 o C ri 3, o �•`\ cs I o ZONING LEGEND _Z M W RA RURAL AREAS DISTRICT au Z RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCE DISTRICT Ra RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY z J R5 RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL COMMUNITY W MNI MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY DISTRICT � i C 81 NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT 82 BUSINESS GENERAL DISTRICT W BJ INDUSTRIAL TRANSITION DISTRICT W ; C Ml LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OmM2 INDUSTRIAL GENERAL DISTRICT n �\ Ti \, \� /� •\ EM EXTRACTIVE MANUFACTURING DISTRICT S C e _'--_ Q •�\ - � �.. � \ - \ / �� \� RE HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICT i c� _ - \ J�iTH op _ t • \ ll u MARK o `i ti -----1� / - f ' \ ` PARCELS 0 COUNTY CIS I �\ COUNTY OCRAPHIC INFOR 71 W F � U d y F d I J a z a y a o 3 F U Z Z m d iil, w w m w o LIJ DATE 11/24/04 V \J` --- SCAIE. 1' - 100' l O i DESIGNED BY: SBM j f FILE NO. 3024 V5� 't7ES . . ...... . N . C, t, 9,:x k 71, Ve' -0i 00026SIl 3 00090UL N 6 0Z rem --------------- OO+OOt7 . ............................. .. ... I VGX ���� ;�, cl A` i `` t`` f I �` `�� It f /'' 6,199%x I&V A AM= r 7Z 6Ef 00'+0-6,E -,00+gee V OOOSOIL N 000)-6S I I OOOt701. A 0 IVA ,,BOSS AREA 02 OTAZ llvODDLA,ti1,D = 48.9 4C- Rc7 V57-JX2Bf_ D 11VOO&4ND ERC�A,17 - De5TI, 1c'SIW �oaPz AIA6 = 0 A� �F� AA,FS ,zIIVZ) pONOS . 4 Ar/' -5 /9 70 O ACk'E5 38.5 U.A! STOW/1�1 �U4 TEiP /r'E-TEN7"/0�(/ /J QC. AT ,11YO017 1N vAC/ V72-Z-,�O _ S-L D: AMO&V T IN OJPL--%V SPACF = 39 I 17 39A,�/_5 TURL-�E D - 3.38 % A W0611V - /ill OPEN 5P,ACE = /9 D/C /t�IDRE�U�BED == /. T6 I A10061NT Al OPEiV SPACE = /Z %f/OODC,4NDS = 48. 9 ACHES D/STUlf�ED /9 SEA. M) I 3 4 TOTAi ARE,4 5./ 9.6 4.95 OPE iV ,41,,Z ii I.4 3.4 0.99 1,73 13.7 3 7 5.39 2.10 TY)O/CA� LOT — 60' x /50 " How' -C W17-H /0' SjRIP - '50 ' X 60 G)R/ VDIV4 Y — /Z ' X 40 ' 40 %o ov ZOT WILL 9C D/STURB D 30. 30 35 20 Z5 31 39 15,15 ,-Ii ,4LL ,CJ�CR�AT/UN�L %NE �ECKEAT/0/Y . Rkr���c v s4-7 SNAL C BE 10(47-10 S&wvE-yoRS czwT1f1c4Tr I HEREBY CERT/FY 7-H 47- ON� A D CONTA/NEO /N TN/S SC/BD/ PORT/ON OF THE LAND COIVPEYEO TO WIZ L/AM M. 6,47T,4/1E AND P/CHARD V GOODS 6Y OEED DATED MAY Z5, /97/ AND RtcCO,PDEO /N THE FRN DEED BGt7K " COURT CLE,PKS OAF/L E / AT PAGE 575 . _ d N. BRUCE Et��NS y, 7 r, •8� `'" <'�- %%' _>�d `� -��00 0�1 d/1�/SRO _. _ .l �• 1 z.y fir. Y • c� Li cc LLI O oo W u v z LU r­7 ~~� o q v us W ° TUA AC n RB NCE E MENT r 1 OPEN SPACE \ SELi OPEN SPACE op �Z_—� �- WAYS—j��� _ \ W W 13 j a ' V —\ \ ---_-- --� _ C —'-� - OPEN- J LLI oto NLLI 00 > \ a J � l �v� \ ( r � • �� � W wTc eRo/oe ear � area /� cs `/ O /> U Q O C� `` W O op \ W Z V U o V z z = cj _LU UA C ° T A AC ac \ ' \ P E RBANCE E MENT L a c�.p o SPACE ' SE I ` . � \ �' D. SMTH Li OPEN SPACE OPEN J NArVRAI —�_ W W \ \ - OPEN SPAJ A LU fA V) J W W DATE 5/10/05 im NO. Zoning Section CHAPTER 21 ZONING .Editor's note. --This chapter is derived from the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, adopted November 1, 1973, as amended through December 1, 1975. Amendments after such date are cited in parentheses following the section affected. For state law as to zoning generally, see Code of Virginia, § 15.1-486 et seq. As to planning cOmmission, see §§ 2-16 to 2-22 of this Code. As to buildings generally, see ch. 6. As to erosion and sedimentation control, see ch. 8. As to nuisances generally, see ch.14. As to subdivision of land, see ch. 18. As to swimming pools, see ch. 19. As to water and sewers, see ch. 20. Page Article I. In General 5 21-1. Definitions. 21-2. Enforcement of chapter. 21-3. 21-4. Effect of chapter on existing plans. 21-5. Interpretation of zoning maps. Amendments to chapter. § 21-6. Compliance with chapter. § 21-6.1. 21-7. Number of uses associated with a lot or parcel. Violations; § 21-7.1. penalties. Exceptions to height regulations. Article II. Districts Generally. § 21-8 Districts enumerated. § § 21-9 21-10. Zoning, building and mobile home placement permits. Warning and disclaimer § 21-11. of liability. Conditional use permits. § 21-12. Uses not provided for. § § 21-13. 21-13.1, Off-street parking and loading. Off-street parking. 5 21-13.2. Off-street loading. 9 21-14. Signs. Article III. Agricultural, Limited District A-1. 5 21-15. Statement of intent. 5 21-16. Use regulations. § 21-17. Area regulations. § 21-18. Setback regulations. § 21-19. Frontage regulations. § 21-20. Yard regulations. •J ' L bear ? o S p rvisar r.p�reiec, D 183 Couniy of Frod`erick, Virginia Supp. #1, 10-76 l ifs' 19 � •js 21--5-1 ARTICLE V RESIDENTIAL, PERFORMANCE DISTRICT 5-1 STATEMENT OF INTENT This article is intended to implement the residential land use policies of the Comprehensive Plan dealing with urban lands. The Plan identifies four basic land use characteristics which are to be encouraged. 5-1-1 Efficient land use patterns 5-1-2 Reduced housing and public facility costs 5-1-3 Energy efficient housing and housing patterns 5-1-4 Environmentally sensitive land use 5-1-5 Within this article, a number of general performance requirements are identified. When a housing development has satisfied these requirements, the article is intended to provide a large degree of flexibility in development and housing design. This design process is accomplished through a Master Development Plan which is designed in cooperation with the county staff and Planning Commission and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. 5-1-6 While a mixture of housing types is allowed on a site, the intent is to use the Master Development Plan and the other article regulations to place the different housing types on the site in a way that will protect the living environment of the new residents and the existing surrounding neighborhood. The article attempts to encourage the provision of some amenities through density bonuses which are intended to enhance the development without increasing housing costs. 5-1-7 In those sections of this article where discretion is given to the Administrator or Commission, that discretion shall be exercised with this statement of intent as the primary guide for action. 5-2 USE REGULATIONS 5-2-1 All uses shall be developed in accordance with an approved Master Development Plan unless otherwise waived under Article 6 of this chapter. 5-2-2 Structures to be erected or land to be used for one or more of the following uses: 21-5-2 5-2-3 Any of the following residential structures: Single Family Detached-Tradicional, Single Family Detached - Cluster, Single Family Detached -Zero Lot Line, Patio House, Duplex, Multiplex, Atrium House, Weak -Link Townhouse, Townhouse, Garden Apartments 5-2-4 Rooming and boardinghouses, tourist homes, schools, churches. Fire stations and companies, and rescue squads. 5-2-5 Home occupations, as defined. 5-2-6 Utilities necessary to serve residential uses, including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, and meters. 5-2-7 Accessory uses and structures. Accessory structures attached to the main structure shall be considered part of the main structure. 5-2-8 Required or bonus recreation facilities and public parks, playgrounds, and recreation facilities. 5-2-9 Business signs to advertise the sale or rent of the premises upon which they are erected; church bulletin boards and identification signs, and signs for non-profit service clubs and charitable associations (off -site signs not to exceed eight (8) square feet); directional signs. 5-2-10 USES PERMITTED WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 5-2-10.1 Convalescent and nursing homes. 5-2-10.2 Cottage occupations, as defined. 5-2-10.3 Nationally chartered fraternal lodges, civic clubs, and their related club facilities, with an approved site plan meeting the requirements of this code and with the following conditions: 5-2-10.3.1 All principal activities shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure. 5-2-10.3.2 All outdoor facilities shall be incidental to the principal facility or activity. 5-2-10.3.3 No facility or activity shall be erected or conducted less than 30 feet from any residental district or area within other districts which are predominantly residential in nature. 5-2-10.4 Group Homes, as defined. The intent of this use is not to detract from the residential characteristics of the neighborhood or district. 5-3 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS In order to protect those areas of a property which have environmental characteristics that make them unsuitable for the placement of housing, the following areas must remain undisturbed to the extent of the minimum percentages listed. The Administrator may allow the disturbance of small areas within the following areas where that disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and/or will not significantly denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site or particular environmental area" Floodplains------------------------ 100% Lakes and Ponds -------------------- 100% Wetlands --------------------------- 100% Natural Stormwater Retention Areas- 90% Steep Slopes----------------------- 60% (8%-15% slope) 70% (15%-25% slope) 85% (25% or more slope) Woodlands-------------------------- 80% OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION REQUIREMENTS The following open space and recreation requirements shall be met by uses in this district. Required Open Space - 30% - 15% for developments containing only single- family detached traditional and single- family detached cluster housing types. The required open space may be decreased no more than 10% as part of the density bonus provisions. The amount of the reduction of open space shall equal the percentage of the maximum available density bonus (50%) for which the development is eligible. Example: Development eligible for 25% density bonus which is 50% of the maximum density bonus. Therefore, open space may be decreased 5%. Density increases which are not taken from the required open space may be made up from changes in housing types and/or decreases in the average lot sizes in certain areas of the site, no less than the minimum required lot size. No more than 50% of the required open space shall be within the following environmental areas: Lakes and Ponds, Wetlands, or Steep Slopes. The administrator, in conjunction with the Department of Parks and Recreation, may allow a larger amount of the Steep Slopes to be utilized where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan to make these areas useful for active or passive recreation. Where the required open space is less than one (1) acre, the administrator may wave the open space requirement, except for that 21-5-4 amount of space needed for the placement of the required recreation facilities. 5-4-7 Recreation Facility Requirements - Housing types with lot sizes of less than 5,000 square feet shall provide all the following recreational facilities, or equivalent recreational facilities, for each thirty (30) dwelling units. The facilities shall be in a configuration and location that is easily accessible to the units that they are designed to serve. The design and amount of facilities shall be approved by the Administrator, in conjunction with the Department of Parks and Recreation using the following facilities as a guideline: 5-4-8 Quantity 1 1 set 1 2 1 1 Equipment Slide (8' high, lb' long) Swings (10' high, 4 seats) Climber (13' geodesic) Spring Animals Sand Box Whirl (10' diameter) Required Recreation Facilities �r WHIRL SU,oE a FIE COPY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 September 15, 2005 Evan Wyatt Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 RE: REZONING 904-05, SENSENY VILLAGE Dear Evan: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of August 24, 2005. The above -referenced application was approved to rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with Proffers; said Proffers reflecting the revisions which were accepted by the Board of Supervisors on August 24, 2005 (totaling 73.79 acres). The subject properties are located south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) of the Senseny Road corridor, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 65-A-49B and 65-A-55, in the Red Bud Magisterial District. The proffer that was approved as a part of this rezoning application is unique to this property and is binding regardless of ownership. Enclosed is a copy of the adopted proffer statement for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the approval of this rezoning application. The Department looks forward to working with you and the applicants during the development of this project. Sincerely, , Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad cc: Hazel Lambert, 223 Rossum Ln., Winchester, VA 22602 Taylor Grace, LLC, 446 Fromans Rd., Winchester, VA 22602 Gina A. Forrester, Red Bud Magisterial District Supervisor Pat Gochenour and Marie F. Straub, Red Bud Magisterial District Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 REZONING APPLICATION #04-05 SENSENY VILLAGE Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: August 12, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/03/05 Recommended Approval w/ Proffer Revisions Board of Supervisors: 08/24/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with Proffers (73.79 acres) LOCATION: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) of the Senseny Road corridor. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBERN: 65-A-49B, 65-A-55 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential Performance) District PRESENT USE: Residential and unimproved. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) South: RA (Rural Areas)/ East: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential Use: Residential/ Unimproved Use: Residential Vacant Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: 285 residential units (145 Single Family Homes and 140 Townhomes) on 73.79 acres at a density of 3.86 units per acre. 0 a Rezoning 404-05 — Senseny Village August 12, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Tianspoi-tation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 657. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to this property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Senseny Village rezoning application dated November 22, 2004, with proffers revised December 29, 2004, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plan detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the I.T.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. 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. Fire Marshal: There should be two site access points during land clearing and burning of land clearing debris will be not be permitted. Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Station Volunteer F&R Co.: Is there a plan to bring this subdivision out onto Sulfur Springs Road? Public Works Department: Please see altacbed leiler dated Jamraiy 12, 2005, ctnd signed byHarney E. Sh-aivsni)der, Jr., Director of Public Ylrorks. Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: In my review of the rezoning application, the narrative for conveyance and treatment of wastewater indicates that this property will be serviced by the Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant. I believe this is in error and treatment would occur at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment. Department of Parks & Recreation: Required recreational units and open space to be reviewed upon submittal of that information. Staff recommends bicycle trails, providing circulation within the development and connections to Senseny Road and adjacent developments be included in the plan. The proposed monetary proffer of $1,166 for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate to help offset the impact this development will have on these county services. Winchester Regional Airport: While the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 145 single family homes and 140 townhouses will yield 40 high school students, 37 middle school students and 100 elementary school students for a total of 177 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having 0 0 Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village August 12, 2005 Page 3 student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Planninjz & Zonin2: 1) Site History The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies both parcels as being zoned A-2 Agricultural. In 1981 Frederick County approved a request (RZ001- 81) to rezone the parent tract of 65-A-4913, 65-A-49, from A-2 (Agricultural General) to R-3 (Residential General). Subsequently, the residential zoning classifications were consolidated into the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district. Consequently, Parcel 65-A-4913 maintains the RP zoning classification. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA (Rural Areas) District. Parcel 65-A-55 maintains this RA zoning classification. 2) Master Development Plan. The Glenmont Village master development plan, MDP 001-83 was approved by Frederick County on 3/21 /84 for the development of parcel 65-A-49 into approximately 135 single family detached cluster units and 48 multiplex units. The master development was revised in 1989 to change the multiplex units identified in Section 7 to 21 single family detached cluster units. The Glenmont Village master development plan identified specific areas as open space and single family detached cluster lots and also identified the general location of the streets providing access to the residential lots. With the approval of the subdivision of Glenmont Village Section 6 on 4/21/88 lot 65-A-4913 totaling 24.09 acres was created. This parcel has remained separate from the Glenmont Village subdivision and is undeveloped until this time. The parcel was recently acquired by the applicant of this rezoning. It is the intent of the applicant to incorporate this parcel into the acreage of the adjacent Lambert parcel and create the development known as Senseny Village. In order to maintain a general level of consistency with the design and layout of Section Eight of the Glenmont Village MDP, in particular as it pertains to the area immediately adjacent to the existing residential land uses located in Section 6 of Glenmont Village, it was determined that the applicant should prepare a revision to the Glenmont Village MDP specific to Section Eight to clearly demonstrate the proposed development of this portion of the property. The MDP is only for information at this point. The proposed master development plan is designed to meet the master development plan requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to preserve an area of open space and woodland preservation adjacent to the residential properties along Glenridge Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village August 12, 2005 Page 4 Drive as a buffer. This is in the vicinity of the existing residential lots that could reasonably have expected an area of open space to be maintained to the rear of their lots. The design and layout of the proposed MDP has been translated into the generalized Development Plan for the Senseny Village rezoning to guarantee that the Senseny Village project, and therefore the parcel previously known as Section 8 of Glenmont Village, will develop in substantial conformance with what is being presented to the County and the existing residents of Glenmont Village. Following the rezoning of this property, the applicant will develop a master development plan that incorporates both parcels consistent with the proffered Generalized Development Plan. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Cony-n-ehensine Policy Plan, p. 1-1] L�n�r1 I Ict.., The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map designates the general area in which the Senseny Village property is located for residential land uses. The average overall residential density of the Urban Development Area should not exceed three units per acre. More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that properties which contain less than one hundred acres but more than ten acres should not exceed 5.5 units per acre. With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the desired land uses and densities. Further, as land is developed in the eastern portion of the Urban Development Area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space is an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. Ti-anspoNation The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding fixture arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan Rezoning 404-05 — Senseny Village August 12, 2005 Page 5 should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the Eastern Road Plan and is a priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. Accommodations for this new major arterial road should be incorporated into the project. Senseny Road is identified as an improved major collector road and is also designated as a bicycle route on the County's bicycle plan. New development in the Urban Development Area should only be approved when roads and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that a level of service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments and that traffic analysis should be provided by the applicants to insure that needed road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The Senseny Village site has been identified as a site typical of the Martinsburg Shale Region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. This is an accurate identification that presents challenges when planning the development program for this property. A tributary of the Opequon Creels bisects the 65-A-4913 portion of the property. This feature and its associated slopes and natural drainage ways warrant particular attention and may also provide an opportunity for enhanced protection of the riparian corridor. The application proposes development in the reasonably level areas and offers areas that will be set aside for environmental and open space purposes. 4) Potential Impacts A. "Transportation Traffic Impact Anal The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of 285 residential units (145 single family detached and 140 single family attached residential units) would generate 2,668 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed with access to the project being provided along Senseny Road via Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle. The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Senseny Village application are acceptable and manageable. The intersections of Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle along Senseny Road will maintain levels of service of C or better during the build out conditions. This is assuming the identified eastbound right turn lane at the intersection of Senseny Road and Twinbrook Circle is implemented. 0 • Rezoning 404-05 — Senseny Village August 12, 2005 Page 6 Transportation Program. The Generalized Development Plan for Senseny Village delineates the general public road systems that will serve the residential development. The applicant has designed the public road system to discourage cut through traffic flow through Glenridge Drive and Twinbrook Drive from Senseny Village. The improved Rossum Drive access to Senseny Road is emphasized as the dominant traffic flow for this project. A traffic calming measure at the Glenridge Drive connection would further facilitate this approach. The Senseny Village application has proffered to design and construct right turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive intersections prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. In addition, the application proffers to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane to VDOT standards including curb and gutter, street lights and storm sewer also prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. Omitted from the general transportation program is an eiflianced accommodation for pedestrian circulation along the reconstructed Rossum Lane that would provide access to Senseny Road and ultimately the adjacent residential developments. Internal pedestrian circulation should also be provided between the residential uses within Senseny Village. Consideration should also be given to additional frontage improvements along Senseny Road. In an effort to address the broader transportation needs of this area, the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached residential unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for improvements to the Senseny Road corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike. This proffer may generate up to $1,145,000 and may be used as matching fluids by Frederick County. The application has also addressed the future Route 37 right-of-way by providing for a right-of- way dedication consistent with the preliminary plans for Route 37. This dedication is identified on the Generalized Development Plan and would be available to the County at such time the County requests the dedication. B. Sewer and Water The Senseny Village rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 78,375 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 64,125 gallons per day of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority offered no comment. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations Promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program will have a significant impact on the permitted vi,aste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick C'ozmly Sanitation Authority are czn°rently undertaking efforts to evalztale the 0 • Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village August 12, 2005 Page 7 regulations and, in conjunction x,nith the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net Fiscal impact in the amount of $8,987 per residential unit. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the conununity the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,000 per single family detached residential unit and $8,000 per single family attached residential unit. The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application. The schools evaluation anticipates that the proposed 145 single family homes and 140 townhouses will yield 40 high school students, 37 middle school students and 100 elementary school students for a total of 177 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the fixture construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Recent planning efforts have identified that the I P" elementai}� school anticipated to open in the ,fall of 2006 ivill open at its piogi-ammed capacity. This is based upon the transfer ofstudents currently enrolled in area schools that exceed progrannned capacities and the projected build out and occupancy of previously approved residential pi-gjects in the UDA. No additional elementary schools have been identified in the current Capital Improvements Plan for this general area of the UDA. 5) Proffer Statement — (Dated .tune 14, 2005) A) General Development Plan. The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas, and open space areas within the Senseny Village development. The GDP is also very helpful when addressing buffering of the adjacent residential uses. In particular, those located in Section six of Glenmont Village. B) Residential Uses. The applicants have proffered to limit the total number of residential uses to 285 dwelling units. Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village August 12, 2005 Page 8 No split has been proffered regarding the specific housing types. However, the residential land use areas have been delineated on the GDP. Further, the applicant has proffered to prohibit the development of Garden Apartments. The applicant has committed to a phased introduction of the residential units over a four year time frame with seventy units within the first three years and 75 units in the fourth year. This phasing approach specifies the calendar year in which the building permits may be obtained. It may be more desirable to have the annual allocation occur on consecutive years following the approval of the master development plan for this project. This would be consistent with several other recently approved rezoning applications. C) Transportation. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for improvements to the Senseny Road corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike; right turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive intersections; improvements to Rossum Lane to VDOT standards; and the dedication of right- of-way for the fixture Route 37 Eastern Bypass. D) Monetary Contribution. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $10,000 for each single family detached unit and $8,000 for each single family attached townhouse unit to mitigate the impacts to capital facilities as identified in the fiscal impact model. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/03/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Senseny Village rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been fully addressed by the applicant. The Plamling Conunission should pay particular attention to the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the planned and proposed land uses. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village August 12, 2005 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 08/03/05 MEETING: Four residents of the Glenmont Village subdivision came forward to speak to the Commission about the rezoning proposal. The first, Ms. Valerie Pullman, representing the Board of Directors of the Glerunont Village Homeowners Association, said the HOA appreciated the outstanding cooperation they received from Greenway Engineering and, with the exception of a number of issues raised concerning the particular wording in the proffer statement, they supported the rezoning proposal. A few of the concerns regarding the wording of the proffer statement centered on guarantees for the preservation of the existing woodlands strip between the new development and Glenmont Village, a request for sidewalk installation on one side of Rossurn Lane for pedestrian safety, and a guarantee prohibiting garden apartments. The other three residents of Glenmont Village were concerned that improvements to Rossurn Lane would take away a considerable portion of their front yards and driveways, and concern was also raised about the potential for increased traffic on Glenridge Drive. Mr. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering agreed to modify the wording within the proffer statement to accommodate the concerns of the HOA, with the exception of the sidewalk on Rossum Lane because of the uncertainty about available space. Specifically, he said he would reference property numbers consistently throughout the document, which would eliminate any potential for apartment units within the project and include additional wording to guarantee the minimum 50-foot woodland preservation strip between the rear property line and the townhouses. Mr. Lloyd Ingram from VDOT came forward to address the residents along Rossurn Lane who were concerned about losing a portion of their front yards and driveways. Mr. Ingram explained that all improvements to Rossurn Lane would take place within VDOT's existing 50-foot right-of-way. Chairman DeHaven pointed out that the residents may have been ui-tknowingly maintaining a portion of VDOT's existing right-of-way over the years. Some members of the Commission voiced their concerns regarding the overcrowded schools in the Senseny Road area and the inability to locate new schools within the UDA to accommodate the additional growth, the proximity of the county's landfill to the proposed new development, possible enactment of regulations limiting sewage flows into the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility, and inadequate transportation infrastructure. A motion was made and seconded to recommend denial of the rezoning, however, this motion failed by a majority vote. A new motion was made to recommend approval of the rezoning with the all of the revisions to the proffers as stated and agreed to by the applicant, to be coordinated by the Planning Department before consideration by the Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded and passed by the following majority vote: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL W/ PROFFER REVISIONS): Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven NO: Straub, Gochenour (Note: Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.) P-W I m 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM MAR 2 3 2M5 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid W. Zoning Amendment Number -3') -" Date Receive 3�c5" PC Hearing Date/3/�" BOS Hearing Date The following information shall be provided by the applicant: All parcel identification numbers, deed book and page numbers may be obtained from the Office of the Commissioner of Revenue, Real Estate Division, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester. 1. Applicant: Name: Greenwav Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 2. Property Owner (if different from above) Name: Hazel C. Lambert Telephone: (540) 662-0623 Address: 223 Rossum Ln., Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Taylor Grace, LLC Telephone: (540) 662-4164 Address: 446 Fromans Rd., Winchester, VA 22602 3. Contact person if other than above Name: Greenwav Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Attn.: Evan Wyatt, AICP 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location map X Agency Comments Plat X Fees Deed to Property X Impact Analysis Statement Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X X 0 • 5. The Code of Virl4inia 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: Hazel C. Lambert, owner Taylor Grace, LLC, owner 6. A) Current Use of the Property: B) Proposed Use of the Property: 7. Adjoining Property: Residential and Undeveloped Residential Subdivision PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 65B-((7))-10 Residential RP District 65D-((1))-1 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-4 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-5 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-6 Residential RA District 65D-((2))-7 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-8 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-9 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-l0A Greenspace RP District 65D-((3))-4-53 Residential RP District 65D-((3))-4-54 Residential RP District 65D-((3))-4-59A Greenspace RP District 65D-((4))-5-71 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-76 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-77 Residential RP District • 0 65D-((5))-6-78 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-79 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-80 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-81 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-82 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-83 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-84 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-85 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-86 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-87 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-88 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-89 Residential RP District 65-((A))-50 Residential RP District 65-((A))-54 Residential RP District 65-((A))-56 Residential RP District 65-((A))-57 Residential RP District 65-((A))-60 Residential RP District 65-((A))-62 Residential RP District 65-((A))-63 Residential RP District 65-((A))-70 Residential RP District 65-((A))-86 Residential RP District 65-((A))-65 Residential RP District • 0 65-((A))-71 Residential RP District 65-((A))-68A Residential RP District 65B-((6))-38 Residential RP District 65-((A))-72 Unimproved RA District 65-((A))-186B Residential RA District 65-((A))-186J Residential RA District 65-((A))-190 Unimproved RA District Note: Please also provide public hearing meeting notice to Clarke County as the subject property is located within 'V mile of the Clarke County boundary line. Legal notice should be provided to the following address: Clarke County Planning Department Attn: Chuck Johnston, Planning Director 102 North Church Street Berryville, VA 22611 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): The 73.79-acre site is located on the south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). • 0 Information to be Submitted for Cavital Facilities Impact Model In order for the Planning Staff to use its capital facilities impact model, it is necessary for the applicant to provide information concerning the specifics of the proposed use. Otherwise, the planning staff will use the maximum possible density or intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on Page 9 of the application package. 8. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number 65-((A))-49B 65-((A)-55 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service Districts Red Bud High School: Co 18, Greenwood Middle School: Co 18, Greenwood Elementary School: Millbrook Admiral Byrd Senseny Road 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 49.70 RA District RP District 24.09 RP District RP District with Proffers 73.79 Total Acreage to be rezoned 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family homes: 145 Townhome: 140 Multi -Family 0 Non -Residential Lots: 0 Mobile Home: 0 Hotel Rooms: 0 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Office: 0 Service Station: 0 Retail: 0 Manufacturing: 0 Restaurant: 0 Warehouse: 0 Other 0 12. Signature: I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the zoning ordinance and to change the zoning map of Frederick County, Virginia. I (we) authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection purposes. I (we) understand that the sign issued when this application is submitted must be placed at the front property line at least seven days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors' public hearing and maintained so as to be visible from the road right-of-way until the hearing. I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true and accurate to the bet of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s): l.0 Date: 3 ) -i 1 LS- Greenway Engineering — Ev n Wyatt, 4 P Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia,107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsinule 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Hazel C. Lambert (Phone) (540) 662-0623 (Address) 223 Rossum Lane Winchester, VA 22602 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Will Book instrumentt Ne. 115on Page 1563, and is described as Parcel: 65 Lot: 55 Block: A Section: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenwa. Engineering Subdivision: Senseny Village (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Property, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney -in -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. In witness thereof, I (we) hav hereto set my (our) hand a nd seal this day of , 200 GJ Signature(s) State of Virginia, City/County of Frederick, To -wit: I, jj i i n n M , Jrl : , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has `acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this Zl5" day of vCl� 2005 (� �U •� �JA �'1_Jl� P X /L, My Commission Expires: I N tary Public Ic A Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Planning office, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By These Presents: That I (We) (Name) Denver Ouinnelly, manager/member of Taylor -Grace, LLC (Phone) (540) 662-4164 (Address) 446 Fromans Road Winchester, VA 22602 the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by Instrument No. 050002909 on Page , and is described as Parcel: 65 Lot: 49B Block: A Section: _ do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Greenway I n ing eering Subdivision: Senseny Village (Phone) (540) 662-4185 (Address) 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 To act as my true and lawful attorney -in -fact for and in my (our) name, place and stead with full power and authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning application for my (our) above described Properly, including: ® Rezoning (Including proffers) ❑ Conditional Use Permits ❑ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final) ❑ Subdivision ❑ Site Plan My attorney -ill -fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered conditions except as follows: This authorization shall In witness ther0f,_J (we Signature(s) one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or modified. (our) hand and seal this Z_1y1� clay of Y6��� 200 J' State of Virkinia,lCity/County of Frederick, To -wit: I, a- iiyi L, Md I` o , a Notary Public it ai nd for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument and who I (are) known to me, personally appeared before me and has acknowledged the `saame before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this 21-'51- day of IA�CA�cb1 200 My Commission Expires: Zvi ZUC`P Notary Public Owner Signature: REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA mo-dX.?— '- i2ll O S Date 0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA Owner Signature: Hazel C. Lambert Date REZONING APPLICATION #04-05 SENSENY VILLAGE Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 21, 2005 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/03/05 Pending Board of Supervisors: 08/24/05 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with Proffers (73.79 acres) LOCATION: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) of the Senseny Road corridor. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Red Bud PROPERTY ID NUMBER(S): 65-A-49B, 65-A-55 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) District and RP (Residential Performance) District PRESENT USE: Residential and unimproved. ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) South: RA (Rural Areas)/ East: RP (Residential Performance) RA (Rural Areas) West: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential Use: Residential/ Unimproved Use: Residential Vacant Use: Residential PROPOSED USES: 285 residential units (145 Single Family Homes and 140 Townhomes) on 73.79 acres at a density of 3.86 units per acre. Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village July 21, 2005 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 657. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to this property. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Senseny Village rezoning application dated November 22, 2004, with proffers revised December 29, 2004, addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. Before development, this office will require a complete set of construction plan detailing entrance designs, drainage features, and traffic flow data from the LT.E Trip Generation Manual, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. 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. Fire Marshal: There should be two site access points during land clearing and burning of land clearing debris will be not be permitted. Plan approval recommended. Greenwood Station Volunteer F&R Co.: Is there a plan to bring this subdivision out onto Sulfur Springs Road? Public Works Department: Please see atlached letter dated Janzra7y 12, 2005, and signed by Harvey E. Straivsnyder, Jr., Director of Public Yhorks. Fred ericic-Winchester Service Authority: In my review of the rezoning application, the narrative for conveyance and treatment of wastewater indicates that this property will be serviced by the Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant. I believe this is in error and treatment would occur at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. Frederick County Sanitation Authority: No comment. Department of Parks & Recreation: Required recreational units and open space to be reviewed upon submittal of that information. Staff recommends bicycle trails, providing circulation within the development and connections to Senseny Road and adjacent developments be included in the plan. The proposed monetary proffer of $1,166 for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate to help offset the impact this development will have on these county services. Winchester Regional Airport: While the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 145 single family homes and 140 townhouses will yield 40 high school students, 37 middle school students and 100 elementary school students for a total of 177 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having • 0 Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village July 21, 2005 Page 3 student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and fixture school needs should be considered during the approval process. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site Histoi•y The original Frederick County Zoning Map (U.S.G.S. Stephenson Quadrangle) identifies both parcels as being zoned A-2 Agricultural. In 1981 Frederick County approved a request (RZ001- 81) to rezone the parent tract of 65-A-4913, 65-A-49, from A-2 (Agricultural General) to R-3 (Residential General). Subsequently, the residential zoning classifications were consolidated into the RP (Residential Performance) zoning district. Consequently, Parcel 65-A-4913 maintains the RP zoning classification. The County's A-1 and A-2 agricultural zoning districts were combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properties and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA (Rural Areas) District. Parcel 65-A-55 maintains this RA zoning classification. 2) Master Development Plan. The Glenmont Village master development plan, MDP 001-83 was approved by Frederick County on 3/21 /84 for the development of parcel 65-A-49 into approximately 135 single family detached cluster units and 48 multiplex units. The master development was revised in 1989 to change the multiplex units identified in Section 7 to 21 single family detached cluster units. The Glenmont Village master development plan identified specific areas as open space and single family detached cluster lots and also identified the general location of the streets providing access to the residential lots. With the approval of the subdivision of Glemnont Village Section 6 on 4/21/88 lot 65-A-4913 totaling 24.09 acres was created. This parcel has remained separate from the Glenmont Village subdivision and is undeveloped until this time. The parcel was recently acquired by the applicant of this rezoning. It is the intent of the applicant to incorporate this parcel into the acreage of the adjacent Lambert parcel and create the development known as Senseny Village. In order to maintain a general level of consistency with the design and layout of Section Eight of the Glenmont Village MDP, in particular as it pertains to the area immediately adjacent to the existing residential land uses located in Section 6 of Glemnont Village, it was determined that the applicant should prepare a revision to the Glenmont Village MDP specific to Section Eight to clearly demonstrate the proposed development of this portion of the property. The MDP is only for information at this point. The proposed master development plan is designed to meet the master development plan requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and to preserve an area of open space and woodland preservation adjacent to the residential properties along Glenridge • Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village July 21, 2005 Page 4 Drive as a buffer. This is in the vicinity of the existing residential lots that could reasonably have expected an area of open space to be maintained to the rear of their lots. The design and layout of the proposed MDP has been translated into the generalized Development Plan for the Senseny Village rezoning to guarantee that the Senseny Village project, and therefore the parcel previously known as Section 8 of Glenmont Village, will develop in substantial conformance with what is being presented to the County and the existing residents of Glenmont Village. Following the rezoning of this property, the applicant will develop a master development plan that incorporates both parcels consistent with the proffered Generalized Development Plan. 3) Comprehensive Policy Plan The Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan is an official public document that serves as the community's guide for making decisions regarding development, preservation, public facilities and other key components of community life. The primary goal of this plan is to protect and improve the living environment within Frederick County. It is in essence a composition of policies used to plan for the future physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1] Land Use The parcels comprising this rezoning application are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Urban Development Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. In addition, the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use map designates the general area in which the Senseny Village property is located for residential land uses. The average overall residential density of the Urban Development Area should not exceed three units per acre. More specifically, the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that properties which contain less than one hundred acres but more than ten acres should not exceed 5.5 units per acre. With the more urban densities envisioned for development in the UDA, the Comprehensive Plan seeks to ensure that special effort is made to provide the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the desired land uses and densities. Further, as land is developed in the eastern portion of the Urban Development Area, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the preservation of the stream valleys as environmental open space is an important goal that contributes to the protection of flood plains and water quality and provides a continuous system of green open space. Ti-ansporlalion The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan provides the guidance regarding future arterial and collector road connections in the eastern portion of the County by identifying needed connections and locations. Plans for new development should provide for the right-of-ways necessary to implement planned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan 0 Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village July 21, 2005 Page 5 should be constructed by the developer when warranted by the scale, intensity, or impacts of the development. Existing roads should be improved as necessary by adjacent development to implement the intentions of the plan (Comprehensive Plan 7-6). Route 37 is a road improvement need that is identified in the Eastern Road Plan and is a priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. Accommodations for this new major arterial road should be incorporated into the project. Senseny Road is identified as an improved major collector road and is also designated as a bicycle route on the County's bicycle plan. New development in the Urban Development Area should only be approved when roads and other infrastructure with sufficient capacity have been provided. The Comprehensive Plan identifies that a level of service "C" should be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments and that traffic analysis should be provided by the applicants to insure that needed road improvements are identified in order to maintain or improve upon the level of service. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The Senseny Village site has been identified as a site typical of the Martinsburg Shale Region with steeply eroded side slopes and reasonably level plain areas. This is an accurate identification that presents challenges when planning the development program for this property. A tributary of the Opequon Creek bisects the 65-A-4913 portion of the property. This feature and its associated slopes and natural drainage ways warrant particular attention and may also provide an opportunity for enhanced protection of the riparian corridor. The application proposes development in the reasonably level areas and offers areas that will be set aside for environmental and open space purposes. 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Anal The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for this application projects that the development of 285 residential units (145 single family detached and 140 single family attached residential units) would generate 2,668 vehicle trips per day. The report was developed with access to the project being provided along Senseny Road via Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle. The TIA concludes that the traffic impacts associated with the Senseny Village application are acceptable and manageable. The intersections of Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle along Senseny Road will maintain levels of service of C or better during the build out conditions. This is assuming the identified eastbound right turn lane at the intersection of Senseny Road and Twinbrook Circle is implemented. Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village July 21, 2005 Page 6 Transportation Program. The Generalized Development Plan for Senseny Village delineates the general public road systems that will serve the residential development. The applicant has designed the public road system to discourage cut through traffic flow through Glenridge Drive and Twinbroolc Drive from Senseny Village. The improved Rossum Drive access to Senseny Road is emphasized as the dominant traffic flow for this project. A traffic calming measure at the Glenridge Drive connection would further facilitate this approach. The Senseny Village application has proffered to design and construct right turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbroolc Drive intersections prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. In addition, the application proffers to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane to VDOT standards including curb and gutter, street lights and storm sewer also prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. Omitted from the general transportation program is an enhanced accommodation for pedestrian circulation along the reconstructed Rossum Lane that would provide access to Senseny Road and ultimately the adjacent residential developments. Internal pedestrian circulation should also be provided between the residential uses within Senseny Village. Consideration should also be given to additional frontage improvements along Senseny Road. In an effort to address the broader transportation needs of this area, the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached residential unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for improvements to the Senseny Road corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike. This proffer may generate up to $1,145,000 and may be used as matching fiends by Frederick County. The application has also addressed the future Route 37 right-of-way by providing for a right -of way dedication consistent with the preliminary plans for Route 37. This dedication is identified on the Generalized Development Plan and would be available to the County at such time the County requests the dedication. B. Sewer and Water The Senseny Village rezoning proposal is estimated to require approximately 78,375 gallons per day of water usage and approximately 64,125 gallons per day of wastewater. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority will serve the property and the wastewater flow from the site will go to the Opequon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The initial review of the Frederick County Sanitation Authority and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority offered no comment. Recent planning efforts have identified that evolving nutrient reduction regulations promulgaled by Virginia's Boy Progran2 will have a significant impact on the permitted waste water capabilities of Frederick County. Both the Frederick Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Sanitation Authority are currently undertaking efforts to evaluate the Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village July 21, 2005 Page 7 regulations and, in conjunction ivith the UDA Study Working Group, proactively plan to address this issue. Requests for land use modifications should be evaluated very carefully in light of the evolving nutrient loading regulations. C. Community Facilities The Frederick County Fiscal Impact Model is a tool that is used to identify the capital costs associated with various types of development proposals presented to the County. The projected costs to Fire and Rescue, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Library, Sheriff's Office and for the Administration Building are calculated and provided to the applicant for their consideration. The Fiscal Impact Model output for this project indicates a net fiscal impact in the amount of $8,987 per residential unit. In recognition of the impacts that may be realized by the community the applicant has proffered a contribution in the amount of $10,000 per single family detached residential unit and $8,000 per single family attached residential unit. The comment provided by the Frederick County Public Schools should be carefully considered when evaluating the application. The schools evaluation anticipates that the proposed 145 single family homes and 140 townhouses will yield 40 high school students, 37 middle school students and 100 elementary school students for a total of 177 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the fixture construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Recent planning efforts have identified that the 11 "' elementary school anticipated to open in the fall of 2006 ivill open at its programmed capacity. This is based upon the transfer of students currently enrolled in area schools that exceed programmed capacities and the projected build out and occupancy of previously approved residential projects in the UDA. No additional elementary schools have been identified in the current Capital bnprovements Plan for this general area of the UDA. 5) Proffer Statement — (Dated June 14, 2005) A) General Development Plan. The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas, and open space areas within the Senseny Village development. The GDP is also very helpful when addressing buffering of the adjacent residential uses. In particular, those located in Section six of Glenmont Village. B) Residential Uses. The applicants have proffered to limit the total number of residential uses to 285 dwelling units. Rezoning #04-05 — Senseny Village July 21, 2005 Page 8 No split has been proffered regarding the specific housing types. However, the residential land use areas have been delineated on the GDP. Further, the applicant has proffered to prohibit the development of Garden Apartments. The applicant has committed to a phased introduction of the residential units over a four year time frame with seventy units within the first three years and 75 units in the fourth year. This phasing approach specifies the calendar year in which the building permits may be obtained. It may be more desirable to have the annual allocation occur on consecutive years following the approval of the master development plan for this project. This would be consistent with several other recently approved rezoning applications. C) Transportation. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single family detached unit and $3,000 per single family attached townhouse unit for improvements to the Senseny Road corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike; right turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive intersections; improvements to Rossum Lane to VDOT standards; and the dedication of right- of-way for the fixture Route 37 Eastern Bypass. D) Monetary Contribution. The applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $10,000 for each single family detached unit and $8,000 for each single family attached townhouse unit to mitigate the impacts to capital facilities as identified in the fiscal impact model. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/03/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Senseny Village rezoning application is generally consistent with the goals of the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan as described in the staff report. Elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address specific components of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Plamiing Commission should ensure that the impacts associated with this rezoning request have been frilly addressed by the applicant. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the capacities and capabilities of community facilities needed to serve the planned and proposed land uses. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Following the required public hearing, a decision rekardina this rezoning application by the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Board of Supervisors. 9 i Rezoning Application - Location Map Application Review Fee Pile #3924/GAW Special Limited Power of Attorney Agreement C-1 ",� Pile #3924/GAW • AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: August 3, 2005 - Recommended Approval BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: August 24, 2005 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #04-05.OF SENSENY VILLAGE WHEREAS, Rezoning #04-05 of Senseny Village, was submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with Proffers. This 73.79 acre site is located on the south side of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867), in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 65-A-49B and 65-A-55. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on August 3, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on August 24, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to change 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with Proffers, as described by the application and plat submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. PDRes 437-05 • This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 24th day of August, 2005 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Gina A. Forrester Lynda J. Tyler Gene Fisher PDRes #37-05 Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Nay Gary Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Aye Aye Aye A COPY ATTEST /QY ell John rley, Jr. Frederick County Irministrator Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 SENSENY VILLAGE PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# 04-05 Rural Areas (RA) and .Residential Performance (RP) to Residential Performance (RP) with Conditions PROPERTIES: 73.79-acres +/- Tax Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 RECORD OWNERS: Hazel C. Lambert Taylor Grace, LLC APPLICANT: Taylor Grace, LLC PROJECT NAME: Senseny Village ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: November 22, 2004 REVISION DATE: August 10, 2005 Preliminai-V Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended), (the "Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 04-05 for the rezoning of 49.70-acres+ from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District, and for the rezoning of 24.09-acres± currently zoned Residential Performance (RP) District to proffered Residential Performance (RP) 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 the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no binding effect whatsoever. Upon approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon the applicants and their successors and assigns. The subject property, identified as Senseny Village, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert, (the "Owner of the first parcel") being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55 and further described by Will Book 115 at page 1563, and the lands owned by Taylor Grace, LLC, (the "Owner of the second parcel") being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B and further described by Instrument #050002909. File 43924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 A.) Residential Land Use 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of residential units to 285 dwelling units on the combined subject properties of Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, as defined in Section 165-65L of the Zoning Ordinance on Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the residential dwelling units in accordance with the following annualized phasing plan. This annualized phasing plan shall begin in the calendar year in which the Senseny Village Master Development Plan is approved by Frederick County. All dwelling units not developed within the specified year shall be carried forward to the ensuing calendar years: YEAR TOTAL BUILDING PERMITS 1 70 2 70 3 70 4 75 TOTAL 285 B.) Generalized Development Plan and Master Development Plan The Applicants hereby proffer to submit a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas and open space areas within the Senseny Village Community. The final engineering documents for Senseny Village will be in substantial conformance with the proffered GDP; however, it is recognized that modifications to the final internal road alignment on Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 may occur due to site development constraints such as wetlands or steep slopes without the need to modify the proffered GDP. However, in no event will a modified internal road alignment encroach within the 50-foot no disturbance easement adjacent to Glenmont Village Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B as described in Section B3 of this proffer statement except for existing dedicated street and utility comiections. The final engineering documents will ensure that the Senseny Village Community provides for a street extension File #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering C.) 0 November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 /connection to Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Glenridge Drive (Route 865), an internal street system that connects to both of the extended streets, and an inter -parcel connection to Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72. 2. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) has been designed to provide for single-family detached residential lots to adjoin the Glenmont Village Subdivision and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue on Tax Map Parcel 65- ((A))-55. Furthermore, the GDP has been designed to provide for open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 3. A no disturbance easement that is 10-feet in width shall be provided along the rear property line of all single-family detached residential lots that abut Glenmont Village and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue for the purpose of preserving existing woodlands on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55. Furthermore, a 50-foot no disturbance easement shall be provided on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6, which shall remain undisturbed between the state street serving the townhouse lots and the existing residential lots within Glenmont Village — Section 6, except for existing dedicated street and utility connections. 4. A no disturbance easement shall be established within the open space areas that are associated with the natural drainageways to protect the integrity of the waterways and the upland slope areas. The only activity that may occur within this no disturbance easement will include utility installation and a single road crossing to provide access to the southern portion of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 5. A Preliminary Master Development Plan will be submitted for the portion of the subject property that is located on Tax Map Parcel 65- ((A))-49B to demonstrate how this portion of the subject property would be developed. Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not bind the Board of Supervisors to any action on this rezoning application. Additionally, Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not eliminate the requirement for a Master Development Plan for the entire 73.79-acres +/- subject site. Transportation 1 The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions that are to be utilized for improvements to the Senseny Road (Route 657) corridor File 43924/EAW 3 • Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The contributions, in the amount of $5,000 per single-family detached unit and $3,000 per townhouse unit, total a potential maximum of $1.145 million dollars. The applicants authorize the use of these contributions as matching funds by Frederick County for transportation improvements to these roadways. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. 2. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct right turn lanes (and tapers) of eleven -foot width, and to include curb/gutter, on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) intersections, within the existing Senseny Road right-of- way. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 3. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane (Route 736), to meet VDOT minimum geometric and pavement design standards sufficient to allow for two-way travel and on -street parking, and to include curb/gutter, street lights and storm sewer, within the existing Rossum Lane right-of-way. Furthermore, traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the Rossum Lane improvement project. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 4. The applicants hereby proffer to design the internal street system to provide two means of access to Senseny Road via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) for all residential lots. Traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the internal street system connections to Rossum Lane, Glenridge Drive, and Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72 if desired by VDOT. 5. The applicants hereby proffer to provide for a right-of-way dedication for the future Route 37 Eastern Bypass in conformity with the Alternative C alignment depicted on the Frederick County Route 37 Corridor Study Functional Alignment dated October 1992, as identified on the proffered GDP. This right-of-way dedication shall be provided to Frederick County at no cost within 90 days after receiving written request from Frederick County that the right-of-way is needed. File 43924/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 D.) Monetary Contributions The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions in the amount of $10,000.00 for each detached single-family dwelling unit, and $8,000.00 for each townhouse dwelling unit, to mitigate impacts to capital facilities as identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model — Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department on November 19, 2004. Tlus monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. E.) Community Trash Collection The Applicants hereby proffer to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal service to all residential land uses within the Senseny Village community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Senseny Village Homeowners Association ("HOA") or sub -association at such time as identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association until such a time that this service is provided by Frederick County or other municipal providers. File 93924/EAW 5 Greenway Engineering 0 F.) Signatures November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 0 Senseny Village Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other redu-4ements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully By: - aylor- ace, LL Date Denver Quinnelly, M jer/Member Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of E r'D lam. r t C-L To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 11 day of AUQ UY� 20 QS� by )knIQC c My Commission Expires 9 — .3C—bu Notary Publi -7� File 93924/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 F.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: Hazl C. Lambert Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of FC1 e—n (j�To Wit: The foregoing instrwnent was acknowledged before me this 'day of ll 20�_ by Notary Pub�hic �. My Commission Expires QI-L & e)i <Lo( U File #3924/EAW 7 • A, l�i�ll 11 e 3 ! a H SENSENY VILLAGE i GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN RCOBUD YAGurMAL OI'3[RICT MWErIC& COUNTY. VA GREENWAY ENGINEERING OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Omps Rezoning Net Fiscal Impact LAND USE TYPE Light Industrial Costs of Impact Credit: Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid ( NPV) Total Potential Adjustment For I REAL EST VAL $28,823,500 Required ( entered in Cur. Budget Cur. Budget Cap. Future CIP/ Tax Credits Revenue- Net Capital FIRE & RESCUE 4 Capital Faciltiies col sum only) Oper Cap Equip Expend/Debt S. Taxes. Other ( UnadFusted) Cost Balance Facilities Impact I Fire and Rescue Department $227,768 $0 $0 $227,768 I Elementary Schools $1,098,857 ---- ---- Middle Schools $668,384 $177,493 $861,620 $1,039,114 $716,748 $1,921,590 High Schools $871,097 --- ---- Parks and Recreation $393,456 $88,672 $88,672 $61,163 $332,293 I Public Library $68,402 $19,130 $19,130 $13,195 $55,206 Sheriffs Offices $40,483 $36,881 $0 $8,268 $45,150 $31,143 $9,340 Administration Building $51,953 $0 $0 $0 $51,953 I Other Miscellaneous Facilities $66,281 $71,068 $78,463 $149,531 $103,142 $0 SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT I I I I I I--------------------- --------------------- $3,486,682 $0 $285,442 $940,084 INDEX: "1.0" If Cap. Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1.0" if Rev -Cost Bal, "0.0" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCE 1.0 1.0 Net Cost Per Dwelling Unit $799 $6,742 $1,166 $194 $33 $182 $0 $116,071 $1,341,597 $925,391 $2,561,291 $8,987 $0 $0 -0 -0 $2 561 291 $8 987 METHODOLOGY 1. Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated in the model. 2. Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input in row total of second column ( zero if negative) ; included are the one-time taxestfees for one year only at full value. j 3. NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. j 4. NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth col as calculated in fiscal impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6. Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project ( actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development) . Rev -Cost Bal = 0.514 Ratio to Co Avg = 0.690 NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: Model Run Date 11/15/04 EAW Project Description: Senseny Village Rezoning: Assumes 145 SFD & 140 TH on 68.5 acres zoned RP. Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model run date. 2002MODEL • is • Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 August 25, 2005 SENSENY VILLAGE PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# 04-05 Rural Areas (RA) and Residential Performance (RP) to Residential Performance (RP) with Conditions PROPERTIES: 73.79-acres +/- Tax Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((_A))-55 RECORD OWNERS: Hazel C. Lambert "Taylor Grace, LLC APPLICANT: Taylor Grace, LLC PROJECT NAME: Senseny Village ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: November 22, 2004 REVISION DATE: August 10, 2005 Pielixninai-y Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended), (the "Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 04-05 for the rezoning of 49.70-acres± from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District, and for the rezoning of 24.09-acres± currently zoned Residential Performance (RP) District to proffered Residential Performance (RP) 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 the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no binding effect whatsoever. Upon approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon the applicants and their successors and assigns. The subject property, identified as Senseny Village, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert, (the "Owner of the first parcel") being all of Tax File /13924/EAW • • Greennay Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 August 25, 2005 Map Parcel 65-((A))-55 and further described by Will Book 115 at page 1563, and the lands owned by Taylor Grace, LLC, (the "Owner of the second parcel") being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B and further described by Instrument #050002909. A.) Residential Land Use 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of residential units to 285 dwelling units on the combined subject properties of Tax Map Parcels 65--((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, as defined in Section 165-65L of the Zoning Ordinance on Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the residential dwelling units in accordance with the following annualized phasing plan. This annualized phasing plan shall begin in the calendar year in which the Senseny Village Master Development Plan is approved by Frederick County. All dwelling units not developed within the specified year shall be carried forward to the ensuing calendar years: YEAR TOTAL BUILDING PERMITS 1 70 2 70 3 70 4 75 TOTAL 285 B.) Generalized Development Plan and Master Development Plan The Applicants hereby proffer to submit a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas and open space areas within the Senseny Village Community. The final engineering documents for Senseny Village will be in substantial conformance with the proffered GDP; however, it is recognized that modifications to the final internal road alignment on Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 may occur due to site development constraints such as wetlands or steep slopes without the need to modify the proffered GDP. However, in no event will a modified internal road alignment encroach within Pile .93924/EAW 2 • 9 Greemeay Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005, April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 August 25, 2005 the 5040ot no disturbance easement adjacent to Glenmont Village Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A.))-49B as described in Section B3 of this proffer statement except for existing dedicated street and utility connections. 1'he final engineering documents will ensure that the Senseny Village Community provides for a street extension /connection to ROssUIn Lane (Route 736) and Glenridge Drive (Route 865), an internal street system that connects to both of the extended streets, and an inter -parcel connection to Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72. 2. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) has been designed to provide for single-family detached residential lots to adjoin the Glenmont Village Subdivision and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue on Tax Map Parcel 65- ((A))-55. Furthermore, the GDP has been designed to provide for open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 3. A no disturbance easement that is 10-feet in width shall be provided along the rear property line of all single-family detached residential lots that abut Glenmont Village and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue for the purpose of preserving existing woodlands on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55. Furthermore, a 50-foot no disturbance easement shall be provided on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6, which shall remain undisturbed between the state street serving the townhouse lots and the existing residential lots within Glenmont Village — Section 6, except for existing dedicated street and utility connections. 4. A no disturbance easement shall be established within the open space areas that are associated with the natural drainageways to protect the integrity of the waterways and the upland slope areas. The only activity that may occur within this no disturbance easement will include utility installation and a single road crossing to provide access to the southern portion of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 5. A Preliminary Master Development Plan will be submitted for the portion of the subject property that is located on Tax Map Parcel 65- ((A))-49B to demonstrate how this portion of the subject property would be developed. Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not bind the Board of Supervisors to any action oil this rezoning application. Additionally, Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development File H3924/13A�V 3 r� (ireemeay Pngineering November 22, 200=1; December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 August 25, 2005 Senseny Village Rezoning Plan concept does not eliminate the requirement for a Master Development Plan for the entire 73.79-acres +/- subject site. C.) Transportation The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions that are to be utilized for improvements to the Senseny Road (Route 657) corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The contributions, in the amount of $5,000 per single-family detached unit and $3,000 per townhouse unit, total a potential maximum of $1.145 million dollars. The applicants authorize the use of these contributions unconditionally by Frederick County for transportation improvements to these roadways. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. 2. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct right turn lanes (and tapers) of eleven -foot width, and to include curb/gutter, on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) intersections, within the existing Senseny Road right-of- way. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 3. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane (Route 736), to meet VDOT minimum geometric and pavement design standards sufficient to allow for two-way travel and on -street parking, and to include curb/gutter, street lights and storm sewer, within the existing Rossum Lane right-of-way. Furthermore, traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the Rossum Lane improvement project. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 4. The applicants hereby proffer to design the internal street system to provide two means of access to Senseny Road via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) for all residential lots. Traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the internal street system connections to Rossum Lane, Glenridge Drive, and Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72 if desired by VDOT. 5. The applicants hereby proffer to provide for a right-of-way dedication for the future Route 37 Eastern Bypass in conformity with the Pile 113924/[ ASV 4 0 • Green ay Iinginecring November 22, 20K December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 Mirch 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 August 25, 2005 Alternative C alignment depicted on the Frederick County Route 37 Corridor Study Functional Alignment dated October 1992, as identified on the proffered GDP. This right-of-way dedication shall be provided to Prederick County at no cost within 90 days after receiving written request from Frederick County that the right-of-way is needed. D.) Monetaiy Contributions The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions in the amount of $10,000.00 for each detached single-family dwelling unit, and $8,000.00 for each townhouse dwelling unit, to mitigate impacts to capital facilities as identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model — Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department on November 19, 2004. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. E.) Community Trash Collection The Applicants hereby proffer to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal service to all residential land uses within the Senseny Village community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Senseny Village Homeowners Association ("FIOA") or sub -association at such time as identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Senseny Village I-IOA or sub -association until such a time that this service is provided by Frederick County or other municipal providers. F. Monetaiy Contribution to Establish Homeowners' Association Fund The Applicants hereby proffer to establish a start-up fund for the Senseny Village Homeowner's Association (SVI-IOA) that will include an initial lump sum payment of $2,500.00 by the Applicants and an additional payment of $100.00 for each platted lot within the Senseny Village community of which the assessment for each platted lot is to be collected at the time of initial transfer of title and to be directed to the SVHOA fund. Language will be incorporated into the SVHOA Declaration of Restrictive Covenant Document and Deed of Dedication that ensures the availability of these funds prior to the transfer of ownership and maintenance responsibility from the applicants to the SVHOA. The start-up funds for the SVHOA shall be made available for the purpose of maintenance of all improvements within the common open space areas, liability insurance, street light assessments; and property management and/or legal fees. File #3924/1"AW i Greenway Engineering G.) Signatures November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 August 25, 2005 Senseny village Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: 1 aylOr-(7rRce, LLL ,` Denver Quinnelly, Ma ,agerMember Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: j-2-b.`�a Date The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2-"-C/day ofk- 2005 by kO(J)g-k..4-, otaiy Public My Commission Expires 16. 3 /• 6) 1 File r3924/EAW 6 0 Green ay Gngincering G.) Signatures Novcniher 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14. 2005 Junc 14. 2005; August 10, 2005 August 25, 2005 Senseny Village Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: I azel C. Lambert Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 20��- _�_ by 4ml day o f C. XL.) Notary Publ c My- omnl[sslon Expires l, LI� File I1392,1/GA\V Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny village Rezming January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 SENSENY VILLAGE PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# Rural Areas (RA) and Residential Performance (RP) to Residential Performance (RP) with Conditions PROPERTIES: 73.79-acres +/- Tax Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 RECORD OWNERS: Hazel C. Lambert Taylor Grace, LLC APPLICANT: Taylor Grace, LLC PROJECT NAME: Senseny Village ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: November 22, 2004 REVISION DATE: June 14, 2005 Preliminary Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et, seq. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended), (the "Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 49.70-acres± from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District, and for the rezoning of 24.09-acres+ currently zoned Residential Performance (RP) District to proffered Residential Performance (RP) 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 the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no binding effect whatsoever. Upon approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon the applicants and their successors and assigns. The subject property, identified as Senseny Village, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert, (the "Owner of the first parcel") being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55 and further described by Will Book 115 at page 1563, and the lands owned by Taylor Grace, LLC, (the "Owner of the second parcel") being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B and further described by Instrument #050002909. File #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezming January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 A.) Residential Land Use The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of residential units to 285 dwelling units on the combined subject properties of Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, as defined in Section 165-65L of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the residential dwelling units in accordance with the following annualized phasing plan. All dwelling units not developed within the specified calendar year shall be carried forward to the ensuing calendar years: CALENDAR YEAR 2005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL TOTAL BUILDING PERMITS 70 70 70 75 B.) Generalized Development Plan and Master Development Plan The Applicants hereby proffer to submit a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas and open space areas within the Senseny Village Community. The final engineering documents for Senseny Village will be in substantial conformance with the proffered GDP; however, it is recognized that modifications to the final road alignment may occur due to site development constraints such as wetlands or steep slopes. The final engineering documents will ensure that the Senseny Village Community provides for a street extension/connection to Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Glenridge Drive (Route 865), an internal street system that connects to both of the extended streets, and an inter -parcel connection to Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72.. 2. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) has been designed to provide for single-family detached residential lots to adjoin the Glenmont Village Subdivision and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue on Tax Map Parcel 65- File 93924/EAW Greenway Engineering C.) • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezaiing January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 ((A))-55. Furthermore, the GDP has been designed to provide for open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 3. A no disturbance easement that is 10-feet in width shall be provided along the rear property line of all single-family detached residential lots that abut Glemmont Village and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue for the purpose of preserving existing woodlands on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55. The open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 shall remain undisturbed between the state street serving the townhouse lots and the existing residential lots within Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 4. A no disturbance easement shall be established within the open space areas that are associated with the natural drainageways to protect the integrity of the waterways and the upland slope areas. The only activity that may occur within this no disturbance easement will include utility installation and a single road crossing to provide access to the southern portion of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 5. A Preliminary Master Development Plan will be submitted for the portion of the subject property that is located on Tax Map Parcel 65- ((A))-49B to demonstrate how this portion of the subject property would be developed. Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not bind the Board of Supervisors to any action on this rezoning application. Additionally, Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not eliminate the requirement for a Master Development Plan for the entire 73.79-acres +/- subject site. Transportation 1. The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions that are to be utilized for improvements to the Senseny Road (Route 657) corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The contributions, in the amount of $5,000 per single-family detached unit and $3,000 per townhouse unit, total a potential maximum of $1.145 million dollars. The applicants authorize the use of these contributions as matching funds by Frederick County for transportation improvements to these roadways. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. File 93924/EAW Grcenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezming January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 2. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct right turn lanes (and tapers) of eleven -foot width, and to include curb/gutter, on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) intersections, within the existing Senseny Road right-of- way. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 3. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane (Route 736), to consist of a VDOT standard pavement section of thirty-six feet from face -of -curb, and to include curb/gutter, street lights and storm sewer, within the existing Rossum Lane right- of-way. Furthermore, traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the Rossum Lane improvement project. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 4. The applicants hereby proffer to design the internal street system to provide two means of access to Senseny Road via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) for all residential lots. Traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the internal street system connections to Rossum Lane, Glenridge Drive, and Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72 if desired by VDOT. 5. The applicants hereby proffer to provide for a right-of-way dedication for the future Route 37 Eastern Bypass as identified on the proffered GDP. This right-of-way dedication shall be provided to Frederick County at no cost within 90 days after receiving written request from Frederick County that the right-of-way is needed. D.) Monetary Contributions The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions in the amount of $10,000.00 for each detached single-family dwelling unit, and $8,000.00 for each townhouse dwelling unit, to mitigate impacts to capital facilities as identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model — Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Plarming Department on November 19, 2004. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. File 10924MAW 4 Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezming January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 E.) Community Trash Collection The Applicants hereby proffer to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal service to all residential land uses within the Senseny Village community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Senseny Village Homeowners Association ("HOA") or sub -association at such time as identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association until such a time that this service is provided by Frederick County or other municipal providers. File #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering • F.) Signatures November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 Senseny Village Rezoiing The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Taylor -Grace, LLC Date Denver Quimielly, Manager/Member Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 by Notary Public My Commission Expires File 113924/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering F.) Signatures November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 Senseny Village Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: IN Hazel C. Lambert Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of To Wit: Date The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 by Notary Public My Commission Expires File #3924/EAW 7 OUTPUT MODULE APPLICANT: Seriseny Villag LAND USE TYPE RP Residentla REAL EST VAL $2%823,500 FIRE & RESCUE = 4 Fire and Rescue Department Eiementmy Schools Middle Schools High Schools Parks and Recreation PuUjc Library Sheriff's Offices Administration Building Other Miscellaneous facilities SUBTOTAL LESS: NET FISCAL IMPACT NET CAP. FACILITIES IMPACT Net Fiscal Impact Casts of Impact Credit; Required (entered In Capital Facil ios col sum only) $227,768 $1,098,857 $668,384 $071,097 $393.456 $+68,402 $40,483 $51,953 $v"6,281 33,486,682 $0 Credits to be Taken for Future Taxes Paid (NPMV Total Potential Adjustment For Cur. Buidgst Cur- Budget Cep. Future CIPI Tax Credits Revenw- Net Capital Net Cost Per Oper Cap Equip ExpenMebt S_ Taxes. Other jUrm usled Cast Balance facilities Impact Dwelling Um $0 $0 $227.768 $799 $177,493 $861,620 11,039.114 $716.748 $1,921.590 $6,742 $88,672 $86.672 $61,163 $332,293 $1,166 $19,130 $19,130 S13,195 $55.206 $194 536,881 $0 38,268 $45,150 $31,143 $9,340 $33 $0 $0 $0 $51,953 $182 $71,06a $78,463 $149.531 $103,142 $0 $0 $285,442 $940,084 $116,071 $1,341,597 $925,391 $2,561,2911 $8.98877 $0 $0NO $2,561,291 $8.987 INDEX '1.0" if Cap- Equip Included 1.0 INDEX: "1 A' it Revs -Cost Bal, 'oA" if Ratio to Co Avg: 0.0 Rev'Cost Bal = 0.514 PLANNING DEPT PREFERENCES 1.0 1.D Ratio to Cc Avg _ 0.690 - METHODOLOGY: _ 1- Capital facilities requirements are input to the first column as calculated In the model- 2- Net Fiscal Impact NPV from operations calculations is input In ran total of second column (zero if negative): included are the one-time taxeslfees for ono year only at full value- (_ NPV of future oper cap equip taxes paid in third column as calculated in fiscal impacts. 4- NPV of future capital expenditure taxes paid in fourth cot as calculated in fiscal Impacts. 5. NPV of future taxes paid to bring current county up to standard for new facilities, as calculated for each new facility. 6- Columns three through five are added as potential credits against the calculated capital facilities requirements. These are adjusted for percent of costs covered by the revenues from the project (actual, or as ratio to avg. for all residential development). NOTE: Proffer calculations do not include include interest because they are cash payments up front. Credits do include interest if the projects are debt financed. NOTES: `--- _ - Model Run Date 11/29/04 MTR PrgjK1 Description: Assumes 145 Single Family Detached homes and 140 Single Family Attached homes on 68.6 acres zoned RP District (4.15 dwelling units per acre). Due to changing conditions associated with development in the County, the results of this Output Module may not be valid beyond a period of 90 days from the model nut date. Greenway Engineering 0 November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005 February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005 SENSENY VILLAGE PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: PROPERTIES: RECORD OWNERS APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATA Preliminary Matters RZ# Rural Areas (RA) and Residential Performance (RP) to Residential Performance (RP) with Conditions 73.79-acres +/- Tax Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 Hazel C. Lambert Taylor Grace, LLC Taylor Grace, LLC Senseny Village November 22, 2004 March 17, 2005 t Olt Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended), (the "Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 0-V-06 for the rezoning of 49.70-acres± from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District, and for the rezoning of 24.09-acres± currently zoned Residential Performance (RP) District to proffered Residential Performance (RP) 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 the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no binding effect whatsoever. Upon approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon'the applicants and their successors and assigns. The subject property, identified as Senseny Village, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert, (the "Owner of the first parcel") being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55 and further described by Will Book 115 at page 1563, and the File #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005 February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005 lands owned by Taylor Grace, LLC, (the "Owner of the second parcel") and further described by Instrument #050002909. A.) Residential Land Use 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of residential units to 285 dwelling units on the combined subject properties of Tax Map 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, as defined in Section 165-65L of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the residential dwelling units in accordance with the following annualized phasing plan. All dwelling units not developed within the specified calendar year shall be carried forward to the ensuing calendar years: CALENDAR YEAR TOTAL BUILDING PERMITS 2005 70 2006 70 2007 70 2008 75 TOTAL 285 B.) Transportation 1. The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions that are to be utilized for improvements to the Senseny Road (Route 657) corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The contributions, in the amount of $5,000 per single-family detached unit and $3,000 per townhouse unit, total a potential maximum of $1.145 million dollars. The applicants authorize the use of these contributions as matching funds by Frederick County for transportation improvements to these roadways. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. 2. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct right turn lanes (and tapers) of eleven -foot width, and to include curb/gutter, on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) intersections, within the existing Senseny Road right -of - File #3924/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005 February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005 = ' way. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading r and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 3. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane (Route 736), to consist of a VDOT standard pavement section of thirty-six feet from face -of -curb, and to include curb/gutter and storm sewer, within the existing Rossum Lane right-of-way. Furthermore, traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the Rossum Lane improvement project. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 4. The applicants hereby proffer to design the internal street system to provide two means of access to Senseny Road via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) for all residential lots. C.) Monetary Contributions The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions in the amount of j; $10,000.00 for each detached single-family dwelling unit, and $8,000.00 for each townhouse dwelling unit, to mitigate impacts to capital facilities as identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model — Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department on November 19, 2004. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. D.) Community Trash Collection The Applicants hereby proffer to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal service to all residential land uses within the Senseny Village community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Senseny Village Homeowners Association ("HOA") or sub -association at such time as identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association until such a time that this service is provided by Frederick County or other municipal providers. File M3924/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering • E.) Signatures November 22, 2004 December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005 February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005 • Senseny Village Rezoning The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: By: 1 uvwo�" 5— k k 6 Taylor-Gra e, LLC 0 Date Denver Quirmelly, Manager/Member Commonwealth of Virginia, City/" ounty' f I-reC e-VI'c `. To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2-0— day of I`y�GVc�,ln 200'�-D- by Notary Public My Commission Expires t-e6--uga,° a-3 2-("01 B j ICl""L/� 9 - Hazel C. Lambert Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City Count of rY Q .(i To Wit: File #3924/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning December 29, 2004 January 17, 2005 February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this AOdayof 1" I(U((-V 1 2005 by H-azc_I / . � o-AkH 1 L)l,l n-W,-, IA Notary Public My Commission Expires 1 File #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 SENSENY VILLAGE PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# 04-05 Rural Areas (RA) and Residential Performance (RP) to Residential Performance (RP) with Conditions PROPERTIES: ��7�)►7�Z/Iiii/�I�1►i�`�i APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE Preliminary Matters 73.79-acres +/- Tax Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 Hazel C. Lambert Taylor Grace, LLC Taylor Grace, LLC Senseny Village November 22, 2004 August 10, 2005 Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended), (the "Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # 04-05 for the rezoning of 49.70-acres± from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District, and for the rezoning of 24.09-acres± currently zoned Residential Performance (RP) District to proffered Residential Performance (RP) 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 the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no binding effect whatsoever. Upon approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon the applicants and their successors and assigns. The subject property, identified as Senseny Village, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert, (the "Owner of the first parcel") being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55 and further described by Will Book 115 at page 1563, and the lands owned by Taylor Grace, LLC, (the "Owner of the second parcel") being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B and further described by Instrument #050002909. File #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 A.) Residential Land Use Senseny Village Rezoning The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of residential units to 285 dwelling units on the combined subject properties of Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, as defined in Section 165-65L of the Zoning Ordinance on Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the residential dwelling units in accordance with the following annualized phasing plan. This annualized phasing plan shall begin in the calendar year in which the Senseny Village Master Development Plan is approved by Frederick County. All dwelling units not developed within the specified year shall be carried forward to the ensuing calendar years: YEAR TOTAL BUILDING PERMITS 1 70 2 70 3 70 4 75 TOTAL 285 B.) Generalized Development Plan and Master Development Plan 1. The Applicants hereby proffer to submit a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas and open space areas within the Senseny Village Community. The final engineering documents for Senseny Village will be in substantial conformance with the proffered GDP; however, it is recognized that modifications to the final internal road alignment on Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 may occur due to site development constraints such as wetlands or steep slopes without the need to modify the proffered GDP. However, in no event will a modified internal road alignment encroach within the 50-foot no disturbance easement adjacent to Glenmont Village Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B as described in Section B3 of this proffer statement except for existing dedicated street and utility connections. The final engineering documents will ensure that the Senseny Village Community provides for. a street extension File #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 /connection to Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Glenridge Drive (Route 865), an internal street system that connects to both of the extended streets, and an inter -parcel connection to Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72. 2. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) has been designed to provide for single-family detached residential lots to adjoin the Glenmont Village Subdivision and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue on Tax Map Parcel 65- ((A))-55. Furthermore, the GDP has been designed to provide for open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 3. A no disturbance easement that is 10-feet in width shall be provided along the rear property line of all single-family detached residential lots that abut Glenmont Village and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue for the purpose of preserving existing woodlands on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55. Furthermore, a 50-foot no disturbance easement shall be provided on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6, which shall remain undisturbed between the state street serving the townhouse lots and the existing residential lots within Glenmont Village — Section 6, except for existing dedicated street and utility connections. 4. A no disturbance easement shall be established within the open space areas that are associated with the natural drainageways to protect the integrity of the waterways and the upland slope areas. The only activity that may occur within this no disturbance easement will include utility installation and a single road crossing to provide access to the southern portion of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 5. A Preliminary Master Development Plan will be submitted for the portion of the subject property that is located on Tax Map Parcel 65- ((A))-49B to demonstrate how this portion of the subject property would be developed. Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not bind the Board of Supervisors to any action on this rezoning application. Additionally, Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not eliminate the requirement for a Master Development Plan for the entire 73.79-acres +/- subject site. C.) Transportation 1. The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions that are to be utilized for improvements to the Senseny Road (Route 657) corridor File #3924/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The contributions, in the amount of $5,000 per single-family detached unit and $3,000 per townhouse unit, total a potential maximum of $1.145 million dollars. The applicants authorize the use of these contributions as matching funds by Frederick County for transportation improvements to these roadways. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. 2. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct right turn lanes (and tapers) of eleven -foot width, and to include curb/gutter, on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) intersections, within the existing Senseny Road right-of- way. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 3. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane (Route 736), to meet VDOT minimum geometric and pavement design standards sufficient to allow for two-way travel and on -street parking, and to include curb/gutter, street lights and storm sewer, within the existing Rossum Lane right-of-way. Furthermore, traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the Rossum Lane improvement project. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 4. The applicants hereby proffer to design the internal street system to provide two means of access to Senseny Road via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) for all residential lots. Traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the internal street system connections to Rossum Lane, Glenridge Drive, and Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72 if desired by VDOT. 5. The applicants hereby proffer to provide for a right-of-way dedication for the future Route 37 Eastern Bypass in conformity with the Alternative C alignment depicted on the Frederick County Route 37 Corridor Study Functional Alignment dated October 1992, as identified on the proffered GDP. This right-of-way dedication shall be provided to Frederick County at no cost within 90 days after receiving written request from Frederick County that the right-of-way is needed. File #3924/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 D.) Monetary Contributions The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions in the amount of $10,000.00 for each detached single-family dwelling unit, and $8,000.00 for each townhouse dwelling unit, to mitigate impacts to capital facilities as identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model — Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department on November 19, 2004. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. E.) Community Trash Collection The Applicants hereby proffer to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal service to all residential land uses within the Senseny Village community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Senseny Village Homeowners Association ("HOA") or sub -association at such time as identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association until such a time that this service is provided by Frederick County or other municipal providers. File #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 F.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other re ui ements set forth in the Frederick County Code. II L S Date Denver Quinnelly, ber Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of Lf - & ( I C,L To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I l day of l_ C u, 20 05. by u-nv�c,�- L <<< ,ok0 Notary Publ' My Commission Expires File #3924/EAW 6 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005; August 10, 2005 F.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Ha2A C. Lambert Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of Frak n ck To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 200� by all Notary Public My r'orm-nission Expires ?-DOS File 43924/EAW 0 0 Proffer Statement Pile i13924/GAW January 12, 2005 Mr. Andy Conlon Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Senseny Village Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Conlon: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAY: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the application related to the proposed rezoning of property referred to as Senseny Village. It is our understanding that the proposed project will include the incorporation of an 18.6 acre parcel currently zoned RP and 50 acres currently zoned RA. The 50 acres is currently accessed from Rossum Lane; whereas, access to the 18.6 acre parcel is limited to a dedicated easement off of Glenridge Drive. The 18.6 acre parcel is bisected by an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek and is characterized by incised drainage swales and steep slopes. Road construction within this parcel will be difficult especially at the stream crossing and within the steep sloped areas. Also, the 100- year flood plain and existing wetlands will have a significant impact on construction within this parcel. Based on our review of the impact analysis and proffer statement, we offer the following specific comments: 1) The introduction of the impact analysis indicates that the development will consist of 285 residential units with a build -out date of 2008. This date conflicts with the date of 2010 referenced under transportation discussions. This conflict needs to be resolved. 2) Refer to access under site suitability. As previously indicated, access is proposed via a platted inter parcel connection located on Glenridge Drive. Because of the existing topography and associated drainage features, this point of ingress -egress will be difficult to construct. 3) Under Flood Plains, the analysis indicates that the subject site is locat ri NN 13 2005 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ±Py 0 Senseny Village Rezoning Comments Page 2 January 12, 2005 100-year flood plain. This statement may be true for the Opequon Creek, however, it is not applicable for the flood plain associated with the unnamed tributary which bisects the 18.6 acre parcel. The discussion of the flood plain issue should be revised to reflect the actual 100-year flood plains associated with the properties in question. 4) The discussion of impacts on wetlands only identifies one (1) manmade impoundment which will be drained and filled to accommodate development. Our site visit in December, 2004 revealed many more areas which we believe could be classified as wetlands. There was evidence at the time of our site visit that attempts had been made to delineate the wetland areas. If disturbed during development, these areas should be remediated in accordance with the guidelines imposed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Quality. 5) Under steep slopes, the analysis concluded that there are no steep slopes on the subject site. Based on our review of the topographic surveys furnished with the application, we conclude that there are numerous areas where the steep slope requirement applies. These areas can easily be delineated and will have a significant impact on development especially on that portion of the 18.6 acre parcel located on the south side of the unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek. 6) Under transportation, the discussion indicates that a traffic impact analysis (T/A) was included as a component of the application package. A copy of the T/A was not included in the application provided for our review. In particular, we are concerned about the impact of the development on Glenridge Drive as well as the other major roads which access the proposed sites. 7) The discussion of sewage conveyance and treatment references the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility as the destination for the final treatment. This reference is incorrect. To our knowledge, the sewage flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. You will need to coordinate the available capacity with the Sanitation Authority to determine if the existing conditions will accommodate the proposed development. We will not approve a master development plan until we receive confirmation from the Sanitation Authority verifying the available capacity. 8) The impact on solid waste facilities was limited to the availability of disposal capacity at the landfill and the reference to providing dumpsters for the townhouses. There was no mention about refuse collection for the single family dwellings. Our closest solid waste convenience site is located behind the Greenwood Fire Hall. This site has been inundated by the influx of existing Senseny Village Rezoning Comments Any further development would exacerbate the problem unless the applicant or subsequent developer would be willing to upgrade the existing convenience site or provide curbside trash pickup which would negate the need for The discussion of solid waste has overlooked a very important issue which is the location of the proposed development relative to the existing landfill. The existin landfill is located less than one-fourth of a mile from the southern most boundary of the proposed development. Based on the existing site elevations compared to the future vertical expansion elevations at the landfill, it is apparent that the residential development will have a clear view of the landfill unless all of the existing trees can be saved. Indicate how the applicant or developer plans to inform the prospective home buyers of this future condition prior to purchase. V will insure that this information is provided as part of our building permitting Under the proffer statement (B.4), the applicant proffers to design the internal street system to provide two (2) means of access to Senseny Road. Indicate if th statement also implies the construction of any improvements required to upgrade Twinbrook Circle and Glenridge Drive. I can be reached at 665-5643 if you should have any questions regarding the above Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr Director of Public Works Planning and Development r COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 February 28, 2005 Mr. Andy Conlan Greenway Engineering 151 Windy -Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Preliminary Comments — Senseny Village Rezoning Application. Dear Andy: Thank you for forwarding to this office the Senseny Village rezoning application materials for our continued review. The TIA for this project was received on February 15, 2005 and the latest version of the proffer statement which recognizes the recent change in ownership of the property and updated transportation commitments was received via e- mail on February 24, 2005. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Plamzing Cornrnission and Board of Supervisors. 1) Preliminary Matters a) The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2204.C. requires that the CEO of the adjacent locality is notified if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Please demonstrate if this provision of the State Code is applicable with this application. 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) The introduction to the project in the impact statement identifies a specific mix of housing types (145 single family detached and 140 townhouse units). Such a mix has not been proffered by the applicant and should be removed from the discussion. Alternately, the applicant could specify the mix of housing types in the proffer statement. 1 n'7 Nnrth Kent Street. Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 • Page 2 Mr. Andy Conlan Re: Preliminary Comments — Senseny Village Rezoning Application February 28, 2005 b) It is more appropriate, and indeed necessary, to identify and address the features that exist on this site as part of the rezoning exercise. environmental Areas with environmental constraints may exist on the property that warrant the rezoing In particular attention and should be a aicallon of slope and drannageapasuest on the to areas with cr particular, there appears property. c) The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Plan should be considered when the discussing this application. A preliminary review of this element of 37 is a consideration with this r Comprehensive Plan indicates that Route I have included a copy of the Route 37 East Corridor Study Plans in i tt, -,.application. the vicinity of this project for your information and use. d) Access to this property is described to be via Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle with the rezoning application and Glenridge Drive. Detail should be provided ood regarding the existing conditions and ross thateCtion suffi�ienteSrightsting of-waylgebot to It be demonstrated streets. should the additional traffic volumes and any improvements necessary to accommodate achieve an appropriate typical section. The impacts to the property owners who Glenridge Drive should also be reside along Rossum Lane, Twinbrook Circle, and addressed in this application. e) The Senseny Village application is adjacent to several developed subdivisions and other undeveloped properties. Opportunities for additional inter -parcel connectivity should be evaluated and pursued with this application. In particular, to the property to the southwest. Residential development of this intensity requires pedestrian accommodations. Interparcel pedestrian connectivity should also be a consideration of this application. f) The TIA indicates that the Senseny Road/Twinbrook Circle intersection will not maintain an acceptable level of service during build out conditions. Please ensure that a solution is provided to achieve an acceptable level of service at this location. It should be demonstrated that sufficient right-of-way is available to implement this solution. g) The application identifies a fiscal contribution to offset identified road improvements associated with this project. It is important to recognize in the application that based upon the open mix (not proffered) of residential uses proposed in the application, 285 single family attached units would be permitted. This would generate $855,000 as opposed to the $1,145,000 identified in the impact statement and proffer statement. 0 0 Page 3 Mr. Andy Conlan Re: Preliminary Comments — Senseny Village Rezoning Application February 28, 2005 h) The applicant has proffered to fund or implement several transportation improvements. It would be appropriate to further detail the scope of the specific improvements, both immediate and future, to provide certainty in the desirability and function of the improvements. It would appear as though a coordinated and committed approach would be most beneficial and eliminate any future confusion regarding the implementation of the transportation program. i) Consistent with County policy, it would be appropriate to insure that any proffered transportation improvements associated with the application are provided at the beginning of the project. Any monetary contribution should be provided prior to the onset of the project and not at the time of individual building permit issuance. j) Water and wastewater evaluations provided in the impact statement should be viewed in relationship to other previously approved projects within the County. A combined and updated figure for water resources and wastewater capacity would be beneficial when determining the adequacy of the capacity and resources. k) Recent rezoning applications have proffered that a private refuse collection service will be used to collect the solid waste generated by their particular project. It would be desirable for this application to consider such an approach. This is beneficial as it potentially reduces the individual usage of the County's convenience sites. Reference to the number of single fan -lily attached units in the Solid Waste Disposal section should be removed unless the applicant is willing to proffer a specific mix of residential uses. 1) The impacts to community facilities were evaluated using the County's fiscal impact model and were based upon a specific mix of residential uses requested by the applicant. The County will provide an updated output based upon a worst case scenario should the mix of uses not be secured within the proffer statement. It would also be desirable to have the application provide a break down of the proffered amount based on the public entities receiving the funds. Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad Rezoning Comments Virginia Department of Transportation TH Mail to: Hand deliver to: Viro,iniaDepartment of Transportation ViroiniaDepartment of Transportation Attn: Resident Engineer Attn: Resident Engineer 14031 Old ValleyPike 1550 Commerce Street Edinbura, Virginia 22824 Winchester, Virginia (540) 984-5600 . A pp ican ::. asout,t e information:as***accurately-as-*possi e in order to h I- t"Pl"ee" ' "fill - heM�Isit the f :Virgini4 Deprtment. of Tth- yqtfr: ransportation-wit their :: if. application location a pi offer statement, *-..Jm*pactanalysis; ..any otMer. perthient infdribMion.' ... ....► ... Applicant's Name Mailinto,C. Address SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File #3 924) Greenway Engineering Attn.: Andy Conlon, AIC 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Location of property: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). Current zoning. RA & RP Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 68.6 0 0 — 0 — Virginia Department of Transportation Comments: See attached letter from VDOT to Greenway Engineering dated February 8, 2005. VDOT Signature & Date: "Lemse Rglluir-ii- Frii-viii to� Ainiffic COMMONWEALTH ®f VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION EDINBURG RESIDENCY Philip A. Shucet 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE COMMISSIONER EDINBURG, VA 22824 February 8, 2005 Andy Conlon, AICP C/O Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Ref: Senseny Village Route 657 Frederick County Dear Mr. Conlon: JERRY A. COPP RESIDENT ENGINEER TEL (540) 984-5600 FAX (540) 984-5607 The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 657. This route is the VDOT roadway which has been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT is satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Senseny Village Rezoning Application dated November 22, 2004 with proffers revised December 29, 2004 addresses transportation concerns associated with this request. 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, Seventh Edition for review. VDOT reserves the right to comment on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. 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. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment. Sincergly, Lloyd A. Ingtain, Transportation Engineer LAI/rf Enclosure — Comment Sheet �� FEB 1 12005 I U VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 0 0 Rezoning Comments Frederick County Fire Marshal Mail to: Frederick County Fire Marshal Fire & Rescue Dept. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia.22601 (540) 665-6350 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Attn: Fire Marshal County Administiation Bldg., 1st Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia I possible d' h -A' Adii1t. Please ill outthe.in ormatioriAs accurately bossi e in or er to A§sist:t e red t i ... '.'a`:c'opY.:o. Yo. --,F­ 6ridk!Couht :Fire Marsha with hi§:''* ---.AttAC-h--­­- f 'ur ap, li6tion form y p i0clti-f map,. profer statement ippic t .afi--a -IYsis,- -an( airy other pertinent informati0n , SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File #3 924) Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Attn.: Andy Conlon, A1QP Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 68.6 Z) Z�l — 0 — Fire Marshal's Comments: Fire Marshal's Signature & Date: Notwe i.e. Fire. Marshal - PIP-1--se Return This UFosra to th- LiUpLwr-ant Control number RZ04-0018 Project Name Senseny Village Address 151 Windy Hill Lane Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA & RP Automatic Sprinkler System No Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Adequate Siamese Location Not Identified FF,3tie0Ck COLII-Ity Fii.0 and Rescue Departmont Office of the Fire Marshal Plan Review and Comments Date received 11 /30/2004 City Winchester Tax ID Number 65-A-49B & 55 Date reviewed 12/8/2004 Applicant Greenway Engineering State Zip VA 22602 Fire District 18 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System No ReqUirements Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Adequate Date Revised Applicant Phone 540-662-4185 Rescue District 18 Election District Redbud Residential Sprinkler System Yes Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards Yes Emergency Vehicle Access Comments There should be two site arcs i3Oi^tS dur<,ljy larn7 clearing and horning of ;ac,d de.a.ring debns vjill not be permitted. Access Comments Additional Comments valve — Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature Yes Timothy L. Welsh Title° '�1PE :lAR _ , N;RT'��IR1�T%%F UNTIE Rezoning Coxnr opt �rcrieiimivi�'�ti noilyiuoiil�nm�tiivie�iinn ,nF��.. •M�•ari�:� —--••-•,••,-•""•tmrrunTN0!1'rfR9tl4Muv.r:�.�+yu¢.F.F.r,.. ...n Ntnnnunmrpnm � u..til:..�.^...ui.n, ��•^'•..n.ayu,.un.w..•..•i••nl.d'�:vn•.M'eMl11WI1nFWnalubd�.�F.w.�•nn.r.n�.nm..r..�.�.n�n.e�.i�....:. •.• Fire and Rescue Company Name of Fire & Rescue Company: Company 18 Qjeenwood Station Volunl<eer F&k Co. Winchester, Viq&ia Eddie Keeler_ Chief Applicar>t's Name: Mailing Address- A,ddres5 & Phone P.O. Box 3023 Winchester, 'A 22604 P—bpne (540 667-94.L7 Fax: n� .".,.. ,._...�... ... G1�'•��:ut'€he;rnpri�a#x.i�z��s.�accrzrately•��:�::�::__':;::.,,1:=.:,:::_.'.._.. --- - - iad:w�thiieir. zexevw:- Attaci.��:: o'::your::aPl:c�toza.,forai`:Tocaii4:izia' :'; xm atanAly'.sis};arid anXother:er•.tign.;anfar.n�xoit::: SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File #3924) Greenway En ineerin Alln.: Andv Gmlon, AICP 151 Wits Hdy rll lane Winchegr, VA 22602 Telephone: 540) 662-41 S-5 Vocation, of property: South of Rossutn Lane (Route 736) and Twinbro-d Circle (R•qute 867).. Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: R1? Acreage: 68.6 Fire And Rescue Company's Comments: "t0 Fire &Rescue Company's Signature & Date: , .c� S Td WdTV:SO IVOW ZZ 'Oa(I LtitU-990VG : 'ON XHd 1NEWi�]HdDG ddId GOOMNddkIJ : WONJ Rezonine Comments -H-H1u..M" W1�'�:2i.._�4 r _'':t_.., .MUMPI.: INK9.,w.M,_,_.E_z.R±,- HE ON Frederick County Sanitation Authority Mail to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 868-1061 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Sanitation Authority Attn: Engineer 315 Tasker Road Stephens City, Virginia Applicant: Please fill outthe information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Sanitation Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File43924) Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Attn.:Andy Conlrn. AICP Mail 1ngAddress: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 68.6 Sanitation Authority Comments: Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: Notice to Sanitation Authority - Please Return This Form to the Ap ' M D U ffl� DEC 0 1 2004 By • Rezoning Comments L4v�..it l$g:..'�i�5:,:.ws__.:�t.,l:,u.,:5m�.,_v:.l:is�,.:.��._:c�:.:_s.:_.g i�.zw,: _�!Cl:afyl&:.fFiuv.:_ __. ... Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, Virginia 22604 (540) 722-3579 Hang deliver to: Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please fill outthe information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Fred-Winc Service Authority with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File#3924) Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Attn.: Andy Conlon, AICP Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 68.6 Fred -Wine Service Authority Comments: mamn0 Q, acht�d Fred-Winc Service Authority Signature & Date: V,A. 111 l Q4 Notice to Fred -Wine Service Authority - Aease Return This Form to the Applicant DEC 0 2 7004 sBY • • Memo To: Andy Conlon, AICP — Greenway Engi e ring From: Jesse W. Moffett — Executive Director Date: December 1, 2004 Re: Senseny Village Rezoning In my review of the rezoning application, the narrative for conveyance and treatment of wastewater indicates that this property will be serviced by the Parkins Mills Wastewater Treatment Plant. I believe that this is in error and treatment would occur at the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. 0 Page 1 ezonin Comments ::�:.. a5.::��x: ,:m:::,:,:.ar:�;r x= _..H 1 �a 9hnxxo 1 it t 4 mci 1� �I 1 �. r 95 �xai , r rim r k xar s 1, lie 16i� :xu.;l. I�i. Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia, 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation County Administration Bldg., 2°d Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia Applicant: Please 'fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Parks & Recreation with their review. Attach a copy of your, application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File #3924) Applicant's Name: GreenwayEngineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 An.: Andy Conlon AICP Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 68.6 Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: Pks. & Rec. Signature & Date: Notice to Department of Park s& Recreation — Please Return This Form to the Applicant I�Mr- r]dT r' N DEC 0 3 2004 SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING COMMENTS: Department of Parks & Recreation Comments: Required recreational units and open space to be reviewed upon submittal of that information. Staff recommends bicycle trails, providing circulation within the development and connections to Senseny Road and adjacent developments, be included in the plan. The proposed monetary proffer of $1,166 for Parks and Recreation appears to be appropriate to help offset the impact this development will have on these county sei vices. Parks &Recreation Signature and Date: ��%,� Rezoning Comments Winchester Regional Airport Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, Virginia 22602 (540) 662-2422 • Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road (Rt. 645, off of Rt. 522 South) Winchester, Virginia > Applicant Please fill out the inforri'ation:as accurately as possible in order to assist the Winchester Regional Airport with'`their, review ,;,Attach a, copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, ,arid any other perdnent�informatron SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File #3924) Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: 540-662-4185 Attn.: Andy Conlon, AICP Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of Property: south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). Current Zoning: RA & RP Zoning Requested: RP Acreage: 68.6 Winchester Regional Airport's Comments: ,& e- a4AD-,cklect Ve -V Winchester Regional Airport's �L 10v'1'�,�Juk 1 2] 9 JC T Signature & Date: Notice to Winchester Regional Airport - Please Return Form to Appllii • WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA i December 8, 2004 Andy Conlon, ACIP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Re: Rezoning Comments Senseny Village Redbud Magisterial District Dear Mr. Conlon: The above referenced proposal was reviewed. While the proposed development lies within the airport's Part 77 surfaces and airspace, it appears that the proposed site plan should not impede operations at the Winchester Regional Airport. Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in the continuing safe operations of the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director Ot DEC 1 0 2004 nts An �. C'. H FCPS2 Frederick County Public Schools Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent Mr. Andy Conlon, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Dear Mr. Conlon: RE: Senseny Village Rezoning Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us December 20, 2004 e-mail: kapocsis@frederick.k12_va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments regarding the rezoning application for the proposed Senseny Village Rezoning project. Based on the information provided, it is anticipated that the proposed 145 single-family homes and 140 townhouses will yield 40 high school students, 37 middle school students, and 100 elementary school students for a total of 177 new students upon build -out. Significant residential growth in Frederick County has resulted in the schools serving this area having student enrollments nearing or exceeding the practical capacity for a school. The cumulative impact of this project and others of similar nature, coupled with the number of approved, undeveloped residential lots in the area, will necessitate the future construction of new schools facilities to accommodate increased student enrollments. The impact of this rezoning on current and future school needs should be considered during the approval process. Respectfully yours, DEC 2 2 ?004 Stephen M. Kapocsi I\, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent SMK: dkr cc: William C. Dean, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 • Rezoning Comments ......................................................... Planning Department Mail to: Department of Planning and Development Attn: County Planner 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 lI MAR 2 � 2005 �.. I i C1 FREDFRICK 1`0 I' PLANNIIIIG & D'FVE111,11 T Hand deliver to: 107 N. Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5651 ;:API�inrvrD. >:>><> ..................................: dt o: ;.;:.a.s.>: Pease:�out the n amati:a: :ue�s:©si Ie ':mQr....e. ;:; :..s..i>.s<..:t :.::a..h...e...<:: .oalichtwformoton vAamnLwhhiui4a o... a feii;tate><nent :>im actazial .sis and:;an ;:::other: ezainen.t:Ynforivatiari'<:.<`:: :.:::::::.:.:::.::::::::::::::::::.:::::.::. a::::::::.::::::::::.:.::::..:..:.:.::::::::::::::..::.:.:...........:::::::::..:..::::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::..::..:.:.::.:..;::::::::::::.:::::. p.::. �.::::::::.:.:...:::::::::::::::..:::::::.:::::::::: ::::::::::::::..:::: 5'.......:......:::::::::::: y.::::::::........:::::.::::::::.:::::::::::::.::::::::::::::::.:.:::.:.. SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File #3924) Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Attn.: Evan Wyatt, AICP Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 68.6 Planning Department Comments: Superintendent's Signature & Date: Notice to ;hv ,�{ :.. J.) mar,,.nA{ ww Please Ra�tffr�n This Forr;ii to thc, A pIaggit MVO/VZ6B 3I!d rr .:gym sjuaiuIUOD ,0UAV MOIAO-d IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING Red Bud Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Parcel 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 73.79-acres November 22, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 Applicant: Greenway Engineering Current Owners: Hazel C. Lambert Taylor Grace, LLC Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 1 0 49- Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of two parcels comprising a total of 73.79 acres, a 49.70-acre parcel owned by Hazel C. Lambert and a 24.09-acre parcel owned by Taylor Grace, LLC. The subject properties are accessed from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and a previously planned connection from Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). The current zoning of the 24.09-acre parcel is RP, Residential Performance District without proffers, while the current zoning of the 49.70- acre parcel is RA, Rural Areas District. The applicant proposes to rezone the 49.70-acre Lambert parcel to RP, Residential Performance District with proffers and to retain the RP, Residential Performance District designation for the 24.09-acre Taylor Grace, LLC property and include proffers that will be applicable to this property. The subject properties will be master planned together for the purpose of creating the Senseny Village residential subdivision. This project is proffered to not exceed a total build out of 285 residential units, of which, 145 units are intended to be single-family detached dwelling units and 140 units are intended to be townhouse dwelling units. The project is proffered to be developed as a minimum four-year phased build out. A Master Development Plan was approved for the Glenmont Village Subdivision in 1985, which was revised in 1989. The approved Master Development Plan identified Glenmont Village as being developed within eight sections. To date, Sections 1-7 have been developed under the single-family detached cluster ordinance. The land associated with Section 8 was acquired by Taylor Grace, LLC as a separate parcel of land that is not encumbered by any provisions or legal documents associated with the Glenmont Village Subdivision. Therefore, it has been determined that a Preliminary Master Development Plan will be required for the 24.09-acre Taylor Grace, LLC parcel as an exhibit with the Senseny Village Rezoning Application to demonstrate that Section 6 of the adjacent Glenmont Village Subdivision is provided with an appropriate open space buffer, which is further committed to on the proffered Generalized Development Plan for Senseny Village. Basic information Location: Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current Zoning: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736), and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) Red Bud 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 RP, Residential Performance District and RA, Rural Areas District Pile #3924/EAW 0 Greenway Engineering Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN November 22, 2004 40 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 Residential and Unimproved 285 single family detached and attached units RP, Residential Performance District with proffers 73.79-acres The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The subject area is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states suburban residential land use will occur in the UDA. GLENMONT VILLAGE MDP A Master Development Plan was initially approved for the Glenmont Village Subdivision in 1985. This Master Development Plan was approved for the development of single- family detached dwelling units and multiplex dwelling units within eight sections. In 1989, this Master Development Plan was revised to eliminate the multiplex dwelling units that were previously approved in Section 7 of Glenmont Village, and to identify Sections 1-8 as single-family detached dwelling units. The Glenmont Village Master Development Plan identified Section 8 as containing 12.05 acres of open space and did not identify the land area within lots and road right-of-way. The RP, Residential Performance District standards that were in place when the Glenmont Village Master Development Plan was approved called for a maximum woodland disturbance of 25% for the gross area of the site and for a maximum disturbance of 25% of steep slope areas. The legally recorded deed restrictions for the Glenmont Village Subdivision state that the Master Development Plan may be revised and do not require the Glenmont Village Home Owners Association to maintain or be liable for any portion of the acreage within the approved Master Development Plan that has not been dedicated to the HOA. The land area associated with what is identified as Section 8 on the approved Glenmont Village Master Development Plan has not been developed to date, nor has the land area been dedicated for the use or maintenance of the Glenmont Village Home Owners Association. This land area, totaling 24.09 acres was sold by the previous developer to Taylor -Grace, LLC. Taylor Grace, LLC proposes to utilize this land area within the Senseny Village Subdivision. Therefore, it has been determined by the County that a Preliminary Master Development Plan will need to be created to demonstrate the proposed development plan for this portion of Senseny Village. This approach, coupled with the proffered Senseny Village Generalized Development Plan has been determined Pile #3924/CAW Z Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 to be an appropriate approach for severing the 24.09-acre parcel from the approved Glenmont Village Master Development Plan. A Preliminary Master Development Plan Exhibit has been prepared and submitted for review as information with the Senseny Village Rezoning Application. This Exhibit identifies that there will be a minimum of 11.55 acres of open space that is designed to provide for an adequate buffer against Section 6 of Glenmont Village. This open space area is located to preserve the mature woodland areas that adjoin Glenmont Village and is further proffered to be preserved to protect the existing subdivision. Furthermore, the Senseny Village Proffer Statement calls for the creation of a no -disturbance easement to protect the natural drainageways and upland slope areas on the 24.09-acre parcel. A. SUITABULITY OF THE SITE Access Tax parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via Rossum Lane (Route 736), which currently terminates in a cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of the subject property. Rossum Lane is to be extended into the property as a VDOT maintained street. Access is provided from Senseny Road via Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). This access point off Glenridge Drive utilizes a platted inter -parcel connection that was established to provide access to the Taylor Grace, LLC property. Flood Plains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map 9510063-0120-B. The entire subject property is located "Zone C". The FEMA NFIP map identifies "Zone C" as "area outside the 100-year flood plain". Wetlands The County GIS database identifies one wetland area on the 49.70-acre parcel, which is a manmade impoundment. The existing pond will be drained and filled. The probability of additional on -site wetlands exists associated with the natural drainageways and tributary to the Opequon Creek. A detailed wetlands delineation study will occur on the subject property subsequent to rezoning approval and will be identified as a component of the Final Master Development Plan for Senseny Village. Steep Slopes There are no steep slopes (50% or greater) on the subject site; however, there is a defined drainage channel that traverses tax parcel 65-((A))-49B which channels stormwater drainage from the Carper farm on the west side of Greenwood Road through this site to Pile 113924/EAW a Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 the Opequon Creek. The design for crossing this drainage channel to access the southernmost residential land bay will minimize impacts to critical slope areas and the drainage channel. The Senseny Village Proffer Statement provides for the preservation of the natural drainageways and upland slope areas within the project site with the exception of necessary road and utility crossings. This approach will allow for the protection of these areas that are no loner defined as steep slope; however, are still important to the integrity of environmental features that are located on -site. Mature Woodlands Woodland areas exist on the subject property, as well as open fields and scrub brush. It is anticipated that these areas will be impacted by the future development of road systems, utility infrastructure and residential structures. The Master Development Plan and Subdivision Design Plan for Senseny Village will meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2003. The Senseny Village Proffer Statement calls for a 10-foot no disturbance easement along the rear lot lines of all single-family lots that adjoin Glenmont Village and the residential lots along Rossum Lane, Broad Avenue and Mason Street. Additionally, a no - disturbance easement of 50 feet is provided against the residential lots within Section 6 of Glenmont Village. Soil Types The Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service was consulted to determine soil types contained in this tract. The subject site is located on map sheet number 37, and contains the following soil types: 1C Berks Channery silt loam 7-15 % slopes 3B Blairton silt loam 2-7 % slopes 9B Clearbrook Channery silt loam 2-7 % slopes 41D Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam 15-25 % slopes 41E Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam 25-65 % slopes Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County identifies 3B Blairton silt loam as prime farmland soils. The first four soil types are identified as gently sloping to moderately steep, shallow and moderately deep, well -drained soils that have a medium textured or fine textured subsoil. The last, 41E, is moderately deep, steep and very steep, well -drained soils on side slopes and ridges. Pile #3924/EAW Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned RP District Use: Residential (Glenmont Village) South: Zoned RA District East: Zoned RP District Zoned RA District West: Zoned RP District C. TRANSPORTATION Use: Residential (Wood Rise Lane) And Unimproved Use: Residential (Glenmont Village) Use: Unimproved Use: Residential (Rossum Lane) The subject properties are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). Senseny Road is identified as a major collector road and has excellent sight distance to the east and west at the Senseny Road intersections of both Rossum Lane and Twin Brook Circle. Channing Drive, approximately a mile to the west, will be completed to provide access to Valley Mill Road (Route 659), while Greenwood Road (Route 656), approximately 1-'/2 miles to the west provides access to Berryville Pike (Route 7) and to Millwood Pike (Route 50 East). A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Senseny Village community by Patton Harris Rust, which is dated November 19, 2004 and included as a component of the Impact Analysis Statement. The TIA assumes the total build out of 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) as a single transportation phase by year 2010. The TIA provides for a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, as well as Average Daily Trip volumes for existing, background and build out conditions. The TIA studies Senseny Road and its intersections with Twinbrook Circle, Rossum Lane, Charming Drive and Greenwood Road. Figure 9 on page 12 of the TIA concludes that all intersection points with Senseny Road maintain an acceptable Level of Service "C" average condition assuming future background traffic and the complete build -out of Senseny Village. Only one movement at the Twinbrook Circle intersection with Senseny Road is identified as a Level of Service "D" during PM peak hour conditions. The TIA recommends that the installation of a right turn lane on Senseny Road to the Twinbrook Road intersection will raise the Level of Service to an acceptable LOS "C" during PM peak hour conditions. The installation of this right turn lane, as well as the installation of a right turn lane on Senseeny Road at the intersection of Rossum Lane has been proffered to be installed prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Senseny Village. Furthermore, the Pile #3924/EAW F, Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 applicants have proffered a monetary contribution totaling a potential maximum amount of $1.145 million dollars for improvements to the Senseny Road/Route 7 Connector Road and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass and to completely reconstruct Rossum Lane to standards acceptable to VDOT. The transportation improvements and monetary contributions provided for in the applicants proffer statement more than mitigates the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning application. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Existing 12" and 8" sanitary sewer mains are located on this property as is the Burning Knolls Pumping Station. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has a sewer transmission line that directs sewage effluent to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The on -site sewer infrastructure required to convey effluent to the treatment facility will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the subject property can be based on comparable discharge patterns of 225 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on the sewage conveyance and treatment systems. Q = 225 GPD per household Q = 225 GPD x 285 residential units Q = 64,125 GPD projected at total residential build out The proposed rezoning is projected to increase flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility by 64,125 GPD at total build out. The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 MGD, of which approximately 6.4 MGD is currently being utilized. The total build - out of Senseny Village would require approximately 3% of the available capacity that currently exists at this treatment facility. The applicants' have proffered to develop the Senseny Village community through a phased plan, which limits the number of building permits that can be obtained on an annual basis. This phasing plan limits development to a maximum of 70-75 residential lots through calendar year 2008. Adequate capacity for sewage conveyance and treatment will be available throughout the development of the Senseny Village project; therefore, this rezoning proposal will not negatively impact this facility. Pile 83924/EAW 7 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 E. WATER SUPPLY The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Water is readily available to the subject development through the extension of existing lines on adjacent properties. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has an 8" water line along Rossum Lane and an 8" water line is stubbed at the subject property line along the undeveloped street right-of-way off Glenridge Drive. Water service will be provided from the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Plant. These systems currently provide approximately 6 MGD. The on -site water infrastructure required to convey potable water to the proposed residential lots in the Senseny Village community will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the 73.79-acre site can be based on comparable water usage of 275 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on the water supply and treatment systems. Q = 275 GPD per household Q = 275 GPD x 285 residential units Q = 78,375 GPD projected at total residential build out The projected water usage for the proposed rezoning is 78,375 GPD at total build out. This projection represents approximately 1% of the unutilized capacities at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Treatment Plant. Therefore, the available water source and infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the capacity needs of the proposed 73.79-acre residential development at total build out. F. DRAINAGE The dominant drainage pattern for the 73.79-acre site is to the east, running along the southern boundary of tax parcel 65-((A))-55 and through the central portion of tax parcel 65-((A))-49B through an unnamed tributary that drains to the Opequon Creek. Senseny Village will be designed with curb and gutter lined streets, which will convey storm water through an underground storm sewer system. Storm water management will be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local storm water management requirements and erosion and sedimentation control requirements. The design of the stormwater management system will occur during the subdivision design process, and will require approval by the Frederick County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Furthermore, the design for crossing this drainage channel to access the southernmost residential land bay will minimize impacts to critical slope areas and the drainage channel to ensure that this drainage channel is not negatively impacted. File #3924/EAW S2 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 01 edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) that is projected to develop over a 4-year period: AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per household AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 285 households AV = 1,539 Cu. Yd. at residential build out, or 1,077 tons/yr at build out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected 4-year build out of the subject site will generate on average 1,077 tons of solid waste annually following the proffered four year phased build -out of Senseny Village. This represents a 0.13% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year, which can be accommodated by this regional facility. The applicants have proffered to provide community trash collection service for all residential land uses within Senseny Village. This proffer provides revenues to the regional landfill in tipping fees and significantly reduces impacts to the Greenwood Road Citizen Convenience Center. Therefore, the proffers associated with the Senseny Village project adequately mitigate the impacts to solid waste disposal. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any existing structures on or near the subject property as potentially significant. Furthermore, there are no structures in the vicinity that qualify for the national or state register of historic places, nor does the subject site fall within core battlefield area boundaries or areas that would potentially qualify as historic districts. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of the subject property based on a proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse). The results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model identify that the build out of the Senseny Village community will create a negative fiscal impact of $8,987.00 for each residential unit. The applicants' proffer statement provides a monetary contribution to Frederick County in the amount of $10,000.00 for each Pile #3924/GAW q 9 0 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 detached single-family residential unit and $8,000 for each townhouse residential unit, to mitigate the fiscal impacts to County services. Furthermore, the applicants have proffered a monetary contribution totaling a potential maximum amount of $1.145 million dollars for improvements to the Senseny Road/Route 7 Connector Road and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass to assist with regional transportation impacts in this geographic area of the County. Attachments: 1. Zoning and Location Map 2. Future Route 37 Eastern Bypass Location Map File #3924/EAW 1 O t 3 t r IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING Red Bud Magisterial District Frederick County, ViVgtfma Tax Parcel 65-((A)) 49$ and 65-((A))-55 73.79-acres November 22, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 Applicant: Greenway Engineering Current Owners: Hazel C. Lambert Taylor Grace, LLC Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of two parcels comprising a total of 73.79 acres, a 49.70-acre parcel owned by Hazel C. Lambert and a 24.09-acre parcel owned by Taylor Grace, LLC. The subject properties are accessed from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and a previously planned connection from Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). The current zoning of the 24.09-acre parcel is RP, Residential Performance District without proffers, while the current zoning of the 49.70- acre parcel is RA, Rural Areas District. The applicant proposes to rezone the 49.70-acre Lambert parcel to RP, Residential Performance District with proffers and to retain the RP, Residential Performance District designation for the 24.09-acre Taylor Grace, LLC property and include proffers that will be applicable to this property. The subject properties will be master planned together for the purpose of creating the Senseny Village residential subdivision. This project is proffered to not exceed a total build out of 285 residential units, of which, 145 units are intended to be single-family detached dwelling units and 140 units are intended to be townhouse dwelling units. The project is proffered to be developed as a minimum four-year phased build out. A Master Development Plan was approved for the Glenmont Village Subdivision in 1985, which was revised in 1989. The approved Master Development Plan identified Glenmont Village as being developed within eight sections. To date, Sections 1-7 have been developed under the single-family detached cluster ordinance. The land associated with Section 8 was acquired by Taylor Grace, LLC as a separate parcel of land that is not encumbered by any provisions or legal documents associated with the Glenmont Village Subdivision. Therefore, it has been determined that a Preliminary Master Development Plan will be required for the 24.09-acre Taylor Grace, LLC parcel as an exhibit with the Senseny Village Rezoning Application to demonstrate that Section 6 of the adjacent Glenmont Village Subdivision is provided with an appropriate open space buffer, which is further committed to on the proffered Generalized Development Plan for Senseny Village. Basic information Location: Magisterial District: Property ID Numbers: Current Zoning: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736), and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) Red Bud 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 RP, Residential Performance District and RA, Rural Areas District Pile 43924/EAW 7 Greenway Engineering • Current Use: Proposed Use: Proposed Zoning: Total rezoning area: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 Residential and Unimproved 285 single family detached and attached units RP, Residential Performance District with proffers 73.79-acres The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The subject area is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states suburban residential land use will occur in the UDA. GLENMONT VILLAGE MDP A Master Development Plan was initially approved for the Glenmont Village Subdivision in 1985. This Master Development Plan was approved for the development of single- family detached dwelling units and multiplex dwelling units within eight sections. In 1989, this Master Development Plan was revised to eliminate the multiplex dwelling units that were previously approved in Section 7 of Glenmont Village, and to identify Sections 1-8 as single-family detached dwelling units. The Glenmont Village Master Development Plan identified Section 8 as containing 12.05 acres of open space and did not identify the land area within lots and road right-of-way. The RP, Residential Performance District standards that were in place when the -j M6 CQ.- Glenmont Village Master Development Plan was approved called for a maximum M D P woodland disturbance of 25% for the gross area of the site and for a maximum �U disturbance of 25% of steep slope areas. The legally recorded deed restrictions for the �6 Glenmont Village Subdivision state that the Master Development Plan may be revised ��� s and do not require the Glenmont Village Home Owners Association to maintain or be �E faG 5 liable for any portion of the acreage within the approved Master Development Plan that has not been dedicated to the HOA. The land area associated with what is identified as Section 8 on the approved Glenmont Village Master Development Plan has not been developed to date, nor has the land area been dedicated for the use or maintenance of the Glenmont Village Home Owners Association. This land area, totaling 24.09 acres was sold by the previous developer to Taylor -Grace, LLC. Taylor Grace, LLC proposes to utilize this land area within the Senseny Village Subdivision. Therefore, it has been determined by the County that a Preliminary Master Development Plan will need to be created to demonstrate the proposed development plan for this portion of Senseny Village. This approach, coupled with the proffered Senseny Village Generalized Development Plan has been determined File 43924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 to be an appropriate approach for severing the 24.09-acre parcel from the approved Glenmont Village Master Development Plan. A Preliminary Master Development Plan Exhibit has been prepared and submitted for review as information with the Senseny Village Rezoning Application. This Exhibit identifies that there will be a minimum of 11.55 acres of open space that is designed to provide for an adequate buffer against Section 6 of Glenmont Village. This open space area is located to preserve the mature woodland areas that adjoin Glenmont Village and is further proffered to be preserved to protect the existing subdivision. Furthermore, the Senseny Village Proffer Statement calls for the creation of a no -disturbance easement to protect the natural drainageways and upland slope areas on the 24.09-acre parcel. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE Access Tax parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via Rossum Lane (Route 736), which currently terminates in a cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of the subject property. Rossum Lane is to be extended into the property as a VDOT maintained street. Access is provided from Senseny Road via Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). This access point off Glenridge Drive utilizes a platted inter -parcel connection that was established to provide access to the Taylor Grace, LLC property. Flood Plains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map #510063-0120-B. The entire subject property is located "Zone C". The FEMA NFIP map identifies "Zone C" as "area outside the 100-year flood plain". Wetlands The County GIS database identifies one wetland area on the 49.70-acre parcel, which is a manmade impoundment. The existing pond will be drained and filled. The probability of additional on -site wetlands exists associated with the natural drainageways and tributary to the Opequon Creek. A detailed wetlands delineation study will occur on the subject property subsequent to rezoning approval and will be identified as a component of the Final Master Development Plan for Senseny Village. Steep Slopes There are no steep slopes (50% or greater) on the subject site; however, there is a defined drainage channel that traverses tax parcel 65-((A))-49B which channels stormwater drainage from the Carper farm on the west side of Greenwood Road through this site to File #3924/EAW d Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 the Opequon Creek. The design for crossing this drainage channel to access the southernmost residential land bay will minimize impacts to critical slope areas and the drainage channel. The Senseny Village Proffer Statement provides for the preservation of the natural drainageways and upland slope areas within the project site with the exception of necessary road and utility crossings. This approach will allow for the protection of these areas that are no loner defined as steep slope; however, are still important to the integrity of environmental features that are located on -site. Mature Woodlands Woodland areas exist on the subject property, as well as open fields and scrub brush. It is anticipated that these areas will be impacted by the future development of road systems, utility infrastructure and residential structures. The Master Development Plan and Subdivision Design Plan for Senseny Village will meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2003. The Senseny Village Proffer Statement calls for a 10-foot no disturbance easement along the rear lot lines of all single-family lots that adjoin Glenmont Village and the residential lots along Rossum Lane, Broad Avenue and Mason Street. Additionally, a no - disturbance easement of 50 feet is provided against the residential lots within Section 6 of Glenmont Village. Soil Types The Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service was consulted to determine soil types contained in this tract. The subject site is located on map sheet number 37, and contains the following soil types: 1C Berks Channery silt loam 7-15 % slopes 3B Blairton silt loam 2-7 % slopes 9B Clearbrook Channery silt loam 2-7 % slopes 41D Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam 15-25 % slopes 41E Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam 25-65 % slopes Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County identifies 3B Blairton silt loam as prime farmland soils. The first four soil types are identified as gently sloping to moderately steep, shallow and moderately deep, well -drained soils that have a medium textured or fine textured subsoil. The last, 41E, is moderately deep, steep and very steep, well -drained soils on side slopes and ridges. Pile 93924/EAW Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining propertyzoning oning and present use: North: Zoned RP District Use: Residential (Glenmont Village) South: Zoned RA District East: Zoned RP District Zoned RA District West: Zoned RP District C. TRANSPORTATION Use: Residential (Wood Rise Lane) And Unimproved Use: Residential (Glenmont Village) Use: Unimproved Use: Residential (Rossum Lane) The subject properties are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). Senseny Road is identified as a major collector road and has excellent sight distance to the east and west at the Senseny Road intersections of both Rossum Lane and Twin Brook Circle. Channing Drive, approximately a mile to the west, will be completed to provide access to Valley Mill Road (Route 659), while Greenwood Road (Route 656), approximately 1-'/2 miles to the west provides access to Berryville Pike (Route 7) and to Millwood Pike (Route 50 East). A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Senseny Village community by Patton Harris Rust, which is dated November 19, 2004 and included as a component of the Impact Analysis Statement. The TIA assumes the total build out of 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) as a single transportation phase by year 2010. The TIA provides for a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, as well as Average Daily Trip volumes for existing, background and build out conditions. The TIA studies Senseny Road and its intersections with Twinbrook Circle, Rossum Lane, Charming Drive and Greenwood Road. Figure 9 on page 12 of the TIA concludes that all intersection points with Senseny Road maintain an acceptable Level of Service "C" average condition assuming future background traffic and the complete build -out of Senseny Village. Only one movement at the Twinbrook Circle intersection with Senseny Road is identified as a Level of Service "D" during PM peak hour conditions. The TIA recommends that the installation of a right turn lane on Senseny Road to the Twinbrook Road intersection will raise the Level of Service to an acceptable LOS "C" during PM peak hour conditions. The installation of this right turn lane, as well as the installation of a right turn lane on Senseeny Road at the intersection of Rossum Lane has been proffered to be installed prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Senseny Village. Furthermore, the Pile #3924/EAW F, Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 applicants have proffered a monetary contribution totaling a potential maximum amount of $1.145 million dollars for improvements to the Senseny Road/Route 7 Connector Road and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass and to completely reconstruct Rossum Lane to standards acceptable to VDOT. The transportation improvements and monetary contributions provided for in the applicants proffer statement more than mitigates the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning application. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Existing 12" and 8" sanitary sewer mains are located on this property as is the Burning Knolls Pumping Station. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has a sewer transmission line that directs sewage effluent to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The on -site sewer infrastructure required to convey effluent to the treatment facility will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the subject property can be based on comparable discharge patterns of 225 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on the sewage conveyance and treatment systems. Q = 225 GPD per household Q = 225 GPD x 285 residential units Q = 64,125 GPD projected at total residential build out The proposed rezoning is projected to increase flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility by 64,125 GPD at total build out. The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 MGD, of which approximately 6.4 MGD is currently being utilized. The total build - out of Senseny Village would require approximately 3% of the available capacity that currently exists at this treatment facility. The applicants' have proffered to develop the Senseny Village community through a phased plan, which limits the number of building permits that can be obtained on an annual basis. This phasing plan limits development to a maximum of 70-75 residential lots through calendar year 2008. Adequate capacity for sewage conveyance and treatment will be available throughout the development of the Senseny Village project; therefore, this rezoning proposal will not negatively impact this facility. Pile 93924/EAW 7 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 E. WATER SUPPLY The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Water is readily available to the subject development through the extension of existing lines on adjacent properties. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has an 8" water line along Rossum Lane and an 8" water line is stubbed at the subject property line along the undeveloped street right-of-way off Glenridge Drive. Water service will be provided from the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Plant. These systems currently provide approximately 6 MGD. The on -site water infrastructure required to . convey potable water to the proposed residential lots in the Senseny Village community will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the 73.79-acre site can be based on comparable water usage of 275 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on the water supply and treatment systems. Q = 275 GPD per household Q = 275 GPD x 285 residential units Q = 78,375 GPD projected at total residential build out The projected water usage for the proposed rezoning is 78,375 GPD at total build out. This projection represents approximately 1% of the unutilized capacities at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Treatment Plant. Therefore, the available water source and infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the capacity needs of the proposed 73.79-acre residential development at total build out. F. DRAINAGE The dominant drainage pattern for the 73.79-acre site is to the east, running along the southern boundary of tax parcel 65-((A))-55 and through the central portion of tax parcel 65-((A))-49B through an unnamed tributary that drains to the Opequon Creek. Senseny Village will be designed with curb and gutter lined streets, which will convey storm water through an underground storm sewer system. Storm water management will be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local storm water management requirements and erosion and sedimentation control requirements. The design of the stormwater management system will occur during the subdivision design process, and will require approval by the Frederick County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Furthermore, the design for crossing this drainage channel to access the southernmost residential land bay will minimize impacts to critical slope areas and the drainage channel to ensure that this drainage channel is not negatively impacted. File #3924/EAW R Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4t' edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) that is projected to develop over a 4-year period: AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per household AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 285 households AV = 1,539 Cu. Yd. at residential build out, or 1,077 tons/yr at build out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has. a current .remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected 4-year build out of the subject site will generate on average 1,077 tons of solid waste annually following the proffered four year phased build -out of Senseny Village. This represents a 0.13% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year, which can be accommodated by this regional facility. The applicants have proffered to provide community trash collection service for all residential land uses within Senseny Village. This proffer provides revenues to the regional landfill in tipping fees and significantly reduces impacts to the Greenwood Road Citizen Convenience Center. Therefore, the proffers associated with the Senseny Village project adequately mitigate the impacts to solid waste disposal. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any existing structures on or near the subject property as potentially significant. Furthermore, there are no structures in the vicinity that qualify for the national or state register of historic places, nor does the subject site fall within core battlefield area boundaries or areas that would potentially qualify as historic districts. L IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of the subject property based on a proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse). The results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model identify that the build out of the Senseny Village community will create a negative fiscal impact of $8,987.00 for each residential unit. The applicants' proffer statement provides a monetary contribution to Frederick County in the amount of $10,000.00 for each File #39241EAW q Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Revised June 14, 2005 detached single-family residential unit and $8,000 for each townhouse residential unit, to mitigate the fiscal impacts to County services. Furthermore, the applicants have proffered a monetary contribution totaling a potential maximum amount of $1.145 million dollars for improvements to the Senseny Road/Route 7 Connector Road and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass to assist with regional transportation impacts in this geographic area of the County. Attachments: 1. Zoning and Location Map 2. Future Route 37 Eastern Bypass Location Map Pile #3924/EAW 7n Greenway Engineering • November 22, 2004 Revised March 17, 2004 SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING INTRODUCTION 0 Senseny Village Rezoning . ��u��Nri This report has been prepared for the purpose of assessing the impact on Fredrick County by the proffered rezoning of two parcels comprising a total of 73.79 acres, a 49.70-acre parcel owned by Hazel C. Lambert and a 24.09-acre parcel owned by Taylor Grace, LLC. The subject properties are accessed from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and a previously planned connection from Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). The current zoning of the 24.09-acre parcel is RP, Residential Performance District without proffers, while the current zoning of the 49.70- acre parcel is RA, Rural Areas District. The applicant proposes to rezone the 49.70-acre Lambert parcel to RP, Residential Performance District with proffers and to retain the RP, Residential Performance District designation for the 24.09-acre Taylor Grace, LLC property and include proffers that will be applicable to this property. The subject properties will be master planned together for the purpose of creating the Senseny Village residential subdivision. This project is proffered to not exceed a total build out of 285 residential units, of which, 145 units are intended to be single-family detached dwelling units and 140 units are intended to be townhouse dwelling units. The project is proffered to be developed as a minimum four-year phased build out. Basic information Location: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736), and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) Magisterial District: Red Bud Property ID Numbers: 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 Current Zoning: RP, Residential Performance District and RA, Rural Areas District Current Use: Residential and Unimproved Proposed Use: 285 single family detached and attached units Proposed Zoning: RP, Residential Performance District with proffers Total rezoning area: 73.79-acres File #3924/EAW 2 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed site is being developed in conformance with the land use policies of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The subject area is within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The Comprehensive Policy Plan states suburban residential land use will occur in the UDA. A. SUITABILITY OF THE SITE A rrPcc Tax parcels 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via Rossum Lane (Route 736), which currently terminates in a cul-de-sac at the northwest corner of the subject property. Rossum Lane is to be extended into the property as a VDOT maintained street. Access is provided from Senseny Road via Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) to Glenridge Drive (Route 868). This access point off Glenridge Drive utilizes a platted inter -parcel connection that was established to provide access to the Taylor Grace, LLC property. Flood Plains The subject site is located on the FEMA NFIP map 4510063-0120-B. The entire subject property is located "Zone C". The FEMA NFIP map identifies "Zone C" as "area outside the 100-year flood plain". Wetlands The County GIS database identifies one wetland area on the 49.70-acre parcel, which is a mamnade impoundment. The existing pond will be drained and filled. A detailed wetlands delineation study will occur on the subject property subsequent to rezoning approval and will be identified as a component of the Master Development Plan. Steep Slopes There are no steep slopes (50% or greater) on the subject site; however, there is a defined drainage channel that traverses tax parcel 65-((A))-49B which channels stormwater drainage from the Carper farm on the west side of Greenwood Road through this site to the Opequon Creek. The design for crossing this drainage channel to access the southermnost residential land bay will minimize impacts to critical slope areas and the drainage channel. Mature Woodlands Woodland areas exist on the subject property, as well as open fields and scrub brush. It is anticipated that these areas will be impacted by the future development of road systems, File 113924/EAW 3 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 utility infrastructure and residential structures. The Master Development Plan and Subdivision Design Plan for Senseny Village will meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in April 2003. Soil Types The Soil Survey of Fredrick County, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service was consulted to determine soil types contained in this tract. The subject site is located on map sheet number 37, and contains the following soil types: 1C Berks Channeiy silt loam 7-15 % slopes 3B Blahton silt loam 2-7 % slopes 9B Clearbrook Chanrrery silt loam 2-7 % slopes 41 D Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam 15-25 % slopes 41E Weikert-Berks Channery silt loam 25-65 % slopes Table 5 on page 123 of the Soil Survey of Frederick County identifies 3B Blairton silt loam as prime farmland soils. The first four soil types are identified as gently sloping to moderately steep, shallow and moderately deep, well -drained soils that have a medium textured or fine textured subsoil. The last, 41E, is moderately deep, steep and very steep, well -drained soils on side slopes and ridges. B. SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Adjoining property zoning and present use: North: Zoned RP District South: Zoned RA District East: Zoned RP District Zoned RA District West: Zoned RP District C. TRANSPORTATION Use: Residential (Glerrmont Village) Use: Residential (Wood Rise Lane) And Unimproved Use: Residential (Glemnont Village) Use: Unimproved Use: Residential (Rossum Lane) The subject properties are accessible from Senseny Road (Route 657) via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twin Brook Circle (Route 867) to Gleruidge Drive (Route 868). Senseny Road is identified as a major collector road and has excellent sight distance to the east and west at the Senseny Road intersections of both Rossum Lane and Twin Brook Circle. Channing Drive, approximately a mile to the west, will be completed to provide access to Valley Mill Road (Route 659), while Greenwood Road (Route 656), File #3924/EAW 4 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 approximately 1-'/z miles to the west provides access to Berryville Pike (Route 7) and to Millwood Pike (Route 50 East). A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the Senseny Village community by Patton Harris Rust, which is dated November 19, 2004 and included as a component of the Impact Analysis Statement. The TIA assumes the total build out of 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) as a single transportation phase by year 2010. The TIA provides for a Level of Service (LOS) analysis for AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, as well as Average Daily Trip volumes for existing, background and build out conditions. The TIA studies Senseny Road and its intersections with Twinbrook Circle, Rossum Lane, Chamling Drive and Greenwood Road. Figure 9 on page 12 of the TIA concludes that all intersection points with Senseny Road maintain an acceptable Level of Service "C" average condition assuming future background traffic and the complete build -out of Senseny Village. Only one movement at the Twinbrook Circle intersection with Senseny Road is identified as a Level of Service "D" during PM peak hour conditions. The TIA recommends that the installation of a right turn lane on Senseny Road to the Twinbrook Road intersection will raise the Level of Service to an acceptable LOS "C" during PM peak hour conditions. The installation of this right turn lane, as well as the installation of a right turn lane on Senseeny Road at the intersection of Rossum Lane has been proffered to be installed prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Senseny Village. Furthermore, the applicants have proffered a monetary contribution totaling a potential maximum amount of $1.145 million dollars for improvements to the Senseny Road/Route 7 Connector Road and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass and to completely reconstruct Rossum Lane to standards acceptable to VDOT. The transportation improvements and monetary contributions provided for in the applicants proffer statement more than mitigates the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning application. D. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND TREATMENT The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Existing 12" and 8" sanitary sewer mains are located on this property as is the Burning Knolls Pumping Station. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has a sewer transmission line that directs sewage effluent to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. The on -site sewer infrastructure required to convey effluent to the treatment facility will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the subject property can be based on comparable discharge patterns of 225 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on the sewage conveyance and treatment systems. Q = 225 GPD per household Q = 225 GPD x 285 residential units File #3924/EAW 5 Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 Q = 64,125 GPD projected at total residential build out The proposed rezoning is projected to increase flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility by 64,125 GPD at total build out. The design capacity of the treatment plant is 8.4 MGD, of which approximately 6.4 MGD is currently being utilized. The total build - out of Senseny Village would require approximately 3% of the available capacity that currently exists at this treatment facility. The applicants' have proffered to develop the Senseny Village community through a phased plan, which limits the number of building permits that can be obtained on an annual basis. This phasing plan limits development to a maximum of 70-75 residential lots through calendar year 2008. Adequate capacity for sewage conveyance and treatment will be available throughout the development of the Senseny Village project; therefore, this rezoning proposal will not negatively impact this facility. E. WATER SUPPLY The subject property is located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) boundaries. Water is readily available to the subject development through the extension of existing lines on adjacent properties. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) has an 8" water line along Rossum Lane and an 8" water line is stubbed at the subject property line along the undeveloped street right-of-way off Glenridge Drive. Water service will be provided from the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Plant. These systems currently provide approximately 6 MGD. The on -site water infrastructure required to convey potable water to the proposed residential lots in the Senseny Village community will be developed by the applicants to standards acceptable to the FCSA for future operation and maintenance. The impact of rezoning the 73.79-acre site can be based on comparable water usage of 275 GPD for residential use. The figures below represent the impact that the total build out of the proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) will have on the water supply and treatment systems. Q = 275 GPD per household Q = 275 GPD x 285 residential units Q = 78,375 GPD projected at total residential build out The projected water usage for the proposed rezoning is 78,375 GPD at total build out. This projection represents approximately 1% of the unutilized capacities at the James H. Diehl Water Filtration Plant and the North Water Filtration Treatment Plant. Therefore, the available water source and infrastructure is adequate to accommodate the capacity needs of the proposed 73.79-acre residential development at total build out. File 113924/EAw 6 Greenway Engineering 0 November 22, 2004 • Senseny Village Rezoning Revised March 17, 2004 F. DRAINAGE The dominant drainage pattern for the 73.79-acre site is to the east, running along the southern boundary of tax parcel 65-((A))-55 and through the central portion of tax parcel 65-((A))-49B through an unnamed tributary that drains to the Opequon Creek. Senseny Village will be designed with curb and gutter lined streets, which will convey storm water through an underground storm sewer system. Storm water management will be designed in accordance with all applicable state and local storm water management requirements and erosion and sedimentation control requirements. The design of the stormwater management system will occur during the subdivision design process, and will require approval by the Frederick County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation. Furthermore, the design for crossing this drainage channel to access the southernmost residential land bay will minimize impacts to critical slope areas and the drainage channel to ensure that this drainage channel is not negatively impacted. G. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL The impact on solid waste disposal facilities can be projected from an average annual residential consumption of 5.4 cubic yards per household (Civil Engineering Reference Manual, 4`I' edition). The following figures show the increase in average annual volume based on the 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse) that is projected to develop over a 4-year period: AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. per household AV = 5.4 Cu. Yd. x 285 households AV = 1,539 Cu. Yd. at residential build out, or 1,077 tons/yr at build out The Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill has a current remaining capacity of 13,100,000 cubic yards of air space. The projected 4-year build out of the subject site will generate on average 1,077 tons of solid waste annually following the proffered four year phased build -out of Senseny Village. This represents a 0.13% increase in the annual solid waste received by the Municipal Solid Waste area of the Regional Landfill, which currently averages 200,000 tons per year, which can be accommodated by this regional facility. The applicants have proffered to provide community trash collection service for all residential land uses within Senseny Village. This proffer provides revenues to the regional landfill in tipping fees and significantly reduces impacts to the Greenwood Road Citizen Convenience Center. Therefore, the proffers associated with the Senseny Village project adequately mitigate the impacts to solid waste disposal. H. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES The Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey does not identify any existing structures on or near the subject property as potentially significant. Furthermore, there are no File #3924/EAw 7 November 22, 2004 Revised March 17, 2004 structures in the vicinity that qualify for the national or state register of historic places, nor does the subject site fall within core battlefield area boundaries or areas that would potentially qualify as historic districts. I. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model has been prepared for the proposed rezoning of the subject property based on a proffered 285 residential units (145 single family/140 townhouse). The results of the Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model identify that the build out of the Senseny Village community will create a negative fiscal impact of $8,987.00 for each residential unit. The applicants' proffer statement provides a monetary contribution to Frederick County in the amount of $10,000.00 for each detached single-family residential unit and $8,000 for each townhouse residential unit, to mitigate the fiscal impacts to County services. Furthermore, the applicants have proffered a monetary contribution totaling a potential maximum amount of $1.145 million dollars for improvements to the Senseny Road/Route 7 Connector Road and/or the proposed Route 37 Bypass to assist with regional transportation impacts in this geographic area of the County. Zoning and Location Map Future Route 37 Eastern Bypass Location Map ICJ 0 File 113924/GAW Impact Analysis Statement 9 IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING Red Bud Magisterial District Frederick County, Virginia Tax Parcel 65-((A))-49B and 65-((A))-55 73.79-acres November 22, 2004 Revised March 17, 2005 Applicant: Greenway Engineering Current Owners: Hazel C. Lambert Taylor Grace, LLC Contact Person: Evan Wyatt, AICP Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 540-662-4185 r 0 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA �� e r FI AL ECE pp � DI'� I G�' I G I R PEP HURT DEED RECEIPT DATE: 111161@8 TIME: I3:04:49 ACCOUNT: 069CLR8308707 RECEIPT: 8801�0013363 "ASHIER; RPH REG: WN17 TYFE: D/DED PAYMENT: FULL 8Y PERS. CHECK INSTRUMENT ; 8608707 BOOK: 578 PA6E: 369 RECORDED 11116/8A oT 1?:62 SRANTOR NAME : B'2W NC IPT � URHIITEE NmME btw IN.. ► • AND MDDRES'� - I RECEIYEi eF 86u INC FcrFr ..�.. I."i 1. G! BRu!4 NT viLLHP. 6 SHAWNEE DISTRICT CONSIDERATION: ) ASSUMPTION: .00 MAP: CODE DES:RIPTION PAID CODE DESCRTPT1ON PAID 301 DEEDS 40,f)�i 11 TOTAL TENDERED 40,0':, TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: 40.0C TOTAL CHAN6E ANT CLERK OP COURT: GEORGE P. WHITACRE OC-19 5/86 + I 1 eK698FG36A L)ERS01. LARRICK & LA11RICK ,TTORNEYC. AT LAW I:ICIIRHTRR. VIROI\'IA DEED OF SUBDIVISION AND DEDICATION THIS DEED OF SUBDIVISION AND DEDICATION, made and dated this � day of No\leti 1988, by and between BGW, INC., a Virginia Corporation, its successors or assigns, party of the first part; COUNTY OF FREDERICK, VIRGINIA, party of the second part; JAMES R. LARRICK, JR., Trustee, party of the third part; and FARMERS AND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, Benefici- ary, party of the fourth part. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, BGW, Inc. is the fee simple owner of the real estate shown on the attached subdivision plat drawn by Greenway Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc., dated 88 , known as GLENMONT VILLAGE, SECTION SIX which real estate is a part of the development known as GLENMONT VILLAGE as described on the Master Development Plan for Glenmont Village on file in the Frederick County Depart- ment of Planning and Development. The real estate subdivided herein is a portion of the real estate conveyed to BGW, INC., by deed dated May 15, 1984, from William M. Battaile and Virginia B. Battaile, his wife, and Richard U. Goode and Joan N. Goode, his wife, which deed is of record in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, 1 i 0 ah6Q3PG370 UERSON. LARRICK & LARRICK . fTORNEYS AT I.AM' .ICIMSTER. VIROINIA i in Deed Book 576 at Page 451 and, WHEREAS, James R. Larrick, Jr., Trustee, party of the third part; and FARMERS AND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK, Benefici- ary, party of the fourth part, desire to join in the sub- division and dedication of said property for the purpose of releasing their lien as to the property subdivided and as to the common or open areas as shown on the plat. NOW, THEREFORE, this Deed of Subdivision and Dedication WITNESSETH: THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties'do hereby subdivide i I the said parcel of land into GLENMONT VILLAGE, SECTION SIX, containing twenty-eight (28) lots according to the subdivision plat dated (`'"1ngcA 3 -�`A made by Greenway Engineering I and Surveying Co., Inc., which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and which plat is drawn in conformity with the Master Development Plan for Glenmont Village on file in the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, the same to be known hereforth as GLENMONT VILLAGE, SECTION SIX and do hereby grant dedicate for public street purposes that land shown on said plat as public streets designated Glenridge Drive, declaring that said subdivision and dedication is made with their free consent and in accordance with the applicable state and county statutes and ordinances. This plat of 2 t 0 3K6 Q 8 P G 3 7 1 DERSON. LARRICK & LARRICK ..rTORNEY9 AT LAW subdivision and dedication has been duly approved by the proper authorities on the County of Frederick, Virginia, as is evidenced the signatures affixed hereunto. WHEREAS, said real estate has been subdivided into lots as shown on the plat which shows accurately the metes and bounds of the subdivided land, together with the dimensions of each lot thereof and this plat or a former plat also shows that certain common or open space area which is to become the property of the GLENMONT VILLAGE ASSOCIATION. BGW, INC., its successors or assigns, reserves the right to limit the use of the common or open space areas contiguous to Section Seven, Glenmont Village, as the same appears on the master plat of Glenmont Village on file with the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development, to those persons and their invitees and guests, occupying the housing constructed in that section. The party of the third part, and party of the fourth part hereby release and discharge from the lien of their deed of trust the land designated common or open space area on the plats of SECTION SIX, GLENMONT VILLAGE. Every person or entity who is now or who becomes the record owner of a fee simple interest, undivided or not, in any subdivided lot, in this or any present or future dedicated section of real property known as GLENMONT VILLAGE shall, by acceptance of the deed or otherwise, become a member of the GLENMONT VILLAGE ASSOCIATION. Excluded from membership and f B�GJE°G312 assessment are entities who hold an interest merely as security for an obligation and/or the Commonwealth of Vir- ginia, acting through any of its agencies or authorities; the County of Frederick, or any of its agencies or authorities, Ithe United States of America, acting through the Farmers Home P Administration, Veterans Administration or Federal Housing Administration or any other agency, administration or authority. i Each member of the ASSOCIATION shall be entitled to one vote for each lot in which they hold the interest required for membership in the Association. When more than one person holds such interest in any lot, all such persons shall be members. The vote for such lot shall be exercised as they among themselves determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be case with respect to any lot. In the event of a dispute as to the ownership of any lot, the Frederick County real estate tax roll shall control. The affairs of the ASSOCIATION shall be managed by a board of three directors who are elected by the members of the ASSOCIATION. So long as BGW, INC., owns any lot or land shown on the master development plan for GLENMONT VILLAGE, its directors shall be eligible to serve as directors of GLENMONT VILLAGE ASSOCIATION. The initial board of directors of the ASSOCIATION shall be the directs of BGW, INC., who shall serve until they resign or until their successors are elected at an :JERSON, LARRICK & LARRICK annual meeting of the ASSOCIATION. •TT0RNPY9 AT L1W �'CIIfi6Tfi R, VIROINIA 4 I Y } f f 0 OK333FIG 373 I DERSON. LARRICK & LARRICK ."rro R2:KYS AT LAW [NCHESTRR. VIRGMIA BGW, INC., covenants for each lot it then owns in any present or future dedicated section of GLENMONT VILLAGE to pay to the ASSOCIATION the annual assessment fixed by the ASSOCIA- TION's Board of Directors for that year only. By the accep- tance of the deed or other form of conveyance (will, intes- tacy, or otherwise) each lot owner of any lot within any present or future section of GLENMONT VILLAGE shall become a member of the GLENMONT VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, or its successors or assigns, and shall be deemed to covenant with the ASSOCIA- TION to pay to the ASSOCIATION the annual assessment fixed by the ASSOCIATION when it is due. Membership in the ASSOCIATION shall be appurtenant to any may not be separated from the ownership of any lot subject to assessment. The initial and subsequent assessments provided for herein shall be at a uniform rate for each lot. The initial assessment is $30 per lot per calendar year beginning January 1, 1989, due and payable March 31 of each year for the year in which the assessment is made and shall continue in that amount until changed by the Board of Direc- tors as set forth herein. It is due from the record owner(s) of each lot as of December 31 of the year preceding the assessment and shall be the personal obligation of the lot owner(s). From and after January 1 of the year immediately follow- ing the conveyance of the first Lot to an Owner, the maximum annual assessment per lbt may be increased above that set 5 t 0 BK69PiPG37It I* <L>ERSo,ti LARRICK & LARRICK .TTOR RYS AT L.AW �VCei SRTI{l+. YIIt OINZA forth hereinabove by a vote of the members, for -the next succeeding year, provided that any such change shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of members who are voting in person or by proxy, at a meeting duly called for this purpose by the Board of Directors. Written notice of the meeting shall be mailed to the lot owners at their addresses on record with the ASSOCIATION not less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days in advance of the meeting, which notice shall set forth the purpose of the meeting. After consideration of current maintenance costs and any special needs of the ASSOCIATION, the Board of Directors shall fix the annual assessments in an amount not in excess of the maximum annual assessment as fixed by the members. The initial annual meeting shall be called upon request of 50% of the members of the ASSOCIATION or within one (1) year of the date of recordation of the Deed of Dedication, whichever shall first occur, and upon thirty (30) days notice. Presence at the meeting of members or of proxies entitled to cast sixty-seven percent (67%) of all votes shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not forthcoming at any meeting, another meeting may be called, subject to the notice requirement set forth herein and the required quorum at any such subsequent meeting shall be two-thirds (2/3) of the required quorum of the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting. A i y Q�6?6PG3T10 The ASSOCIATION will, upon request at any time, furnish a written certificate signed by an officer of the ASSOCIATION, setting forth whether or not the assessments on a specified lot have been paid. A reasonable charge may be made by the Board for the issuance of the certificates. Any assessments which are not paid when due shall be delinquent. If the assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date, the assessment shall bear interest from the date of delinquency at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum, and the ASSOCIATION may bring an action at law for judgment against any owner personally obligated to pay the same and recover interests, costs and reasonable attorney's fees on any such action which shall be added to the amount of the assessment. No owner may waive or otherwise avoid liability for the assessments provided for herein by non-use of the common or open space area or abandonment of his lot. The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust now or hereafter encumbering any lot. The sale or transfer of nay lot shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any lot which is subject to any deed of trust, pursuant to a foreclosure thereof, shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments thereof which became due prior to such sale or transfer. No sale or transfer shall relieve such lot from liability for any assessments thereafter UER90N. LARRZCK & LARRICK becoming due from the Tien thereof. .,T'TORVRT9 AT IUW 'IYCUEHTER. vIROIVIA 7 0 QKG98PG3 )q :llER50N. LARRICK & LARRICK . TO N4:YR AT LAW I.NCHERTER, VIROINIA The ASSOCIATION shall have the right to suspend the voting rights and the right to tha use of the open or common area by a member or his relatives for any period duting which any assessment against his lot remains unpaid; and for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days for any infraction of its published rules and regulations. Lot ownership shall be the sole qualification for membership in the ASSOCIATION. The ASSOCIATION shall have the right to dedicate or transfer all or part of the common or open space area to any public agency, authority, or utility for public purposes. BGW, INC., reserves unto itself, its heirs and assigns the right to create future easements in the common or open areas and the right to erect and maintain electric and telephone poles or facilities and sewer, gas, water, drainage or television lines or cables along existing roadways or rights of way or to grant similar easements or rights of way there- for, with the right of ingress and egress for the purpose of erection or maintenance on, over or under a strip of land fifteen (15) feet wide at any point along the side, rear or front property lines of any lot or tract in the subdivision, including the right to grant such easements to others. The ASSOCIATION, its successors or assigns shall have the right to enforce, by any proceeding at law or in equity, all restrictions, conditions, covenants, reservations, liens and charges, now, or hereafter, imposed by the provisions of this document. Failure by the ASSOCIATION, its successors or ti i f BK698Pc3770 assigns, to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to f do so thereafter. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restric- tions by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provision which shall remain in full force and effect. The above covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them for i a period of ten (10) years from the date of the Deed of Subdivision and Dedication and these covenants shall be I automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years unless an instrument signed by seventy-five percent (75%) of the then owners of the lots is recorded changing these covenants in whole or in part. i i BGW, INC., reserves unto itself, with the consent of the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development or its i director, the right to modify, alter or amend its master development plan for GLENMONT VILLAGE as now on file with the i Planning and Development. Frederick County Department of Pla g� WITNESS the following signatures and seals: BGW, INC. By: 'J/�U{�e ii SEAL) I William R. Ward, Jr. Vice President � I COUNTY OF FREDERICKZI i �/. By: ���'L ( SEAL ) UER9oN. LARRICK & LARRICK i .,TTORNEYS AT L1W I I\CISEBTER. VIR GILlIA 9 I I i I i i .1 i 0 ' 0 ;i)ERsON. LARRICK & LARRICK .'T-r0RN1zy9 AT T-kw iSCUESTIC11. VIRMNIA BK6 9 8 PG3 7 8 (SEAL) Jam R. Larrick, Jr. ±7 �(SEA tee FARMERS & MF�RCHANTS NATIONAL BANK By: (SEAL) M. Lei B ppe, Exed� itlive Vice Presiden STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT -LARGE, CITY/C'&- '-Y-OF I to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this )day of 1968, by William R. Ward, Jr., Vice President of BGW, Inc. My commission expires % Notdky Publ45 STATE OF VIRGINIA'AT-LARGE, CITY/COUNTY OF,,;,'/-_- to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 7 day of 19 8 8, by Executive for the County of Frederick. My commission expires rt Notary Public 10 BK693BG379 ,;DERSo N. LARRICK & LARRICK .,'1'?0IL\I.YS AT LAN 'i.'C Il RFTRR. VIRGINIA STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT -LARGE, CITY/GOUN-T-Y OF i! Ire? �.i�Pd tY,l, to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this / O day of1988, by James R. Larrick, Jr., Trustee. My commission expires v. l q6 Nota y Public,/ STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT -LARGE, et Y/COUNTY OFF ����►�� to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �� day of 1988, by M. Lee Boppe, i Executive Vice President, Farmers & Merchants National Bank. /U i My commission expires f 0 / , / %0 --- L/— Notary Public 11 d . f 0 • :DERSON. LARRICIi & LARRICK I-T70RNIOYO AT LAW f INCRESTEn. VIROL\]A B'K698°G380 DECLARATIONS OF COVENANTS AND RESERVATIONS �GLENMONT VILLAGE SECTION SIX WHEREAS, by Deed of Dedication recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, the subdivision known as GLENMONT VILLAGE, SECTION SIX was duly dedicated, platted and recorded, and WHEREAS, it is the desire and intention of the owners of said land, BGW, INC., to impose certain covenants, reserva- tions, restrictions and easements upon Section Six, Glenmont Village, NOW, THEREFORE, the declarant, BGW, INC., does hereby impose upon the said subdivision the following covenants, reservations, restrictions and easements, all of which shall run with the land, as follows: ARTICLE I ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL No house, building, fence, wall, structure, or addition thereto shall be commenced, erected or maintained upon any lot within the subdivision, nor shall any addition be made until the plans and specifications showing the nature, kind, shape, height, materials, and location of the same shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by BGW, INC. After the lot has been conveyed to an owner by BGW, INC. and the initial home has been approved by BGW, INC. and built as approved, then by the Board of Directors of the Glenmont Village Association, or the architectural committee thereof shall have the approval -authority. The entity to whom the plans and specifications are submitted shall either approve or disapprove the same within 30 days from receipt. If not disapproved within 30 days from date of receipt they shall be deemed approved. ARTICLE II PROTECTIVE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS 1. No lot, other than open space lots, shall be used except for residential purposes incidental or accessory thereto. The declarant; a builder, developer or realtor may maintain a model home or sales office within any section of 12 - i 1 7 • BXGC PG3� 1 :)ERSO-1. LARRICK & LARRICK .:TORNEYS AT LAW .1C1iES7XR. VIRaINIA Glenmont Village for sales of homes being constructed in Glenmont Village. Any home occupation approved as an accessory use by the appropriate Frederick County ordinances and duly authorized by the appropriate County agency is a permitted use on any lot. 2. No clothing, laundry or wash shall be aired or dried on any lot in any area other than in the rear yards of a lot. 3.- No tree, hedge or shrub planting shall be maintained in such manner as to obstruct sight lines for vehicular traffic. 4. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carried on upon any lot, nor shall anything be done thereon or permitted to remain on any lot which is or may become a nuisance or annoyance to the neighborhood. No exterior lighting shall be directed outside the boundaries of a lot. 5. No sign of any kind larger than one foot square shall be displayed to the public view on any lot, except temporary signs not nor than five feet square in area advertising the property for sale or rent and except for temporary signs erected by BGW, INC., or any builder or developer in connection with the construction, lease, or sale of homes or lots. Subdivision identification signs are permitted. 6. No horse, pony, cow, chicken, pig, hog, sheep, goat or other domestic or wild animal shall be kept or maintained on any lot other than common household pets. No commercial kennels are permitted. 7. No trash, garbage or other waste material or refuse shall be placed or stored on any lot except in covered sanitary containers placed to the rear of the lot at least five (5) feet from any lot line. All waste containers shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and emptied regularly. 8. The Glenmont Village Association shall have the right, (upon 20 days notice by mail to the owner of the property involved, setting forth the action intended to be taken, if at the end of such time such action has not been taken by the Owner) to enter upon the property involved and to repair, restore, or maintain the lot or the exterior of any building erected thereon; and to cut or remove grass, weeds and rubbish from any lot so as to keep all lots neat, in good order and in comparable condition with the appearance of other lots and improvements within Glenmont Village, all at the cost and expense of the owner. The costs and expenses are to be paid to the Association upon demand and if not paid within ten (10) days thereof, then shall become a lien upon the property affected, equal in priority and enforceable in the same manner as the assessment lien provided in the recorded Deed of Dedication and inferior to the liens of any deeds of trust. 9. No abandoned motor vehicles will be permitted on any 13 9 e�egPc82 lot or in any street or parking area. For this purpose, an abandoned motor vehicle is defined as one which either bears an expired license plate or none at all. 10. No structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent, garage, or other outbuilding shall be used at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. All exterior construction of any dwelling, outbuilding, or other structure must be completed within twelve (12) months after construction is commenced unless extended by the Association. 11. No owner shall erect any structure within, or otherwise obstruct, any easement across his lot, nor divert or otherwise interfere with the natural flow of surface water, nor obstruct any drainage ditch. 12. Declarant reserves easements for installation and maintenance of public utilities within the building restric- tion lines of all lots in addition to easements reserved by any other instrument duly recorded. 13. The covenants, restrictions, and other provisions of f this Declaration shall run with and bind the land for a term i of twenty (20) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which they shall be automatically extended for successive period of ten (10) years. This Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the lot owners of any par- ticular section of Glenmont Village. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said BGW, INC., being the Declarant herein, has caused this Declaration to be signed by its Vice President, this le 11) day of yL �u,C��'-yJ . 1988 BGW, INC. By: l " �CGc% (SEAL) William R. Ward, Jr. Vice President STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT -LARGE, CITY/GGUNTI-� OF �( �t-,-u.i4,� ,�� to -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /0'�/) day of (eZ�t.��-�Lti, 1988, by William R. Ward, Jr., Vice President of BGW, INC. My commission expires 'r - 4 DERsoN. LARRICK & LARRICK Nota Publa�c ..1-T0RVNY6 AT LAW ...'CURFTRR. VIRGIVIA 14 i r j* QKG3((2PG333 �-a O�✓ ,4,PEA s 71 CO,v1iYlO�Y S 20 J0 "����w 229.92' k"; 103 0. 102 °o`0 101 C, 360 0 p /036a 0 p a O -� — -2 5- BUre- O/3'(;� ,PES 1'01C T/OiV G /A/E � N 7<1 00 N 02'.3O '00 71' 22 9 82 ' 0 2 ' 30 00 �L' 2 5-9 00 _ /20. 00 7000' •0 � � 2S BU/� D/ivG .PEST.P/CT/ON L/NE' ao 76 p 77 78 o.4 9 4z32 0 ep B �93 O e- U,1,dEA-T L.4;vD GLENMONT VILLAGE SECTION SIX DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1986 SCALE: 1 = 50� GREENWAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO-,INC. ROUTE 6 BOX 152 - C WINCH ESTE R, VIRGINIA 22601 O��EALT oFD c H. BRUCE EDENS x CERTIFICATE No. 54.17-3 (a)965 54.17.3 (b)162 ? i AINV S /IEET 3 OF 7 t C✓rYliY1 D�,Q,PF.9 S/�' � �' T y BK G 9 8 PG 3 8 -- --s 7<100' �0 100 D40?J60 0 ' P, I a cv S //°3� 0� E 2So 8s �j3�. 7� 00 7UOO " 2B.8S' /4. 4/ 99 0 0 98 o p 9 7 ? '� 96 o 0 a /"�'360 d O /0 J6 0 ;") p 8 692 0 \ Q0 -,f T/S4Es"j SSy" WNPEST,P C q S0 X 2'30'oo'y -- n �Yp- S 02 90 6B00" OO Gv /79 06 /6 6��/9 bp— ZZ2 i0 SEw . \ Iry N J h a N /O S4 9 8 0j o v Q �\ \\ v \ 81 12, 932 / r o t� 41' I n/ 265 448 4 g GL E NMONT SECTION DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1986 6 G W. /NC LAND VILLAGE SIX SCALE • 1 50 GREENWAY ENG-INEERING AND SURVEYING CQ,INC ROUTE 6 BOX 152-C WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 o��SALTIJ O�y r c o�BRU E ENS x V CERTIFICATE No. Y 54.17.3 (a)965 54.17.3 (b)162 LASS sf/EET �! OF 7 i f )6 i /qe 7i 43 9 0 o � Sg 73 ' m \ '7o O° 'N 11,219 ¢ I� Q 92 0 Bu aFG38s,' 69 3 2, 2 s q o 0 0 95 0 _B 0 94_ o 1 v, g e6T 4 � ro- EN1 r O O 9 BOO o Q, OO - o SASE I oo� L IN,` A ' 74 00 5 plST,P/GT/ON _ As — / 0 Ems— M T O 2 S 70 00 y3 /O 3 70. 00 /g3. /O/ YV N 1103 0O !N � � E v /,C- Zi7ol 0aT 6 B 00 A Sal 70 00 —I _— I I / 0 --- ZS BU LD/NO PESTP/ T/O t o �In ' �o 0 I� � 3 � Q �' I� � 85 o �" 84 I /O 4S`1 00 ��0 83 ��� o 0 0 �I 9S20 0 I �o g8z0 v �0 9BOO � Q o I g3. / 7 289/7' 6 8 0O_ 3 4 00 N/ B. G W /NC L AND GLENMONT VILLAGE SECTION SIX DATE: FEBRUARY 26,1 986 SCALE : I "= 50 G REENWAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO., INC ROUTE 6 BOX 15 2 - C ' WINCHESTER , VIRGINIA 22601 I S�MMEN�// 7 86 cl o H. BRUCE S x V CERTIFICATE No. > 54.17.3 (a)965 i 54.17.3 (b)162 LAND S OF 7 I A �pN o• E 3�10 10 S 32i � o 90 �2, OOZ 91 8 i EASE SO ry A.8.1 6.;21 _D Iq b 500 G QSF \ 8 6 6 9 f1 d o � Z BKG9 Pc386 0.41i/S LAND IV O �P 7,4/ B 00 . 89 \ 22.169 ¢ b o a, \ � V Ob 8 7 vi\ 7,97 ¢ N\\ . Z�. y0 2 9 - f N//�3� 00 W GLENMONT SECTION DATE' FEBRUARY 26,1986 88 /S 9S4" 9 G W /NG L .41VD VILLAGE SIX SCALE' I" = 50 GREENWAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO.,INC. ROUTE 6 BOX 152- C WINCHESTER , VIRGINIA 22601 $ - TN 119119N OAD o . BRU EE V CERTIFICATE No. )" 54.17.3 (a)965 54.17.3 (b)152 LAwu S �1EE T 6 OF 7 11 1 a _ *Kb 98PG387 J ti A/NAGE Z O rL� 10 4,4 E c/> S 67 '90 *00 - E N i Ij `� 3 °0 m Go 0) 2 9 6. 70 `o I O .^ O O N O O 0 ` O ' 87�9o=oo"E GLENM ONT VILLAGE SECTION SIX COMMON AREA DATE: FEBRUARY 26,1986 SCALE: I" = 100' GREENWAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO, INC. ROUTE 6 B 0 X 152 - C WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22 601 �.LO H/.4rE,e C/.VE — LEAS e"6-,(/r i �C o �. BRUC S x V CERTIFICATE No. 54-17-3 (a)965 54-L7.3,(bi162 a /fU I.AN1) .S'NEE 9 a } f 7 OF 7 BK698PC388 .41PC. �.POPE.PTY Z /NE C!/.P ICE A. /fr'00 DO' J75-00' q/.63, S/6 O9' S O4/'30'00 E ?/. fO B. 20'27 37S00, 110 .9S, S3.8IV' S/90S/0,/V'1C /06.S9• C /70/2"fig.- V2S00' /2769' 6f!33' S20'06.23-'E 1272/" D. It'(W '00" V2.5'00' /0.3. 8.f , 52. /e' S Of!'30 '00" - /03. S9 Z OT CU.PliE 37500" 76. 63 " 36VS" NO3'2/ %S "W 76.S0 2. 01 ' / 7 ;9/ ' 3 75 00 ' /S 00 7. SO ' Al /O' 2/ "/S" W /S. 00 " 3. 03'0(8"/8" .37,500' 2y91' /?V6' N/3'2f/'O9"W 2g90, {1 /O' U/ 'V-1 37S00' 70.00' 35/O' N20'JF'Aa "W 69 90' S O/' SO 27 37.500 " /2.0S" 6.02' N 261SS/,/ "W 12. OS" 6 SSA'// "�/S 20. 00' 1992' 1023 N Sr/'S6 "2a"W /9. 22 7 4/602'11 S000, 4/O./7' L/.2V' NS9'O/"07'W 39.la, 8 6S'3a'29` S000" .57/7' 32./7' N 03'/y S/'W .SU/O, 9 S2 ° V 9 "20 SO 00 , fib. 02 ' 2 V 79 ' N S5-'.T2 '.3/ �E V 41. V2 , /p 68'r/S"/8" SOOO, 6000, 3v21' S 63022'5//"IF 56. V.6 SDOO' fi0.79' Z/60' SOXOJ7'S7"E j966' /Z. V6'26'S8" 2000' 16.2/' 6S8" s 05,029,2/JE /.577' /i O/ ' /O *33 - S/ZSOO , 8. 72 y 34' 5 26'07 :93 E 9 72 " /fr 08' fu ' 99'" v2S00' G f 00' 32 S7' -7 Z3'09'22"E 6 v 9v , 07°/6'28­ V2.500' 53.96' 27.02' S/S'08'/4f'e 53.92' /6 07' 2/ '38 4/2S 00 , Sf/ 60 27.341' S 07' V,? ,// /7 9-7 S7" 2 00 ' 40 96' 26. 77' S S/IosS r/ E 36. /B S3° y2'11, /</S00' /3.5 9/ , 73. 4/" NS,faO.f:3Vf E /30 99' /9 /9° yf "S2" /9.of-00 ' 6 732 ' -3v 00 S 76 °OS'OS" W 66. 99 20 63 28 .30, 2500' 34. V2 ' ' 1?230 S S/f/'/f/'/.S" W 33.29" GLENMONT VILLAGE SECTION SIX DATE FEBRU4RY 2 60986T CURVE DATA GREENWAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING CO.,INC• ROUTE 6 BOX 152 - C WINCHESTER , VIRGINIA 22601 �Pp 11. BRUCE EDENS x CERTIFICATE No. 54.17.3 (a)965 17.3 (b)162 -4- LANU 9v4yyy . SHEET 2 � « W 7 I 0 r` • F/NIJL�LgT BK698PG389 SEfT/O/V .S'/X G C ENMON T VIL UGE SfIAWiVEE O/STEP/CT, F�PEDE�P/Cfl COUNTY, 1//LP6/N/A FEB,PU,4.PY 06, / 9 8 b SEA'SE"VL Y- , PO40 IL 1 r — GL T y G 4EE GVLY70 auati'!:'G SECT/ON / �' n.VO :S s/�, / t� OC/J RON MAP 4LC PF�'PEPT J' C!I'NEPS �4' vLE/Y/LICLL'T ✓/LCAGE APE ,PTOU1.PEO TO BELOM; rc Ta�T 6LENMO/VT VILC,9GE flCME O.uI/E?S 45SOCiarioNS THE ASSO�i4T/ON /S THE ovYNE P OF qLC ApE4S SHOWAI ,45 COMMON' 4,46-4 ON 7.4E 47-T4CNEV PLATS ONO /S rPESPONS/BLE FOQ Tt�E ti!4/iL'; FiL'4/✓CE OF TfIOSE o,PE4S ALL OTf/E,O 1,2L/LES OFTL/E ASSOC/AT/ON AQE SET FOQTf/ IN THE l7E5TR/CTIONS 4N0 CO!/E1v4NTS lJ7-T4CNEO NEPE TO. 4 COPY OF T</E F/N4L 11,f4STER OEl/ELOPMEiVT 01-4N FOR 6LE,-✓MO1V7- !//LL46E '5 ON 1-1L E 47- T</E FQEOEP/CK COUNT y pEP4W7-MENT OF OLANN/NCi !]NO OEVEL OPMENT. '4RAeOYEO B Y F,PE�E P/C f� CO sw/1// T,4 N 44111 // 94 SOPE.Pr//so,Ps Da rE- 'Z " BOgrPo OF PL4NN/N6 CONK/SS/ON SUED/ i//S/ON AON/N/ST.,PA TO)P �yG�%� _ DATE VA. DEP4WTNENT OF OWNERS CERTIFICATE THE .480 (/E AND FO,PEGO/NG SUBO/l//S/ON OF THE L AND OF B C W INC. AS APEApS /rV T/IE ACCOMOANY/NG PLATS /S GV/TN THE CONSENT AND /N A CCO,PDANCE fit//TN THE OES/APES Oc- THE UNOE,PS/GNEO OW114CR PrPOP/l/ETORS •AND T,PUSTEES, /F 'r F M c 62 V T lc_-rt < r,r, Gw s-avvEYORS CERTIFICATE 8 I /-/ExPE BY'CcpT/FY THAT TfIE LAND• CONTA/NEO /N TN/S S11804//SAW /S 4 OO,-PT/ON OF THE LAND CONVEYED ,}� W 8 6 W /NC.' BY DEEO 04TE-O MAY /5, /984 ANDIL 7 ACC rPECO,PDEO /iV THE F�PEDE�P/C� COUNTY COU�PT CLEAPKS I �Et1TIFtL N. > c OFFICE /N DEE,D BOOK 576 AT PAGE 45/ . yi-17.3 (a)965 1 54.17.3 (b)162 iEa 1. B�PUCE EDE/VS C. C. S. Lena GREE-AlW4 ENGINEERING ANO SURVEY/NG CO., INC. ROUTE a BOX /52 -C ? W/NCH'ESTER VIR6/NIA Z0601 � SHEET / OF 7 I + . ih Inf lrunynt of wrlting ., noduad to me ar the -6.t daY of ri �. d _ and wllh eeNliute d acbuy wlv)&nonl tlw gio atn6rA WMW sdga1 d 0 0 C) 1/?' IRF � � �, 1�E-�i� 79 � IRF - IRON REBAR FOUND S, o = 1/2' IRON RESAR & CAP SET 1 80 ,4 S Z o UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED c l h�i 1/2' IRF 0��0 0 4 # 1/2' IRF O 81 bti 82 Z ti m T.M. 65-A-55 83 TO HAZEL C LAMBERT WB. 115 PG. 156J 84 E47SR NC W/RE' PVC£ 1/2' IRF WITH CAP O 2J6. 66' FROM CONC MON. rM. 65 A-72 , EF8 INVESTMENTS LLC D8 955 PG 724 g 4v -EXISTING W1R£ FENCE �O T.M. 65-A-186J N 8-4107 GLORA C. CORBIN 08 818 PG 18JI v m� 85 86 OW CONC. 87 90 AEON FND / 1/2' !RF '**-� 88 89 TAX PARCEL B6 A-48B 24.0924 ACRES EXISTING WIRE FENCE 1.5" IPF O 7.03' T.M. 65-A-1868 RONALD WERDEBAUGH, ET UX DB 969 PG 156J 1/2' IRF y rw 65-A-190 WILMER R. DA WS, ET UX DB 757 PG 92.E 200 0 200 SCALE: 1 " = 200' • CURVE DATA CURVE RADIUS ARC LENGTH DELTA ANGLE TANGENT CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH Cl 195.00 67. J2 19'46 51 34.00 N 76'05 16 E 66, 99 C2 25.00 J6.42 8T28 30 2230 N 44' 14 26 5 E 33.29 C3 425.00 49.25 06'38 22 24.65' S 00'49'00 E 49.22' C4 25,00 40,98 9J'54 56 26.77 N 51'05 39 W 36,54 C5 145.00' 135.91 53 42 16 73.41 S 55'05 45 W 130.99 LINE DATA LINE BEARING DISTANCE L 1 S 2X48 10 ` £ 187, 71 L2 S 02 JO 1 J 0 W 48.57 LJ S 63" 36 25 E 266.18' NO I. THE BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SURVEY BY THIS FIRM, COMPLE70 ON DECEMBER 30, 2004. 2. NO TIRE REPORT FURNISHED, THEREFORE EASEMENTS MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN. 3. CURRENT OWNER OF RECORD STANDS IN THE MWE OF BGW, INC OF RECORD IN DEED BOOK 576 AT PAGE 451 IN THE FREDERICK COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK'S OFFICE. 4. 1/2" IRON REBAR WITH CAP TO BE SET AT ALL CORNERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. VIRUINLk PREDERICK MUNTY, SCt Ms kgrament of writing was producod to me on Qz^' z ! n-:� at (V " Ll �p bfY-\ and with certificate of acknowledgement thereto annexe was adnuttdd to rccord. T imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of j ' d D and S8.1-80I have been paid, if assessable i OtI I J ul Jug 9 QAA- -- - ---- OF GEORGE E. UUMERT I, GEORGF E. LAMBERT, of Frederick County, Virginia, being of pound and disposing mind and memory. do hereby make, p»blish and declare this to be Bey Last will and Testament, hereby revoking any and all wills and Codicils by me at any time heretofore made. FIRST: I direct that all of my just debts and funeral expenses be paid. SECOND: I give and bequeath to my children, Edwin L. Lambert, George W. L&rbert and James L. Lambert, the sum of One Hundred Dollars (8100.00) each. THIRD: I give and devitiv my interest in the real cstat(-, located In Brunswick and Mechlinbor3 Counties, Virginia, to Cora L. Clemmer, Stephen J. Lambert and Andrew J. Lambert, share and share alike. All the balance, residue and remainder of my property real, personal and mixed, and wheresoever located, I give, device and bequeath to my wife, Hazel C. Lambert. FOURTH: I nominate Hazel C. Lambert, as my Executrix. In the event she is unable or unwilling to serve as Exocutrix,of my estate, then I noininat.e and appoint Andrew J. Lambert as :K115��156� Executoi: of this my Last will and Testament. NO suzet�n en.1 bond shall be required of any fiduciary nominated in this Will. FIFTH: In addition to the powers now or hereafter granted by lav, every fiduciary serving hereunder shall have ell the powers listed in Section 64.1-57, Code of Virginia, as in effect on the dare of my death. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thin —IF doy of 1992. GEORCE� LAMBERT The foregoing instrument, subscribed at the end thereof by GEORGE E. LAMBERT, the above named Testator, and by his signed, published and declared to bo his Last Will and Testament in the presence of u■ and each of us who in his presence and at his request and in the presence of each other subscribe our names as attesting witnesses upon the day of the date-of1l�said Will. G-' �lkto.s..,, residing at i t4idL- ��f y� l., residing at F, �{a(tt,. L, /- Before me, the underaig:iud authority, ots this d�a7y personally appeared 1GEORGE E. LAMERT, C �J/�� YX aa.cc[ and CY.�x1_S' , known to se to be the Testator and the witnesses, respectively, whose names are signed to the attached or foregoing instrument, and all theso persons bein% by me first duly sworn, GEORGE E. LAMBERT, the Testator, declared 2 BKII5PG15b5 to me and to the witnesses in ray presence that sa instrument is his Last. Will and Testament and that he had willingly signed the same and executed it in the presence of said witnesses as his free and voluntary act for the purposes therein expressed: that said witnesses stated before me that the foregoing Will was executed and acknowledged by the Testator as his Last Will and Testament in the presence of said witnesses, who, in his presence and at his request, and in the presence of each other, did subscribe their names as attesting witnesses on the day of the date of said Will and that the Testator, at the time of the execution of said Will, was over the age of eighteen (18) years, and of sound and disposing mind and memory. Testator Witness Witness STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT -LARGE, CITY OF WINCHESTER, to -wit: Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged before me by GEORGE E. LAMBERT, the Testator, and subscribed and sworn to before MCI by �ta•a<L_./ and I I u"1 -- witnesses, this f `91 day of _ __ 1992•. OKII5Pc1566 • My coosission expires Z, ,,��// (7tiC, tiA -ArtJ N c s Not-arV Pubiip • 99-4165 i 8KI15PG1567 IN THE CIRCUIT CLERK'S OFFICE OF FREnERICK CO(1NTy, VIRGIMIA: On this 7th day of September / 19 99 a writing bearing date of 8th day of September 19 92 Purporting to be the true, last will and testament of George E. Lambert deceased, was produced before tim Clerk and having been executed as a self -proved will, pursuant tc and inconformity with the provisicns of Section 64.1-87.1 of the Code of Virginia. All of the said facts being duly prcyed, and on the notion of Hazel C. Lambert th4 said • writing was admitted to probate as and for the true, last will and testament of George a. Lambert deceased, and it is ordered to be recorded. On notion of Hazel C. Lambert . Rxecutri therein she the naaed, is hereby aPP►intad Execut rix Of said wW1 whereuponshe qualified by entering into and ackn<wledg^i�� '7 bond in the penalty of S 10000.000.00 . with no----su.�y required per will • ��5?��NIf3 ' �. The said Hazel C. Lambert wing the prescribed oath to faithfully dischart _hal` duties as said Ibtecut•rix_. On the further motion of the . said tlasel C. Lambert • an inventory is to be filed on his estate. CLERIC • LIST OF HEIRS B91 15 PG 15 6 8 Cate No.: ... .99-155 COMMONWEALTH OF V1RGINU Frederick County ................................. Circuit Court George E. Lambert 8_26_99 ...... olcrDixT•...................... ............. ....... DQL 01 D1 aril Me, the undersigned, hereby state under oath tLat the following sre all of the heirs of the Decedent: NAMES OF HEIRS ADDRESSES RELATIONSHIP AGE Hazel C. Lambert 223 Rossum Lane, Winc. widow 73 Edwin L. Lattibert.. ,' """Bu'Ip}iuir' Springti Fld.',"�''�c: Son.."".. ....... G�.R�9.Q.W.• P.gmbert... Martinsburg, w4q,,.;i+�.........So...................... . Va.. :.......,. ...I...50.. ....mes..L.,.Lambe .................8erryv�lle, ..Son........ ..................................... I ............................ Pr0pooeat(1) of the will (Do qualification) ❑ Penaooel representild e(s) of the det edeffi's ante ❑ Heir -at -law of IntelUte decedew (an quali5atiwa w,idde 30 days folk Ang destb) Given under my/oar bead this ... :�......... of ... 8 e p t e mbe r 19 9 9 HAZEL C. LAMBERT - rextm Kod OF a aoe . �,avRs a >R�aasea ........ m NAM a s+aWusu or ........ Kseaaa or: Vi gin s+ �w., ,,Mena Sale Of.. ............... yof.....�F.!¢.:rick Ww►IC .. Subwraw and "Vain to before 1 me by ......H e z e C . Lambe r t taia .....?tti . ..................... dsy of .....$aPtetitbei..19'99............................ lews agt�Atwc ...' ........................... ............. !............. . t lAlLNOTAr Y FULX FOAM M 1 f 11 4MiTZ1t I PC1M VA. COM 164 .1.134 personally appeared and acknowledged the same before my State and County aforesa My commission expires on the 14th day of July, 1953. Given under my hand this 20th day of April, 1951. DOROTHY G. BARRETT l�o ary u is VIRG IN IA FREDERICIC COUNTY, (SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 21st day of April 1951 at 11:30 A. Y. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed was admitted to record. *--4,o � � IIk .0 #494 C. M. LOCKHART, ET UX TO .. DEED =; GEORGE E. - LAIBERT 3E##+tiE# Y-SE'�'-7FiE�i##inEdi-3iiH� :5'.E-:EiiFitiboc This D E E D made and dated this 21st day of April, 1951, by and between C. Y. Lockhart and Delcie P. Lockhart, his wife, Grantors, parties of thel first part, and George E. Lambert, Grantee, party of the second part ,-------- 'N I T N E S S E T H:- That the said parties of the first part for and in consideration of the cash sum of Ten Dollars and other adequate consider tions deemed valuable in law, the receipt of all of which is hereby acknowledged, do hereby grant, sell and convey, with General Warranty of Title, unto the said party of the second part, his heirs and assigns forever, all of that certain tract of land with the improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging located about three and one half miles East of 'Winchester containiri& FIFTY (50A) ACRSS,�re or less, adjoining the A J land of John F. Carper and others and being the same real estate described and conveyed in the deed dated the 30th., day of April, 1948, to C. M. Lockhart from 'W. D. Humphrey and wife, recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book No. 205, page 305, and the right-of-way described in said afore- mentioned deed is also made a part of this conveyance. Reference may be made to ;said deed and the records therein contained for a further and more particular description of said real estate, which is located in Frederick County, Virginia. The said parties of the first part covenant that they have a good right to convey said real estate to the Grantee; that the same is free from all liens and encumbrances; and that they will grant such further assurances of title as mayl be requisite. REVENUE STAR PS $4.40 CANCELLED State of Virginia, County of Frederick, To -Wit: Witness the following signatures and seals: z C. M. LOCKHART (SEA) DELCIE P. LOCKHART I, Nancy 'N. Glover, a notary public in and for the County of Frederick, in the State of Virginia, do hereby certify that C. M. Lockhart and Delcie' P. Lockhart, his wife, whose names are signed to the foregoing and annexed writing, bear ing date the 21st day of April, 1951, have each personally appeared before me in my Coun /41'7 CX =* aforesaid and acknowledged the same. My .commission expires April 11, 1953. Given under my hand this 21st day of April, 1951. NANCY W. GLOVER lap ary 1=iic VIRG INIA FREDERICK_ COUZiTY, (SCT. This instrument of writing was produced to me on the 21st day of April 1951 at 11:50 A. Y. and with certificate of acknowledgment thereto annexed lwas admitted to record. -..� c%.:ES: i'r:Ez'r,'EdE :c:: 3i :E:Esr':'r,: SEo=SF =9r cB: ,.:r%'r.'E:: o: ��:• #495 ;E GEORGE E. LAA,3ERT, ET UX TO :: DEED OF TRUST .JOSEPH B. NEWLIN, TR. Sc:Ph4"4 )E This , CLERK o a it.C1� OL�h� D E E D OF T R U S T made and dated this 21st day of April, 1951, by and between George E. Lambert and Elsie W. Lambert, his wife, parties of the first part, Joseph B. Newlin, Trustee, party of the second part, and C. Y. Lockha party of the third part,------------ `ff I T N E S S E T H:- That for and in consideration of the cash sum of One Dollar, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the said pa of the first part do hereby grant and convey, with General 'arranty of Title, unto '-h s said Joseph B. Newlin, Trustee, party of the second part, all of that certain tract o 2 _ �0 7 land with the improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging, located about, three and one-half miles East of Winchester, containing F I F T Y (50A) A C R E S, mo ? �_ _ 3 or less, adjoining the land of John F. Carper and others, and being the same real est U 3 = - -onveyed to the said George E. Lambert from C. Mi. Lockhart and wife, dated the 21st.,� of April, 1951, and said deed shall be recorded in advance of this instrument. Refea R C V 7�� ray be made to said deed and the references therein contained for a further and more particular description of said real estate, which is located in Frederick County, Vir a. Iiv TRUST i2VERT1HELESS:- To secure the prompt and full pay- a nent, both principal and interest of a B 0 N D for the principal sum of THREE THOUSAND c ;$3,000.00) DOLLARS, drawn by George E. Lambert and Elsie yf. Lambert, and payable to C. n f. Lockhart, or order. Said bond shall be paid in monthly installments of Fifty ($50.0 e )ollars, plus interest at the rate of six per cent, to be computed and paid monthly on ;he basis of the unpaid balance: The first of said installments shall begin on the 21st • T �° lay of 2vlay, 1951, and subsequent installments to be due and payable on the 21st., day n a L� G� )f each and every month thereafter until the principal and interest has been.paid in fu And to this end to secure the debt evidenced by said bond .n its present form, or in any form it may hereafter assume by renewal or extension, in rhole or in part, by change of parties or otherwise, until said debt is finally and ful )aid and discharged. If default be made in the payment of any part of said debt it any installment of interest thereon, or any fire insurance premium when due, or if t. 2 c� 050002909 Xr- THIS DEED made and dated this 11 `" day ofFebruary, 2005, by and between $GW. INC.. a Virginia corporation, party of the first part, hereinafter called the Grantor, and T&UOR. GRACE, LLC. a Virginia limited liability company, party of the second part, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten ($10.00) Dollars, cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant and convey unto the Grantee, in fee simple absolute, a� with Special Warranty of Title, all of the following described tract or parcel of land: g A All that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situate in Red Bud d Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, containing 24.0924 acres, more 2 2 or less g g portion , and fronting on the west side of Glen Ridge Drive as shown on the �N3N of the plat of survey of Glenmont Village, Section Six, of record in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 698, at Page 384, and more particularly described by survey drawn by Greenway Engineering, dated the 8'` day of February, 2005, and by this reference made a part hereof as if set out in full; AND BEING all of the remainder land conveyed to U BGW, Inc., a Virginia corporation, by Deed dated May 15, 1984, of record in the ci a Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed m .� Book 576, at Page 451. a This conveyance is made subject to all rights of way and restrictions of record affecting the o y subject property. The Grantor hereby covenants that it has 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 it will grant such further assurances of title as may be requisite. x Page 1 of 2 0 • a G'7 Cn The execution of this Deed has been duly authorized by the Directors of the Grantor Corporation and nothing in the Articles of Corporation or Bylaws reserves the power unto the stockholders to convey a part of the corporate real property. r WITNESS the following signature and seal. BGW, INC. STATE OF VIRGINIA, CITY OF 4herel# TER, T WIT: a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesai oerti that William R. Ward, Jr., President of BGW, Inc., a Virginia corporation, whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed, dated the 11 ' day of February, 2005, has personally appeared before me on behalf of BGW, Inc., and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand thi My Commission expires 12163 Tayk r•Orace \ k\Dead . BGW to Taylor -Once wpd �5. I 14 kz i { C.> 4 4 Z ` Page 2 of 2 i DATE: 3 21i20105 COUNT: OF FREDERIN VIRGINIA FAGS: 2- REAL ESTATE TAX SEARCH FA'NENT HISTORY MAP NUMBER: 6E 55 TICKET NO TAX FA'IER DEFT Gn3C T�;X FENnLTf iN?+REST FAs ENsi 13394 Ot12 LAMBERT, HAZEL C RE2002 759.14 7r^.14CR 18731 001 LANEERT, Hy. L C R E 2 C 0 3 7Ju.4' rJ3.';7;i 16731 302 LAMBERT, HAZEL C RE2003 "vc.5d .; nrr, 1932; 001 LAMBERT, HAZEL C RE2004 "-WG.4`-; 19329 002 LAMBERT, HAZEL C RE2004 ^03.48 908.42CR GRAND TC+TA S 43393.03 4.3=�.0"C'n DATE. 3121 2005 COUNTY OF FREDERICK 'JIREINIA PAGE: I REAL ESTATE TAX SEARCH PAYMENT HISTORY MAP NUMBER: 65 A 47-E Cie,rT !^J Tn (Fr1 P1aEx DEFI: nDtnSrDE TAX PENALTY CRE3 T FAYrTr 2200 002 BEN. INC. RE2002 283.65 2H .65CF n 2c9E` n I v0 BEN, Te•r . ^A FHVD3 r 339.4.; �g i.rn . 3J..` 50F. 2292 002 BEN. iNC. RE2003 339.45 334.If5CR i3u _~i SSW, INC. RE2004 339.45 3.:9.45fLR -304 002 E3N. INN. RE2004 339.45 339.45CR € ** GRAND TOTALS € * 1,641.45 1,641.45CR 17.� 0 Deed to Property Verification of Taxes Paid rile #3924/17nw 0 /J5N 11*47 Founded in 1971 ,_., 0 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Senseny Village Final Proffer Statement File No: 3924 Date September 14, 2005 To: FC Plamling From: Evan Wyatt Attn: Mike Ruddy GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Copied Fax: 540-722-9528 Delivery: ❑ Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail ® Courier ❑ Pick Up ❑ Other ❑ Urgent ❑ For Your Review ® As You Requested ❑ Please Comment Message: Hi Mike, Please find attached the final signed and notarized proffer statement for the Senseny Village Rezoning that provides for the information promised during the Board of Supervisors meeting on August 24, 2005. This should complete the outstanding matters associated with this project and allow you to finalize this application. Please contact our office when the final letter of approval is available and we will make arrangement to pick this up. Thank, you for your assistance with this project! Evan Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: Received By: Date: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Finance Department FROM: Pam Deeter, Office Assistant II SUBJECT: Return Of Sign Deposit DATE: August 26, 2005 The amount of $50.00 was deposited in line item #3-010-013030-0007 for the company named below. The company had a deposit for one sign for Rezoning #04-05 for Senseny Village. The company has returned the sign and is therefore entitled to the return of the deposit. You may pay this through the regular bill cycle. Please send a check in the amount of $50.00 to: Taylor Grace LLC 446 Fromans Rd Winchester, VA 22602 RSA/pd g �211ds 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 • DATE y 3 23 NO. RECEIVED FROM 11 Z 5 8 214 ADDRESS 4 s t-(p C4- Uii! a LLARS$ FOR Otis, AMT. F ACC O ONT CASH 7 AMT. PAID Yl CHECK BALANCE ` MONEY 8Y ORDER *Balance Due $ Pd by PLANNING Check 10466.00 # VARIOUS BALANCE DUE INCLUDES PENALTY/INTEREST THRU THE MONTH 3/2005 160001 @@ 1/2005 /BC 1147 )2 00 00 00 00 00 .00 • ter of the T 25 a.us pa IA.US "Urs to 5:00 Pm Peak times, watch lia. Ij TF,pTION :reon are true, full ar✓ oelief. T A X R E C E I P T .fERICK COUNTY es —WILLIAM ORNDOFF, JR ..0. BOX 225 WINCHESTER VA 22604-0225 ZONING APPLICATIONS Ticket #:00013310001 Date 3/24/2005 Register: BCC/BC Trans. #: 40147 Dept # Acct# ZASP Previous Balance $ 10429.00 Principal Being Paid $ 10429.00 Penalty $ Interest $ .00 .00 Amount Paid $ 10429.00 *Balance Due $ .00 Pd by PLANNING BALANCE DUE INCLUDES PENALTY/INTEREST THRU THEcMONTH0466.00 # VARIOUS 3/2005 0 40 Greenway Engineering November 22,2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezming January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 SENSENY VILLAGE PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ# Rural Areas (RA) and Residential Performance (RP) to Residential Performance (RP) with Conditions PROPERTIES: 73.79-acres +/- Tax Parcels 65-((A))49B and 65-((A))-55 RECORD OWNERS: Hazel C. Lambert Taylor Grace, LLC APPLICANT: Taylor Grace, LLC PROJECT NAME: Senseny Village ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: November 22, 2004 REVISION DATE: June 14, 2005 Preliminan Matters Pursuant to Section 15.2-2296 et. seq. of the Code of Virginia, (1950, as amended), (the "Code") and the provisions of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordinance") with respect to conditional zoning, the undersigned applicants hereby proffer that in the event the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia, shall approve Rezoning Application # for the rezoning of 49.70-acres± from the Rural Areas (RA) District to Residential Performance (RP) District, and for the rezoning of 24.09-acres± currently zoned Residential Performance (RP) District to proffered Residential Performance (RP) 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 the said Code and Zoning Ordinance. In the event that such rezoning is not granted, then these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and have no binding effect whatsoever. Upon approval of such rezoning, these proffers shall be binding upon the applicants and their successors and assigns. The subject property, identified as Senseny Village, and more particularly described as the lands owned by Hazel C. Lambert, (the "Owner of the first parcel') being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55 and further described by Will Book 115 at page 1563, and the lands owned by Taylor Grace, LLC, (the "Owner of the second parcel') being all of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B and further described by Instrument #050002909. File #39241EA W 0 0 3,x'! 2 Q In,,,, • Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 A.) Residential Land Use The Applicants hereby proffer to limit the total number of residential units to 285 dwelling units on the combined subject properties of Tax Map Parcels 65-((A))49B and 65-((A))-55. 2. The Applicants hereby proffer to prohibit the development of garden apartments, as defined in Section 165-65L of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Applicants hereby proffer to develop the residential dwelling units in accordance with the following annualized phasing plan. All dwelling units not developed within the specified calendar year shall be carried forward to the ensuing calendar years: CALENDAR YEAR TOTAL BUILDING PERMITS 2005 70 2006 70 2007 70 2008 75 TOTAL 285 B.) Generalized Development Plan and Master Development Plan The Applicants hereby proffer to submit a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of street systems, residential land use areas and open space areas within the Senseny Village Community. The final engineering documents for Senseny Village will be in substantial conformance with the proffered GDP; however, it is recognized that modifications to the final road alignment may occur due to site development constraints such as wetlands or steep slopes. The final engineering documents will ensure that the Senseny Village Community provides for a street extension/connection to Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Glenridge Drive (Route 865), an internal street system that connects to both of the extended streets, and an inter -parcel connection to Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72.. 2. The Generalized Development Plan (GDP) has been designed to provide for single-family detached residential lots to adjoin the Glenmont Village Subdivision and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue on Tax Map Parcel 65- File 03924/EAw E Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29. 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 ((A))-55. Furthermore, the GDP has been designed to provide for open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))49B. 3. A no disturbance easement that is 10-feet in width shall be provided along the rear property line of all single-family detached residential lots that abut Glenmont Village and the existing residential lots along Rossum Lane, Mason Street and Broad Avenue for the purpose of preserving existing woodlands on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-55. The open space adjacent to Glenmont Village — Section 6 shall remain undisturbed between the state street serving the townhouse lots and the existing residential lots within Glenmont Village — Section 6 on Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. 4. A no disturbance easement shall be established within the open space areas that are associated with the natural drainageways to protect the integrity of the waterways and the upland slope areas. The only activity that may occur within this no disturbance easement will include utility installation and a single road crossing to provide access to the southern portion of Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-49B. A Preliminary Master Development Plan will be submitted for the portion of the subject property that is located on Tax Map Parcel 65- ((A))49B to demonstrate how this portion of the subject property would be developed. Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not bind the Board of Supervisors to any action on this rezoning application. Additionally, Board of Supervisor approval of this Preliminary Master Development Plan concept does not eliminate the requirement for a Master Development Plan for the entire 73.79-acres +/- subject site. C.) Transportation The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions that are to be utilized for improvements to the Senseny Road (Route 657) corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike (U.S. Route 7). The contributions, in the amount of $5,000 per single-family detached unit and $3,000 per townhouse unit, total a potential maximum of $1.145 million dollars. The applicants authorize the use of these contributions as matching funds by Frederick County for transportation improvements to these roadways. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. File W39241EAW • JUN 2 d �nr Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 2. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct right turn lanes (and tapers) of eleven -foot width, and to include curb/gutter, on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) intersections, within the existing Senseny Road right-of- way. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 3. The applicants hereby proffer to design and construct improvements to Rossum Lane (Route 736), to consist of a VDOT standard pavement section of thirty-six feet from face -of -curb, and to include curb/gutter, street lights and storm sewer, within the existing Rossum Lane right- of-way. Furthermore, traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the Rossum Lane improvement project. The construction of these improvements shall occur prior to the issuance of the first building permit, but will not restrict site grading and infrastructure installation on the subject properties. 4. The applicants hereby proffer to design the internal street system to provide two means of access to Senseny Road via both Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) for all residential lots. Traffic calming measures will be considered during the design of the internal street system connections to Rossum Lane, Glenridge Drive, and Tax Map Parcel 65-((A))-72 if desired by VDOT. 5. The applicants hereby proffer to provide for a right-of-way dedication for the future Route 37 Eastern Bypass as identified on the proffered GDP. This right-of-way dedication shall be provided to Frederick County at no cost within 90 days after receiving written request from Frederick County that the right-of-way is needed. D.) Monetary Contributions The applicants hereby proffer monetary contributions in the amount of $10,000.00 for each detached single-family dwelling unit, and $8,000.00 for each townhouse dwelling unit, to mitigate impacts to capital facilities as identified in the Frederick County Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model — Output Module prepared by the Frederick County Planning Department on November 19, 2004. This monetary contribution shall be provided to Frederick County at the time of building permit issuance for each dwelling unit. File N3924/EAW J�,� 2 p v6 CJ Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezming January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 E.) Community Trash Collection The Applicants hereby proffer to provide commercial trash pickup and waste removal service to all residential land uses within the Senseny Village community. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall be established by deed covenant and shall be assigned to the Senseny Village Homeowners Association ("HOA") or sub -association at such time as identified in the legal documents setting forth the guidelines for the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association. The commercial trash pickup and waste removal service shall remain in effect and be the responsibility of the Senseny Village HOA or sub -association until such a time that this service is provided by Frederick County or other municipal providers. File A3924/EAW 0 Z �3 T" crn 0 • Grcenway Engineering November 22,2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 F.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully Submitted: Haze �C. _Lambert Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/Countyof -rtjd / 11 To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20�113 by i Notary Public My Commission Expires I A /A I 5 File M3924/EA W • Greenway Engineering November 22, 2004; December 29, 2004 Senseny Village Rezoning January 17, 2005; February 24, 2005 March 17, 2005; April 14, 2005 June 14, 2005 F.) Signatures The conditions proffered above shall be binding upon the assigns and successors in the interest of the Applicants who constitute the owners of the Property. In the event the Frederick County Board of Supervisors grants this rezoning and accepts the conditions, the proffered foregoing conditions shall apply to the land rezoned in addition to other requirements set forth in the Frederick County Code. Respectfully 0 Denver Quinnelly, MarlagepMember �0-15 Date Commonwealth of Virginia, City/County of f�rs dR (1 Lis To Wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I t. day of J1`A k-0— 200,S- by NAP - My Commission Expires 3()--0L9 Notary Publi File 93924/EAw • February 28, 2005 Mr. Andy Conlan Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Re: Preliminary Comments — Senseny Village Rezoning Application. Dear Andy: Thank you for forwarding to this office the Senseny Village rezoning application materials for our continued review. The TIA for this project was received on February 15, 2005 and the latest version of the proffer statement which recognizes the recent change in ownership of the property and updated transportation commitments was received via e- mail on February 24, 2005. The following letter is offered to assist you as you continue to address the issues associated with this rezoning application. As customary, it is anticipated that these issues will be fully addressed through revisions to the application prior to its consideration by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 1) Preliminary Matters a) The Code of Virginia, Section 15.2-2204.C. requires that the CEO of the adjacent locality is notified if the property is within 1/2 mile of the boundary of the adjoining locality. Please demonstrate if this provision of the State Code is applicable with this application. 2) Impact Analysis and Proffer Statement a) The introduction to the project in the impact statement identifies a specific mix of housing types (145 single family detached and 140 townhouse units). Such a mix has not been proffered by the applicant and should be removed from the discussion. Alternately, the applicant could specify the mix of housing types in the proffer statement. 0 E Page 2 Mr. Andy Conlan Re: Preliminary Comments — Senseny Village Rezoning Application February 28, 2005 b) It is more appropriate, and indeed necessary, to identify and address the environmental features that exist on this site as part of the rezoning exercise. Areas with environmental constraints may exist on the property that warrant particular attention and should be a consideration of the rezoning application. In particular, there appears to areas with critical slope and drainage issues on the property. c) The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Plan should be considered when discussing this application. A preliminary review of this element of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that Route 37 is a consideration with this application. I have included a copy of the Route 37 East Corridor Study Plans in the vicinity of this project for your information and use. d) Access to this property is described to be via Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle and Glenridge Drive. Detail should be provided with the rezoning application regarding the existing conditions and cross section of these existing neighborhood streets. It should be demonstrated that sufficient right-of-way exists to accommodate the additional traffic volumes and any improvements necessary to achieve an appropriate typical section. The impacts to the property owners who reside along Rossum Lane, Twinbrook Circle, and Glenridge Drive should also be addressed in this application. e) The Senseny Village application is adjacent to several developed subdivisions and other undeveloped properties. Opportunities for additional inter -parcel connectivity should be evaluated and pursued with this application. In particular, to the property to the southwest. Residential development of this intensity requires pedestrian accommodations. Interparcel pedestrian connectivity should also be a consideration of this application. f) The TIA indicates that the Senseny Road/Twinbrook Circle intersection will not maintain an acceptable level of service during build out conditions. Please ensure that a solution is provided to achieve an acceptable level of service at this location. It should be demonstrated that sufficient right-of-way is available to implement this solution. g) The application identifies a fiscal contribution to offset identified road improvements associated with this project. It is important to recognize in the application that based upon the open mix (not proffered) of residential uses proposed in the application, 285 single family attached units would be permitted. This would generate $855,000 as opposed to the $1,145,000 identified in the impact statement and proffer statement. 9 Page 3 Mr. Andy Conlan Re: Preliminary Comments — Senseny Village Rezoning Application February 28, 2005 h) The applicant has proffered to fund or implement several transportation improvements. It would be appropriate to further detail the scope of the specific improvements, both immediate and future, to provide certainty in the desirability and function of the improvements. It would appear as though a coordinated and committed approach would be most beneficial and eliminate any future confusion regarding the implementation of the transportation program. i) Consistent with County policy, it would be appropriate to insure that any proffered transportation improvements associated with the application are provided at the beginning of the project. Any monetary contribution should be provided prior to the onset of the project and not at the time of individual building permit issuance. j) Water and wastewater evaluations provided in the impact statement should be viewed in relationship to other previously approved projects within the County. A combined and updated figure for water resources and wastewater capacity would be beneficial when determining the adequacy of the capacity and resources. k) Recent rezoning applications have proffered that a private refuse collection service will be used to collect the solid waste generated by their particular project. It would be desirable for this application to consider such an approach. This is beneficial as it potentially reduces the individual usage of the County's convenience sites. Reference to the number of single family attached units in the Solid Waste Disposal section should be removed unless the applicant is willing to proffer a specific mix of residential uses. 1) The impacts to community facilities were evaluated using the County's fiscal impact model and were based upon a specific mix of residential uses requested by the applicant. The County will provide an updated output based upon a worst case scenario should the mix of uses not be secured within the proffer statement. It would also be desirable to have the application provide a break down of the proffered amount based on the public entities receiving the funds. Please feel free to contact me at any time regarding the above comments or the application in general. I look forward to continuing our participation in the review of this application. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director ffu# 7116110l GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 Founded in 1971 T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Senseny Village -Master Development Plan File No: 3924 Date June 3. 2005 To: FC Planning From: Evan Wyatt/dlm Attn: Mike Ruddy GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Copied Fax: 540-722-9528 Delivery: ❑ Fed Ex ❑ U.S. Mail ❑ Other ❑ Urgent ® For Your Review ® Courier ❑ As You Requested Message: Mike, Attached are 2 copies of the Master Development Plan Exhibit. Call with any questions or need for additional copies. Hand Delivery and Pick Ups Only: Received By: Date: ❑ Pick Up ❑ Please Comment JUN 3 M5 • et\ GREENWAY ENGINEERING 1*47 151 Windy Hill Lane =uurulal in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Senseny Villa File No: 3924 Date June 16. 2005 - Revised Proffer Statement To: FC Planning From: Evan Wyatt Attn: Mike Ruddy GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Copied Fax: 540-722-9528 ❑ Urgent ® For Your Review ❑ As You Requested ® Please Comment Message: Hi Mike, Please find attached a copy of the revised proffer statement for the Senseny Village Rezoning that reflects the issues we discussed. I have also provided a copy that shows the new language in bold/italic text to make your review easier. We have forwarded the revised proffers to the property owners for signature and will submit them to you once they are received. Thank you, Evan Greenway Engineering Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 www.greenwayeng.com E in GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Senseny Villa File No: 3924 Date June 17, 2005 To: FC Planning From: Evan Wyatt Attn: Mike Ruddy GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Copied Fax: 540-722-9528 ❑ Urgent ❑ For Your Review ® As You Requested ❑ Please Comment Message: Hi Mike, Please find attached the revised proffer statement for the Seseny Village Rezoning with original owner and notary signatures. This revised proffer provides for all items that we discussed during our meeting yesterday. I will provide you with 69 color copies of the new GDP and any revisions to the Impact Statement when I return after next week. Thanks again for your assistance with this project. Please contact me if you any additional information regarding this matter. Thanks! Evan Greenway Engineering Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 www.greenwayeng.com JUN 2 0 2005 1 • • Mr. Andy Conlon Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 RE: Senseny Village Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Mr. Conlon: January 12, 2005 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/678-0682 We have completed our review of the application related to the proposed rezoning of property referred to as Senseny Village. It is our understanding that the proposed project will include the incorporation of an 18.6 acre parcel currently zoned RP and 50 acres currently zoned RA. The 50 acres is currently accessed fi-om Rossum Lane; whereas, access to the 18.6 acre parcel is limited to a dedicated easement off of Glenridge Drive. The 18.6 acre parcel is bisected by an unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek and is characterized by incised drainage swales and steep slopes. Road constriction within this parcel will be difficult especially at the stream crossing and within the steep sloped areas. Also, the 100- year flood plain and existing wetlands will have a significant impact on construction within this parcel. Based on our review of the impact analysis and proffer statement, we offer the following Specific comments: 1) The introduction of the impact analysis indicates that the development will consist of 285 residential units with a build -out date of 2008. This date conflicts with the date of 2010 referenced under transportation discussions. This conflict needs to be resolved. 2) Refer to access under site suitability. As previously indicated, access is proposed via a platted inter parcel connection located on Glenridge Drive. Because of the existing topography and associated drainage features, this point of ingress -egress will be di1FIClllt to construct. 3) Under Flood Plains, the analysis indicates that the subject site is located outside the 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Senseny Village Rezoning Comments Page 2 January 12, 2005 100-year flood plain. This statement may be true for the Opequon Creek; however, it is not applicable for the flood plain associated with the unnamed tributary which bisects the 18.6 acre parcel. The discussion of the flood plain issue Should be revised to reflect the actual 100-year flood plains associated with the properties in question. 4) The discussion of impacts on wetlands only identifies one (1) manmade impoundment which will be drained and filled to accommodate development. Our site visit in December, 2004 revealed many more areas which we believe could be classified as wetlands. There was evidence at the time of our site visit that attempts had been made to delineate the wetland areas. If disturbed during development, these areas should be remediated in accordance with the guidelines imposed by the U. S. Corps of Engineers and the Department of Environmental Quality. 5) Under steep slopes, the analysis concluded that there are no steep slopes on the subject site. Based on our review of the topographic surveys furnished with the application, we conclude that there are numerous areas where the steep slope requirement applies. These areas can easily be delineated and will have a significant impact on development especially on that portion of the 18.6 acre parcel located on the south side of the unnamed tributary to the Opequon Creek. 6) Under transportation, the discussion indicates that a traffic impact analysis (T/A) was included as a component of the application package. A copy of the T/A was not included in the application provided for our review. In particular, we are concerned about the impact of the development on Glenridge Drive as well as the other major roads which access the proposed sites. 7) The discussion of sewage conveyance and treatment references the Parkins Mill Wastewater Treatment Facility as the destination for the final treatment. This reference is incorrect. To our knowledge, the sewage flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility. You will need to coordinate the available capacity with the Sanitation Authority to determine if the existing conditions will accommodate the proposed development. We will not approve a master development plan until we receive confirmation from the Sanitation Authority verifying the available capacity. 8) The impact on solid waste facilities was limited to the availability of disposal capacity at the landfill and the reference to providing dumpsters for the townhouses. There was no mention about refuse collection for the single family dwellings. Our closest solid waste convenience site is located behind the Greenwood Fire Hall. This site has been inundated by the influx of existing •- • Senseny Village Rezoning Continents Page 3 January 12, 2005 development. Any further development would exacerbate the problem unless the applicant or subsequent developer would be willing to upgrade the existing convenience site or provide curbside trash pickup which would negate the need for the upgrade. The discussion of solid waste has overlooked a very important issue which is the location of the proposed development relative to the existing landfill. The existing landfill is located less than one-fourth of a mile from the southern most boundary of the proposed development. Based on the existing site elevations compared to the future vertical expansion elevations at the landfill, it is apparent that the residential development will have a clear view of the landfill unless all of the existing trees can be saved. Indicate how the applicant or developer plans to inform the prospective home buyers of this future condition prior to purchase. We Will insure that this information is provided as part of our building permitting process. 9) Under the proffer statement (B.4), the applicant proffers to design the internal street system to provide two (2) means of access to Senseny Road. Indicate if this statement also implies the construction of any improvements required to upgrade Twinbrook Circle and Glenridge Drive. I can be reached at 665-564; if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. HES/rls / cc: Planning and Development ✓ file C':\Corel\WorJPerfect\Rhonda\senscnpvillrezeow.��pd Sincerely, J Harvey E. Strawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works 1 3 2005 t _ __ REC R!CK COUNTY VROPMENT • /t\ GREENWAY ENGINEERING \47 151 Windy Hill Lane Founded m 19 ( Winchester, Virginia 22602 30-. D FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPPA T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Senseny Vill File No: 3924 Date 11 /29/04 To: FC Planning Attn: Mike Ruddy Copied From: Andy Conlon/ad GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 ❑ Uraent ❑ For Your Review ElAs You Requested Z Please Comment Message: Mike. Please find attached one copy of the following. Rezoning ADnlication Impact Statement Exhibits Traffic Impact Analysis Request for Comments Thank you for your assistance, please call with any questions or need for additional information Greenway Engineering Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 www.-reenwayen-.com • Rezoning Comments Planning Department Mail to: Department of Planning and Development Attn: County Planner 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5651 E C E * E 0 Pl (: "MENT Hand deliver to: 107 N. Kent Street Fourth Floor Winchester, VA (540) 665-5651 Applicant: Please fill outthe information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Planning Department with this review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. SENSENY VILLAGE REZONING (Greenway File#3924) Applicant's Name: Greenway Engineering Telephone: (540) 662-4185 Attn.: Andy Conlon, AICP Mailing Address: 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Location of property: South of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). Current zoning: RA & RP Zoning requested: RP Acreage: 68.6 Planning Department Comments: Superintendent's Signature & Date: Notice to [.1 6`C 3}S- Return Ey 2 g3 5 gg ¢t; j y y� a �11 1 " 1 .4 � � ml R to n This f o-PII: to t Be :}prifia.ant • Founded in 1971 GREENWAY ENGINEERING 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, Virginia 22602 DErrowE FEB 1 5 2005 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT T R A N S M I T T A L Project Name: Senseny Vill File No: 3924 Date 2/ 15/05 To: FC Planning Attn: Mike Ruddy Copied Rezon From: Andy Conlon GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Fax: 540-722-9528 ❑ Urgent ❑ For Your Review ❑ As You Requested ® Please Comment Message: Mike, Please find attached one copy of the following_ Traffic Impact Analysis Thank you for your assistance, please call with any questions or need for additional information. Greenway Engineering Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 www.greenwayeng.com 0 • et\ GREENWAY ENGINEERING %47 151 Windy Hill Lane Fow:c4•ti in 1971 Winchester, Virginia 22602 T RAN SMITTAL Project Name: File No: Date ❑ Urgent 3924 March 23.2005 MAR 2 3 W To: FC Planning From: Evan Wyatt/d1m Attn: Mike Ruddy GREENWAY ENGINEERING Phone: 540-662-4185 Copied Fax: 540-722-9528 ❑ For Your Review ❑ As You Requested ❑ Please Comment Message: Mike, Attached is the following; for the above rezoning project: -Signed Rezoning application -Application fee check for $10,429.00 -Zoning and Location Map (69 copies) -Future Rt 37 Location Man -Review Agency Comments -Signed/notarized Special Limited Power of Attorney forms -Signed/notarized Proffer Statement -Impact Analysis Statement -Deed to proyerty -Verification of taxes paid -Hazel Lambert Boundary Survey Plat (69 copies) -Traffic Impact Analysis (1 spiral bound copy and 1 unbound cony) -FC Planning, comment sheet Thank you for your assistanceCall with any questions or need for additional copies or Greenway Engineering Telephone 540-662-4185 FAX 540-722-9528 www.greenwayeng.com Document Approval Form MAR 2 3 2M5 PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DOCUMENT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE INITIAL AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND TIME OF YOUR APPROVAL. IF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT MEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE PROVIDE COMMENTS AS TO WHA T YO U WO ULD LIKE TO HA VE COMPLETED. IlVITIALS Candice David Mark Susan SAC Eric COMMENTS: DATE & TIME 3 Z3 p5 1: ZS Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Tirne):f✓` 0 Page 1 of 1 Eric Lawrence From: Jeremy Tweedie Utweedie@greenwayeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 3:12 PM To: Eric Lawrence (E-mail) Cc: Mark D. Smith; dave@morlyn.net; Judy Chow Subject: RE: Senseny Village - Rossum Lane Eric, This email is to confirm Greenway's attendance for Monday's on -site meeting. Thank you Jeremy Tweedie -----Original Message ----- From: Eric Lawrence[ma iIto: elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:02 PM To: Mark D. Smith Cc: Alexander, Scott; 'Ingram, Lloyd'; 'John Bishop' Subject: Senseny Village - Rossum Lane Mark - As noted in a voice mail left for you earlier today, VDOT and Planning staff will be meeting on site (Rossum Lane) on Monday, October 2 @ 9am to evaluate the most appropriate road improvements to implement the Senseny Village project while recognizing the existing residences. We request that Greenway Engineering and the developer participate in this site meeting in an effort to reach consensus on the improvement. The benefits of the site meeting is that all involved could clearly understand/visualize the impacts the road improvement may have on the adjacent residents. Proximity to homes and existing parking availability will be considered. We would anticipate gaining group consensus on the number and width of lanes necessary to offer safe access for the new project as well as the existing residents. Please confirm your or your representative's attendance at this site meeting. Thanks -Eric Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) 9/26/2006 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Ranners. Landscape Architects. PA208 Church Street, SE,SE,Leesburg, Virginia 20175 T 703.777.3616 H F 703.777.3725 November 29, 2004 MAR 2 3 2005 I LJ I I Ll OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lambert -Ward Property to be located along the south side of Senseny Road (Route 657), east of Greenwood Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of 285 residential units (145 single-family detached and 140 townhouse) with access to be provided along Senseny Road via Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle, respectively. The development is to be built -out in a single transportation phase by the year 2010. PHR+A has provided Figure 1 to illustrate the location of Lambert -Ward Property with respect to the surrounding roadway network. IMethodology I P u 1 The traffic impacts accompanying the Lambert -Ward Property development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Lambert -Ward Property development, • Distribution and assigmnent of the Lambert -Ward Property generated trips onto the study area roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing and future conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections: Senseny Road/Greenwood Road, Senseny Road/Rossum Lane and Senseny Road/Twinbrook Circle in Frederick County, Virginia. hi order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along the study area roadway links, a conservative "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10% was assumed. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peals hour HCS-2000 levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property PhRA November 33 3004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 1 No Scale Cvron Ct Figure 1 PHRA a� Greenwood He gets gh 1 - •iJ 1 •'. fr Burning Knods •+n SITE Vicinity Map - Lambert -Ward Property A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 2 No Scale b 0 0 a %— 48(72) 4-- 192 144 b (179)75 1r 657 ) i E S ellsen o (162)73 �► (49)39 �% 0j2)IOuad S(13 p) (10) 657 656 Se11Se/1 Y Ro,7d tee. G� 657 �c o y � U .O SITE 657 [ (9(33)10 �2(20154) O)zoo ) (38)14 �I AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) A Average Daily1 Figure 2 Existing ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 R+A Project Number: 13303-1-0 TT TT Page 3 No Scale 'Signalized o Intersection * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement _R T-D+ A AM Peak hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service '��LN Page A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 PHProject Number: 13 age-4 4 7 A n L� C� Ll 1 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road using a conservative growth rate of five percent (5%) per year through Year 2010. Additionally, PIIR+A utilized the following reports to incorporate trips associated with specific "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed site: Tra ac Impact Analysis of Fieldstone, by PHR+A, dated January 16, 2004 and A Traff c Impact Anal sy is of Butcher Property, by PHR+A, dated September 8, 2004. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. ' Table 1 2010 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PlVl Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Butcher Property 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Red -Bud Run 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Fieldstone 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Miss Other Developments along Clianning Drive* 210 Single -Family Detached 1,164 units 206 618 824 615 361 976 11,640 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 323 739 1,063 1,004 753 1,757 20,416 * Includes Giles Farm, loll Brothers, Abrams' Pointe, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peals hour HCS-2000 levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 5 No Scale N � � ^ ; _ 66(101) 1 4�551(475) 1250(247)103(604)220(66)52 r AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 4 2010 Background ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PH� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 1333303-1-0 Page 6 No Scale 'signalized o Intersection LOS=B(C) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peale Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service R+A A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property PHNovember 33 2004 Project Number: 13303-I-0 Page 7 1 PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION The Lambert -Ward Property is to include a total of 285 residential units with 145 as single-family detached and 140 as townhouses. The number of trips entering and exiting the site were determined using the 7"' Edition of Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip GeJlercation Report. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Lambert -Ward Property. Table 2 Lambert -Ward Property Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour Pitil Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 145 units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 ToNvnhMsc/Condo 140 units 11 56 68 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 I TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Lambert -Ward Property trips (Table 2) through the study ' area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lambert -Ward Property assigned trips (Figures 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peals hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peals hour HCS-2000 levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. ' PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property R+A November 33 2004 Project Number: 13303-I-0 Page 8 No Scale 4- Figure 6 Trim Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property PHRA November 33 2004 Project Number: l3303-1-0 Page 9 No Scale AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property NovPH Project NU m er: 2 3 2004 Project Number: 13303-I-0 Page 10 No Scale +--o Se 1Sc�ty R OS MZ(•?27 R230( 4,1 (914 1)28 6E AM Peak Hour(PM Peak ]Hour) I Figure 8 2010 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PH ��� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Properly November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 11 No Scale 4- / LOS=B( ,I 10B. \ / r�� * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29,33 2004 R+A Project Number: 13303-1-0 PH Page 12 1 u n 1 it I 1 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lambert -Ward Property are acceptable and manageable. All intersections, assuming the addition of an eastbound right - turn lane at the intersection of Senseny Road/Twinbrook Circle, will maintain levels of service of "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The right -turn lane at the intersection of Senseny Road/ Twinbrook Circle would be designed per the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 13 u 1 I APPENDIX G 1 u HCS-2000 Worksheets I fl ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal ' IIighway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and ' are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. ' UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. Ill operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability ' and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks ' (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/veh A <5 B >5 and <_10 C >10 and <_20 D >20 and <_30 E >30 and <_45 F >45 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - AWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver is required to stop, the judgment as to whether to proceed ' into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) approaches. Therefore, a driver proceeds only after determining that there are no vehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. ' The analysis takes into account the problem of determining, under capacity conditions for a given approach, the factors that influence the rate at which vehicles can depart successfully from the STOP line. Traffic at other- approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). In the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for AWSC intersections is deterinined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a ' vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for AWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/veh A <5 B >5 and <_ 10 C > 10 and _<20 D >20 and _<30 E >30 and _<45 ' r >45 L� j Ci 11 1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that inust use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optional' signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the fill range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service B C D F Stopped Delay per Vehicle (sec) <_10.0 >10.0 and <_20.0 >20.0 and _<35.0 >35.0 and <_55.0 >55.0 and <_80.0 >80.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high We ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle, This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high We ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high We ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. O TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year 657 & Rossum Lane 94 Existing Conditions Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 107 6 1 95 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 112 6 1 100 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 17 0 10 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h 17 0 10 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 1 27 Capacity, cm (vph) 1470 824 v/c ratio 0.00 0.03 Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.10 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 9.5 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17CE.tmp 11/9/2004 ay SAC Page 2 of 2 LOS A A Approach delay -- -- 9.5 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- A HCS2000iM Copyright C) 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17CE.tmp 11/9/2004 age TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 11/2/2004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year 657 & Rossum Lane )4 Existina Conditions Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 112 13 10 180 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h 0 117 13 10 189 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- "" 2 -- -' Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 14 0 4 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 14 0 4 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 10 18 Capacity, cm (vph) 1455 702 v/c ratio 0.01 0.03 Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 10.3 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyap ally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17D1.tmp 11/9/2004 I LOS A B Approach delay -- -- 10.3 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- B HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17DLtmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 75 73 39 9 192 48 33 53 10 59 79 120 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G p 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G= G= G= G= 39.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= I Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 88.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 79 118 9 253 35 67 62 209 Lane group capacity, c 459 783 562 800 499 805 589 751 v/c ratio, X 0.17 10.15 0.02 10.32 10.07 0.08 1 0.11 0.28 0.44 0.44 1 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 filc:HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k 17DCAmp ed. Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 14.8 14.6 13.7 15.9 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 14.9 14.7 13.8 16.1 14.1 14.2 14.4 15.8 Lane group LOS B B B B B B B B Approach delay 14.8 16.0 14.2 15.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection delay 15.3 X c = 0.30 Intersection LOS B HCS 000TM Copyright © 2000 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e File://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Scttings\Temp\s2k17DC.tmp 11/9/2004 age 1 HCS2000'" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 179 162 49 37 144 72 75 107 43 52 142 164 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, Nm Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G= G= G= G= 41.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 1 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 188 223 39 228 79 158 55 322 Lane group capacity, c 467 779 471 767 414 812 557 780 v/c ratio, X 0.40 0.29 0.08 0.30 0.19 0.19 0.10 0.41 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k17E7.tmp 11/9/2004 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 17.5 16.5 15.0 16.6 14.6 14.6 14.0 16.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 18.1 16.7 15.1 16.8 14.8 14.8 14.0 16.8 Lane group LOS B B B B B B B B Approach delay 17.3 16.6 14.8 16.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection delay 16.4 Xc = 0.41 Intersection LOS B IICS2000TIt Copyright OO 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k17E7.tmp 11/9/2004 age TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal st PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year 657 & Twinbrook Circle 94 Existing Conditions Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 10 100 14 2 77 8 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 10 105 14 2 81 8 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration I LTR LT R U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 22 1 15 15 1 19 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 23 1 15 15 1 20 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 10 2 39 36 Capacity, cm (vph) 1506 1469 778 838 v/c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.04 Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.00 0.16 0.13 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 7.5 9.9 9.5 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17EA.tmp 11/9/2004 LOS ' Approach de (s/veh) Approach LC ' HCS2000""' 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kl7EA.tmp 11/9/2004 wo ay op on ro age 1 of 2 Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kl7ED.tmp 11/9/2004 Pagel -of 2 LOS A A 8 A Approach delay -- 12.2 9.6 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- 8 A HCS 2000T M Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kt7ED.tmp 11/9/2004 age HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 122 156 152 53 128 294 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 29.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 128 164 160 24 374 Lane group capacity, c 452 1056 580 492 539 v/c ratio, X 0.28 0.16 0.28 0.05 0.69 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.32 Uniform delay, di 26.9 9.3 23.4 21.7 26.6 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k17F8.tmp 11/9/2004 11 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 3.8 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 27.2 9.3 23.6 21.7 30.5 Lane group LOS C A C C C Approach delay 17.2 23.4 30.5 Approach LOS B C C Intersection delay 24.4 Xc = 0.43 Intersection LOS C IHCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e I 1 Filc://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyspally\Local°/,20Settings\Temp\s2k17F8.tmp 11/9/2004 epur I age HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 387 170 265 168 122 282 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 27.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 407 179 279 145 354 Lane group capacity, c 492 1097 580 492 502 v/c ratio, X 0.83 10.16 0.48 0.29 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.59 0.31 0.31 0.30 Uniform delay, d, 30.5 8.4 25.1 23.5 28.0 R 9 I E 1 1 0 I file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1803.tmp 11/9/2004. e2of2 ' Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 Incremental delay, d2 11.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 4.5 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 41.7 8.5 25.7 23.8 32.4 Lane group LOS D A C C C Approach delay 31.5 25.1 32.4 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 29.8 Xc = 0.67 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T"" Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1803.tmp 11/9/2004 wo ay op uontroi I 11 11 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A HI Ltil secuui i ML 001 Cc rcvssum Lane Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Con Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 276 8 1 182 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 290 8 1 191 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 23 0 13 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 24 0 13 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 1 37 Capacity, cm (vph) 1263 598 v/c ratio 0.00 0.06 Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.20 PL� Ifile://C:\DocLim ents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 age two-way top C,ontt of Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 11.4 LOS A e Approach delay (s/veh) 11.4 pproach LOS -- -- 8 HCS2000TM Copyright (0 2003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 I LI Li I 1 E TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A inLersecaon rcrdoi & rcossum Lane Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year Background Con ditions Con Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 275 17 13 414 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 289 17 13 435 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 19 0 5 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 20 0 5 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 13 25 Capacity, cm (vph) 1255 411 v/c ratio 0.01 0.06 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.19 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u21c1809.tmp 11/9/2004 wo ay op uontroi I 1 I I� 1 Control Delay s/veh) 7.9 14.3 LOS A 8 Approach delay (s/veh) -- 14.3 pproach LOS -- -- e HCS3000TNt Copyright 02003 University of Florida, All Rights Rese Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 i I 1 iL 1 1 11 I [i HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 103 1220 52 1 12 551 66 44 74 13 83 115 167 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G p 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 108 287 13 649 46 92 87 297 Lane group capacity, c 281 1005 573 1018 277 607 433 566 v/c ratio, X ao. 38 0.29 0.02 0.64 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.52 Ifile://C:\DOCLnllents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1814.tmp 11/9/2004 L I 1 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 11.3 10.6 9.0 13.8 21.2 21.1 21.4 24.2 Progression factor, PF 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 Incremental delay, d2 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.1 1 0.2 0.9 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 12.2 110.7 19.0 115.1 1 21.5 21.2 21.7 25.1 Lane group LOS B B A I B C C C C Approach delay 11.1 15.0 21.3 24.4 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 16.8 X c = 0.60 Intersection LOS B IHCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 1 1 1 1 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1814.tmp 11/9/2004 11 iJ I �1 L I 1 I HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 247 1604 66 1 50 475 101 101 153 58 73 196 224 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 19 0 30 0 17 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 I I 3.2 3.2 F 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 14.0 G= 36.0 G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= I Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 260 685 53 575 106 204 77 371 Lane group capacity, c 374 1024 255 730 217 601 356 579 v/c ratio, X 0.70 10.67 1 0.21 0.79 1 0.49 0.34 0.22 0.64 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Scttings\Temp\s2k181FArnp 11/9/2004 n Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.40 1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 16.5 14.1 17.7 23.7 23.9 22.6 21.6 25.4 Progression factor, PF 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.26 0.24 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 Incremental delay, d2 5.5 1.7 0.4 5.8 1.7 0.3 0.3 2.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 22.1 15.8 18.1 29.4 25.6 22.9 21.9 27.8 Lane group LOS C 8 8 C C C C C Approach delay 17.6 28.5 23.8 26.8 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection delay 23.1 X� = 0.81 Intersection LOS C IHCS2000711 Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e d I I 1 1 IP Ifile://C:\Docume►its%20and%2OScttings\Boyapally\Local%2OScttings\Temp\s2k181.li.tmp 11/9/2004 1 I 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Isite Information nalyst PHR+A IIILUI5ClaIUII rU OU/ Oa 1 WIIUJ/uuti LIII(Au Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Conditions Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 13 267 19 3 158 11 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 13 281 20 3 166 11 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 29 1 20 20 1 25 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 30 1 21 21 1 26 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 13 3 52 48 Capacity, cm (vph) 1399 1260 541 622 v/c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.08 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.01 0.32 0.25 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settiiigs\Temp\u2k1822.tmp 11/9/2004 Contr, ' LOS pprc (s/veP pprc HCS2001 r 1 i 1 1 1 1 Ifile: //C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Bo yap ally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u21c1822.tmp 11/9/2004 L 11 Ci 11 �I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A II IICI SCGIIVII rU uu/ C< I W1110fuuK Ul/GIC Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Conditions Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 44 246 51 27 379 38 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 46 258 53 28 398 40 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 43 1 5 4 1 32 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h 45 1 5 4 1 33 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 46 28 51 38 Capacity, cm (vph) 1122 1249 261 549 v/c ratio 0.04 0.02 0.20 0.07 Queue length (95%) 0.13 0.07 0.71 0.22 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 Control Delay s/veh 8.3 7.9 22.1 12.0 LOS A A C 8 Approach delay (s/veh ) 22.1 12.0 Approach LOS -- -- C 8 IICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d Li I ri Idle://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 �l L�l I I n 11 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 122 181 242 1 81 136 294 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2,0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 1 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 28,0 G= G= G= 29.0 G= G= I G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= I Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 128 191 255 54 382 Lane group capacity, c 452 1056 580 492 539 v/c ratio, X 0.28 10.18 0.44 0.11 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.32 Uniform delay, di 26.9 9.4 24.7 22.1 26.8 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1830.tmp 11/9/2004 I I I Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 27.2 9.5 125.3 22.2 31.1 Lane group LOS C A C C C Approach delay 16.6 24.7 31.1 Approach LOS 8 C C Intersection delay 24.6 XC = 0.49 Intersection LOS C IHCS2000TM Copyright OO 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e f] 1 f� 11 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s21c1830.tmp 11/9/2004 11 1 11 I fl 1 HCS2000'm DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 387 266 318 1185 152 282 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 12.0 1 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= 25.0 G= G= I G= 29.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 407 280 335 163 386 Lane group capacity, c 511 1056 518 440 542 v/c ratio, X 0.80 0.27 0.65 10.37 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.29 0.57 0.28 0.28 0.32 Uniform delay, di 29.6 9.9 28.6 26.2 26.8 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k183B.tmp 11/9/2004 �1 1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.34 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.28 Incremental delay, d2 8.6 0.1 2.8 0.5 4.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 38.2 10.1 31.4 26.7 31.2 Lane group LOS D 8 C C C Approach delay 26.7 29.9 31.2 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 28.8 Xc = 0.72 Intersection LOS C IHCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 11 11 it file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s21c183B.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Cile://C:Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k183E.tmp 11/9/2004 age LOS A B Approach delay 14.0 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- B HCS2000T"4 Copyright © 2003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapatly\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k183E.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Rt 657 & Rossum Lane Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 327 91 13 443 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 344 95 13 466 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 60 0 5 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 63 0 5 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 13 68 Capacity, cm (vph) 1121 325 v/c ratio 0.01 0.21 Queue length (95%) 0.04 0.78 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 19.0 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1841.tmp 11/9/2004 age 2 wo ay mop uontrol LOS A C Approach delay (s/veh) 19.0 Approach LOS -- -- C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d r file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1841.tmp 11/9/2004 rvvo�w ay�zop "'onrroi Page 1 o.t 2' TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY neral Information ISite Information nal st PHR+A Intersection Rt 657 & Twinbrook Circle enc /Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction to Performed 111212004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions nal sis Time Period AM Peak Hour ject Description Lambert Ward Property st/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 hicce Volumes and Adjustments or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lume (veh/h) 13 267 32 9 158 11 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 13 281 1 33 9 16 1 11 portion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 -- -- 2 -- -- dian type Undivided I " Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 nfiguration LTR LT R stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 78 1 41 20 1 25 I[Eak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 11surly Flow Rate (veh/h) 82 1 43 21 1 26 Proportion of heavy Aicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 rcent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N torage 0 0 Channelized? 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 llanes onfiguration I I LTR I LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service proach EB WB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR me, v (vph) Ipacity, 13 9 126 48 cm (vph) 1399 1246 512 592 ratio 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.08 11 eue length (95%) 0.03 0.02 0.96 0.26 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.9 14.3 11.6 S A A B B I://C:\DoeLl111ents%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%20Settings\Temp\u21c12BC.tmp 11/22/2004 Page Approach delay s/veh -- -- 14.3 11.6 proach Los -- -- 8 8 y 2006TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d 1 1 1 1 fto://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%20Scttings\Temp\u2k12BC.tmp 11 /22/2004. I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY neral Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Rt 657 & Twinbrook Circle enc /Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction to Performed 111212004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions nal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour ject Description Lambert Ward Property st/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 hicce Volumes and Adjustments IlLjor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R ['Ulume (veh/h) 44 246 103 49 379 38 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 46 258 1 108 51 398 40 IN)portion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 -- -- 2 -- dian type Undivided Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 nfiguration LTR LT R I(astream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound ivement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L I R Volume (veh/h) 71 1 18 4 1 32 jtak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 74 1 1 18 4 1 1 33 Proportion of heavy icles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 rcent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N A7chatorage 1 1 nn elized? 0 0 es 0 1 0 0 1 0 ICI- nfiguration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service oroach EB WB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR me, v (vph) 11pacity., 46 51 93 38 cm (vph) 1122 1193 245 524 ratio 0.04 0.04 0.38 0.07 1virl jeue length (95%) 0.13 0.13 1.69 0.23 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8.2 28.4 12.4 S A A D B Fio://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrandc\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k12B7.tmp 11/22/2004. i WO- Vv ay Slop �-,omroi rage L of pproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 28.4 12.4 proach LOS -- -- D 8 11 3000T �" Copyright © 2003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d rl://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangra►idc\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k12B7.tmp 11/22/2004- HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT neral Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A ency or Co. PHR+A to Performed 111212004 ne Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property IF-lume and Timing input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Ember of lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ane group L TR L TR L TR L TR lume, V (vph) 103 232 52 33 593 94 44 74 19 91 115 167 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 timed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A aLart-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 tension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 it extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 j 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 I ial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 tine width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N I rking maneuvers, Nm uses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' . time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 leasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 ing t G= 48.0 G= G= G= G= 32.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= ration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT A gusted flow rate, v 108 299 35 723 46 98 96 297 t e group capacity, c 201 966 533 973 306 642 459 603 v/c ratio, X 0.54 0.31 0.07 0.74 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.49 11al green ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Uniform delay, di 13.7 11.7 10.2 16.2 19.7 19.8 20.2 22.7 11gression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fil://C:\Documents%20and%20Scttings\Giangrande\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kI2C7.tmp 11/22/2004 Delay calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 remental delay, d2 2.9 0.2 0.1 3.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 Initial queue delay, d3 ntrol delay 16.6 11.9 10.2 19.4 20.0 119.9 1 20.4 123.3 Lane group LOS B 8 B B B I B C I C proach delay 13.2 18.9 19.9 22.6 proach LOS B B B C ersection delay 98.5 XC = 0.64 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 1 1 1 1 1 Version 4.1e rli://C:\Documents%20alid%20Settings\Giangraride\Local%20Scttings\Temp\s2k12C7.tmp 11/22/2004 L I I u �J 1 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 247 648 66 62 1500 118 101 153 80 102 196 224 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 19 0 30 0 17 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 J G= 50.0 G= G= G= 28.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 260 731 65 619 106 227 107 371 Lane group capacity, c 353 1106 274 958 165 525 282 512 v/c ratio, X 0.74 0.66 0.24 0.65 0.64 0.43 0.38 0.72 0.60 0.60 1 10.5370.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1B39.tmp 11/22/2004 rage L Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d, 13.2 12.6 12.2 16.2 29.1 27.1 26.6 30.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.29 10.24 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.29 Incremental delay, d2 7.9 1.5 0.4 1.5 8.2 0.6 0.9 5.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 21.1 14.1 12.6 17.7 37.4 27.7 27.5 35.1 Lane group LOS C B B B D C C D Approach delay 15.9 17.2 30.8 33.4 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 21.6 X c = 0.74 Intersection LOS C HCS2000Copyright © 2000 University offlorida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e I Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%2OSettings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1B39.tmp 11/22/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information I;lalyst PHR+A ency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 �alysis Time Period AM Peak Hour ject Description Lambert Ward Property -With Roadway Improvements Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Rt 657 & Twinbrook Circle 2010 Buildout Conditions East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle I ersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Mojor Street Eastbound Westbound P vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 13 267 32 9 158 11 ak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 13 281 33 9 166 1 11 Proportion of heavy iicles, PHv 2 -- ---- Cdian type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 es 0 1 1 0 1 1 nfiguration LT R LT R U stream Signal 0 0 or Street Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ume (veh/h) 78 1 41 20 1 25 Teak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 82 1 1 43 21 1 26 portion of heavy Anicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 P cent grade (%) 0 0 red approach N N Storage 0 0 FE Channelized? 0 0 Ales 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR CEntrol Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service ,roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 �Je Configuration LT LT LTR LTR o ume, v (vph) 13 9 126 48 Iachy, cm (vph) 1399 1246 525 592 vzratio 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.08 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.02 0.93 0.26 troll Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.9 14.0 11.6 EIIIS A A B B roach delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.0 11.6 roach LOS -4 -- -- B B gCS2000t M Copyright © 2003 University ol'Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id fiI.HCADocuments%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k2E.tmp 11/29/2004 i■ TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information V7as' PHR+A c /Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 alysis Time Period PM Peak Hour tD ite Information Intersection Rt 657 & Twinbrook Circle Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions tec escrlptlon Lambert Ward Property -With Roadway Improvemenrs East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle I -section Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Pdgjor Street Eastbound Westbound vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 44 246 103 49 379 38 Zak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 46 1 258 1 108 51 398 40 Proportion of heavy tides, PHv 2 2 than type Undivided Channelized? 0 0 es 0 1 1 0 1 1 (, nfiguration LT R LT R U stream Signal 0 0 it or Street Northbound Southbound Ii\ vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R j ume (veh/h) 71 1 18 4 1 32 i eak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 74 1 1 18 4 1 33 portion of heavy Fv icles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 P cent grade (%) 0 0 !led approach Y Y Storage 1 1 Channelized? 0 0 LIKes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR trol Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service AIRroach EB WB Northbound Southbound M vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L e Configuration LT LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 46 51 93 38 ,Cgacity, cm (vph) 1122 1193 277 751 iv ratio 0.04 0.04 0.34 0.05 Queue length (95%) 0.13 0.13 1.43 0.16 trol Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8.2 24.4 12.2 LM A A C B Aj6Wroach delay (s/veh) -- -- 24.4 12.2 roach LOS -- -- C B 7CS20001 ""t Copyright (D 2003 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved C $HC:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k3 Ltmp 11/29/2004 Version 4.1 d �J Traffic Counts u Inlers'ection: GW: Route 657 WealherD Pile NamelP;lProject\I3J0J\I.0\Transportation\Lambert Ward ( ' N-S: ROUTE 656 Couut BY 1JP Input By LDO Location Wiuches I cr,VA Coum Date tltltlaOW 15 Mil 1 EB: ROUTE 657 WE: ROUTE 657 NB: ROUTE 656 SB: ROUTE 656 15 Min Period N,S, Period Begining Lot Thm Right Total Lell Thnt Right Total LeR Thru Right Total Len Thor Right Total E & W Begining 7.00 8 10 3 26 3 36 9 48 7 9 0 16 9 9 21 39 129 7:00 7.15 12 16 12 40 5 41 II 57 8 12 1 21 14 12 27 53 171 7:15 7.30 IG 14 10 •10 J 50 8 61 9 IS 0 24 t0 17 36 63 188 7:30 745 19 19 3 46 1 52 II G4 S 16 26 18 21 33 72 208 7:45 a:00 22 16 11 49 4 49 14 67 7 l2 3 22 16 24 27 67 205 3 00 8 15 I8 17 9 44 2 4i 11 57 7 II I 19 M I8 28 60 I80 5.13 8 3o 16 21 II 48 2 47 12 GI II bl 4 29 II 16 32 59 197 8:30 8:45 15 19 7 41 3 42 12 57 9 17 2 28 1 IG 20 30 66 192 8.45 A.M. Total 126 132 76 334 23 361 83 472 66 !OG 13 ISS1 108 137 234 479 1470 A.M.'I'olal I6:00 31 39 12 82 2 22 Il 35 12 21 10 43 9 20 22 51 211 16:00 16:15 34 48 10 92 3 27 16 46 14 26 8 48 12 24 27 63 249 16:15 16:30 37 39 8 84 7 32 !8 57 11 24 11 53 II 33 33 77 271 16:30 16:45 44 43 14 101 11 40 15 66 21 23 Id 58 12 36 41 89 314 16:45 46 38 I5 101 8 4I 21 70 20 29 10 59 17 40 48 105 JJ5 17.00 'I7:00 17:15 50 42 l2 104 11 3I IS 60 16 JI S 55 12 J3 42 37 306 17:15 17:30 40 39 9 38 6 33 14 53 12 23 9 49 12 28 35 75 265 17:30 IT45 32 41 II 84 5 35 11 51 8 22 11 .11 14 21 31 66 242 1 17.45 P.Po1. Total 316 329 91 736 53 261 124 43S 121 204 81 406 99 235 279 613 2193 P M. Total 1 Honr EB ROUTE 657 WB ROUTE 657 NB: ROUTE 656 SB' ROUTE 656 1 Hour Per10d 4,5, Period Begining LeB Thm Right Total LeR Timt Right Total LeR Tbra Right Total LeB Th., Right Total E C W Begining 7.00 55 59 3S 152 12 179 39 230 32 52 3 87 51 59 117 227 696 7 W 7:15 69 G5 41 175 13 192 44 249 J2 55 6 93 58 74 12J 255 772 7:15 7:J0 75 66 38 179 10 195 44 '_•19 JI 54 6 91 38 so 12.1 262 781 7:30 7:45 75 73 39 187 9 192 43 249 JJ SJ 10 96 59 79 120 253 790 7.•IS 8.00 71 73 38 182 II 182 49 2.12 34 5.1 10 93 57 78 117 2.52 774 3.00 16:00 146 169 44 359 23 121 60 204 65 9.1 43 202 44 113 123 280 1045 16 0 16:15 I63 I6S 47 37S 29 140 70 239 73 102 4J 218 i2 IJJ I.19 334 1169 16:I5 16.30 179 162 49 390 J7 144 72 253 75 107 -13 225 52 W2 164 35S 1226 IG 30 1641 182 162 50 394 JG 145 69 '_47 69 I11 •11 221 53 137 166 356 I'_20 16 .15 17.00 170 I60 47 377 30 140 64 234 56 110 38 204 55 122 156 333 1148 1700 1 flour EB, ROUTE 657 WB- ROUTE 657 NB: ROUTE 656 SB ROUTE 656 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Bcginiug Lefl Thnt Right Total Let! Thro Right Total Left Thm Right Total Leh Thnt Right Total E & W Begining 745 75 73 39 187 9 192 48 249 33 53 10 96 59 79 120 258 790 7:45 A M. Peak PIIF = 0 95 PI IP = 0.93 PIiF = 0 83 PHF = 0.90 0.95 A.M. Peak 16:10 179 162 49 390 37 H-1 72 253 75 107 43 225 52 142 164 358 1226 16:30 P.A1. Peak PIiF = 0.94 PHF = 090 PIIP = 095 PHF = 085 091 1PM. Peak I 13303-1-0)\8xcel\Published Data\Tntlllc Counts\RT656SR1'657.x Is INI. PEAK HOUR 7:45 - 8 45 �—' 345 (34 % ) 1.11-1. 657 1258 (27%) 1176 120 79 59 1 L 75 —r 73 —� 39 -- 7t 33 53 10 1271 (14%) 96 I pry File Name P:\Pro ect\13303\1-0\Trans ortation\Lanibert Ward (13303-1-0)Nixcel\Published Data\Trallic Coom,\RT656&RT657.xls I3P In ut 13LDG 10/19/2004 ROM 657 �— 48 t— 192 �— 249 9 (25%) 142 —*' ROUTE 656 .M PEAK HOUR 16 30 - 17.30 1 358 (29%) t 358 16I4 Isz 1 Ise L r+ ROUTE 657 �-- 333 L— 72 (32%) 390 —� l79 —! 162 —+ �--- 144 �— 253 ' 49 —�, ,`— 37 (21%) 2 57 —� ROUTE 657 �1 ♦ r 75 107} 43 228 1 (13%) 225I ROUTE 656 D'sinhnti 1 TorFmm Percent East 22.77 % West 3260% North 13.13% South 16 19% 1 100% 1 i I 1 Intersection: E-W. SENSENY RD Weather DRY File Nanrel P:\Project\13303\1-0\Transportation\Larubert Ward( ' N-S: AOSSUAI LA Count D JJP Input Dy UP Location Winel-terNA Count Date 01111,t 119 IS \1inulc ED SENSENY RD W13: SENSENY RD ND, ROSSUAI LA SE: 15 Min. Period N,S, Pericl Degining Left Thru Right Total Left Thor Right Total Left 'Horn Right Total Left Thou Right Total E & W Degining 7:00 0 IS 0 15 0 17 0 17 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 37 7:00 7:15 0 I9 1 20 0 22 0 22 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 48 715 7:30 0 24 1 25 0 23 0 23 4 0 •1 8 0 0 0 0 56 7:30 ' 7:45 0 27 0 27 0 24 0 24 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 55 7:45 8.00 0 25 27 1 23 0 24 6 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 61 8:00 8:15 0 26 1 27 0 26 0 26 3 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 58 8.15 830 0 29 3 32 0 22 0 22 5 0 3 B 0 0 0 0 62 8:30 845 0 24 1 25 0 21 0 21 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 53 8,45 A.M. Total 0 189 9 198 l 178 0 179 32 0 2l 53 0 0 0 0 430 A.M. Total I6 00 0 IS 2 20 0 33 0 33 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 58 16.00 16. 15 0 21 1 22 1 38 0 39 4 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 68 16.15 16 30 0 22 4 26 0 41 0 41 1 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 74 16:30 16:45 0 28 J 31 2 46 0 48 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 82 I6 45 17:00 0 JO 7 37 2 48 0 50 ? 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 89 17:00 17:15 0 29 5 34 4 45 0 49 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 S7 17:15 17:30 0 25 2 27 41 0 43 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 75 17:30 IT45 0 24 3 27 I 16 0 37 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 68 11 17,45 P M. Total 0 197 23 220 12 328 0 340 31 0 t0 41 0 0 0 0 601 P AI. Total 1 Hour ED SENSENY RD WD: SENSENY RD ND: ROSSUM LA SD. 1 Hour Period N,S, Period 13eeinine Led Thnr Right Total Left Thor Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Th. Right Tara E Se W Ecgining 700 0 85 2 87 0 S6 0 86 13 0 10 23 0 0 0 0 196 7:00 7:15 0 95 4 99 I 92 0 93 17 0 II 28 0 0 0 0 220 7:15 7 30 0 102 4 106 I 96 0 97 16 0 II 27 0 0 0 0 230 7:30 745 0 107 6 113 1 95 0 96 17 0 10 27 0 0 0 0 236 7:45 8.00 0 104 7 III 1 92 0 93 19 0 II 30 0 0 0 0 234 Soo 1600 0 89 10 99 J I5S 0 161 16 0 6 2'_ 0 0 0 0 282 16:00 16 15 0 101 II 112 5 173 0 178 17 0 6 23 0 0 0 0 313 16:15 I6:J0 0 109 IS 124 8 ISO 0 ISS 15 0 5 20 0 0 0 0 332 16.30 IGIS 0 112 Il I25 10 I80 0 190 14 0 4 I6 0 0 0 0 333 1645 1700 0 103 13 121 9 170 0 179 15 0 4 I9 0 0 0 0 319 17 00 I floor ED. SENSENY RD WD: SENSENY RD ND: ROSSUM LA SD: I Hour Period N.S. Period Degining Left Th. Right Total Left Th. Right Total Left Thor Right Total Lcft Thor Right Total E & W Dcuining 7.45 0 107 6 113 1 95 0 96 17 0 10 27 0 0 0 0 236 7:45 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.88 PHF = 092 PIiF = 06S PHP = 0.95 A.M. Peal: 16 45 0 112 13 125 10 180 0 190 14 0 4 IS 0 0 0 0 333 16:45 PM. Peak PIiF = 092 PHF = 0.95 PHF = 075 PHF = 094 PAL Peak I u 11 3303-1-0)\Excel\Published Data\TratTic Counts\SENSENYROSSUM As I ulim: EAV• SENSENY RD Ww01cr DRY PIICNnmcl P:lProjccl\1330311.O1T..sporlxliml N-S ROSSUM1I .A Cows By LP Input By 11P Location Winc_hesterNA Coonl DAl 1100,Ytlpn 0 AM PEAK HOUR ' 7:', - 8:" I 0 iii (096) 0 0 0 0 1 4 SENSENY RD `— 112 (JH:f,) 0 �— L� 0 113 107 95 ~— 96 6 117 — VSENY RD 1� 17 I 0 10 ROSSUM LA 0 P.M. PEAK HOUR 0 0 0 LSENSENY RD 194 (43�6) 0 —� 4_ 0 125 112 —► �— 1S0 �— 190 13 —i 10 (4C;,) 116 —� J.'IlrNI'R. ♦ IO 1+ I 4 23 (6v) 18 t ROSSU\ILA Dl.tnl•unnn WI I�n+ln Pertw•nl Gall 45 5156 N'cx1 J] 73:: N.oh Suwh 663]1. IIXI% 1 Intersection: GW. SENSENY RD Wealhcr RAIN Pilc Name P.lPl.jell\I3303\I-0\Transportation\Lmnhcrl W;ud (13303-I-0)1Execl\Published Data\Trallic Counts\SENSENYTWINBROOK.xls N-S. 'f1VINBROOK CIR Count B JJP Inpnt By 1JP Location WiucI-ter.VA Count Date 10-20--04 IS Minute Ell: SENSENY RD WIl: SENSENY RD NB: TWINBROOK CIR SB: SENSENY GLEN DR 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Bcgining Left Thm Right Total Left Thor Right Total Left Th. Right Total Left Th. Right Total E& WI Bcgining 7.00 1 18 0 19 0 14 1 15 2 0 3 5 7 0 3 6 45 7:00 7:15 0 21 2 23 1 16 0 17 6 0 5 11 4 0 4 8 59 715 7:30 3 26 1 30 0 I8 0 18 4 1 2 7 4 0 3 7 62 7:30 7;45 I 24 3 28 0 21 t 22 3 0 4 7 3 0 5 8 65 7:45 8:00 2 22 1 25 1 19 0 20 5 0 6 Il 5 1 4 10 66 800 8,15 4 28 4 76 0 20 2 22 5 0 2 7 3 0 7 10 75 8:15 3:30 2 26 5 33 1 11 4 22 7 1 4 12 4 0 4 8 75 8;30 8:45 2 24 4 30 0 21 23 5 0 3 8 3 0 4 7 68 8:45 AM. Total 15 1 99 20 224 3 146 10 l59 37 2 29 68 29 1 74 64 515 A.M. Total 16:00 8 13 11 32 4 28 4 36 4 0 1 5 2 0 5 7 80 16:00 16:15 9 17 8 34 2 30 6 38 5 0 3 8 1 0 5 6 86 16:15 16:30 8 19 11 38 4 36 4 44 8 0 2 10 2 0 6 3 100 16:30 16:45 6 24 9 39 5 42 5 52 10 0 0 10 0 0 3 8 1If 16:45 17:00 17.15 II 3 26 21 10 8 47 37 7 4 41 15 10 9 58 48 8 6 0 1 I I 9 8 I 0 I 0 6 4 8 4 122 97 17.00 1715 17:J0 G I6 G ll 2 JI 6 79 10 0 2 12 2 0 6 8 87 1730 17:45 5 I6 4 25 3 26 5 74 B 0 I 9 0 0 5 5 73 17:45 P M. Totxl 61 152 67 280 31 169 49 349 59 1 11 71 8 I 45 54 754 P.M 'Coral 1 It ru-- . SEN-1ENY RD WB: SENSENY RD NB: TWINBROOK CIR SB: SENSENY GLEN DR I Hour Period N,S, Period Beeining Left Thm Right Total Leff Thor Right Total Lell Thor Right Total Left Thm Right Total E&W Begining 700 5 89 6 100 1 69 2 72 15 I 1.1 30 li 0 IS 29 231 7.00 7.15 6 93 7 106 2 74 1 77 IS 1 17 36 16 I I6 33 252 715 7 30 10 f00 9 119 I 76 3 82 17 1 It 32 IS I I') JS 2G1 7.J0 74 9 100 13 122 - 77 7 86 20 I IG 37 IS I 20 36 281 7:41 3:00 10 100 14 124 2 77 3 87 22 1 IS 33 IS I 19 35 284 8 00 I6.00 M 73 39 141 IS 136 19 170 21 0 6 37 5 0 24 29 371 16:do 16: 15 l4 86 JS 153 IS I49 25 192 31 0 6 77 4 1 25 30 •117 16.15 IG 30 33 90 JS I6I 20 154 28 202 32 I 4 37 3 1 24 28 428 I6:30 16 45 31 87 33 I51 18 149 30 197 34 1 4 79 3 1 24 23 415 16:45 17 00 30 79 29 137 16 133 30 179 32 I 38 3 1 '_1 25 379 17 00 I Hour EB: SENSENY RD WU: SENSENY RD NB: TWINBROOK CIR S0- SENSENY GLEN DR I Flour Period N.S, Period Batwing Left Thou Right Total Lell Thm Right Total Left Thm Right Total Left Thm Right 'Coral E & W Bcgining 8.00 10 too 14 124 2 77 8 87 22 1 15 38 15 1 19 35 284 8:00 A AI peak PIIF = 0 86 PHF = 0.95 PIIF = 0.79 PIiP = 0.88 0.95 AM, Peal: 16 30 73 90 38 161 20 154 28 202 32 1 4 37 3 1 211 28 428 1630 P.11. Peak PHP = 0 86 P11F = 0.87 PHI' = 093 PIiP = 0.83 0 88 P.M. Peak Ci [-I J �crs coon E-W: SENSENYRD VealhcrEv RAIN PilcNamc1J1PP.JPmjccl\I3303\I.0\Tm,ispo,ution\Lmbcn W:ud(13303.1.0)\Excel\Published Daly\T,,flie Coonls\SENSENYTWINBROOK%lS N-S TWINEROOK CIR Count llP Input By Loc4lion Wi,,chcslc,,VA Count Dale 10-20--04 SENSENY GLEN DR A.M. PEAK HOUR 3.00- 900 I 35 + 19 1 15 LSENSENY RD I9 (47%) 10 8 124 100 77 F— 97 �F— 2 (38%) 170 —� j.NS.NY RD 22 1 15 4 17I (111,) 39 + TWINEROOK CIR SENSENY GLEN DR PEAK (TOUR I H 11, 1630 17:30 I 23 i (II°%) 62 24 1 3 ' 4 SENSENY RD �— 210 (43") 33 —4 !— 29 161 90 —� �— 15.1 F— 202 39 i— 20 (351Y) 97 —� JNSENYRD r 32 1 4 o l."') 37 I TIVINEROOK CIR Dl�mbmiwl 7'ol�nnn lin>I .6579; W", . 4'_97% Nonli III UI'I. S-1h INI°�. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Ranners. Landscape Architects. P 208 Church Street, S.E Leesburg, Virginia 20175 �' T 703.777.3616 H F 703.777.3725 November 29, 2004 R D i F E 8 1 5 2005 FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 1 Cl OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lambert -Ward Property to be located along the south side of Senseny Road (Route 657), east of Greenwood Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project will include a total of 285 residential units (145 single-family detached and 140 townhouse) with access to be provided along Senseny Road via Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Circle, respectively. The development is to be built -Out In a single transportation phase by the year 2010. PHR+A has provided Figure I to illustrate the location of Lambert -Ward Property with respect to the surrounding roadway network. IMethodology I The traffic impacts accompanying the Lambert -Ward Property development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the area of impact, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Lambert -Ward Property development, • Distribution and assigiuuent of the Lambert -Ward Property generated trips onto the study area roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the newest version of the highway capacity software, HCS-2000, for existing and future conditions. ' EXISTING CONDITIONS PIIR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections: Senseny Road/Greenwood Road, Senseny Road/Rossum Lane and Senseny Road/Twinbrook Circle in Frederick County, Virginia. In order to determine the ADT (Average Daily Traffic) along the study area roadway links, a conservative "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 10% was assumed. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 shows the respective existing lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS-2000 levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property PHNovember 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page I No Scale -Greenwood Heigms Burning ;<mJs SITE Figure I Vicinity Map - Lambert -Ward Property A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 RA Project Number: 13303-1 -0 PH Page 2 No Scale 0 0 ^�N � H N N r C7� 48(72) ! 4---192(1 as) 1 —9(37) 179)775 657 o (162)73 �► " Serlsen (49)39—% Q (IIZ)ID�ca� ` 1 S(180) (10) 657 51� 656 senserry Pond G% 657 �1 ro� o v SITE 7 ti ti 657 Q3)IO 277,(IS4) (9p)1 pp 4,%1 t (10) (Jy)Iq �1 Ir AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) 1—T TP+/ \ Daily-- Average Figure 2 Existing ADT and AM/PM Peak Horn- Traffic Volumes A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property PH November 33 3004 Project Number: 13303-I-0 Page 3 No Scale Interseetion'> c * Denotes Unsi;nalized Critical Movement %A® AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH A TrafFic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 33 2004 Pt•oject NumUer: 13303-1-0 Page 4 Ci 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS PHR+A increased the existing traffic volumes along Senseny Road and Greenwood Road using a conservative growth rate of five percent (5%) per year through Year 2010. Additionally, PHR+A utilized the following reports to incorporate trips associated with specific "other developments" located within the vicinity of the proposed site: Traffic Impact Analysis of Fieldstone, by PHR+A, dated January 16, 2004 and A Traf ac Impact Analysis of Butcher Property, by PHR+A, dated September 8, 2004. Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Table 1 to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Table 1 2010 "Other Developments" Trip Generation Summary ANI Peak Hour PNI Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT Butcher Property 210 Single -Family Detached 69 units 14 43 58 4S 28 77 690 Total 14 43 58 48 28 77 690 Red -Bud Run 210 Single -Family Detached 300 units 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Total 55 165 219 182 107 288 3,000 Fieldstone 210 Single -Family Detached 63 units 13 40 54 45 26 71 630 230 Townhouse/Condo 207 units 16 77 92 73 36 109 1,801 Total 29 117 146 118 62 180 2,431 Mise Other Developments along Clianning Drive* 210 Single -Family Detached 1,164 units 206 618 824 615 361 976 11,640 230 Townhouse/Condo 130 Units 11 53 64 50 25 75 1,131 820 Retail 120,000 SF 107 68 175 339 367 706 7,645 Total 323 739 1,063 1,004 753 1,757 20,416 * Includes Giles Farm, Toll Brothers, Abrams' Pointe, Coventry Court and miscellaneous residential. Figure 4 shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peals hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 5 shows the corresponding 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS-2000 levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. 1 PHItl� 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 5 �..66(101) 1�551(475) 1 r 12(50) (247)103 —P r 6' 1 (604)220, In (66)52 --'*-- co (Z�) �G� '(s)�I�� 65 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) .. — � . vF—y November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 6 No Scale Intersection Io Intersection o G * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement AM Peale Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PH ��A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 33 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 7 I H u 1 PROPOSED TRIP GENERATION The Lambert -Ward Property is to include a total of 285 residential units with 145 as single-family detached and 140 as townhouses. The number of trips entering and exiting the site were determined using the 7t1i Edition of Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report. Table 2 summarizes the trip generation results for the proposed Lambert -Ward Property. Table 2 Lambert -Ward Property Trip Generation Summary A14 Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 145 units 28 83 111 94 55 150 1,450 230 Townhouse/Condo 140 units 11 56 68 53 26 79 1,218 Total 39 139 179 147 82 229 2,668 1 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT I The distribution of trips was based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed site. PHR+A utilized the trip distribution percentages shown in Figure 6 to assign the Lambert -Ward Property trips (Table 2) through the study area roadway network. Figure 7 shows the development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS ' The Lambert -Ward Property assigned trips (Figures 7) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figure 4) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figure 8 1 shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area. Figure 9 shows the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour HCS-2000 levels of service. All HCS-2000 levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. I A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property 1PH November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 8 � I � I I I 1 I No Scale Figure 6 Trip Distribution Percentages A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 9 No Scale .^ 1 D \ 1 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 7 Development -Generated Trip Assignments PHA ��� Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 2004 Project Number: 1333303-(-0 Page 10 No Scale 94(1 `�33(6 593( (247)103 (648)232 �► (66)52—N IR_U�k AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) Figure 8 2010 Build -out ADT and AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes PH �A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 11 No Scale LOS=B(C) U � U B(B) (B)B�S' as U� 1 �C(c C) ) Signalized Intersection \ LOS=C(C) * Denotes Unsignalized Critical Movement I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29,33 2004 R+A Project Number: 13303-1-0 PH Page 12 1 1 1 1 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lambert -Ward Property are acceptable and manageable. All intersections, assuming the addition of an eastbound right - turn lane at the intersection of Senseny Road/Twinbrook Circle, will maintain levels of service of "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions. The right -turn lane at the intersection of Senseny Road/ Twinbrook Circle would be designed per the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) standards. 1 PT4R+A 1 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lambert -Ward Property November 29, 2004 Project Number: 13303-1-0 Page 13 1 1 APPENDIX 1 fl I I I fl HCS-2000 Worksheets ii 1 J it 1 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is represented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - TWSC At an unsignalized two-way stop -controlled (TWSC) intersection, the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a stop sign or yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side sheet and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left -turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability ' and number of acceptable gaps is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analysis in these reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for TWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position. Level of Service Criteria for TWSC Intersections Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/vet A <5 B >5 and <_10 C >10 and <_20 D >20 and <_30 E >30 and <_45 F >45 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS - AWSC At an unsignalized all -way stop -controlled (AWSC) intersection, all directions are controlled by a stop sign. Operation of AWSC intersections requires that every vehicle stop at the intersection before proceeding. Since each driver is required to stop, the judgment as to whether to proceed into the intersection is a function of the traffic conditions on the other (opposing and conflicting) 1 approaches. Therefore, a driver proceeds only after determining that there are no vehicles currently in the intersection and that it is safe to proceed. The analysis takes into account the problem of determining, under capacity conditions for a given approach, the factors that influence the rate at which vehicles can depart successfully from the STOP line. Traffic at other approaches, which increases potential conflict, translates directly into longer driver decision times and saturation headways. The saturation headways are also influenced by characteristics of the traffic flow (slow accelerating vehicles, left turns, etc.). ' In the analysis in this reports, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor -trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for AWSC intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The total delay is defined as the total elapsed time from when a vehicle stops at the end of the queue until the vehicle departs from the stop line; this time ' includes the time required for the vehicle to travel from the last -in -queue position to the first -in - queue position, Level of Service Criteria for AWSC Intersections ' Average Total Delay Level of Service sec/vet 1 A <5 B >5 and 510 ' C > 10 and _<20 D >20 and <_30 E >30 and <_45 F >45 P� F� SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. In this report all the default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific infornnation is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When fixture signals are being evaluated, an "optional' signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is sixty seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following ' criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 11 ri Level of Service A B C D E F Stopped Delay per Vehicle (sec) still; >10.0 and <_20.0 >20.0 and _<35.0 >35.0 and <_55.0 >55.0 and <_80.0 >80.0 I LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 11 11 C� Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, up to 10 sec per vehicle. This level of service occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay greater than 10 and up to 20 sec per vehicle. This level generally occurs with good progression, short cycle lengths, or both. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level Of Service C describes operations with delay greater than 20 and up to 35 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, though many still pass though the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay greater than 35 and up to 55 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, longer cycle lengths, or high We ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay greater than 55 and up to 80 sec per vehicle. This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high We ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 80 sec per vehicle. This level, considered to be unacceptable to most drivers, often occurs with over saturation, that is, when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high We ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A ale://C:\Documents%20and%205ettings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u21c17CE.tmp 11/9/2004 � I � I � I I j I I 1 I I 1 I I P� LOS A A pproach delay -- 9.5 (s/veh) pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d I file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settin s\Bo a all \Local%20Settin s\Tem p\u2k17CE.tm 11/9/2004 � Y P Y g 1 � age TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection Rt 657 & Rossum Lane Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 112 13 10 180 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 117 13 10 189 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 14 0 4 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 14 0 4 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 7 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 10 18 Capacity, cm (vph) 1455 702 v/c ratio 0.01 0.03 Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 10.3 Analyst fi PHR+A genc /Co. PHR+A Date Performed 11/2/2004 nal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour le://C:\Doctunents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Teenp \u21c17Dl.tmP 11/9/2004 I LOS A B Approach delay -- -- 10.3 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- B F/CS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id ltle://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17Dl.tmp 11/9/2004 n PI HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 75 73 39 9 192 48 33 53 10 59 79 1120 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G p 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 INS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G= G= G= G= 39.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 88.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 79 118 9 253 35 67 62 209 Lane group capacity, c 459 783 562 800 499 805 589 751 v/c ratio, X 0.17 10.15 1 0.02 10.32 1 0.07 0.08 1 0.11 0.28 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 1 0.44 0.44 1 0.44 0.44 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k17DC.tmp 11/9/2004 to I Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d, 14.8 14.6 13.7 15.9 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.6 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 10.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 14.9 14.7 13.8 16.1 14.1 14.2 14.4 15.8 Lane group LOS B B B B B B B B Approach delay 14.8 16.0 14.2 15.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection delay 15.3 XC = 0.30 Intersection LOS B IHCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Ic 1 1 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k17DC.tmp 11/9/2004 n I 1 'I HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 179 162 49 37 144 72 75 107 43 52 142 164 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 39.0 G= G= G= G= 41.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 188 223 39 228 79 158 55 322 Lane group capacity, c 467 779 471 767 414 812 557 780 v/c ratio, X 0.40 10.29 1 0.08 10.30 1 10.19 0.19 0.10 0.41 0.43 0.43 1 0.43 0.43 1 0.46 0.46 1 0.46 0.46 1 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k17E7.tmp 11/9/2004 ijetame-a epoi age i . 11 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 17.5 16.5 15.0 16.6 14.6 14.6 14.0 16.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 18.1 16.7 15.1 16.8 14.8 14.8 14.0 16.8 Lane group LOS B B B B B B B B Approach delay 17.3 16.6 14.8 16.4 Approach LOS B B B B Intersection delay 16.4 X c = 0.41 Intersection LOS B I,CS?OOOTM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 1 1 1 LI I Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k17E7.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal st PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year 657 & Twinbrook Circle �4 Existing Conditions Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 10 100 14 2 77 8 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 10 105 14 2 81 8 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration I LTR LT R Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 22 1 15 15 1 19 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 23 1 15 15 1 20 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I I LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 10 2 39 36 Capacity, cm (vph) 1506 1469 778 838 v/c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.04 Queue length (95%) 0.02 0.00 0.16 j 0.13 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.4 7.5 9.9 9.5 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17EA.tmp 11/9/2004 11 LOS A A A A Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.9 9.5 Approach LOS -- -- A A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id fl Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kl7EA.tmp 11/9/2004 U_GM1a ge a1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Intersection Rt 657 & Twinbrook Circle Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2004 Existing Conditions Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 33 90 38 20 154 28 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 34 94 40 21 162 29 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PH v 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 32 1 4 3 1 24 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 33 1 4 3 1 25 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 34 21 38 29 Capacity, cm (vph) 1383 1451 540 812 v/c ratio 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.04 Queue length (95%) 0.08 0.04 0.23 0.11 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 7.5 12.2 9.6 Analyst PHR+A genc /Co. PHR+A Date Performed 11/2/2004 nal sis Time Period PM Peak Hour file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17ED.tmp 11/9/2004 i age 1 1 I] LOS A A 8 A Approach delay -- -- 12.2 9.6 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- 8 A I-ICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k17ED.tinp 11/9/2004 .rage io HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 1 0 0- 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 122 156 152 53 128 294 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 29.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 128 164 160 24 374 Lane group capacity, c 452 1056 580 492 539 v/c ratio, X 0.28 0.16 1 10.28 0.05 10.69 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.32 Uniform delay, di 126.9 9.3 23.4 21.7 26.6 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2kl7F8.tmp 11/9/2004 I age Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.26 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 3.8 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 27.2 9.3 23.6 21.7 30.5 Lane group LOS C A C C C Approach delay 17.2 23.4 30.5 Approach LOS g C C Intersection delay 24.4 X� = 0.43 Intersection LOS C HCS2000Tn't Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e File://C:\Documents%20and%20Setti11gs\Boyap ally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k17F8.tmp 11/9/2004 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 387 170 265 168 122 282 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 27.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= 5 Y= Y= I Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 407 179 279 145 354 Lane group capacity, c 492 1097 580 492 502 v/c ratio, X 0.83 0.16 0.48 0.29 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.28 0.59 0.31 0.31 0.30 Uniform delay, d, 30.5 8.4 25.1 23.5 28.0 e o Y I I Y I I i e i I i i file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1803.tnip 11/9/2004 I [�I Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.37 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 Incremental delay, d2 11.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 4.5 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 41.7 8.5 25.7 23.8 32.4 Lane group LOS D A C C C Approach delay 31.5 25.1 32.4 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 29.8 Xc = 0.67 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1803.tmp 11/9/2004 fl i� Ll TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A iiiiciseUuun rn 001 Cc rccssurn Lane Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Conditions Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 276 8 1 182 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 290 8 1 191 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 23 0 13 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 24 0 13 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service pproach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 1 37 Capacity, cm (vph) 1263 598 v/c ratio 0.00 0.06 Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.20 Ifile://C:\DocLim ents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 I Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 11.4 LOS A B Approach delay (s/veh) 11.4 pproach LOS -- -- B I/CS2000T�t Copyright OO 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1806.tmp 11/9/2004 11 1 [I- 1 11 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A IIILUI bUUuui i tV00I Oc r<ussurn Lane Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Conditions Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 275 17 13 414 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 289 17 13 435 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 19 0 5 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 20 0 5 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 13 25 Capacity, cm (vph) 1255 411 v/c ratio 0.01 0.06 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.19 1 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 wo ay mop on ro I n n 11 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 14.3 LOS A 8 Approach delay (s/veh) _ 14.3 Approach LOS -- -- 8 ffCS2000T�1 Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id ICile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1809.tmp 11/9/2004 1 HCS2000T" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 103 1220 52 1 12 551 1 66 44 1 74 13 1 83 115 167 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 50.0 G= G= G= I G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 108 287 13 649 46 92 87 297 Lane group capacity, c 281 1005 573 1018 277 607 433 566 v/c ratio, X 0.38 0.29 0.02 0.64 1 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.52 fle://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1814.tmp 11/9/2004 1 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 1 0.56 0.56 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 11.3 10.6 9.0 13.8 21.2 21.1 21.4 24.2 Progression factor, PF 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.13 Incremental delay, d2 0.9 0.2 0.0 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 12.2 10.7 9.0 15.1 21.5 21.2 21.7 25.1 Lane group LOS B B A B C C C C Approach delay 11.1 15.0 21.3 24.4 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 16.8 XC = 0.60 Intersection LOS B IHCS2000TM Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e n Ifilc://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1814.tmp 11/9/2004 1 I 1 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year Con Background Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 247 1604 66 50 475 101 101 1153 58 73 196 224 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 19 0 30 0 17 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 14.0 G= 36.0 G= G= G= 30.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 260 685 53 575 106 204 77 371 Lane group capacity, c 374 1024 255 730 217 601 356 579 v/c ratio, X 0.70 10.67 1 0.21 10.79 1 0.49 10.34 0.22 0.64 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k181F.tmp 11/9/2004 P, Ll fl 11 Total green ratio, g/C 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.40 1 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Uniform delay, di 16.5 14.1 17.7 23.7 23.9 22.6 21.6 25.4 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.26 0.24 0.11 0.33 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.22 Incremental delay, d2 5.5 1.7 0.4 5.8 1.7 0.3 0.3 2.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 22.1 15.8 18.1 29.4 25.6 22.9 21.9 27.8 Lane group LOS C B B C C C C C Approach delay 17.6 28.5 23.8 26.8 Approach LOS B C C C Intersection delay 23.1 X c = 0.81 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T�" Copyright © 2000 University or Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%2OSettings\Temp\s2k181F.tmp 11/9/2004 El 1 1 I 1 1 I J TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Isite Information Analyst PHR+A intersection Rt not & i wlnDrooK Circle Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Conditions Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 13 267 19 3 158 11 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 13 281 20 3 166 11 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 29 1 20 20 1 25 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h 30 1 21 21 1 26 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 13 3 52 48 Capacity, cm (vph) 1399 1260 541 622 v/c ratio 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.08 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.01 0.32 0.25 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Scttings\Temp\u2k1822Arnp 11/9/2004 1 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.9 12.4 11.3 LOS A A B B Approach delay (s/veh) 12.4 11.3 Approach LOS LOS -- -- B B HCS2000""t Copyright 02003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id I I 1 r"MI L I 1 I� Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1822.tmp 11/9/2004 1 a I Pj I I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A 111Ld1SCGUU11 Mt 001 0, 1 WIMMOOK liuG/U Jurisdiction Agency/Co. PHR+A Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 44 246 51 27 379 38 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 46 258 53 28 398 40 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 Configuration LTR LT R Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 43 1 5 4 1 32 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 45 1 5 4 1 33 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR Volume, v (vph) 46 28 51 38 Capacity, cm (vph) 1122 1249 261 549 v/c ratio 0.04 0.02 0.20 0.07 Queue length (95%) 0.13 0.07 0.71 0.22 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 t Control C LOS pproacl (s/veh) Approa& IICS2000TM 1 i 1 i i r 1 1 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1825.tmp 11/9/2004 1 1 I 1 1 I I I HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 122 181 242 81 136 294 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 , 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 1 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 28.0 G= G= G= 29.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 128 191 255 54 382 Lane group capacity, c 452 1056 580 492 539 v/c ratio, X 0.28 10.18 10.44 0.11 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.26 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.32 Uniform delay, di 26.9 9.4 24.7 22.1 26.8 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1830.tmp 11/9/2004 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.27 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.3 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 27.2 I 9.5 25.3 22.2 31.1 Lane group LOS C A C C C Approach delay 16.6 24.7 31.1 Approach LOS B C C Intersection delay 24.6 XC = 0.49 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TNt Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 1� r� 1 1 1 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1830.tmp 11/9/2004 1 I I I HCS2000'' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Channing Drive Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane group L T T R LR Volume, V (vph) 387 266 318 185 152 282 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only Thru & RT 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= 25.0 G= G= G= 29.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 IY= 5 Y= Y= I Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 407 280 335 163 386 Lane group capacity, c 511 1056 518 440 542 v/c ratio, X 0.80 10.27 0.65 0.37 0.71 Total green ratio, g/C 0.29 0.57 0.28 0.28 0.32 Uniform delay, d, 29.6 9.9 28.6 26.2 26.8 Ifile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2lc183B.tmp 11/9/2004 A Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.34 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.28 Incremental delay, d2 8.6 0.1 2.8 0.5 4.4 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 38.2 10.1 31.4 26.7 31.2 Lane group LOS D 8 C C C Approach delay 26.7 29.9 31.2 Approach LOS C C C Intersection delay 28.8 XC = 0.72 Intersection LOS C 1 HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e 1 Irile://C:\Documents`%2Oand%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k183B.tmp 11/9/2004 t t 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction nalvsis Year 657 & Rossum Lane 10 Buildout Conditions Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 290 28 1 230 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 305 29 1 242 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 - 2 Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Configuration ITR LT Upstream Signal 1 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 92 0 13 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 96 0 13 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 1 109 Capacity, cm (vph) 1225 507 v/c ratio 0.00 0.21 Queue length (95%) 0.00 0.81 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 14.0 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kl83E.tmp 11/9/2004 rage /-or/- LOS A B Approach delay 14.0 (s/veh) Approach LOS -- -- B IICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u21c183E.tmp 11/9/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction _ nalvsis Year 657 & Rossum Lane 10 Buildout Conditions Project Description Lambert Ward Property East/West Street: Rt 657 - Sensen Road North/South Street: Rossum Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 0 327 91 13 443 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 0 344 95 13 466 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 60 0 5 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 63 0 5 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 13 68 Capacity, cm (vph) 1121 325 v/c ratio 0.01 0.21 Queue length (95%) 0.04 0.78 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.2 19.0 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1841.tmp 11/9/2004 LOS A C Approach delay (s/veh) 19.0 Approach LOS -- -- C IHCS2000T" Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.Id F1 i� ICile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k1841 Amp 11/9/2004 age neral Information TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information Intersection Jurisdiction 04 nalvsis Year nal st PHR+A ency/Co. PHR+A to Performed Jn 1112120 al sis Time Period AM Peak Hour 657 & Twinbrook Circle 10 Buildout Conditions ject Description Lambert Ward Property st/West Street: Rt 657 - Sensen Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs): 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments or Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R lume (veh/h) 13 267 32 9 158 11 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Ifturly Flow Rate (veh/h) 13 281 33 9 166 11 portion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 dian type Undivided 19 Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 nfiguration LTR LT R I stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound P vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 in L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 78 1 41 20 1 25 al -lour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 82 1 43 21 1 26 Proportion of heavy icles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 F1111rcent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N -Istorage 0 0 Channelized? 0 0 Lapes 0 1 0 0 1 0 nfiguration LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service proach EB WB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR ume, v (vph) 13 9 126 48 pacity, cm (vph) 1399 1246 512 592 v ratio 0.01 0.01 0.25 0.08 eue length (95%) 0.03 0.02 0.96 0.26 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.9 14.3 11.6 IES A A B B Ifil://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kl2BC.tmp 11/22/2004 rage L o1 I Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.3 11.6 proach LOS -- -- 8 8 f-, 2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d p 11 J 1� I 1 ICi'://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2kl2BC.tmp 11/22/2004. TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY eneral Information Site Information alyst PHR+A Intersection Rt 657 & Twinbrook Circle enc /Co. J PHR+A Jurisdiction te Performed 111212004 nalysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions al sis Time Period PM Peak Hour oject Description Lambert Ward Property st/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments §ajor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R tlu-me(veh/h) 44 246 103 49 379 38 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 46 258 108 51 398 40 oportion of heavy vehicles, PHv 2 2 dian type Undivided Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 1 nfiguration LTR LT R stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 71 1 18 4 1 32 Bak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 74 1 1 18 4 1 33 Proportion of heavy icles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 rcent grade (%) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 1 1 Channelized? 0 0 nes 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 nfiguration I LTR LTR Control Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service proach EB WB Northbound Southbound vement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LT LTR LTR lume, v (vph) 46 51 93 38 (Opacity, cm (vph) 1122 1193 245 524 v ratio 0.04 0.04 0.38 0.07 eue length (95%) 0.13 0.13 1.69 0.23 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8.2 28.4 12.4 S A A D B IJ://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrandc\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k12B7.tmp 11/22/2004 C C lApproach delay (s/veh) -- -- 28.4 12.4 improach LOS -- -- D 8 I '2006�'M Copyright (D 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d n 1 IJ://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrandc\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k12B7.tmp 11/22/2004 HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT eneral Information Site Information alyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Ite Performed 111212004 me Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property lume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT tuber of lanes, N, 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 W ne group L TR L TR L TR L TR lume, V (vph) 103 232 52 33 593 94 44 74 19 91 115 167 Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 etimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 tension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 lit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 tial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ed / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ne width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 12.0 Rrking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N rking maneuvers, NM ses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 asing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 48.0 G= G= I G= G= 32.0 G= G= G= Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= Y= 5 Y= Y= Y= ration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 108 299 35 723 46 98 96 297 ne group capacity, c 201 966 533 973 306 642 459 603 v/c ratio, X 0.54 0.31 0.07 0.74 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.49 tal green ratio, g/C 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Uniform delay, di 13.7 11.7 10.2 16.2 19.7 19.8 20.2 22.7 gression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 fi1://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%20Scttings\Temp\s2k12C7.tmp 11/22/2004 Delay calibration, k 0.14 0.11 0.11 0.30 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 remental delay, dZ 2.9 0.2 0.1 3.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.6 Initial queue delay, d3 ntrol delay 16.6 11.9 10.2 119.4 20.0 19.9 20.4 23.3 ne group LOS B B B B B B C C proach delay 13.2 18.9 19.9 22.6 proach LOS B B B C ' ersection delay 18.5 X c = 0.64 Intersection LOS B .,.;PM !'...,.n-;,.hr 0) 9000 1 T. ;vP-;- M' 1:1—idA A I R;nhrc Rncc —d v-i- d I r J://C:\DOCumcnts%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%2OScttings\Temp\s2k12C7.tmp 11/22/2004 C I I H HCS2000" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Rt 656 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 BUildout Conditions Project ID Lambert Ward Property Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N� 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group L TR L TR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 247 1648 66 62 500 118 101 1153 80 102 196 224 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 19 0 30 0 17 0 67 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min, time for pedestrians, G P 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 7.0 G= 50.0 G= G= G= 28.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 5 Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 95.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 260 731 65 619 106 227 107 371 Lane group capacity, c 353 1106 274 958 165 525 282 512 v/c ratio, X 0.74 10.66 0.24 0.65 0.64 0.43 0.38 0.72 0.60 0.60 0.53 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1B39.tmp 11/22/2004 Ll 1 L Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 13.2 12.6 12.2 16.2 29.1 27.1 26.6 30.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay calibration, k 0.29 0.24 1 0.11 10.22 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.29 Incremental delay, d2 7.9 1.5 0.4 1.5 8.2 0.6 0.9 5.1 Initial queue delay, d3 Control delay 21.1 14.1 12.6 17.7 37.4 27.7 27.5 35.1 Lane group LOS C B 8 B D C C D Approach delay 15.9 17.2 30.8 33.4 Approach LOS B B C C Intersection delay 21.6 X c = 0.74 Intersection LOS C HCS20001 "l Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1e IIile://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Boyapally\Local%20Settings\Temp\s2k1B39.tmp 11/22/2004 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information lalyst ency/Co. PHR+A Intersection Rt 657 & Twinbrook Circle PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 111212004 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions ialysis Time Period AM Peak Hour ject Description Lambert Ward Property -With Roadway Improvements East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle I ersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs): 0.25 %hicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound f vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 13 267 32 9 158 11 _Ilak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 I urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 13 281 33 9 166 1 11 Proportion of heavy icles, PHv 2 ::I_- -- -- 2 -- I -- P dian type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 I. es 0 1 1 0 1 1 [An LT R LT R Upstream Signal 1 0 0 or Street Northbound Southbound 11%vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R lume (veh/h) 78 1 41 20 1 25 I'ak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) 82 1 43 21 1 26 portion of heavy icles, PHv 2 2 2 2 2 2 P rcent grade (%) 0 0 red approach N N Storage 0 0 FJJ Channelized? 0 0 I-Ites 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR ntrol Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service roach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 e Configuration LT LT LTR LTR ume, v (vph) 13 9 126 48 Call ac ty, cm (vph) 1399 1246 525 592 vJ ratio 0.01 0.01 0.24 0.08 Queue length (95%) 0.03 0.02 0.93 0.26 it trol Delay (s/veh) 7.6 7.9 14.0 11.6 L S A A B B Approach delay (s/veh) -- -- 14.0 11.6 4 roach LOS -- -- B B 'ICS2000TM Copyright ©2003 University orFlorida, All Rights Reserved fil://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\Giangrande\Local%20Settings\Temp\u2k2E.tmp 11/29/2004 Version 4.Id TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite, Information alyst PHR+A ency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 111212004 �alysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 657 & Twinbrook Circle Jurisdiction Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions [Object Description Lambert Ward Property -With Roadway Improvements East/West Street: Rt 657 - Senseny Road North/South Street: Twinbrook Circle I ersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 44 246 103 49 379 38 ak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 urly Flow Rate (veh/h) 46 258 108 51 398 40 Proportion of heavy iicles, PHv 2 2 ,.;dian type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 es 0 1 1 0 1 1 nfiguration LT R LT R U stream Signal 0 0 nor Street Northbound Southbound vement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R ume (veh/h) 71 1 18 4 1 32 ak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate (veh/h) ortion of heavy [VlUicles,PHv 74 2 1 2 18 2 4 2 1 2 33 2 Rigrcent grade (%) 0 0 red approach y y Storage 1 1 FA Channelized? 0 0 4es 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I LTR LTR trol Delay, Queue Len th, Level of Service Broach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 L e Configuration LT LT LTR LTR olume, v (vph) 46 51 93 38 cip acity, cm (vph) 1122 1193 277 751 v ratio 0.04 0.04 0.34 0.05 Queue length (95%) 0.13 0.13 1.43 0.16 Stroll Delay (s/veh) 8.3 8.2 24.4 12.2 L LOS A A C B A roach delay (s/veh) -- -- 24.4 12.2 4 roach LOS -- -- C B VCS2000" mi Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved (i I.//C:\D ocuments%2 0 and %2 0 S etfings\Giangrande\Loca1%2 OS ettin.gs\TCMP\U2k3 1. tmpp\u2k31.tmp Version 4.Id 11/29/2004 C Traffic Counts Inlerseclion: L•-\V: Routc657 Weather D Filc Name�P:\Projccl\1330J\LO\TransportationlLamhert \VarA( N-S: ROUTE 656 Count B 1JP Input By LDG Localionj Winchuler,VA Count Dalel dMudNH 15 hfiuulc HB: ROUTE 657 WB: ROUTE 657 NB ROUTE 656 SB: ROUTE 656 15 Min Period N,S, Period Begining Lell Thm Rigln Total Left Thm Right Total LcR Thm Right Total LeR Thm Right Total B & \V Begining 700 S !0 8 26 3 36 9 48 7 9 0 16 9 9 21 39 129 7:00 7:15 12 16 12 40 5 41 II 57 8 12 I 21 14 12 27 53 171 7 15 7 30 7.45 16 19 1.1 19 10 8 40 46 3 1 50 52 8 II 61 64 9 8 15 I6 0 24 26 10 I8 I7 21 36 33 63 72 188 208 7:30 7:45 300 22 IG II 49 4 49 14 67 7 12 3 22 16 2•} 27 67 205 800 8 15 IS 17 9 44 2 44 II 57 7 II 1 19 14 IS 28 60 I80 8 IS S 30 16 21 11 48 2 47 12 61 11 I•} 4 29 11 16 32 59 1970 8.30 SA5 15 19 7 41 3 42 12 57 1 9 17 2 28 16 20 30 66 192 8:45 Total 126 132 76 334 23 361 88 472 1 66 I06 13 185 108 137 234 479 1470 A.M. Total 'A.M. I6:00 31 39 I2 82 2 22 II 35 12 21 10 43 9 20 22 51 211 I6:00 16:15 34 48 10 92 3 27 16 46 I4 26 8 48 12 24 27 63 249 I6:15 16:30 37 39 8 84 7 32 I8 57 IB 24 11 53 Il 33 33 77 271 16:30 1645 44 43 14 101 11 40 15 66 21 23 14 58 12 36 41 89 314 16,45 17:00 •18 36 15 101 8 •41 21 70 20 29 10 59 17 40 4S 105 335 17.00 ' 17:15 50 42 12 104 II 31 IS 60 16 31 S 55 12 33 42 67 306 17:15 17.30 •I0 39 9 88 6 33 l4 53 12 28 9 49 12 28 35 75 265 17.30 I7:45 32 41 II 84 5 35 11 51 S 22 11 41 14 21 31 66 1 242 17:45 P.A1. Total 316 329 91 736 53 261 124 43S 121 204 81 406 99 235 279 GI7 2193 P M. Total 1 How EB ROUTE 657 WB, ROUTE 657 NB: ROUTE 656 SB ROUTE 656 1 Hour Penod N.S, Pcriod Begining left Thm Rielu Total LeR Thm Right Total Le11 T1mt Rieltl Total LeR Thm Right Total E C W Begining 7 00 55 59 78 152 12 179 39 230 72 52 3 S7 51 59 117 227 69G 7:00 T15 69 65 41 175 I3 I92 41 249 32 55 6 93 53 74 123 255 772 7:15 7 30 75 66 38 179 10 195 •14 249 31 54 6 91 58 80 124 262 781 7*30 7 45 75 73 39 IS7 9 192 4S 249 31 57 10 96 59 79 120 25S 790 7 45 5:00 71 73 )S IS II 182 49 242 34 54 10 98 57 73 117 '_52 774 5.00 16.00 146 I69 44 359 23 l21 60 204 65 94 43 202 44 113 123 280 1045 16 00 IG:IS 163 168 47 37S 29 140 70 239 73 102 43 218 52 133 I.19 334 1169 16:15 16.70 179 162 49 390 37 LW 72 253 75 107 43 225 52 42 16.1 358 12-6 16:30 16 ;5 182 162 50 394 36 W5 68 249 69 III 41 221 53 137 166 356 1220 16:45 17.00 170 160 47 377 30 140 64 234 56 110 33 204 55 122 156 333 1148 17:00 1 Hour B' ROUTE 657 W13: ROUTE 657 NB: ROUTE 656 SB: ROUTE 656 1 Hour Period ['I N,S, Period Begining eR Thu' Riglu Total Left Thm Right Total Lea Tim. Right Toal Left Tim, Right Total E R \V Begining 7-45 75 73 39 187 9 192 48 249 33 53 10 96 59 79 120 258 790 7:45 A.M. Peak PHF = 095 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 083 = 0.90 0.95 A.M. Peak 16.30 179 162 •19 J90 77 W4 72 251 15 107 43 225 52 -PHF 142 164 358 1226 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.94 PHF = 090 PHP = 095 PHF = 0.85 091 P.A1 Peal: I lt—Wiw: E-\V: Rouse 657 Weather Dr File Name P:\Procct\13303\1-0\Trans ortalion\Lmnbert\9ard(13303-I-0)\Exccl\Published Data\Tr alEc Counts\RT656&RT657.xis N-S: 2OlJTE 656 Count B J1P In ut B LDG Location lWiticliestcr.VA - Count Date 10/19/2004 ROUTE 656 NI. PEAK HOUR I 7:45 - 8:45 258 (27%) 176 120 79 59 LROUTE 657 �' 345 =— ()4%) 75 —� 48 187 192 �— 249 39 _i i— 9 (2i%) 142 —� OUTE 657 t F JS 53 IO 1 127I (14%) j 96 ROUTE 656 ROUTE 656 PEAK HOUR 16:30- 17:30 358 (29%) t 358 164 144 II52 4 ROUTE 657 L— 72 (J2%) 390 — 179 —1 162 — f— 144 253 49 37 (21%) ROUTE 657 �I } j� 257 —� 73 10743 228 I (191,6) 225I } j ROUTE 656 Jl'sinhmi T./F— Per — Ea,( 22 77% Ness J260% Noah 28.3J% S—h 1629/ GO% r r r r r r r k Ioul SCc11011. E-\V: SENSENYRD Wcathcr DRY File Name P:\Project\13303\1-0\Transporhdion\L;miltcrt Ward( ROSSUhI LA Canal B JJP Input By JJP Location Winchesler,VA Count Date 40101401111 15 Minnte EB, SENSENY RD WB* SENSENYRD NB: ROSSUM LA SB: 15 Min. Period N,S. Period Bcgining Ldl Thor Right Total Left Thnl Right Total Left Thni Right Total Left Th. Right Told E & W Bcgining 7.00 0 IS 0 15 0 17 0 17 2 0 J 5 0 0 0 0 37 7:00 7:15 0 19 1 20 0 22 0 22 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 48 7,15 7:30 7:45 0 0 24 1 27 0 25 27 0 0 23 24 0 0 23 24 4 3 0 0 4 1 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 55 7:30 7:45 S'00 0 25 1 27 1 23 0 24 6 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 61 8.00 8:150 0 26 t 27 0 26 0 26 3 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 53 3:15 6:30 0 29 3 32 0 22 0 22 5 0 3 11 0 0 0 0 62 8:30 5:45 0 24 1 25 0 21 0 21 1 5 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 53 3:45 'Total 0 189 9 199 1 178 0 179 32 0 21 53 0 0 0 0 430 A.M. Total 'A.bL 16.00 0 18 2 20 0 33 0 33 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 58 I6 00 16.15 0 21 1 22 1 38 0 19 4 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 6S 16:15 16'30 0 22 4 26 0 41 0 -11 5 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 74 16:30 16:45 0 28 3 31 2 46 0 43 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 32 16:45 17:00 0 30 7 33 2 43 0 50 ? 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 39 I7:00 ' 17.1i 0 29 5 34 4 45 0 49 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 37 1715 17:30 0 25 2 27 41 0 43 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 75 17 30 IP I, 0 24 J 27 1 76 0 37 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 68 1745 P AI. Total 0 197 23 220 12 323 0 340 31 0 10 41 0 0 0 0 601 P M. Total I flour EB: SENSENY RD WB: SENSENYRD NB ROSSUM LA SB 1 Hour Period N.S. Period Beniniag Letl Thor Right Total Leo 'Ihm Right Total Left Thor Right Total Letl Thm Right Total 12 F W Bcgining 7:00 0 85 2 87 0 56 0 86 13 0 10 23 0 0 0 0 196 7:00 0 95 4 99 I 92 0 93 I7 0 11 28 0 0 0 0 220 7:15 '7:15 7:30 0 102 4 106 I 96 0 97 16 0 11 27 0 0 0 0 230 7:30 7.45 0 107 6 113 1 95 0 96 I7 0 10 27 0 0 0 0 236 7:45 3.00 0 IOJ 7 I11 1 92 0 93 19 0 II 30 0 0 0 0 234 300 16.00 0 89 10 99 3 15S 0 161 16 0 6 22 0 0 0 0 282 16:00 16:15 0 101 II 112 5 173 0 17S 17 0 6 23 0 0 0 0 313 16 15 16:30 0 109 15 124 8 150 0 ISS IS 0 5 20 0 0 0 0 332 IG30 I G.45 0 112 U 125 10 ISO 0 190 14 0 4 IS 0 0 0 0 333 1645 I7 UO 0 103 13 121 9 170 0 li9 15 0 4 19 0 0 0 0 319 17 00 I Hour EB: SENSENY RD WB: SENSENY RD NB. ROSSUM LA SB: I Hour PerioJ N,S. Period Bcgining Left Thm Right Total LcR Th. Right Total Left Thm Right Total LeR Tlmt Right Total E R W 3,gining 7:45 0 107 6 113 1 95 0 96 17 0 10 27 0 0 0 0 236�1�6 745 A M. Peak PHF = 0 SS PIiF = 092 PIIF = 068 PHI: = 0.95 0 112 IJ 125 10 130 0 190 14 0 4 13 0 0 0 0 333PHF = 0.92 PHF = 0.95 PfIF = 075 PIiF = 094 I 11, 3303-I-0)\Excel\Pubiishcd Data\TratTc CounIMENSENYROSSUNI.xls EAV SEN$ENYRD WmIler DRY FileNamclP:\Projectll330311.01Trwsponation)Ltmbe Ward (I3303-1-0)1Exccl\PublishedDau%TmRcCouncs\SENSENYROSSUbI.xls �i—tion: N-S ,."UMLA Cowl By J1P Input By I1,."UM Location Winchestor.VA Count Date Ingq#vn# 0 A.M. PEAK HOUR I 7:" - 8:" 0 0 0 SENSENY RD (48 113 9G II7— NSENY RD I0 17 10 7 I 1 (7/) 27 ROSSUM LA 0 P.M. PEAK HOUR f I16:45- 17:45 0 0 0 4 SENSENY RD — 194 �— (4N54) 0 �1 0 I25 —i 112 —► 190 �F— 10 (41ifi.) II6—� Nsevv RD � � r 14 0 4 23 18 ROSSUM LA 'JI I�mm Pemrnl F " 45 54°" lVixt 477Y"' Nnnh 000% Soul6 (,Sly. Intl% Intwscetion: E-1V:ISENSENYRD Weather[RAIN File Name I Pd.Project\13303\I-0\Transpo[tation\Latnbw Ward (13303-1-0)\Excci\Published Data\Trallic Counts\SENSENYTWINBROOK.xis N-S: TIVINBROOK CIR Count By I j1P Input ByIj1P Location Winch,ttcr,VA Count Date 10-20-04 15 Minutc EB: SENSENY RD WE SENSENY RD NB: TWINBROOK CIR SB: SENSENY GLEN DR 15 Min Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Lelt Thm Right Total Le1i Th. Right Total Lcll Tbm Right Total N,S, E & W1 Period BCF ning 7:00 1 1& 0 19 0 14 I IS 2 0 3 5 3 0 3 6 15 7:00 7:15 0 21 _ 23 I 16 0 17 6 0 5 II 4 0 4 S 59 7,315 7:30 3 26 1 30 0 I8 0 IS 4 1 _ 7 4 0 3 7 62 7.30 7.15 24 3 28 0 21 1 = 3 0 7 3 0 5 9 65 : 500 22 1 25 t 19 0 20 5 0 G 11 5 I 4 10 66 8 :00 00 8.15 4 2S 4 36 0 20 1 22 5 0 2 7 3 0 7 10 75 8:15 8:30 8:45 _ 2 26 24 5 4 33 30 1 0 17 21 4 22 23 7 5 1 0 4 3 12 8 4 3 0 0 4 4 8 7 75 68 8:30 8:45 A.M. Total 15 189 20 224 3 146 1 o 159 37 2 29 68 29 1 34 64 I 515 A.M. Total 16:00 8 13 11 32 4 28 4 36 4 0 1 5 2 0 5 80 16:00 16: 15 9 17 8 34 2 30 6 38 5 0 3 8 1 0 5 6 S6 16:15 16:30 8 19 11 38 4 36 4 44 8 0 _ 10 2 0 6 S 100 I6:30 16:45 6 24 9 39 5 42 5 52 10 0 0 10 0 0 8 l 109 16:15 17.15 II 8 26 21 10 8 47 37 7 4 41 35 10 9 58 18 8 6 0 1 I I 9 8 1 0 I 0 6 4 8 4 122 97 17.00 17 15 '1700 17:30 6 16 6 28 2 31 6 39 10 0 2 12 2 0 6 3 87 17:30 17:45 5 16 4 25 1 3 26 5 34 8 0 I 9 0 0 5 5 73 17.45 P M. Total 61 152 67 280 31 269 49 349 59 I 1 71 3 I 45 34 754 11 P.M. Total I How EB: SENSENY RD WE, SENSENY RD NB: TWIBROOK CIR SB: SENSENY GLEN DR 1 How Period N,S, Prnod .giving Leli Th. Right Total Ldi Th. Right Total Lell Thm Right Total L<Ci Thru Right Total E & 1V Begmmg 7.00 5 89 6 100 1 69 _ 72 IS I 14 30 14 0 IS 29 231 700 7:15 6 93 106 2 74 1 77 IB I 17 36 16 1 16 33 252 7:15 7:30 10 too 9 119 1 78 3 82 17 I 11 32 IS 1 19 35 268 7.30 7:45 9 100 3 12^_ _ 77 7 36 20 I 16 37 IS l 20 36 281 7:45 8:00 10 100 14 121 77 9 87 22 1 15 38 15 1 19 75 284 3.00 16:00 31 73 77 143 IS 136 19 170 27 0 6 33 5 0 '_4 29 375 16:00 16:15 34 86 38 159 IS 149 25 192 31 0 6 37 4 1 25 30 417 16.15 16:30 33 90 38 I61 20 154 28 202 32 I 4 37 3 1 24 28 428 16:30 l 6:45 31 87 33 151 18 W9 30 197 34 1 4 37 3 1 24 28 415 1645 17.00 30 79 28 137 16 111 30 .11 32 I 33 3 1 '_1 25 319 17:10 I How EB: SENSENY RD WB: SENSENY RD NB: TWINBROOK CIR SB: SENSENY GLEN DR I How Period N,S. Period Be��ning Lcll Tiw Right Total Ldl Thm Right Total Lcli Thnt Right Total Lcll Th. Right Total E & WI Be .1- 8.00 10 100 14 124 2 77 8 87 22 1 15 38 15 1 19 35 234 l AM Peak PHF = 0.86 PHF = 095 PIIP = 0.79 PHF = O.SS 095 . P ak 16-30 33 90 38 161 20 154 28 202 32 I 4 37 3 1 24 23 423 16 30 P M. Peak PHF = 0.86 PIN= 0.87 PHF = 0.93 PHF = 0.98 0.88 P.M. Peak a I E-W: SENSENY RDII.- RAIN File Name P:\Pro ect\I3303\1-0\Trans .-Iion\Lamb- Ward (13303-1-0)\Excel\Published Data\T.aiic Counts\SENSEN}^FWRBROOK..Is �ersection: N-S TWINBROOKCIR Ccvount 11P In ul Hv 11P Location I Winchectar-VA Count Date 10--2_0--04 SENSENY GLEN DR A.M. PEAK HOUR V 19 1 S SL•NSENT RD �- 13 1 1 1 24— 100 77 r— 37 14 —_. j— _ (38%) I-N-IINY RD I j� 1�� 22 1 IS ! 171 (10%) 33 nv1NBRooK c1R SENSENY GLEN DR M. PEAK HOUR I 1 16.30- 17:30 I i 23 (11" 62 24 1 3 1 SENSENY RD 210 161 90 154 w— 202 20 97 —� 111-IlyRD } I1 j� 32 4 ! 59 (11'/,) 37I T W INBROOK CIR n ro-n,nl;„n 1 r,,,r•nnn P—w liut 3657:. Nmil, Ill tll".i, Samh I0_yS•:: iIIIII% i 1 ! i 1 1 !" 0 COUNT" of FREDERICK ��� Department of Planning and Development 5401665-5651 FAX: 5401665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING August 10, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-05 FOR SENSENY VILLAGE On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, August 24, 2005, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following- application: Rezoning 904-05 for Senseny Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70 acres from "'A (Ruv l Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with Proffers. This 73.79 acre site is located on the south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Tv; inbrool: Circle (Route 867), in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property.Identification Numbers (PINS) 65-A-49B an^ 65-A-55. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Plarming and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: - vww.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director 7 MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 00 •. e This is to certify, th t the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on p from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 65 - A- - 190- 65 - A- - 49-B DAVIS, WILMER R & DONNA N BGW, INC. PO BOX 2071 rU' CW 5912 SENSENY RD WINCHESTER, VA 22604-1271 BERRYVILLE, VA 22611-3348 65 - A- - 55- 65B 7- - 10- LAMBERT, HAZEL C RUBLE, RANDY L 274 MASON ST 223 ROSSUM LN 4 WINCHESTER, VA. 22602 6718 WINCHESTER, VA 22602-6740 �U;u� 65D - 1- - 1- LINAWEAVER, CONNIE B Mr. Mark D. Smith. 1'.E L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane V\ Winchester_ VA 22602 65 - A- - 72- EFG INVESTMENTS, LLC 340 W PARKINS MILL RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602-4735 65 - A- 186-B WERDEBAUGH, RONALD F & MELANIE J 286 WOOD RISE LN 175 ROSSUM LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602-6739 65D - 2- - 4- KOONCE, SWAGLER H II & BRENDA S 240 CLAYHILL DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-2309 65D 2- - 5- BRUMBACK, BETTIE G. CIO BETTY KISNER 218 MILLER ST WINCHESTER, VA. 22601-3753 WINCHESTER, VA 22602-6560 65 - A- - 186-J CORBIN, GLORIA CeLe-Z-_ 325 WOOD RISE LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602-6564 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 1, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do heoy certify that MichaeAPR uddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planni d Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 6710ro-,has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. d this a da Given under my hany of My commission expires on . —� �/_ NOTARY � 0 vi54 65D - 2- - 7- • GODLOVE, ELWYNNE 106 OAKMONT CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-6729 65D - 2- - 8- SMITH, MAUREEN E 108 OAKMONT CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-6729 65D - 2- - 9- MCDONALD, PRISCILLA 110 OAKMONT CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-672E 65D - 2- - 10-A GLENMONT VILLAGE ASSOC. PO BOX 3266 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-2466 65D - 3- 4- 53- TAYLOR, MARK A & AIMEE D 114 TWINBROOK CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7010 65D - 3- 4- 54- MCDONALD, R G PROPERTIES LC PO BOX 2321 WINCHESTER, VA 22604-1521 65D - 4- 5- 71- VALLEY VIEW ASSOCIATES, LLC PO BOX 588 STRASBURG, VA 22657.0588 65D - 5- 6- 76- KREER, THOMAS EVERETT 222 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7004 65D - 5- 6- 77- MASSULLO, MARC A & CAROYL L 224 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER,VA 22602-7004 65D - 5- 6- 78- WELLS, STACEY L & DAWN RENEE 226 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7004 65D - 5- 6- 79- CRUZ, AGUSTIN & MARIA R & YONY A 228 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7004 650 - 5- 6- 80- MACKNIGHT, COREY R & DEBORAH L 230 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7004 65D - 5- 6- 81- JANECZEK, MARY 234 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7005 65D - 5,i& 82- BACA-TWOS, MARITZA 236 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7005 65D - 5- 6- 83- NESSELRODT, DONALD E 238 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7005 650 - 5. 6. 84- WHITE, DAWN L 240 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7005 65D - 5- 6- 85- ROSS, KIM V & CAROLYN S 242 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 5- 6- 86- FITZGIBBON, JAMES J & REBECCA L 244 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 5- 6. 87- BENNETT, JAMES F & MARGARET A 246 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 5- 6- 88- O'HARA, DANIEL & MONICA 248 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 5- 6- 89- ADAMS, GARY LINDEN & JUANITA SPIELMAN ADAMS 249 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7006 65 - A- - 50- ATKINS, MAURICE M 170 ROSSUM LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6737 65 - A- - 54- RUBLE, RANDY LEE & MARY F 269 MASON ST WINCHESTER, VA. 22602-6721 65 - A- - 56- CLINE, GENEVIEVE M 225 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 65 - A- - 57- UPDYKE, JERRY L & WINIFRED D CIO JEAN CARTER 2434 BERRYVILLE PIKE WINCHESTER, VA. 22603.4881 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on lftin)/'J from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 65 • A• 71- 65 . A- - 60- ATTIA, HESHAM F & KHALIFA, NAGLAA S LAFOND, DANIEL P & JENIFER 3966 SUNNYBROOK CT 253 BROAD AVE WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192 6445 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 65 - A- - 62- 65 . A• . 68-A ROLES, DONALD L & DELORES V FRANKLIN, LEWIS F JR PO BOX 44 263 BROAD AVE STEPHENSON, VA 2.2656-0044 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 65B - 6- - 38- 65 - A- - 63- ATKINS, MAURICE M SMITH, ROBERT DONALD & FLETCHER, HELEN LEE 170 ROSSUM LN 273 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6737 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 65 - A- - 70- Clarke County Planning Dept. PUFFINBURGER, PAUL R Attn: Church Johnston, Planning Director 281 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 102 North Church St. Berryville, VA 22611 65 - A- - 86- LEHMAN, H HAROLD & CAROL A TRUSTEES 148 BROOKNEIL DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6650 65 . A- - 65- SWANER, MARVIN L 299 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 ✓Iichael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director rederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC RECEIVED FROMYy ADDRESS qTp T FOR `�� &,CV,-n DATE 3123 o s _ NO. 8 214 GIAu- - u C ■ •� ■ AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT I AMT. PAID �-- CHECK (1L 1 BALANCE I MONEY DUE__ ORDER / ��(00 LLARS $ lo,4 a9 • �~ 98 BY COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 'i 65D - 3- 4- 53- MOREL, MICHAEL J 114 TWINBROOK C WINCHESTER,VA NXXIE 201 1 O0 1O/29/06 Rf::T'URN TO SE:NDEER NOT DEEL IVCRADL.EE AS ADORCSSE-D UN AOLC 'TO FORWARD CC: 22601503907 "3017-00'749-- 25 -41 (1SZrly, V'�C�p 226O1%SO39 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING October 25, 2006 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 413-06 FOR SENSENY VILLAGE On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, November 8, 2006, at 7:15 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following applications: Rezoning #13-06 of Senseny Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the purpose of revising the Generalized Development Plan (GDP) and proffers applicable to the road design. Master Development Plan 412-06, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to accommodate 285 residential units. The property is located on the south side of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867) in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers 65-A-49B and 65-A-55. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the meeting, or at the Department of Plamling and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, �i Candice E. Perkins Planner II CEP/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 I CAI __0S �s �`•/� s �.0 y V L� •TO: Barbara - Data Processing FROM- Bev - Pla ing Dept. Please riot S 6.s —A ✓ 5J� L/ p sets of labels by: C � �p / - i THANKS111 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclusu. relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Hazel C. Lambert, owner Taylor Grace, LLC, owner 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential and Undeveloped B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential Subdivision 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 65B-((7))-10 ✓ Residential RP District 65D-((1))-1 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-4 i Residential RP District 65D-((2))-5 ,/ Residential RP District 65D-((2))-6 ✓ Residential RA District 65D-((2))-7 �' Residential RP District 65D-((2))-8 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-9 v� Residential RP District 65D-((2))-l0A f Greenspace RP District 65D-((3))-4-53 Residential RP District 65D-((3))-4-54 v1 Residential RP District 65D-((3))-4-59A Greenspace RP District 65D-((4))-5-71 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-76 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-77 Residential RP District • 65D-((5))-6-78 / Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-79 i Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-80 / Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-81 / Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-82 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-83 / Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-84 _ / Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-85 / Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-86 / Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-87 , Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-88 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-89 Residential RP District 65-((A))-50 Residential RP District 65-((A))-54 Residential RP District 65-((A))-56 / Residential RP District 65-((A))-57 Residential RP District 65-((A))-60 / Residential RP District 65-((A))-62 Residential RP District 65-((A))-63 Residential RP District 65-((A))-70 Residential RP District 65-((A))-86 / Residential RP District 65-((A))-65 Residential RP District • 0 65-((A))-71 / Residential RP District 65-((A))-68A / Residential RP District 65B-((6))-38 Residential RP District 65-((A))-72 / Unimproved RA District 65-((A))-186B Residential RA District 65-((A))-186J / Residential RA District 65-((A))-190 ` Unimproved RA District Note: Please also provide public hearing meeting notice to Clarke County as the subject property is located within % mile of the Clarke County boundary line. Legal notice should be provided to the following address: Clarke County Planning Department Attn: Chuck Johnston, Planning Director 102 North Church Street Berryville, VA 22611 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): The 73.79-acre site is located on the south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING July 20, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION 904-05 FOR SENSENY VILLAGE On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, August 3, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 904-05 for Senseny Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with Proffers. This 73.79 acre site is located on the south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867), in the Red Bud Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINs) 65-A-49B and 65-A-55. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: NvNA,w.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that, the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on C, from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 65 - A- - 49-B BGW, INC. PO BOX 2071 WINCHESTER, VA Mr. Mark D. Smith, P.E., L.S. Greenway Engineering 151 Windy Hill Lane Winchester, VA 22602 65 - A- - 55- LAMBERT, HAZEL C 0 WIVIeK- 22604-1271 b�r�e�( - 223 ROSSUM LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6740 65 - A- - 186-B WERDEBAUGH, RONALD F & MELANIE J 286 WOOD RISE LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6560 65 - A- - 186-J CORBIN, GLORIA C 325 WOOD RISE LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6564 65 - A- - 190- DAVIS, WILMER R & DONNA N 5912SENSENY RD BERRYVILLE, VA 22611.3348 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK 65B - 7- - 10- RUBLE, RANDY L 274 MASON ST WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.6718 65D - 1- - 1- LINAWEAVER, CONNIE B 175 ROSSUM LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6739 65D - 2- - 4- KOONCE, SWAGLER H II & BRENDA S 240 CLAYHILL DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2309 65D - 2- - 5- BRUMBACK, BETTIE G. C10 BETTY KISNER 218 MILLER ST WINCHESTER, VA. 22601.3753 65D - 2- - 7- GODLOVE, ELWYNNE 106 OAKMONT CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6729 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Plamling � Zectcr Frederick County Planning Department e I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do 1 reby certify ' that Mhael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of PlannA d Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 7 0 �l j' , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and ounty aforesaid. Given under my hand thisday of My commission expires on NOTARY 6BLIC 65D - 2- - 8- SMITH, MAUREEN E 65 -6- 82- BANTOS, MARITZA 108 OAKMONT CIR 236 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6729 WINCHESTER, VA 22602-7005 65D - 2- - 9- 650 - 5- 6- 83- MCDONALD, PRISCILLA NESSELRODT, DONALD E 110 OAKMONT CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6729 238 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 2- - 10-A 65D - 5- 6. 84- GLENMONT VILLAGE ASSOC. WHITE, DAWN L PO BOX 3266 240 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22604.2466 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 3- 4- 53- 65D - 5- 6- 85- TAYLOR, MARK A & AIMEE D ROSS, KIM V & CAROLYN S 114 TWINBROOK CIR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7010 242 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 3- 4. 54- MCDONALD, R G PROPERTIES LC 65D - 5.6• 86- FITZGIBBON, JAMES J & REBECCA L PO BOX 2321 244 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22604.1521 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 4- 5- 71 65D • 5- 6. 87- VALLEY VIEW ASSOCIATES, LLC BENNETT, JAMES F & MARGARET A PO BOX 588 STRASBURG, VA 22657-0588 246 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65D - 5. 6. 76- 65D - 5- 6- 88- KREER, THOMAS EVERETT O'HARA, DANIEL & MONICA 222 GLENRIDGE DR 248 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7004 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 65U - 5. 6. 77- 65D • 5. 6- 89- IVASSULLO, MARC A & CAROYL L ADAMS, GARY LINDEN 224 GLENRIDGE DR & JUANITA SPIELMAN ADAMS WINCHESTER, VA 22602 7004 249 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7006 65D - 5- 6- 78- 65 - A- . 50- WELLS, STACEY L & DAWN RENEE ATKINS, MAURICE M 226 GLENRIDGE DR 170 ROSSUM LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7004 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6737 65 - A- - 54- 65D - 5. 6. 79- RUBLE, RANDY LEE & MARY F CRUZ, AGUSTIN & MARIA R & YONY A 269 MASON ST 228 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA. 22602.6721 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7004 65 - A- - 56- 65D - 5. 6. 80- CLINE, GENEVIEVE M MACKNIGHT, COREY R & DEBORAH L 225 BROAD AVE 230 GLENRIDGE DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7004 65 • A- - 57- 65D -5-6- 81• UPDYKE, JERRY L & WINIFRED D JANECZEK, MARY C/O JEAN CARTER 234 GLENRIDGE DR 2434 BERRYVILLE PIKE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.7005 WINCHESTER, VA. 22603-4881 0 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 65 - A- - 60- LAFOND, DANIEL P & JENIFER 253 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 65 - A- - 62. ROLES, DONALD L & DELORES V 263 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 65 - A- - 63- SMITH, ROBERT DONALD & FLETCHER, HELEN LEE 273 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 65 - A- - 70- PUFFINBURGER, PAUL R 281 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 65 - A- - 86- LEHMAN, H HAROLD & CAROL A TRUSTEES 148 BROOKNEIL DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6650 65 - A- - 65- SWANER, MARVIN L 299 BROAD AVE WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6710 0 1 H 1 r, y r V I n"111411A COUNTY OF FREDERICK 65 -A- - 71- ATTIA, HESHAM F & KHALIFA, NAGLAA S 3966 SUNNYBROOK CT WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192.6445 65 - A- - 68-A FRANKLIN, LEWIS F JR PO BOX 44 STEPHENSON, VA 22656.0044 65B - 6- - 38- ATKINS, MAURICE M 170 ROSSUM LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.6737 Clarke County Planning Dept. Attn: Church Johnston, Planning Director 102 North Church St. Berryville, VA 22611 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do hereby certify that Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning and Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this day of My commission expires on NOTARY PUBLIC T0: Barbara - Data Processing S i-� N y/ FROM: Bev - Pla ng Dept. Please print sets of labels by: J Tenxxslu 5. The Code of Virginia allows us to request full disclusu, r,.,..,...... �_� _ relation to rezoning applications. Please list below all owners or parties in interest of the land to be rezoned: Hazel C. Lambert, owner L Taylor Grace, LLC, owner 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential and Undeveloped B) Proposed Use of the Property: Residential Subdivision 7. Adjoining Property: PARCEL ID NUMBER USE ZONING 65B-((7))-10 Residential RP District 65D-((1))-1 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-4 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-5 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-6 Residential RA District 65D-((2))-7 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-8 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-9 Residential RP District 65D-((2))-l0A Greenspace RP District 65D-((3))-4-53 Residential RP District 65D-((3))-4-54 Residential RP District 65D-((3))-4-59A Greenspace RP District 65D-((4))-5-71 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-76 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-77 Residential RP District 4 65D-((5))-6-78 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-79 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-80 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-81 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-82 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-83 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-84 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-85 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-86 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-87 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-88 Residential RP District 65D-((5))-6-89 Residential RP District 65-((A))-50 Residential RP District 65-((A))-54 Residential RP District 65-((A))-56 Residential RP District 65-((A))-57 Residential RP District 65-((A))-60 Residential RP District 65-((A))-62 Residential RP District 65-((A))-63 Residential RP District 65-((A))-70 Residential RP District 65-((A))-86 Residential RP District 65-((A))-65 Residential RP District f 0 65-((A))-71 Residential RP District 65-((A))-68A Residential RP District 65B-((6))-38 Residential RP District 65-((A))-72 Unimproved RA District 65-((A))-186B Residential RA District 65-((A))-186J Residential RA District 65-((A))-190 Unimproved RA District Note: Please also provide public hearing meeting notice to Clarke County as the subject property is located within % mile of the Clarke County boundary line. Legal notice should be provided to the following address: Clarke County Planning Department Attn: Chuck Johnston, Planning Director 102 North Church Street Berryville, VA 22611 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact located based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route number): The 73.79-acre site is located on the south of Rossum Lane (Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867). w • • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING April 20, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-05 FOR S On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Comrfii ou are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 70 p. . in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Ike t r t, Winchester, Virginia to consider the following application: ►� Rezoning #04-05 for Senseny Vill kh, subchitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Arias) District to ( es a tial Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) Distri tes ential Performance) District with Proffers. This 73.79 acre site is located on the south o Ro inLane Route 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867), in the Red Bud Magisterial I,istric hr► i tified by Property Identification Numbers (PINs) 65-A-49B and 65-A-55. Any interested pares having questions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, \or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.uXr Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 • COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING April 6, 2005 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #04-05 FOR SENSENY VILLAGE On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, yo ereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, April 20, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. ' Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street, W' ter, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning #04-05 for Senseny Village, suAee Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (RO(rformance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential Performance) istrict to RP Performance) District with Proffers. This 73.79 acre site is located on the SOT o th Ro s to 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Route 867), in the Red Bud Magisterial Distric an is i ti ied by Property Identification Numbers (PINS) 65-A-49B and 65-A-55. Any interested parties having q stions or wishing to speak may attend this public hearing. A copy of the application will be available review at the Handley Library and the Bowman Library the week of the hearing, or at the Department of Planning and Development located at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely,, -/Michael T. Ruddy Deputy Planning Director MTR/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 DEPT. OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA GIS, MAPPE%, GRAPHICS WORKREQUEsT DATE RECEIVED: REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: Z/// A � REQUESTING AGENT: Department, Agency, or Company: - Mailing and/or Billing Address: Telephone: E-mail Address: ESTIMATED COST OF PROJECT: FAX: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Write additional informati G ae4 % l0 ,4_) pgfi-PS P.__ _ /tj . "S &5--,- - LHL3) 6 S-I DIGITAL: PAPER: FAX: SIZES: COLOR: BLACYjWHITE: STAFF MEMBER - COMPLETION DATE: MATERIALS: DATE OF PICK-UP/DELIVERY: AMOUNT DUE: AMOUNT BILLED: METHOD OF PAYMENT: E-MAIL: NUMBER OF COPIES: HOURS REQUIRED: AMOUNT PAID: CHECK NO.4 Frederick County GIS, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5651)