The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About014-86 Gore-Gainesboro School - BackfileLCEUTEQ OlF MRASOUTU MILLS, OLIVER & WEBB, INC. ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS ORIGINATED FROM: P.O. BOX 213, PLAZA 1 BUILDING E a 200 COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE BLACKSBURG VIRGINIA 24060 703/552-2151 1422 MAIN STREET PRINCETON, WEST VIRGINIA24740 304/425-6788 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FREDERICK COUNTY 9 COURT SQUARE WIN.HESTER, VTRGTNTA 29601 DATE I JOB NO. ATTENTION STEVE GARRISON RE FREDERICK CO.ELEMENTRY SCHOOL GENTLEMEN: WE ARE SENDING YOU X1 Attached ❑i Under separate cover via X Prints ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order 11 the following items: COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 10 COVER SHEET C1 & C2 3 89 I I1_EP,L 4F PLWNI A{�Q kCuaf THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: Cl For approval ❑ For your use [] As requested N For review and comment I] REMARKS COPY TO SIGNED: If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. + -1,17A- COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development DfC�%j/ co Robert W. Watkins - Planning Director AN TQEVF�N�b o M E M O R A N D U M 703/665-5651 TO: VA. Dept. of Highways & Transportation , ATTN: Mr. William H. Bushman filth Department ATTN: Mr. Herbert L. Sluder Inspections Department , ATTN: Mr. John W. Dennison Gore Fire Company , ATTN: Mr. Donald Whitacre Planning Department , ATTN: Mr. Robert W. Watkins Zoning Department , ATTN: Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Director DATE: May 8, 1986 SUBJECT: Review Comments On: Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Rezoning X Site Plan We are reviewing the enclosed request by Dr. Kenneth Walker, Frederick Co. Schools or their representative, G(.0.1L' 3 g 8 E Will you please review the attached and return your comments to me as soon as I - possible. THIS SPACE SHOULD BL USED D FOR REVIEW C=4ENTS : Signature Date 9 Court Sauare - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development Robert W. Watkins - Planning Director M E M O R A N D U M 703/005-5651 58 TO: VA. Dept. of Highways & Transportation ATTN: Mr. William H. Bushman Health Department , ATTN: Mr. Herbert L. Sluder (Inspections Department, , ATTN: Mr. John W. Dennison Gore Fire Company , ATTN: Mr. Donald Whitacre Planning Department , ATTN: Mr. Robert W. Watkins Zoning Department , ATTN: Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin FROM: Robert W. Watkins, Director DATE: May 8, 1986 SUBJECT: Review Comments On: Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Rezoning X Site Plan We are reviewing the enclosed request by Dr. Kenneth Walker, Frederick Co. Schools or their representative, (occa 5868 Will you please review the attached and return your comments to me as soon as possible. THIS SPACE SHOULD BE USED FOR REVIEW COMMENTS: 10 .Ro I _IN_ �'nm� .fir ,�i�ry�' \1) Arf Q Arv,-) _ Signature Date —7i '7�)—&� 9 Court Sauare P.O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 November 20, 1986 Mr. Kenneth Walker Frederick County School Board P.O. Box 3508 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Walker: This letter is to confirm the Frederick County Planning Commissions' action at their meeting of November 19, 1986: Approval of Site Plan #014-86 for a elementary school and site improvements located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District. If you have any questions regarding this site plan approval, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, - 'A' 4,4-,q Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWWIdll SITE PLAN #014-86 Gore/Gainesboro School 19.5 Acres; Zoned A-1 (Agricultural Limited) LOCATION: West side of Route 600, north of the Route 50 West intersection at Hayfield. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Gainesboro ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING: AgricultrAl Land Use and Zoning PROPOSED USE AND IMPROVEMENTS: Elementary school and site improvements REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Highway Department - No objection. Prior to doing any work on the State's right-of-way, an entrance permit must be obtained. Health Department - No objections. Gore Fire Company - No comment. Inspections Department - Proposed building to be designed and built in conformance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and applicable referenced standards for the A-4 use. Planning and Zoning - No objection. All applicable zoning and site plan requirements have been met. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Unanimous approval HAROLD C KING, COMMISSIONER E DGAR BACON, JONESVILLE, BRISTUL UISIRICT STEPHENA MUSSELWHITE ROANUKE. U MINSTRHT JAMESL DAVIDSON. JR. LYNCHRIIRG LYNCHHURG IRSTRI(T M PHILMORE HOWLETTE, RICHMOND RICHMOND DISMR C ROGER MALBON VIRGI.NIA BEA(W.NIffULK UISTWCT H R HUMPHREYS, JR. WEEMS, AIE1&WCWSBURG USTRILT CONSTANCE R KINCHELOE, (ULPEPER. (VLPEPER DISTRI(T ROBERTW SMALLEY, BE'RRYVIL .. STAUPM).N DISTRICT JOSEPHM GUIFFRE ALE' IMIA..MIRMERN WRGINIA DISIRILT T EUGENE SMITH,* LEAN, AT LARGE URBAN ROBERT A GUICKE. BLACKSIONE.. AT LARGE RURAL COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (703) 984-4133 May 12, 1986 Mr. Robert W. Watkins Planning Director C / O Dept. of Planning & Development 9 Court Square, P. O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Watkins: OSCAR K MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J M MAY, JR CHIEF ENGINEER J T WARREN DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS JACK HODGE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SALLY H COOPER DIRECTOR OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION J G RIPLEY DIRECTOR Of PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING ALBERTW COATES. JR DIRECTOR Of ADMINISTRATION J W ATWELL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Ref: Route 600 Proposed entrance Elementary School Frederick County This is to acknowledge receipt of your comment sheet concerning the site plan for the proposed elementary school. We have reviewed this location at the site and it appears the sight distance is inadequate and we could not issue a permit at this location unless adjustments to the roadway are made. We have submitted this plan to our District Office for their comments. When we have received their comments, we will pass along to you. KDW/ks Sincerely, . S' Z � K. � . D . Walker Inspector For: W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer 44Y1966 of�CEIV�� ftpo4g � TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES HAIIGLD C KING. COMMISSIONER F _ .�' OSCAR K MARRY _ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER EDGAR BACON..N)NE]I7/ .. BRIST)L MSTRN-r "I. i' -� j Mq r J M WRAY. JR STf PHENA MUSSELWHITE, RUANfN(E. MUM U/.YTH/fT �' DC CHIEF ENGINEER JAMES L DAVIDSON, JR LTNCHBIIRG. LTN('HNURG INSTR/(T } F -_ i1 J T WARREN ' o ' �' DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS M PHILMDRE HOWLE TTE.N/CHYONII R/C'MNUNf)INSR/( IT -4 JACK HODGE C ROGER MALSON. VINGVIA PEACH, VIM)LK (NSTRI T DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING ��,)• f A Y 'I 1 H R HUMPHREYS,JR. WEE'NN TTFEI)ER/C'KVFURG INSTRI(T F `lUrMf� E SALLYH COOPER 1 t DIRECTOR OF RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CONSTANCE R KINCHELOE. (I'LJWPER. (VLPEPER (NSTRI(T J ROBERT W SMALLEY BE'RRIYIIfi.'. STAUNN'TT)INSTRI(T + DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING JOSEPH M GUIFFRE ALE"WMA..N(MTHERN VIREANM INSI U(7 COMMONWEALTH off RI 14 ALBERT W COATES, JR DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION T EUGE NE SMITH. EI�LE'AN.AT LARGE'IIRBAN DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION J W ATM/ELL ROBERT A OUICKE. HLACKSTWX AT LARGERURAL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (703) 984-4133 May 23, 1986 Mr. Robert W. Watkins •' Ref: Route 600 Planning Director Proposed Entrance C/O Dept. of Planninq & Development Flementary School 9 Court Square, P. O. Box 601 Frederick County Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Watkins: This is a follow-up to the letter we sent you concerning the proposed entrance at the above location. As advised, we had our Traffic and Safety Engineer review this location and they concur the proposed location does not meet the minimum 550' sight distance for the statutory 55 m.p.h. speed limit. The proposed entrance design will not accommodate school buses. We recommend a 50' entrance with a 10' offset and 40' radii without an island to be utilized providing the sight distance problem can be resolved. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. KDW/ks cc: Dr. Kenneth Walker Sincerely, . ' P' iWe Inspector For: W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES �G� •! COS COUNTY of FREDERICK �c Departments of Planning and Building 703/655-5650 July 1, 1986 Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. P.Q.. Box 2104 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Mr. Maddox: This letter is to confirm that on June 18, 1986, the Frederick County Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Regency Heights and the Final Site Plan for Re�ency Lake Mobile&liome Park for residential development on 16- 4 acres located at the end. of Warne —Lane, just east of the intersection -of Route 7 and I-81, in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Please submit four copies of the final revised site plan for staff approval. Also, please submit final subdivision plats and plans for review and approval. Before any excavation or land disturbance is undertaken, a land disturbing permit must be obtained and before construction, a building permit must be obtained. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call this office. Sincerely, - /-- � K-1— /'/ /"-6 (� , — Robert W. Watkins Planning Director RWW/rsa 9 Court Square - P.O. Box 601 - Winchester, Virginia - 22601 SITE PLAN #015-86 Regency Lake Estates 169.47 Acres, Zoned MH-1 (Mobile Home Community) LOCATION: At the end of Warner Lane, leading northeastward from Route 7, just east of the intersection of Route 7 and I-81. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING: Open space, agricultural, residential, and commercial land use and B-2, A-2, RP Zoning. PROPOSED USE AND IMPROVEMENTS: Planned Residential Development REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Highway Department - See attached sheets. Sanitation Authority - See attached sheets. Inspections Department - Proposed buildings to be designed and built in accordance with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and applicable referenced standards for the intended use. Mobile homes shall be mounted and anchored in accordance with the manufacturer's prescribed method of installation and the Virginia Industrialized Building and Mobile Home Safety Regulations. !' Greenwood Fire Company - See attached sheets. Planning and Zoning - This project is divided into two uses --Regency Lake Mobile Home Park and Regency Heights, a single-family residential development. Both uses are shown on the site plan submitted. Additionally, both are provided access from Route 7 via Regency Lake Drive, which is proposed to meet VDH&T road standards. Because both uses are shown, and access for both are from the same road, the plan for the mobile home park is a final site plan while that portion showing the single-family development is a preliminary subdivision plat. Due to the scale of this project, a master development plan was submitted and approved for the entire project. However, the staff would note that a master development plan is only required for the single-family portion of this project. Planning Commission action is required for approval of the mobile t1 • `�` r ' 0 home site plan, while only a review at this time. A final subdivision come to the Planning Commission at Page 2 Regency Lake SP of the preliminary subdivision is needed plat for the single-famil section will a later date. Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Regency Heights No Action is required for this review. A final plat will be presented at a later date. The preliminary plat is in general conformance with the approved master development plan. The number of lots, 72 single-family lots, is the same as the master plan. The street layout varies from the master plan, but is not considered a major or substantial change. The amount of open space has increased while the overall lot size has decreased. The staff has recommended that the developer proceed with final subdivision approval. Final Site Plan - Regency Lake Mobile Home Park All MH-1 (Mobile Home Park) zoning requirements for this site plan have been addressed. Buffering is shown around the entire site. All yard and distance requirements for each unit are appropriate. There is ample open space and recreational facilities provided for the 641 units proposed on the 169.47 acre site. Each unit is shown on this plan with a typical layout for each site that meets all parking, yard, and storage requirements. Gross maximum and net density for this park are within acceptable minimums. Road access from Route 7 is on Regency Lake Drive and is proposed to be constructed to State highway standards. All other roads shown are proposed to be private streets constructed to the standards of the mobile home park zoning requirements. Visitor or community parking is provided at a number of locations throughout this development. All VDH&T, Sanitation Authority, and zoning requirements have been placed on an amended plan. Fire Department comments will be forwarded to the applicant and Sanitation Authority for inclusion in the plan and to assure compliance with County fire codes. All street names will be checked for duplication during the house numbering stage of this project. Any duplicate or similar names will be changed prior to street naming or house numbering. This project meets and/or exceeds the requirements and intent of the MH-1 Zoning Requirements. Due to the size and scope of this project, the staff will forward copies of all amended plans to the technical review agencies to assure that all comments have been incorporated correctly. Pa ge 3 Regency Lake SP STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Regency Heights and of the Final Site Plan for Regency Lake Mobile Home Park. Note: Due to the scale of this project, the staff will re-route the revised plans to all technical review agencies to insure that all comments have been met. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: Unanimous approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Regency Heights and the Final Site Plan for Regency Lake Mobile Home Park. U.mUCT HUNG W.ITNCT ,,:,,,�' ,�v/�4RIOINONDOf.TT1VCT MFSIlS /TELIXALCTE.IDURO USTRfCT -`•y�A`MO1tLOL CLgXr m Cta.MmR USrXPCT if w W W.EY. /i111+1 ax JfA wmN DCTf7KT •1 M GUW*M. ALLS. 09L& A04THLEN YIROUNA DGTTRN.T EN[ ZR . WJ.L4X A T L kk()K- R1<AN ,TA EyAou.L CX3r0NKATLCAOLtUt4L 0 COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (703) 984-4133 - June 16, 1986 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. C/O Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates 20 South Cameron Street P. O. Box 2104 Winchester,'VA 22601 Dear Chuck: JU - r Ou1f 11M.ati(1A - J T W f" DIAECTOA Of 0"PLATi JAl]E .DOGE DAHECTCR U ENO+4 ETs,C SAI TH COOMPA WECTU O(MtADO ItAJC TTA 0"AT J G lt.R" DMKTOA Of P A-0 AM ngOAAarr6 AL WW COATO.J DMECTUI OF AdwiT1EATIOX J W ATWEIL DW*CTOA Of iMATQ Ref: Regency Lake Estates Subdivision Off of Route 7 Frederick County The following is to clarify and consolidate the recommendations'. pertaining to the proposed development last correspondence from you dated May 30, 1986: various reviews and with reference to the 1. Road Crossing Dam: The developer's engineer will provide the dedication documents for the roadway easement crossing of the dam in lieu of right-of-way. These documents will have to be submitted to the Central Office for signatures by the Legal Section, and Departmental officials. Prior to occupancy of the first lots in the subdivsion, the loop road will be graded with an aggregate base surface to be used in event of dam failure. Dedicated right-of-way should be provided at this time for the loop road. This matter was called to your attention in our letter dated January 13, 1986, item number seven. 2. Traffic Signal: A note has been added to the plans to the effect the developer will install a traffic light signal at the intersection with Route 7 when traffic, in the opinion of the Department, justifies it. 3. Main Entrance Road: The 200' taper and 200' storage lane have been provided along with the 12' width required. There is still a problem with the 15' turning radius which has been further reviewed by the " eel District Traffic Engineer. We are attaching a sketch showing the w1l. tracking of a WB-40 vehicle which requires a minimum 40' radius. It is, therefore, requested you redesign the entrance to show a minimum 40' radius for the traffic entering the development and a 25' radius for traffic exiting the development. It appears the 25' radius can be obtained without additional right -of -way. The drainage in the intersection has been overlooked in previous reviews. Therefore, the attached drawing shows what is required in the way of curb inlets and storm sewer. A pipe will be required under the westbound lane of Route 7 to discharge the additional runoff into the median. 4. Commercial Entrances: The' 4 proposed commercial entrance is to be located a minimum 25' from the end of the 40' flare radius of the intersection. TRANSPORTATION — AMERICA'S LIFELINES =�,narles E. je . 2 ine 16, 1986 Maddox, Jr., P. E. Entrance Road: The horizontal curve at Station 4 + 00 is more minimum than would be, desirable. The •130' centerline radius would meet the urban local street design for 20 MPH design speed; however, we are recommending at least a 160' centerline radius be provided. It appears the road could still be constructed within the existing dedicated right-of-way. The extension of the 40' curb and gutter section and taper to 24" pavement appears satisfactory. Estate Drive: Estate Drive has been revised to show 22' pavement width. I:& Utilities: The utilities proposed as they related to the design of the streets should be reviewed by the Department's utility representative. Dam Plans: Certain revisions have been made to the dam design in accordance with Mr. H. M. Shaver's letter dated May 28, 1986; however, no rip rap is shown on the west lake dam for the emergency spillway outflow down to the existing channel. The District Materials Section have been give a copy of the Geotechnical Report of the dam sites prepared by Foundation Engineering and are reviewing it for the structural adequacy: Pavement Design: The final pavement design will be determined by a CBR tests conducted by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation at the expense of the developer.. This request should be received after the rough grading has been completed. However, if the developer has already ran CBR tests, these should be submitted to the District Materials Section for his review to determine actual pavement design. Drainage: In general, the roadway drainage appears satisfactory with the exception of some minor revisions to pipe sizes and additions, such as erosion control measures, underdrains, and ditch configurations. The typical section for the roads that will be taken into the systems, including the subdivision streets, should show a 4' ditch width and 3:1 slopes as a minimum. Swale ditches are to be -provided thru all drainage easements with sod turf established or use of soil stabilization mat Standard EC-3 where necessary for erosion control. en the above comments have been added and shown on your revision, please submitted for our review and the Central Office Hydraulic's review. Sincerely, K. D. Walker It Inspector For: W. H. Bushman Resident Engineer W/rh tachments C: Mr. H. W. Attn: Shaver, Jr. Mr. C. F. Boles Mr. T. R. Blackburn Mr. J. B. Diamond 14 44 U Fe/ ' l a RPtA, 13 y M I _ p •' t. e Q�x in �e a'oop 4 3 X b y / a e. RP 31 K r ; 5 .� :tip• 21 OD ,� � � /'-• _ '` ; (/ � to ��,' la ..e �":+ uh / srorq LL I - .,.. crtr of p WINCHEST.ER T Q ...� O F A +� �� say ��•1 ;., \\�\� a -a'• /� \ d•^ / ea COMMONWEALTH ®$ VIRGINIA JAMES B. KENLEY, M. D. Department o f Health LEXINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE COMMISSIONER 129 SOUTH RANDOLPH STREET 915 Division of Water Programs `, 171314 POST OFFICE BOX `r LEXINGTON, VIItGINIA 24450450 "� �� PHONE : 703/463 - 7136 June 119 IM Co J i" t 0H RE6r1 v r o 'a�, FREDERICK COUNTY ^r Cl) A0,iz,'9.Str1W' S Of"o r� SUBJECT: ��e�=-� COUNTYWater, Reg es estetea Pegency Lake Associates, A Virginia Partnership 21 South Loudoun Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 rent'p men: Plans and specifications, as prepared by Gilbert W. Clifford and AssociateF, Inc., for the waterline extensions at Recency Lakes Estates, including Sections t, E, C and Regency Freights, excluding Sections G, E and F, as shown on plan sheet 2 of ?8, revised May 30, 198t, located in Frederick Court.y. have been rev! epee by th i s off i ce. The plans include sheets 1 of 38 threugh 38 of 38, dated received April 7, ].us and are ertitled "Regency takes Estates, Freeeric'k County, Virginia." The spe- cifications, dated April 1M-rd, are entitled "Construction Specifications for Pegency Lakes Estates, Frederick County, Virginia." In accerdance with Section ,34.17 of the Conm;crrwe;alth of Virginia Waterworks Ptulrtions, this letter is to advise that tt4esp pleas are sp+ecificaiierrs nr� tec ,pica My adequate and are approved by this office. one copy each of the plans ar~d specifications has been sttllrlped approved and is unclosed. In ac.cor fence with Section 3.14.01 of ne Regulations, t construction per At is not required fcr waterline extensions; therefore, a construction permit will not be issued. However, a statement of completion in accordance with Section 3.20 is rpau i rest. *A D Virg,do DepoHrrienI of Health 0 parr ? Reqfrcy Lake, Associates June 11, ISP6 RMIECT: FRMPICK COUTTY G'Ater: Regency Lekes Estates If we cen �e ref a,00tioral assistamcc, ple,;!t-e r.r.,rf -,*ct nrujllas V. Caldwel" or vaimln4 DeSai at 703/4634Us6. 11"ircer P I vt ronald E. forrer, P.E. Regional Director Znclosures cc: fMert !W. 1, A%sscrip-tc�s, Trc. Rict.are Voorp, Fre6erick County Siritetior Authority V. P, Jones Frederick rounty Peeth repartirert 'johr, Pile,v - Fredevirl., Courty Ael;inl%;trA,tcrvl State, EpeltV Pepartmert - Pichmon� 0 0 FREDERICK COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY DONALD R. HODGSON, CHAIRMAN ALLEN B. JOBE, VICE-CHAIRMAN G. W. BORDEN, SEC.-TREAS. R. S. CARPER N. J. NERANGIS POST OFFICE BOX 618 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22601 PHONE 703 - 667-0389 June 2, 1986 Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. , P. E. G. W. Clifford & Associates 20 South Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Re: Regency Lakes Estates Dear Chuck: WELLINGTON H. JONES. P.E. ENGINEER - DIRECTOR I have reviewed the plans corrected per comments in my May 27, 1986 letter. The plans are approved as corrected. This agency has no further comments. Sincerely, W. Jones, P. E. Engineer -Director /pb copy: Robert Watkins Ll • gilbert w. clifford & associates, inc. ��pp ((Qp INCORPORA�TpED 1972 ,,/�� Iff- eex.4 ,.Zana ;llannend M"Wrird 1411— 9-aa&% Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401-4098 • (703) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 20 South Cameron Street • P.O. Box 2104 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 • (703) 667-2139 May 30, 1986 Mr. Bill Bushman VDH&T Box 276 Edinburg, VA 22824 RE: Regency Lakes Estates Dear Bill, 9�ry In accordance with tithe variogs•-commept -letters recoi.0jid. pd�in'Gluded with yourAetter,of May 29, 1,986 to,Mr. Robert W. Wwatkins,�g a offer the fallaY"f" reply:' We.,d�ddress these items inn :particular' a°rder'. We undehtanu-Ahat the hydrologic; issueszR have, been dispensed with tind,Ahat What rema ns is the 1-egai issue as to haw de'dicatioin, .of' the�"roadwagr will be .accomoll'shed. We understand your,, policy with regard -to two access�� points fqr the proposeO Regency HeightsSubdivision Wb ID wil<lA'pr pose ded cation 'documents cansistent'ewith"thav�e s6hiole .,dbcurhbnts`,1-,previousl forwarded, io us and the""` owners'cttorney is worki'ng on;.this at -this time. This will allow or an easement crossing of the dam in lieu of fee simple dedication. it is proposed that prior to occupancy of the first lot in the subdivision the loop road around the lake will be graded and an aggregate base material installed so as to allow for a passible condition for subdivision traffic in the event of dam failure. A permanent easement or right-of-way along this road will be provided so as to allow the right of usage by subdivision owners. �� .�`tcr�r E fight.• The owner acknowledges the fact that a stop light will be '` i BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. P. Duane Brown, C.L.S. William L. Wright, Laboratory Director g. w. clifford & associates, inc. May 30, 1906 Page 2 required at some later point in project development. It is acknowledged and understood that when the Highway Resident Engineer indicates traffic levels exist which justify this stop light, then it will be installed by the developer or the department of the developers expense. A note to this effect has been added to the plans to satisfy County requests on this matter. J- Rt. ,�Frrtrartro• In order to meet your requirements, the east bound lone has been provided with a full 200 foot toper and 200 foot stacking lone. The width of the turning lane on the east bound and decell tone on the west bound lane have been changed to 12 feet from 10 feet. We have provided o 3 to 1 toper on the west bound lone as requested. The turning radius on the east side of the project intersection was shown to be 15 feet in order to maintain the road improvements within the existing right-of-woy. A 40 foot radius will require the addition of right-of-way. It is not known at this writing if such an acquisition is possible, however, we are checking. It should be pointed out that the purpose of the pavement widening and traffic control stripes was to allow for adequate turning radius on o single lane end condition. With a 16 foot single lone into the project, we believe adequate radius exist with the 15 foot radius shown. We do acknowledge that a larger radius would be better and we are attempting to work this out and will reply as soon as possible. 4-rorrrrrrorr~ial m7trarrro• The commercial entrance design standards hove been revised to conform to your request. Also the location of these entrances ore to be fixed persuant to the 25 footset back from curb return points. The lone configuration at g. w. clifford & associotes, inc. May 30, 1986 Page 3 the entrance has been revised persuant to your request. The existing culvert and guard roil of the crossover point on Rt. 7 have been shown as not existing in accordance with actual field conditions. f171ANW10 Road. We acknowledge the fact that the degree of curvature at the first horizontal curve on the entrance road is minimum in nature. We have discussed this situation with the owner early on in the design and he has attempted to obtain additional right-of-way to increase this curve radius and has been unsuccessful. We understand that the geometric design as proposed including additional curb and gutter as revised on the attached plans is satisfactory to meet urban design conditions and is therefore satisfactory for this project. 6- f.fitate nrille Falidlh.- We have revised Estate Drive to shown a 22 foot instead of a 20 foot width in accordance with your request. .� fxi.fitir�,gUtilitia.fi.�`ittratian• We acknowledge your concern with respect to gas main and electric line locations with respect to roadways. The contractor has been informed of special conditions relating to this situation and a preconstruction conference on this project will be held, including represenatives from each utility as well as the wa. Dept. of Highways to further coordinate this issue. l� Lflilit,��ifiia�.fi• Please note the attached letter dated May 30, 1986, to Mr. g. w. Clifford & associates, inc. May 30, 1986 Rage 4 Wellington Jones which itemizes certain utility changes which have been made but which not affect your situation except for you to know that they exist. 17- Do /" PIe17"q- Certain minor revisions to the dam plans have been made consistent with comments made from the hydrology section. The 50 foot spillway has been retained in lieu of the 40 foot for conservative design purposes. 112- lROVemewt fl �sig We acknowledge a letter from Mr. Don Keith, of May 28, 1986, which establishes certain design sections for pavement on this project persuant to a traffic analysis performed by the VDH&T Traffic section in Richmond, Va. We understand that these design sections are tenetive and are given to the owner for the expressed purpose of budgeting for construction costs. Actual sizing of pavement would be done after CBR Tests are available. We understand that your office must run the CBR's, and this would be just prior to the point of establishing sub -grade on this project. Attached is a summary list of our original design and also what you propose as a design section. Due to the substantial difference between these two pavement designs and the attendent increase cost, we expect more dialog between the developer, the engineer, and the Highway Dept. to continue on this subject. Since this is normally a matter which is ironed out during the construction process, it is our understanding that this matter need not be decided out prior to conditions of the site plan approval by Frederick County, Va. For this reason, the owner desires to proceed with CBR tests and perform additional design studies prior to an actual determination of pavement design. N g. w. clifford & associates, inc. May 30, 1986 Page 5 We trust the above is a complete summary of your concerns and we trust our replies have been satisfactory. If in your review you have any questions or comments, we would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience. We are returning your red marked plans for your quick reference. We thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and we look forward to any reply you may have. cc: Mr. Al Smith Mr. Bob Watkins, Frederick County Planner Mr. Rupert Werner, Perry Engineering Co., Inc. Mr. John Driggs, Driggs Corp. Mr. Don Fowler Mr. Bonnie Benham Ott CEM,Jr/ j ew Sincerely yours, Charles E. Maddox, Jr Vice President gilbert ter. clifford & associates, inc. 0 INCORPORA��TppED 1972 n (DnVsn�exd �7anti;llanner�6 Juxx axd iya%x � !rta��s a4-6i6 Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401-4098 • ✓ (703) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 20 South Cameron Street • P.O. Box 2104 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 • (703) 667-2139 Mr. Wellington H. Jones, P.E. FCSA P. 0. Box 618 9 Court Sq. Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Wendy, Attached is 6-sum review -af the final ,,site the revised"°shegts for yc If you have any quk Thank you for your early a May 30, 1986 Fized list of chang vea.op�ment plan. Al verification of the c cc: Mr. Bob Watkins, Frederick County Planning Mr. Alson H. Smith Ott CEM,Jr/ j ew do not�;'h is mat=ter. cerely you Estates )gdd.ersuant to your auwill find copies of a 4 ,Ote to call' me direct. Charles E. Maddox, �.E. YicOresident C [ BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. P. Duane Brown, C.L.S. William L. Wright, Laboratory Director HAROLDC KING, COMMISSIONER ELIGAR BACON, JIINEYVIIJX,, RRISTTIL DISTRICP STEPHENA MUSSELWIIITE, RDANOKE',SALEM DISTRICT JAMESL DAVIDSON, JR. LINCIIRURG, LYNCHBURG DISTRICT M PHILMORE HOWLETTE, RICHMOND. RICHMOND DISTRICT C ROGER MALBON. VIRGI.NIA REACH, SUFETILK DISTRICT H R HUMPHREYS,JR. IVF.EMS, kNEDL'RICKSRURG DISTRICT CONSTANCER KINCHELOE. CULPEPER. CULPEPER DISTRICT ROBERTW SMALLEY. RE'RRYVILLE,STAUNIONDISTRICT JOSEPHM GUIFFRE.AIJ:'XANDRIA,NDRTMERN WRGINIA DISTRICT T EUGENE SMITH. AWJE .ATLARGEURRAN ROBERT A GUICKE, RLACK.STONE. AT LARGE RURAL ( V •1. COMMONWEALTH ®f V IRCj INII.A DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (703) 984-4133 May 29, 1986 Mr. Robert W. Watkins Planning Director C/O Department of Planning & Development 9 Court Square, P. O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear Bob: OSCAII K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J M WflAY, JR CHIEF ENGINEER J.T. WARREN DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS JACK HODGE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SALLY H. COOPER DIRECTOR OF RAILAND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION J G RIPLEY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING ALBERT W COATES,JR DI RECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION J W ATWELL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE This is in regard to the need for comments from us relative to the final site plan approval for Regency Lake Estates Subdivision. Our comments here are not to be construed by any one as final approval by the Department of Highways and Transportation of this subdivision plan. Final drainage analysis and actual pavement design are incomplete and will be incorporated into the approved final design plans when available. Interim designs have been furnished the developer and his engineer for planning purposes. The basic plan and most roadway features have been reviewed previously by the Department and accepted or modified for acceptance. If the dam concept is retained, the previously furnished agreement governing the access to Phase I must be formulated. A guide has been furnished. The proposed entrance on Route 7 must include the recommended features as outlined in the memorandum from Mr. J. B. Diamond, Staunton District Traffic Engineer, copy attached. This includes all work associated with adjusting the median crossover and attendant turn lanes. You will note Mr. Diamond indicates the full development scheme will require the installation of a traffic signal at this location, the cost of which is the developer's responsibility. Also attached for your review are the comments made by Mr. D. L. Camper, Assistant Secondary,Roads Engineer. We understand the developer and his engineer have been informed of them previously, though to date we have not seen plans reflecting these changes. We would hope this provides you with sufficient information to make your judgements. If additional clarification is necessary please let us know. Sincerely, W. H. Bushman, P. E. Resident Engineer cc: Delegate Alson H. Smith, Mr. C. E. Maddox, Mr. K. D. Walker TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES HAROLD C. KING, COMMISSIONER EDGAR BACON. JOA��,WLIE. GRAT.L'NI.ITRICJ STEPHEN A MUSSEUMIITE+ ROANOKE..SAIXN UIIYUUCT' JAMES L DANDSON, JR.. LIWGN(NIRG. LINCHBURG WSTR/GT M. MULMORE HO WLETTE. RICIINUND, RICIINONU DISTRICT C RGGER MALBON. VIRGINIA 111 01. XI U}T11E DISTW/CT H. R. HUMPHREYS, JR. WCCN.Y, IW1.7M-RICN.Y/IUNG DIILDUCT CONSTANCE R. KINCHELOE. CUUI:I'CR, CUIJ IWR DISTRICT ROBERT W. SMALLEY, RCRRML.IE. STAUNTUN DISTRICT JOSEPH M. GUIFFRE. ALCXANINUA, NORTHERN VIRGINIA DISTRICT T EUGENESMITII.NIEAN.ATLARGCURRAN RODERT A. GUICKE. RLACXSTUNC. A T LAROC.RURAL IIl�� ?i'ryKTF�'-i T _ , COMMONWEALTH H of VIlE CjINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 Edinburg, Virginia 22824 (703) 984-4133 May 29, 1986 „ Mr. Robert W. Watkins Planning Director c/o Department of Planning & Development 9 Court Square, P. O. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia .22601 Dear 'Bob: OSCAR K. MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J. M. WRAY, JR. CHIEF ENGINEER -- J.T. WARREN DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS JACK HODGE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SALLY 11. COOPER DIRECTOR OF f A L AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION J. G. RIPLEY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING ALBERT W. COATES, JR. DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION J. W. ATWELL DIRECTOR OF FINANCE This is in regard to the need for comments from us.relati�e to the final site ;plan -approval for Regency Lake Estates Subdivision. Our comments here are not to Abe cdnstruod by any one'as final approval by the Department of'Highways and Transportation of this subdivision plan. Final drainage analysis and actual pavement design are incomplete and will be incorporated into the approved final design plans when available. Interim designs have been furniShed-the developer =and his engineer for planning purposes.. The" basic plan and most `roadway features have been reviewed previously by the Department and accepted or modified for acceptance. If the dam concept is . retained, the previously, furnished agreement governing the access to Phase I must. be formulated: A guide has been furnished. The proposed entrance on' .Route 7 must include the recommended features as outlined in the memorandum from Mr. J. B. Diamond, Staunton District Traffic Enginoer, copy attached: This includes all work associated with adjusting the. median crossover and attendant turn lanes. You will note Mr. Diamond indicates the full development scheme will.require the instalilation of a traffic signal. -at this location, the cost of which is the developer's responsibility. Also attached for your review are the comments made by Mr. D. L. Camper, Assistant Secondary Roads Engineer. We understand the developer and his engineer have been informed of* them previously, though to date we have'not seen plans L !. reflecting these changes. We would hope this provides you with sufficient information to make your judgements. If additional clarification is necessary please let us know. Sincerely, W. H. Bushman, P. E. Resident Engineer 0 PET141'.; COMHISSIONER • ! VC.AA BACON. JONFST'ILLE BRISTOL DISTRICT STEPHEN A MUSSEI)VHITE. RO.4N(;XE SALEM DISTRICT JAAEcS U DAVIDSON. JR. LYNCHSURG. LYNCHBURG DISTRICT M PHILMORE HOWLETTE. RICHMOND. RICHMOND DISTRICT C. ROGER MALBON• PIRGINIA BEACH. SUFFOLK DISTRICT 11 R. HUMPHREYS• JR. WEE.MS. FREDERICKSBURG DISTRICT CONSTANCE R. KINCHELOE. CULPEPER. CULPEPER DISTRICT 'AOBEAT W.'SMALLF,Y• BERRYPILLE STAUNTON D/STRICT JOSEPH M'GUIFFRE• ALF.YANDRIA. NORTHERN PIRGINIA DISTRICT T. EUGENE SMITH. M,LEAN. AT -LARGE URBAN • 906fU A. OUICKE. BLACKSTONE AT LARGGRURAL 'MEMORANDUM J;11 • ♦ COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA' , DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 May 28, 1986 Regency Lakes Esta Frederick County To _ Mr. P. F. Cecchini Attn: Mr. J. C. Heatwole c-- OSCARK MABRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J M WIIAY. JR CHIEF ENGINEER J.T WARREN DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS JACK HODGE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING .. SALLYH.CDoffs 1 .�i1ECY0R Rf BAIL ANJi TRANSPORTATION t. i. • .-PIPE CTOR pPFi•(J(NIB PROGgAMMING ALAEFIT W C0A1XjB"!.. ' . • ' dAECTOq•OF fI(/AFICE ' We have reviewed the above noted development for compliance to standa`r�� specifications as they apply to hydraulic concerns, and offer the following comments and recommendations. The two proposed dams were evaluated for their performance during a 100 year storm event. The outfall structures in both dams appear to be adequate. The plans and details provided for the West Lake Dam appear complete with the exception of an incorrect invert(in) shown for the 30" conc. pipe under the West Lake Dam. This invert has assumed to be 648.7 for our review. The plans disagree with the computations as to the width of emergency spillway on West Lake Dam (40' in comps. verses 50' on plans). We assumed 40' during the review. The details of East Lake Dam with roadway were not as complete as those on West Lake Dam. There are no details of anti -seep collars for the 12" P.V.C. pipe at the bottom of the dam. It was assumed for this review that the 12" P.V.C. pipe is for draining the lake and will have a cut off valve, although no detail was shown to support this. We also feel some erosion control measures should be provided at the emergency spillway on West Lake Dam. Any water going over the spillway would then flow down a grade of up to 10.7% before reaching the existing channel. On Monday, May 19, 1986, Mr. C. E. Maddox, Jr., Vice President of Gilbert W. Clifford and Associates, Inc., met with Messrs. D. M. LeGrande, W. C. Tolbert and M. A. Garber to present revised prints and discuss the project. Mr. Maddox proposed as an alternate means of access to the Regency Heights Section (in the event of dam failure) to grade ultimate Regency Lakes Drive around the upper reaches of the West Lake and pave same with an all weather surface. If this is allowed, the resulting additional drainage structures and computations must be presented for review. Mr. Maddox presented a geotechnical report of the site prepared by Foundation Engineering of Virginia. We are sending a copy of this report requesting you have the District Materials Engineer review it and the dams for structural adequacy. The roadway drainage as shown on the plans appears to be located properly, however, the method of sizing pipes is not consistent with our approved methods as stated in Chapter 3 of the Drainage Manual. The plans do not show the location of any erosion control measures, drainage ditch configurations, or drainage easements required for these Page 2 May 28, 1986 ditches. All of these items were brought to Mr. Maddox's attention at our meeting. He is to furnish updated plans for our review. Our comments pertaining to the revised plans will be forthcoming upon receipt of some. In addition, some drainage areas appear to have been underestimated -and it is our feeling a "C" value of .4 is too low for a development of this nature: A "C" value of .5 should be considered. Wo. feel overall approval of this site should be predicated on all permits being secured from the appropriate regulatory agencies, and trust you will see -that this is •raccomplished. In conclusion, this review is not complete (pending the revised plans being furnished). But, due to the urgency of this matter, is thus presented for your information and use. If . we may be of further assistance, please advised H. M. Shaver, Jr. State Location & Design Engineer MAG/dd cc: Mr. D. E. Keith Attn: Mr. D. L. Camper Hydraulics Section I KAYMPETIREL. COMMISSIONER EDGAR BACON, JONESYILL£ IRIS TOL'DISTRICT LTEPIIEN A MUSSELWIRTE, ROANOKC SALEM DISTRICT JAMES L DAYIDSON, JR. LYNCIIEURG. LTNCI;S.0 G DISTRICT M. PHILMORE HOVA.ME. RlrILNOND. RICHMOND DISTRICT C. RGGER MALSON, YIRGINIA OrACIL SUTEOLK DISTRICT H. R. HUMPHREYS, JR. WEEMS. TR£D£RICKSEURG DISTRICT CONSTANCE R. KINCHELOE. CULPEPER. CULPEPER DISTRICT ROEERT W. SMALIEY, R£RRYYILL4 STAUNTON DISTRICT JOSEPH M. GLRFFRE, ALEXANDRIA, NORTIIERN YIRGINIA DISTRICT T. EUGENE EM11K M(LUN, AT•LI AGE URBAN ROSERT A OUICKE. ILICKSTON£ AT L1 RGC-AURAL DONALD E. KEITH STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER FR1L •� COMMONWEALTH- of 'VIRQINI.A DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS &'TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET' RICHMOND,23219 . ' May 28, 1986... Regency Lakes Estates Frederick County Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr. c/o Gilbert W. Clifford &'Associates, Inc. 20 South Cameron Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 OSCAR K. MADRY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER J. M. WRAY. in. CHIEF ENGINEER , J.T. WARREN , DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS JACKHODGE DIRECTOR Of ENGINEERING SALLY 11. COOPER DIRECTOR Of HAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION J. G. RIPLEY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING ALBERT W. COATES, JR. DIRECTOR OF AD ON J. W. ATWELL ' DIRECTOR Of FINANCE ' Dear Mr. Maddox: Enclosed herewith you will find a copy of your key map for Regency Lakes Estates on which I have indicated the pavement design criteria by anticipated traffic count (in red), .. _ ' Noted under each classification is a pavemenf design which was discussed with the Staunton District materials engineer and which are, based upon..an estimated CBR value of the parent soils to be used in the -construction. This pavement design, I think, will give you ;a good estimating value; however, it may be adjusted to some extent as the CBR values are actually determined. You will note under some of the classifications I have given you an alternate design. It is my understanding that .the Department in general does not recommend any depth of crushed aggregate-(21 A) in excess of 12 i.nches. --I trust that this information will be of value to you as you continue in the design of this subdivision. If this office can be of further service regarding this matter, please. advise. Sincerel"th D. E State Secondary Roads Engineer DEK/M/gg Enclosure cc: Mr. W. H. Bushman A t - I FREDERICK •CO.UNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY POST OFFICE BOX 610 DONALD R. HODGSON. CHAIRMAN ., W[rICHESTER, VIRGIhlIA 22601,._. .- WELLINGTON 'H. JONES. P.E: ALLCN E7. JOBE, VICE-CHAIRMAN i ENGINEER - :DIRECTOR G, W. BORDEN, SEC.-TREA3. R. 8. CARPER PHONE 703 - 667-0300 N. J. NERANGIB • : May 27, 1986 • .• W/UW`�' cj�j �2� �l Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates ib South Cameron Street . ; •_____-_. h --- - ......Winchester., VA 22601 ---- -= ----- ---- Re: Regency Lakes .Estates Dear Chuck: Upon review of the referenced plans' the following comments were noised: Page 2 t Typical layout does not show i:he dual meter,settings-that are on the -plans.. Page 3. _ - Existing Water line is 8"PVC SDR-26.. ' - Tie-in to existing line should be detailed-(yalve, incr'aser,.tapping.sleeve, Page 5 .a - Strongly recommend considering an 8" connectionrom F-cawer.Drive-to<Lisa's-Drive -along Regency Lakes Drive. . Page 6 Master plan shows entrance from -Winchester Mall,"Property just west of Dwayne 1- Place. .Recommend 8.t1 ° water line .on .Dwayne _Place 'with provisions for extension to •,r. adjacent property to..provide another water.`entrance. Valves do FoW1er Drive are- tobe moved to tee at Dwayne Place. - Unit 58 does not show a water lateral. G. W. Clifford & Associates ..-__...:_._._ -- May"27, 1986 Page 2 Page 7_ - Unit 213 does not show•!a sewer lateral. - Increase to 8" approximately 100t of water fine 'on Regency Lakes�Drive from Dan's Drive to Lynn Place. I-Tydrant on Lynn Place is greater than 500' from ari 8";line. - Delete 6" tee -and valve on Lynn Place' -Page 8 - Move fire hydrant from unit 252 to unit 250 on Lynn Place. Delete water line along Regency Lakes Drive and dead,end fine on Lynn Place :with blow -off. - Need clean out on sewer lateral to Lot'34. Page 9 - Need clean oution sewer laterals to Lots.63, 49' and 11. --Move valve on Jan Place from tee to beyond the -last lateral. Page 38 i - Need typical for dual meter setting. - Need typical for sewer lateral with mu'ltiple'connections. :(Show line size:) Sincerely,•yo rs., W. Jones, P.E.• Engineeer-Director /pb gilbert w.4tUfford & associatft, inc. INCORPORATED 1 9 7 2 �nrneezd . and Annexe Juxxqoxd lYalem 24a,(iL�s .Sa44*j Corporate Office: 150C Olde Greenwich Drive • Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401-4098 • (703) 898-2115 Winchester Office: 20 South Cameron Street • P.O. Box 2104 • Winchester, Virginia 22601 • (703) 667-2139 May 21, 1986 Mr. Bob Watkins Frederick County Plan P. 0. Box 601 Winchester, Va , 2,60 Dear` Bob,,, As you are `eware, the final ; plans for, the above project have been r submitted to you; the Samf6tian°2Authorit" and the -Highway Department and, we understand, that respective. agencies are nearing the -completion of their review. Attached yarn wi1lT find two sets`.of tt e-final plats for'the RP`por -ton of the project;°furYgour- review. We understand that the Planning Commission desires to see the site development plan for the modular park and they additionally must review the final plats. We have previously transmitted to you revised drawings persuant to your staff comments on the site plans. We would be happy to receive any comments on the plats you may have preliminary to final approval. 'e 9 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E. Earl R. Sutherland, P.E. P. Duane Brown, C.L.S. William L. Wright, Laboratory Director 0 0 ILI Cjzrel Co, P(Q 0^;klg Dep 0 We would request that final approval of the project be considered at your earliest convenience. The owner intends to proceed with construction in the very near future. Thank you for your continuing assistance. Sincerely yours, Charles E. Maddox, Jr., Vice President Ott. CEM,Jrlhdh cc: Mr. A] Smith Mr. Kevin Malloy Mr. Don Fowler Ms. Wendy Jones Mr. Bill Bushman RAID nfTNTEE.11 `�-I ONES EOE.LM SACONIoNL .l. MRISTOL DIITMCT STEPHEN A W-AEUPONTS ROANOKE SALEY DISTRICT JA KESL DAYTDRON. A LYNCNEVRG. LTNCMRVRG DISTRICT 4 ,"A ORE NOVAATTE, RICHMOND RICHMOND DISTRICT C ROGER NAAIRON. VIRGINIA REACH. SUTTOLK DISTRKT N A IAIRrfN *" A. ■EENS. TREDERICKSRVRG DISTRICT CONSTANCE A KWCMELOE. CULPEPER CVLTETER DISTRICT ROSERT W SMA LEY. RERRTnELE STAVNTON DISTRICT ASEAN Y GUMFTE. ALEXANDRIA. NORTHERN Y/RGINIA DISTRICT T EUGENE SMITH N,LEAII. ATURGE URBAN AOSERTA DACKE, RLACESTOME ATLARGE-RVRAL DONALD E. KEITH STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER J COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 April 23, 1986 Proposed Additions Regency Lakes Estat Frederick County MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. P. F. Cecchini Attn: Mr. C. E. Mattox OSCJA A LfAMAY DEPUTY CONNAW OMER JM WIRYA C EE INGWER J T WAARfH DAECTON Of ORAAOORt JACK HODGE DtECTOR Of ENCJ1fERSEG SALLY H COOPER OMECTOR OF RAR AAD rualC TRAIMPOW—Ow J.G RMLEY OMTECTOR OF PL4 MI tG AAG PROGIAMMNMG ALRERT W COATES. A WECTOR OF AONWTATgN J W ATWELU DLTK70M OF FRANCS This is in reference to your memorandum of April 17, 1986, with related correspondence and plans, pertaining to the design of the roads involved in the above - subject development. To supplement our previous comments on this development, we offer the following observations: I. We concur in the recommendations of the Resident and District Traffic Engineers relative to the design of the streets that are proposed to ultimately being accepted into the Secondary System for maintenance. However, we feel the following items require additional study. a. The relatively sharp curve at approximately Station 4 on Regency Lakes Drive, particularly when considering the volume of traffic, proximity of commercial entrances, and pavement transition. (See general note on Table I of Subdivision Street Requirements regarding "step down" typical sections). b. While I assume the pavement widths proposed are generally in accordance with the Department's requirement, based on the ultimate development, it appears the first section of Estate Drive between Regency Lakes Drive and Lakeway Drive) would require a 22' pavement width, based on the number of lots this road will provide sole access for. 2. Based on the plans submitted, it appears the first phase of this construction will basically involve the eastern half of the ultimate development. With such being the case, the portion of Regency Lake Drive between the dam (approximately Station 78+00) and its end of pavement (Station 61+00), or any of the streets in the Regency Heights Project, could not be accepted into the system for maintenance until the western portion of this ultimate development is completed, or some other acceptable alternate means of access to this area is available. This is as required by Item F of Section II of the Subdivision Street Requirements pertaining to the acceptance of roads over dams. In any case, the execution of an appropriate TCARICDAOTATInN — AMFRICA-S LIFELINES 11 Proposed Additions Page 2 April 23, 1986 agreement, as addressed in our January 7, 1986 memorandum, will also be required before the portion of Regency Lake Drive involved in the crossing of the dam can be accepted. 3. 1 note that a section of the southern portion of Regency Lake Drive will overlap an existing gas line and easement and, similarly, a section of its northern portion will overlap a power line and easement. Please assure that the developer is fully aware of the Department's requirements regarding road construction and right-of-way dedication in such cases. By copy of this memorandum to Mr. Cochran, I am forwarding the plans you provided to assist in his review of drainage and related items for this development. wry--- D. L. Camper, Assistant Secondary Roads Engineer DLC/gg cc: Mr. E. C. Cochran/with plans Mr. W. H. Bushman Y•D rT>r COW— t OC.M fLL� roN[J,•Illl MIT iDI OLS rRN I RTt"%A WAYLW -,, ROA"L SALLY OQr—r MYt/L".0"A L TNCRLNRG L rNCRRI'RG LYTTWT ,� waFfOi� • D..jm A—oND RKRYOND OtSTRR"T C ROUR ttAL1M)I YIRGINIA RL N JIIJF R MT11N7 R'U.1 /RLOLR,CLSM/RG orsrRR'T C¢{}AKt R IRORFIOt. CULILRLA CULHTLR DQTRN7 ADKRT W t:YALLLI. RLRR rvlL JTAVNTDN JMTR JDU-. 41&0-11 ALLRA—ALA RORTNLRM YIRGIFIA DQTRK-I T tllllt«t 11 0 -. AT LARGL URRAM 010KOi7A Cik t tY CLITDNL A r LARGL RURAL • COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 1221 EAST BROAD STREET RICHMOND, 23219 1 April 17; 1986 PAUL F. CECCHINI DISTRICT ENGINEER r Y • Memorandum To - Mr. C. E. Mattox G Re - Regency Lakes Estates ODCAN a Y,rr. p rL/n corAr>!« J Y WM1 } bfffNORlR J T WA1RIfw OMSROR d dlM T¢RL JAOI «oD[.F ORIt Rt} d e.o.inr.G aAta. « tvoftw OR�croR d RAa ro Halt TYf�pnAp J G RRZjF DMCTOR d RJ R: ro r"MWA Em RLJItNT W COAM } OR um d ADRARSTMTIp« JWAT l DYfCTM d RRAAR4 Please Reply To Department of Highways and Transportation Staunton, Virginia We have the following comments on the plans, submitted with Mr. Bushman's memorandum of April 4, for the connection of the referenced subdivison street to Route 7 in Frederick County. 1. The length of the left turn lane and taper on the eastbound lane of Route 7 should be 200 feet each, as specified in the Road Design Manual. 2. It is strongly recommended that the width of the left turn lane on the eastbound lane and the right turn lane on the westbound lane be 12 feet rather than 10 feet as shown. 3. From an operational standpoint, we believe it would be better not to have the relatively short (100 feet) acceleration lane on the westbound lane. It would be preferable to taper back to the edge of pavement on a 3:1 transition rate from the end of curb return, as is normally done for commercial entrances. 4. As Mr. Bushman points out, the 15 feet radii at the intersection will not be adequate to accommodate turning movemen-s. A minimum radius of =0 feet should be used, which will accommodate a WB-40 design vehicle. 5. The commercial entrance design at the intersection should be in accordance with the Mimimum Standards of Entrances to State Highways. Where curb is used, the standard shown on page 26 should be applied, which shows a minimum 25 foot length of tangent from the point of radius forming the street connection to the nearest point of entrance curb cut. Also, curbing should be extended along the right turn lane from Route 7, and the existing commercial entrance at t1he beginning of this turn lane tied into this. TRANSPORTATION — AMERICA'S LIFELINES rV • • Mr. C. E. Mattox April 17, 1986 Page 2 6. With respect to lane configuration of the entrance and exit at the Regency Lakes street, the proposed painted striping on the east side of the street is not recommended. We would recommend that two 12 foot outbound lanes be used, leaving a 16 foot inbound lane. 7. Based on an analysis of the existing traffic volumes on Route 7 and the projected traffic volumes to be generated by this. development, a traffic signal will be required at the intersection with Route 7 by the time the development is complete, and possibly sooner depending upon traffic peaking characteristics. Since the need for a signal will be solely the result of traffic generated by the development, it will be the developer's responsibility to provide this signal. (See HETS Memorandum No. 185.) The time that this signal will be needed will be dependent upon the timing of the development schedule, but it is felt that the developer's responsibility for the signal should be clearly specified in the permit or by agreement as a part of the permit. 8. The treatment of the guardrail in the median on the east side of the relocated crossover Will have to be reviewed in the field to determine the necessary terminal treatment to meet safety requirements. J. B. Diamond District Traffic Engineer Attachments cc: Mr. W. H. Bushman • 0 A-2.3 the edge of pavement of the opposite left turn lane. This is more clearly shown in the following diagram: Determination of Grade on a Crossover Grade CROSSOVER WITHOUT LEFT TURN LANES Grade CROSSOVER WITH LEFT TURN LANES In preparing plans for field inspection, the gradient at each crossover is to be plotted graphically. INTERSECTING CROSS ROAD GRADES The grade of a connecting facility must be carefully studied when approaching an intersection where the mainline is superelevated. A smooth grade tie-in is desirable, with sufficient area in a relatively flat grade for a vehicle to. stop before entering the main roadway. Also, when a connection is on the outside of a superelevated curve, the grade must be designed so that the connection is visible to a driver on the main roadway desiring to turn onto the connection. Every attempt -must be made to provide an adequate area for this vehicular stoppage, giving full con- sideration to the horizontal and vertical sight distances. The desirable tie-in is one that is no steeper than the pavement cross slope whether this is superelevated or the normal crown. The maximum difference between the pavement cross slope and the approach road grade should not exceed 87o at stop intersections, or 4% at continuous -movement intersections. The stoppage area should be a minimum of fifty feet before beginning the steeper grade. LEFT TURN LANES As a general policy left turn lanes are to be provided in the design of all median crossovers on non - access controlled divided highways using controls as shown in Figure A-2.1. (Toper) T e 200' (Turning Lone)* L= 200' Min (For 240 or fewer vehicles during peak hour, making turn,) FOR DESIGN SPEED$ LESS THAN 50 MPH (Toper) T - 100' NOTE: If Left Ufa lame is net (Turning Lane) L • IOO',Min(Fpr 60 or fewer vehicles creed Tfs.r be 0m.ghl during peak hour, making turn) Has fepe4 Dimension L to be adjusted upward 25' foreach additional 30 vph. ---=----- --- Median W j Crosiwoad W■ Samt as through lone OdMin) Figure A-2.1 O VON FOR LEFT TURN LAN[e I� q.- STANDARD ENTRANCE DESIGNS ALONG HIGHWAY WITH CURS AND GUTTER MULTIPLE ENTRANCES AT INTERSECTION WITH RIGHT TURN LANE AND TAPER 01 �m 126 Width of island se aratih entrances between 2 two way or: p g Y 1 25' minimum 1 two way and 1 one way.' ' Width of island separating entrances between 2 one way I1 4' minimum entrances. , Distance between near edge of entrance. pavement and 6" K 4' maximum raised concrete curbing b1side R/W line, Raised concrete curbing.- L 6" (Standard curbing) 4" .:(Standard Mountable curbing): Face of entrance curb to adjoining property line... p Length of tangent curb from point of radius forming street P 25' minimum connection to nearest point of entrance curb cut. • Radius (R) may be used when substituted for Radius (U) and R 6' maximum Radius (S) if R/W (right of way) is 20' or less from high- i ... way pavement edge. I Radius' (S) is the inside or smaller curve radius used in- S 12.5' maximum I connection with Radius (U) and/or to connect tangent sec- J lions of curbing. Radius (U) is the outside or larger curve radius used to _ U 12.5' minimum absolute delineate entry and/or exit path of vehicle... 25' desirable minimum I • Width of two way entrance W 30' minimum 50' maximum Width of one way entrance W I 14' minimum 20' maximum Angle of entrance to highway. pavement edge. Y 45° minimum 20 1 • • A-2.3 the edge of pavement of the opposite left turn lane. This is more clearly shown in the following diagram: Determination of Grade on a Crossover Grade CROSSOVER WITHOUT LEFT TURN LANES Grade CROSSOVER WITH LEFT TURN LANES In preparing plans for field inspection, the gradient at each crossover is to be plotted graphically. INTERSECTING CROSS ROAD GRADES The erade of a connecting facility must be carefully studied when approaching an intersection where the mainline is superelevated. A smooth grade tie-in is desirable, with sufficient area on a relatively flat grade for a vehicle to stop before entering the main roadway. Also, when a connection is on the outside of a superelevated curve, the grade must be designed so that the connection is visible to a driver on the main roadway desiring to turn onto the connection. Every attempt must be made to provide an adequate area for this vehicular stoppage, giving full con- sideration to the horizontal and vertical sight distances. The desirable tie-in is one that is no steeper than the pavement cross slope whether this is superelevated or the normal crown. The maximum difference between the pavement cross slope and the approach road grade should not exceed 8% at stop intersections, or 4% at continuous -movement intersections. The stoppage area should be a minimum of fifty feet before beginning the steeper grade. LEFT TURN LANES As a general policy left turn lanes are to be provided in the design of all median crossovers on non - access controlled divided highways using controls as shown in Figure A-2.1. FOR DESIGN SPEEDS 50 MPH OR HIGHER ( Toper) T e 200' (Turning Lane) L- 200' Min (For 240 or fewer vehicles during peak hour, making turn) FOR DESIGN SPEEDS LESS THAN 50 MPH (Toper) T - 100' NOTE' It Lett Tyre lane to err (Turning Lane) L e 100' Min (For 60 or fewer vehicles crt,ed Tmay to etre,QHt during peak hour, making turn) I1ee 1eje4 Dimension L to be adjusted upward 25'for each additional 30 vph. Median W j Crossroad -iS7 77 We Came as through Inne (10'Min) Figure A-2.1 O(HGN FOR LEFT TURN LANES STANDARD ENTRANCE DESIGNS ALONG HIGHWAY WITH CURB AND GUTTER MULTIPLE ENTRANCES AT INTERSECTION WITH RIGHT TURN LANE AND TAPER A L I1 O X r i P I - P� pans di� as�liown W O W K ice- L -- 4 K •--. I K I►- �_ � I SIDEWALK y y I I A B CURB RAM RD ENTRANCE GUTTER CO 12 -- I F GI - 2 26 Width of island separating entrances between 2 two way or I 1 two way and 1 one way. Width of island separating entrances between 2 one way I1 entrances. Distance between near edge of entrance pavement and 6" K raised concrete curbing inside R/W line. Raised concrete curbing. L Face of entrance curb to adjoining property line. O Length of tangent curb from point of radius forming street P connection to nearest point of entrance curb cut. Radius (R) may be used when substituted for Radius (U) and R Radius (S) if R/W (right of way) is 20' or less from high- way pavement edge. Radius (S) is the inside or smaller curve radius used in- S connection with Radius (U) and/or to connect tangent sec- tions of curbing. Radius (U) is the outside or larger curve radius used to _ U delineate entry and/or exit path of vehicle. Width of two way entrance W Width of one way entrance Angle of entrance to highway pavement edge. Wi Y 25' minimum 4' minimum 4' maximum 6" (Standard curbing) 4" (Standard Mountable curbing) 12.5' 25' minimum 6' maximum 12.5' maximum 12.5' minimum absolute 25' desirable minimum 30' minimum 50' maximum 14' minimum 20' maximum 45' minimum 0 0 20 H&TS-162 VIRGE41A HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION - IIIGHWA Y AND TRAFFIC -SAFETY DIVISION MEMORANDUM GENERAi SU CT: NUMBER:. 'I Iv Deve o er Participation in Traffic Signal Cost DATE:' SPECIFIC SUBJECT: February Method of Determining Developer Responsibility SUPERSEDES:.. for Participation in Traffic Signal Costs. DIRECTED TO: S1GNA E- District Engineers The following guidelines have been developed in an effort to obtain an Kuitable method of determining developer responsibility for participation in funding traffic signal work necessitated by land development: Condition #I. Where the proposed development will generate sufficient traffic to warrant signalization, the total cost for design, materials, timing plans, and installation shall be borne by the developer. Condition #2. Where development generated traffic and existing highway traffic must be combined to justify signalization, the developer shall bear 50% of the total cost for design, materials, timing plans, and installation. Condition #3. Where an existing traffic signal must be modified to accommodate traffic movements to or from the development, the developer shall bear the total cost for any design, materials,. timing plans, installation, and relocation required to accommodate the development traffic. For larger developments such as regional. shopping centers and corporate complexes, the Department reserves the right to require that the developer design or have designed the traffic signal, including timing plans; and to install or have installed a complete working installation. Designs and installations shall be in accordance with the current Departmental specifications and standards. TRV: dws cc: Mr. 0. K. Mabry Mr. J. M. Wray, Jr. Mr. J. T. Warren Mr. J. S. Hodge Ms. S. H. Cooper fir. J. G. Ripley Mr. A. W. Coates, Jr. Mr. J. W. Atwell Division Adninistrators Resident Engineers District Highway and Traffic Safety Engineers