Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
008-07 Artillery Business Ctr. - 58.7 Acres RA to M1 - Back Creek - Backfile
eloile AMT. OF CASH ACCOUNT AMT. PAID CHECK BALANCE MONEY DUE ORDER BY 1) t 1 Q:� 0 REZONING TRACKING `ET Check List: a% Application Form Proffer Statement �— Impact Analysis ✓ Adjoiner List DATE 1,01017 Appl 0 0 Refe 1/% 4 D-ba % 4to Copy Four Xot. Colo / File / PC BOS Sign [if a man prof Acti © c7 Refe • File b File Zon \` - ) UABev\Common\Tracking sheets\REZ_tracking.wpd Revised. 05/09/02 Fee & Sign Deposit Deed I-- Plat/Survey Taxes Paid Statement Impact Model Run ication received/file opened rence manual updated/number assigned se updated of adjoiner list given to staff member for verification sets of adjoiner labels ordered from data processing r location maps ordered from Mapping given to office manager to update Application Action Summary public hearing date ACTION:• public hearing date ACTION)�L�� ed copy of resolution for amendment of ordinance, with conditions proffered pplicable], received from County Administrator's office and given to office ager for placement in the Proffers Notebook. (Note: If rezoning has no fers, resolution goes in Amendments Without Proffers Notebook.) on letter mailed to applicant rence manual and D-base updated given to office manager to update Application Action Summary (final action) given to Mapping/GIS to update zoning map ing map amended /6669, COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 February 14, 2008 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: REZONING 908-07, ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Dear Patrick: This letter serves to confirm action taken by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors at their meeting of February 13, 2008. The above -referenced application was approved to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Light Industrial Uses. The property is located east.and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37, in the Back Creek District, and is identified with Property Identification Number 75-A-1. The proffer dated December 26, 2006 and revised February 7, 2008, 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. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MRT/bad Attachment cc: Gary A. Lofton, Board of Supervisors, Back Creek District Cordell Watt and Greg Unger, Back Creek Planning Commissioners Jane Anderson, Real Estate Commissioner of Revenue Venture I of Winchester, LLC, 118 Armstrong Place, Winchester, VA 22602 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 09'O'I Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) PROPERTY: 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] RECORD OWNER: Venture I of Winchester, LLC APPLICANT: Venture I of Winchester, LLC PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07; 11/5/07; 11/6/07; 11/15/07; 12/21/07; 1/15/08; 2/7/08 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (die "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of die proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised February 7, 2008 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 5 Proffer Statement Artille7y Business Center 1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $250,000.00 for the design and/or construction of the future East-West Collector Road or for any other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT. Said monetary contribution shall be made within 60 days of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any structure located on the Property. 2. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way for Shady Elm road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of the first building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for a continuous right turn lane along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall provide a double stripe lane marking for the centerline of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall design a future East-West Collector Road utilizing an 80 foot right of way as depicted on the GDP from Point A to Point C, assuming an at grade railroad crossing, as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross section prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any structure located on the Property. The Applicant shall then dedicate 80 feet of right of way and construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the Collector Road for a minimum of 1100 feet as shown from Point A to Point B on the GDP upon any of the following conditions, whichever occurs first: (See 2 on GDP) • Prior to issuance of the fourth building permit for the Property. • Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure located in Land Bay 2. • Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure located in Land Bay 1 but with associated land area located in Land Bay 2 as depicted by site plan. • Upon commencement of a railroad crossing as shown on the GDP for the East-West Collector Road. • Prior to December 31, 2013. 2.2.1 The Applicant shall make available an 80' wide tract of land across Tax Map Parcel 74-A-68 as depicted on the GDP from Point B to Point C in conformance with the road design provided by Proffer 2.2 for the future extension of the East-West Collector Road. The Applicant shall provide said property at no cost to the County, after December 31, 2008 and within 90 days of receiving written request from the County. 2.2.2 The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2of5 Proffer Statement 0 0 Artillery Business Center 2.2.3 Land Bay 2 as shown on the GDP shall have access via the easternmost entrance located on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2.3 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary to meet the requirements for lot access as identified by �144-24C of the Frederick County Code, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.4 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.5 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.6 The Property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final build -out. 2.7 No warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square feet shall be constructed on the Property within 5 years of the Date of Final Rezoning. 2.8 Should the County or others obtain the rights to an at grade railroad crossing for the proposed East-West Collector Road as identified on the GDP, the Applicant shall fully fund the design of said at grade crossing. Landscape Buffers, Hiker/Biker Facilities, & Additional Right of WaX 3.1 Within the 25 foot parking setback between the proposed right of ways for Shady Elm Road and the East-West collector as required by 5 165-27E(5) of the Frederick County Code, the Applicant shall construct a 10 foot asphalt trail to Department of Recreation Standards. In addition, the Applicant shall provide a densely planted landscape screen as depicted by Exhibit A as revised 1/15/08 consisting of street trees planted 50 feet on center between the proposed right of way and the asphalt trail as well as a double row of evergreen trees with a minimum density of three plants per 10 linear feet and a minimum height of four feet at time of planting located between the proposed trail and any parking areas. 4. Design Standards 4.1 Any building fagade fronting Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector shall be constructed of one or a combination of the following : cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, glass, wood, dry vit or stucco. 4.2 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road or the proposed. East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. If revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are made which would limit the size and/or number of signs to a greater extent than the aforementioned standards, then the Applicant shall conform with the sign ordinance standards in existence at the time of issuance of a permit for any sign located on the Property. 3 of 5 Proffer Statement • Artillery Business Center Historic Resources 5.1 The Applicant shall complete a survey documenting any historic structures on the Property in general accordance with the guidelines established by the Preliminary Information Form from the Department of Historic Resources. Any documentation created as part of said survey shall be provided to Frederick County Planning Staff and shall be completed prior to demolition of any buildings located on the Property. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for purposes associated with historic Star Fort prior to issuance of the first building permit. Escalator Clause 6.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) 4of5 0 0' R/W-'-' DIC471 & ROAD WI -NIN % ON If T 10, ASPH ALT, TRAIL LAND ,.,BAY--'I- 77 (4pr6.28.7 acres) ............... , k19 w-I ......... ...... LAND AY.._ _89-'R/W D ICA-T-ION'--& -/-CONST.RUCTION OF MINIMUM/' 11 DO'-,,2 LANE ROADWAY A.- T M1 74-A-68" > FUTURE-SHA DT ELM/�-WTE`l 1 /-CONNECTOR' ROAD (CA T-W8T/'6OLLE/C/TqR,..ROAD) 80'1',,R/w -RESERVATION '& R4D DESIGN" FROM'/ \SHADY' ELM"ROAD/TO RAILROAD • rox-30.0 acres) Q) ............ A R TlL L El? 1v BUSINESS CENTER lit o GENERAL/ZED DLIIELOPYENT PLAN F 0 T�' E OAD !CROSSING To Ow Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREVE-RICK COUNTY VIRCINIA I SHADY ELM ROAD 05' PARKING SETBACK (MIN,, NOTE.• STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN (3 TREES PER 10 LINEAR FEET) PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERTYISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE EAST —WEST COLLECTOR ROAD ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER z EXH181T A O � Q V FREOERICK COUNTY, V/RGINIA 25' PARKING SETBACK (MINIMUM) s'TT TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN F?EES PER 10 LINEAR FEET) PROVIDED rJD1TION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERIVISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 Proffer Statement 0 0 Artillery Business Center Venture I of Winchester, LLC By: Date: _ FL__ 0 4A u %, z c e STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of e - 200%by My commissio �xp' es Notary Public f; 1 ! LILA M. TRIPLE IT IT NOTARY P1 I Common, ; Virginia Rc-gi My Commission Expires Aug. 31, 2011 5 of 5 REZONING APPLICATION 908-07 ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Staff Report for the Board of Supervisors Prepared: October 23, 2007 (updated February 5, 2008) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, 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: 11/07/07 Tabled by PC 12/19/07 Tabled by PC 01/16/08 Recommended Denial Board of Supervisors: 02/13/08 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-1 ROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Agricultural and residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M1 Use: Industrial South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural East: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Commercial/vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural M1 (light Industrial) Vacant PROPOSED USES: Light Industrial Office and Warehouse Uses (0.4 FAR proffered). Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virllinia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 651, 652 and 11. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed several submissions of proposed transportation proffers offered to mitigate the development's potential trip generation. While not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application dated December 26, 2006, revised October 9, 2007, it appears that through a combination of previous proposed proffers, as well as the current proffer by the application the transportation concerns associated with this request can be adequately addressed. 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 cornrnent on all right-of-way needs, including right-of-way dedications, traffic signalization, and off -site roadway improvements and drainage. Any work perfonned 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 Marshall: Plan approval reconunended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit and asbestos inspection shall be required prior to the removal of any structures. No additional continents required at this time. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to page 2 of 4, Transportation: The discussion of Scenario A indicates that 60 percent of the trips would utilize Apple Valley Road and 40 percent would use Springdale Road. It appears that the existing traffic distribution is approximately 80:20. Considering the current condition of Springdale Road, we conclude that the 80:20 distribution is more realistic than the 60:40 distribution. 2. Refer to page 3 or 4, Enviromnental Features: a. The narrative indicates that the property does not contain any wetlands. However, a review of available aerial photographs indicates the existence of a pond on the property. A wetland study needs to be performed to verify that this pond does not represent a wetland. b. The discussion of drainage needs to address storinwater management and the potential impact on a karst enviromnent. c. The discussion of soils needs to be expanded to include a review of the karst geology and the potential for sink hole development. This condition is particularly relevant along the eastern property boundary. 3. Refer to page 4 of 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Indicate if the solid waste projection is presented as pounds per day or pounds per year. 4. Refer to the proffer statement, Site Development Item 2.2: The dedication right-of- ways should be sized to accommodate sufficient turning radii at the intersection with Shady Elm Road. The discussion indicates that "entrances to the said roadway will be located at a minimum of 400 feet apart". This statement raises the question, "apart from what?" Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department: We have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. Rezoning 408-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objections as long as no septics or wells are proposed or existing. If any existing septics or wells are located, please call the Health Department for proper abandomnent procedures. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application. Allowed uses under this rezoning should not impact airside operations at the Winchester Regional Airport therefore we have no further comment regarding this rezoning request. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Surveyport and the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. The subject parcel is the site of the Route 651 House (DHR 41042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing a typical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The Henry Carbaugh House represents a typical vernacular Queen Acme -style dwelling constructed in the early twentieth century and still retains many elements of its original construction, as noted in Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Although neither of these two structures is listed as potentially significant by the Rural Landmarks Survey, mitigation of the impacts to these structures should be considered. In addition, a small portion of the property is located in the study area of the 1 sc Kernstown Battlefield. Although not located in the core area of the battlefield, attention should be given to the potential archeological significance of this property in the battle for Kernstown. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct no more than 327,000 square feet of office space and no more than 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address several issues prior to the rezoning of this property. If the property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Archeological Survey and Documentation. The HRAB felt that there is a need to document the historic and archeological significance of the property based upon the proximity to the 1" Kernstown Battlefield area and the location of the historic structure on the property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical significance including identifying past owners/occupants, building materials, architectural features, photographs of both the interior and exterior, etc. The HRAB also suggested a Phase 1 one archeological survey would be appropriate to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. Attorney Comments: 1. In Proffer 2.2, at the end of the second sentence I would recommend that the following words be added"..., in the location shown on the Generalized Development Plan." 2. In proffer 2.3, it is not clear who makes the determination that an internal access road is "necessary". That should be clarified. Planning Department: Please see letter dated March 23, 2007, signed by Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 4 Plannin1 & Zoninj4: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 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 property is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Sewer and Water Service Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of plamied cormnercial, and industrial development will occur. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan designate this area for industrial land use. The Plan recognizes the desire to provide for industrial uses along the CSX Railroad. The proposed Ml light industrial rezoning is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The application of quality design standards for future development is also an objective of the Plan; in particular, along business corridors. These include landscaping, screening, and controlling the number and size of signs. Transportation 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 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). Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 5 The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan calls for Shady Elm Road to be improved to a major collector road. In addition, a new east west major collector road connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11 is identified. The County's Eastern Road Plan further defines the appropriate typical section for these major collector roads as an urban divided four -lane facility. The construction of planned major collector road typical sections, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is not provided for by this application. The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does not achieve a level of service C or better on the roads and intersections studied in the application's TIA. It is important to note that the County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to Springdale Road. Therefore, the Applicant should concentrate any efforts to address their transportation impacts on those roads and intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan; in particular, Shady Elm Road, the new east west major collector road, and the intersection of Apple Valley Road and Route 11. Site Access and circulation The Comprehensive Plan generally provides for a limitation on the number of entrances that may be located along business corridors. Further, the Plan generally seeks to address pedestrian accommodations. No pedestrian accommodations have been provided internally to the project and, more importantly, along the projects frontage with the planned major collector roads. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any environmental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. The Frederick County Engineer has referenced the potential for wetlands to exist on this site based upon the presence of an existing pond. Also, the Frederick County Engineer has identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design as this area is also known for karst topography. The property is the site of a historical house, the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing a typical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The HRAB suggested the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: the completion of an archeological survey and documentation of the property, and the completion of a Phase 1 archeological survey to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. The application does not presently address the comments provided by the HRAB. r Rezoning 408-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 6 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application evaluated two scenarios. Scenario A assumes the existing road network with development access to be provided via a single site driveway located on Shady Elm Road. Scenario B assumes, in addition to Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned over the existing railroad and through the proposed Renaissance Comrnercial Center. The original TIA assumed 326,700 square feet of office use and 326,700 square feet of light industrial use. This was generally consistent with the proffered square footage limitation on the use of the property based upon a 0.25 FAR. However, concern has been raised regarding the trip generation figures used in the TIA. As a result, the inaccuracy of the trip generation figures brings into question the conclusions provided in the TIA. Using trip generation figures from the TIA, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 3,562 average daily trips (ADT). An addendum to the TIA, dated September 12, 2007, was provided which reflected a change in the land use and FAR. The proffered square footage limitation has been increased to a 0.4 FAR. As a result, the TIA assumes 511,395 square feet of light industrial land use and 511,395 square feet of warehousing resulting in a trip generation of 5,950 average daily trips (ADT). Concerns remain with the TIA, in particular with the land uses used and the trip generation numbers. The TIA may not represent the most intensive use of the property enabled by the M 1 zoning or the proffered square footage limitations. The addendum to the TIA continues to indicate that, with the exception of the intersection of Route 11 and Springdale Road, Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads and intersections with the following improvements. A level of service D is identified at Route 11 and Springdale Road during Scenario B. 1. The proposed signalization of Springdale Road and Route 11, Scenario A (not a desirable avenue for industrial development traffic). 2. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Apple Valley Road and Route 11. 3. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Renaissance Driveway and Route 1 I (Scenario B). 4. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Site Driveway and Shady Elm Road (Scenario A). 5. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Shady Elm Road and Apple Valley Road (Scenario A). The application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by the request as identified in the Applicant's TIA. E Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 7 Transportation Program (as provided for with the 01115108 Proffer Statement). The Applicant's transportation program provides for right-of-way dedication along Shady Elm Drive (40 feet in addition to the existing ROW for a total ROW of 80'), construction of the widening of the northbound lane of Shady Elm Road, right-of-way dedication along 1,100 feet of the southern property line to partially acconunodate an east west major collector road (80 feet in width), the design of a rural four -lane road to approximately 1,100' east of Shady Elm Road, the potential constriction of a rural two-lane section (westbound lanes) of this road based upon several triggered conditions, and a monetary contribution in the amount of $250,000 to the County for the design and construction of the future east west Collector Road or other transportation improvements, and the potential design of an at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks. None of the above improvements identified in the Applicant's TIA have been addressed by this application's transportation program. In addition, the Applicant's transportation program does not provide for or advance the County's Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations have not been provided in the applicant's transportation program. The Applicant has completely addressed this element. B. Sewer and Water Water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer generation is projected to be equivalent to the water demand at approximately 29,350 gallons per day. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has stated that they have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. The wastewater from this site would be directed to the Parkin's Mill Wastewater facility. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriffs Office and $2,500 for general governinent purposes in an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 26, 2006; revised through January 15, 2008. A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has provided a basic Generalized Development Plan which simply illustrates the proffered transportation improvements described in this report and the two identified land bays. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 8 B) Land Use The Applicant has limited the development of the property to a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR), to a minimum of three users contained on the property upon final build -out, and has made a commitment that no warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square feet shall be built on the property within five years of the date of final rezoning. Obviously, this is a temporary, short term approach to addressing this concern. The Applicant has proposed signage limitations along Shady Elm and the collector road. However, the limitation proposed may be in excess of those signage standards currently being proposed through the DRRS. C) Transportation This application has provided for additional dedication of right-of-way along Shady Elm Road resulting in an eighty foot right-of-way, and the widening of the existing northbound lane along the property's Shady Elm frontage. The application has provided for the dedication of an 80 foot right-of-way along their southern property line for a minimum of 1,100 feet. The Applicant has proffered the design of a rural four -lane divided collector road for this 1,100 feet section. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this important road as an Urban four- lane divided road This should be recognized in this application. The design of the bridge necessary to accommodate this road has not been proffered by the Applicant. Therefore, care should be taken when evaluating the value of designing a major collector road without understanding the design, and ultimately obtaining the approval by CSX, of the bridge necessary to accommodate the road The Applicant has proffered to design an at -grade crossing. However, this is only if the County or others obtain the rights for an at -grade crossing. The rationale for constructing an at -grade crossing of the railroad tracks for such an important collector road has to be questioned The construction of the westbound two lanes as a two lane rural undivided road is proffered for a minimum of 1,100 feet. Please be aware that the proffer provides for several triggers for the construction of this improvement. It should be ensured that the road construction is timely with the development of this property. A second trigger is provided for the construction of 1,1 00feet of this road as an R2, on the Applicant's property, which is at such time construction commences of a bridge over the adjacent railroad. However, no design or construction of the bridge crossing is provided by the Applicant. The final trigger ensures that, at the latest the westbound R21,100 foot section of the collector road would be constructed prior to December 21, 2013. In addition to the above, the Applicant has proffered a contribution to the County in the amount of $250,000 for the design and/or construction of the future east -west Collector Road or for any other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County or VDOT. Presently, the County is not in the road building or bridge design business. It would be more appropriate for the Applicant to undertake this effort to secure the approval of a future bridge crossing, facilitate the future development of their property, and help mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the potential development of 58 acres of MI zoned land The Applicant has proffered a limitation on the number of entrance providing access to the site to two from the east -west collector road and two from Shady Elm Road. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 9 D) Conununity Facilities This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriff's Office and $2,500 for general government purposes in an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities. E) Other In addition, the Applicant has proffered landscaping, buffering and hiker/biker facilities along the properties frontage with Shady Elm and the new collector road. This includes to one tree every fifty feet along Shady Elm Road and the east -west collector road and a double row of evergreen plantings along either side of a ten foot trail. With regards to the properties historical resources, the Applicant has proffered to complete an architectural survey of the structures of the property. Rather than completing the preferred archeological survey of the property as reconmlended by the HRAB, the Applicant has proffered a $5,000.00 contribution towards efforts at Star Fort. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning are generally consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. However, the application does not fully recognize the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan. Further, the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request, as identified in the Applicant's TIA, have not been mitigated by the Applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/07/07 MEETING: Six citizens spoke during the public comments portion of the hearing; all but one citizen was opposed to the rezoning. Those who were opposed were primarily residents of Hedgebrook Hills and adjacent areas and most were unaware this area had been designated for industrial development when they purchased their homes. They stated that allowing industrial and commercial uses to encroach on the existing residential neighborhood would be aesthetically unappealing and would negatively affect their quality of life. They believed industrial zoning would set a precedent for additional rezoning, particularly on the Carbaugh property, and it would negatively affect the value of their homes. They expressed concern about increased traffic on local roads and the safety of neighborhood children. It was noted that existing local roads did not have the capacity to handle industrial traffic and Springdale Road was not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. The one citizen who spoke in favor of the rezoning was a partner in a local business on Prosperity Drive. He agreed Springdale was substandard and a satisfactory connector road was needed through this entire area; he believed this rezoning could supply that new connector. Plarming Commission members did not believe the rezoning package was sufficiently complete for them to vote at this time. They commented that the transportation package needed additional work; some questioned why the applicant had no plans for improving the road base or width of Shady Elm ! 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 10 Road. Commissioners believed there were ways this site could be developed into an attractive industrial park and be compatible with the residential community around it. They suggested a number of ideas that could be incorporated to enhance the package, such as: segregating sidewalks from the industrial area; utilization of expanded buffers, berms, and landscaping; and, addressing the standard of appearance by avoiding steel-franled structures with metal exteriors. In addition, Commission members disliked receiving proffer revisions on the same day as the public hearing because it did not provide them enough time to thoroughly review the document. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the rezoning application for 45 days to give the applicant additional time to enhance the rezoning package and to allow the Commission the opportunity to review the revised proffers. (Connnissioner Manuel abstained from voting.) AFF UPDATE FOR 12/19/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: In response to the input the Applicant received before, during, and after the November 7, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, a revised proffer statement dated November 15, 2007, including a revised generalized development plan and proffered exhibit was submitted for the Planning Commission's consideration. Previously, the Applicant had modified their proffer statement in a version dated 11/06/07 which generally included transportation related changes. This effort was the result of a significant amount of communication and cooperation between staff, VDOT, and the Applicant and generally went a long way towards satisfying the outstanding transportation concerns associated with this project. As previously noted, the transportation proffer statement did not fully satisfy either scenario in the Applicant's TIA, rather it addressed elements of both scenarios modeled in the Applicant's TIA by attempting to deal with the longer term transportation solution while simultaneously offsetting the near term impacts. At your November 7 meeting, the Commission expressed additional concerns regarding the transportation impacts of this request. In the latest proffer statement, dated November 15, 2007, the Applicant has further modified the proffers in an effort to clarify the commitments they have made and to attempt to satisfy some of the concerns that have been expressed to date. In summary the Applicant has: • Modified their basic Generalized Development Plan to illustrate two land bays in addition to illustrating their proffered transportation improvements described in this report. The purpose of this is to provide an additional trigger for the construction of a portion of the east west collector road. • Included an exhibit, Exhibit A, which details the landscape buffers, hiker/biker facilities, and right-of-way dedication proffered in Section 3 of the proffer statement along both Shady Elm Road and the future east west collector road. Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 11 • Added Section 3 to the proffer statement which describes the above exhibit and further describes that the Applicant will make available for future dedication to the County or State an additional area along Shady Elm Road twenty feet in width. This is beyond that area previously dedicated in Section 2.1. This area is in the area commonly set aside for the twenty five foot parking lot setback. Outside of this twenty foot distance buffer, the provision of a fifteen foot trail and landscaping easement is proffered, in essence resulting in a thirty five foot front parking setback. Please recognize that when this right-of-way dedication is implemented, the front parking lot setback along Shady Elm Road would be reduced to fifteen feet, less than current standards. • Added to the landscaping buffer the planting of four ornamental trees between each of the previously proffered one street tree for every fifty feet along the collector road frontages of the property. • Clarified the provision of a hiker/biker trail along the collector road frontages of the property. • Clarified the initial dedication of right-of-way along Shady Elm Road in the amount of twenty feet. This is the same amount as would be required to be dedicated as part of the subdivision process. • Clarified the triggers for the construction of the east west collector road. • Provided for the signalization of any intersection in the vicinity of the site with a monetary cap in the amount of $200,000.00, or an equivalent cash contribution in the amount of $200,000.00 for general transportation improvements in the vicinity of the site. • Reduced the monetary contribution for the design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad or other improvements from $50,000.00 to $25,000.00 while maintaining flexibility with the application of these monies for the design and/or construction of the future east west collector road or any other transportation improvements deemed necessary by Frederick County or VDOT. • Included a proffer stating that the property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final build out. • Provided for a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000.00 for improvements to Star Fort and proffered to complete a survey documenting any historical structures on the property in general accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Historic Resources. Please recognize that no limitation of the specific uses has been proffered out nor have any restrictions been placed on the size and scale of the buildings or uses. The minimum of three users proffer provided is extremely flexible and should be carefully evaluated. The Plarming Commission previously expressed concern regarding large warehouse and distribution uses on this site. The County's targeted industries seek to maximize the available land uses from tax and revenue generation perspective. In relationship to the concerns expressed relating to the appearance of these developing business corridors and the buffering of the adjacent residential land uses, the net result of the modified proffer statement, above what would be required by ordinance, is the following; an additional ten feet in distance between the edge of the Shady Elm Road right-of-way and the parking lot resulting in a thirty five foot front parking setback, the street trees at a ratio of one tree for every fifty feet previously a 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 12 included in the proffer statement, and an additional four ornamental trees planted between each street tree. Staff has noted that a significant amount of landscaping has been proposed within a minimal 5' space between the proposed trail and the edge of the parking lot, in particular, when you take into consideration the parking lot landscaping required by ordinance. It may be more sustainable and offer- a better buffer if the landscaping that is in addition to what is already required by ordinance (the Street and Ornamental Trees) is placed in the 5' to 10' area immediately in front of the trail. This would appear to be achievable along the east west collector road, and if care is taken to locate this additional landscaping as close to the west side of the trail as possible, also along Shady Elm Road. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/19/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning remain consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. Careful consideration should be given to ensuring the Commission's satisfaction that the application fully recognizes the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan and mitigates the impacts of this request. In addition, the corridor appearance and buffering of the adjacent residential land uses should be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Conunission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 12/19/07 MEETING: Following a lengthy public hearing at which twenty one citizens spoke, a motion was made and seconded to approve the rezoning; however, this motion was defeated by a majority vote. A second motion was made, seconded, and passed to table the rezoning application for 30 days to give the applicant additional time to address issues associated with this rezoning request. (Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting.) STAFF UPDATE FOR 01/16/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Applicant provided a revised Proffer statement dated December 21, 2007 in response to the issues raised by members of the Planning Commission and members of the public at the December 19, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The following is a summary of the changes. • Proffer 1.4 has been increased to provide for a monetary contribution to the County of Frederick in the amount of $250,000.00 for off -site transportation improvements. This is a net increase of $25,000.00 from the previous proffer and consolidates the monetary contribution for transportation. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 13 • Proffer 2.1 has been changed to provide for the dedication of forty feet of right-of-way along the property frontage for Shady Elm Road. This results in the necessary eighty foot right-of-way for an improved major collector road and the required twenty five foot parking lot setback in compliance with Ordinance requirements. • Proffer 2.7 has been added which states that no warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square feet shall be constructed on the property within five years of the date of final rezoning. Obviously, this is temporary, short term approach to addressing this concern. • Proffer 3.1 pertaining to landscaping and trails has been modified to provide for a densely planted landscape screen consistent with the Zoning Ordinances standards for a landscape screen, in addition to the street trees planted fifty feet on center. This landscaping and a ten foot trail will be located within the twenty five foot parking lot setback adjacent to the right-of-way. • Proffer 4.1 has been modified to refine the materials for the building facades. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 01/16/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning remain consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The corridor appearance, buffering of the adjacent residential land uses, and right-of-way dedication has been addressed to meet the minimum expectations. However, the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan and the mitigation of the transportation impacts of this request should be recognized further. The transportation impacts associated with this request as identified in the Applicant's TIA have not been fully mitigated. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 01/16/08 MEETING: Ten local residents expressed concerns with the proposed project. The primary concern raised was the absence of adequate transportation infrastructure to take care of this project and other proj ects currently underway in the area. They were concerned the applicant's transportation proffers did not hilly address the impacts this project would generate; and, in addition, there were no guarantees the off -site transportation improvements required to support the development in this area would be completed in the foreseeable future. Residents requested higher standards of screening and buffering with dense landscaping and greater setbacks, along with a 50-foot height restriction on buildings. The issue of possible interruption of residential well water systems was raised, along with safety concerns for senior drivers and children, bikers, and pedestrians. A member of the local business community, with Prosperity Properties, an adjoining property owner, spoke in favor of the rezoning and believed the applicant had offered his fair share to mitigate impacts. Commission members and staff discussed whether the local or the regional transportation improvements should receive priority in considering this rezoning and the applicant's proffers. Commission members expressed concern that any complication with the railroad crossing will hold up Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 14 the East-West collector and affects to Shady Elm, Apple Valley, and Route 11 will follow. There were also unknowns regarding the adjoining Carbaugh tract. The applicant believed their revised proffers addressed both the regional transportation impacts, with their proffer to construct 1100 feet of roadway, and the local impacts on Apple Valley with their monetary proffer and funding of the design of the railroad crossing. The applicant had submitted two alternative proffer revisions just prior to the meeting. These were in addition to the revised proffer statement in the Commission's agenda package, dated December 21, 2007. Members of the Conunission questioned the appropriateness of choosing between alternative sets of proffers. In addition, they were not in favor of receiving revised proffers on the same day an application was to be considered. Other Commissioners were of the opinion that even with the revised proffers, the application did not fully address the transportation impacts generated by this request or further the goals of the Comprehensive Policy Plan. By a majority vote, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request. The vote was as follows: YES (TO DENY): Mohn, Kriz, Ours, Light, Oates, Watt NO: Triplett, Wilmot, Unger ABSTAIN: Manuel (Note: Cornrnissioners Thomas and Kerr were absent from the meeting.) 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center February 5, 2008 Page 15 STAFF UPDATE & CONCLUSION FOR 02/13/08 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: Following the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of this application, the County received correspondence on January 29, 2008 from the Applicant withdrawing the Proffer Statement identified as Alternative 2. The Applicant requested that the Proffer Statement previously identified as Alternative 1 be the Proffer Statement that is presented to the Board for your consideration at your February 13, 2008 meeting. This Proffer Statement, Previously Alternative 1, is generally consistent with that reviewed, and ultimately recommended for denial, by the Planning Commission. The Applicant provided a second item of correspondence on February 1, 2008; a memorandum which attempted to supplement the information provided in the Applicant's TIA. An evaluation by the County's Transportation Plam-ier of this latest information is summarized as follows: Additional Transportation Comments (Mr. John Bishop, AICP). In the updated traffic study, the applicant has opted to analyze their traffic without including the background traffic produced by previously approved developments. In the cover memorandum the applicant states that only two or three of the background developments would be fully developed by the applicant's proposed build out year of 2010. It is staff s assertion that the applicant is not in a position to predict when other developments will be built out, and even if it were, it is inappropriate to ask the Board to consider this application without considering previous approvals granted by the Board. Considering the applicant's traffic impact on a transportation system that does not include the previous approvals does not give an accurate picture of their true impact on the future transportation system. In summary, the transportation system that does not have the previously approved development has more capacity to absorb the applicant's traffic than the transportation system that does include the previously approved development. It is the transportation system that includes previously approved developments that must be considered when measuring whether this applicant is offsetting their traffic impacts, since that is the more realistic scenario. To do less would be to assume the County or VDOT will be addressing the shortfalls which, in light of transportation funding trends, may be a significant challenge. In conclusion, the land uses proposed in this rezoning remain consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The corridor appearance, buffering of the adjacent residential land uses, and right-of-way dedication has been addressed to meet the minimum expectations. However, the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan and the mitigation of the transportation impacts of this request have not been fully recognized. The Commission carefully considered the impacts generated by this request, in particular, the transportation impacts of the request. This rezoning does not fully achieve an acceptable level of service at the intersections identified in both scenarios modeled in the applicant's TIA. The level of service of the surrounding roads and intersections is not being maintained or improved. Ultimately, the Planning Commmission recommended denial of this request. STAFF UPDATE & CONCLUSION FOR 02/13/08 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING: Following the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial of this application, the County received correspondence on January 29, 2008 from the Applicant withdrawing the Proffer Statement identified as Alternative 2. The Applicant requested that the Proffer Statement previously identified as Alternative 1 be the Proffer Statement that is presented to the Board for your consideration at your February 13, 2008 meeting. This Proffer Statement, previously Alternative 1, is generally consistent with that reviewed, and ultimately recommended for denial, by the Planning Commission. The Applicant provided a second item of correspondence on February 1, 2008; a memorandum which attempted to supplement the information provided in the Applicant's TIA. An evaluation by the County's Transportation Planner of this latest information is summarized as follows: Additional Transportation Comments (Mr. John Bishop, AICP). In conclusion, the land uses proposed in this rezoning remain consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The corridor appearance, buffering of the adjacent residential land uses, and right-of-way dedication has been addressed to meet the minimum expectations. However, the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan and the mitigation of the transportation impacts of this request have not been frilly recognized. The Commission carefully considered the impacts generated by this request, in particular, the transportation impacts of the request. This rezoning does not frilly achieve an acceptable level of service at the intersections identified in both scenarios modeled in the applicant's TIA. The level of service of the surrounding roads and intersections is not being maintained or improved. Ultimately, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this request. 62 A 81 MADIGAN, MAGGIE ti 6 I�LAJ 04 c � o O so�� .lp" Oyc� • 75 A 1 VENTURE IOF WINCHESTER,LLC 74-A 68 CARBAUGH, HENRY J TRUSTEE 63-A, 61 WHITING ROAD, LLC b�P 0 vV \ v m� co VE L�� D S ESIr� ' IS ' A �f•,� VASBp /)VC B?yJ V Gl'o'p, ✓"._ >C iN0 l�s�H • a BATTLEfIE PARTNE ,kill' GPCyf 4 �k �0 1j�1�/ ,7 'P/SlOF �0 r Frederick County, VA Re -Zoning REZ # 08 - 07 Application Artillery Business Center Parcel ID: 75-A-I Location in the County Map Features O Hamlets - Application 4%+ Future Rt37 Bypass D Lakes/Ponds Streams 40 Buildings Strrrrrts Primary �. Secondary iTertiary .• Urban Development Area 6%1 SWSA O Opequon ILI%= © Case Planner: Mike Map Document:(N:\Planning_And_Development\_1_Locator—Mps\ArtilleryBusinessCenter_REZ0807_071207.mxd) 7/12/20UI -- i:1 i:1 i FM REZ # 08 - 07 "...611111 NI Zoning Map AWSON D PARK �i w SOaa� 7 M 1 oning RP n w � +t 7 37 HEDGEBFOOKFS�4 - 37 r � _ VE L !'�r,�� 2 n ing 40 r OWN MMONS 83 zoning BATTLEftE PARTNE "IF / r ;U I r v Frederick County, VA Re -Zoning REZ # 08 - 07 Application Artillery Business Center Parcel ID: 75-A-I Location in the County Map Features O Hamlets Zoning - Application asr BI (Business, Neighborhood District) M Future Rt37 Bypass 82 (Business, General District) O Lakes/Ponds B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) -- Streams 4� EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) OW Buildings 40 HE (Higher Education District) straats 4� MI (Industrial, Light District) Z Primary M2 (Industrial, General District) �. Secondary MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) �. Terciary MS (Medical Support District) m a Urban Development Area 4w R4 (Residential, Planned Community District) 40 R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RAZ (Rural Area Zone) RP (Residential Performance District) M SWSA Location in Surrounding Area PEEK COG � w © Case Planner: Mike Map Document: (N:\Pianning_And_Development\ 1_Locator_MpsWrtiiierytsusinessuenter_Kr-z-vou7_ufizu7.mxo) if izlzvv7 -- a. Ia. IJ rnn Land Use Ma REZ#08-07. ; p w 40 37 1 HEDGEBFODK �LLsI• 37 �� 11 ``r VE L OS p�4j U l ` OWN MHDr,S 11 0 d�P • BAYTLEfIE PP.RI Nf Nl9711, / Frederick County, VA Re -Zoning REZ # 08 - 07 Application Artillery Business Center Parcel ID: 75-A-I Location in the County Map Features O Hamlets Long Range Land Use - Application Rural Community Center ♦M Future Rt37 Bypass Residential D Lakes/Ponds Business - Streams -..' Industrial an, Buildings *c. Institutional Streets Recreation �. Primary W Historic ^. Secondary ® Mixed -Use �- Terciary ® Planned Unit Development �f Urban Development Area ti SWSA Location in Surrounding Area .PACK CDG � � p © Case Planner: Mike Map Document: (N:Tlanning_And_Development\ 1_Locator_MpsWrtilleryt3uslnesscenter_Ktcuuui_unzut.mw) ii Iuzvvir --a. to: 10 riw Cv' a Map Document: (N:\Plannmg Ana_uevelopmentN 1_t_ocator_Mpswrtmerybusinesscenter_Ktcuour_urizui.mxa) rnuzuur -- a. Ia. 1.3 rrvi p W 0 October 2007 Artillery Business Center INTRODUCTION The 58.7 acre Artillery Business Center is comprised of a single tax map parcel identified as 75-A-1. The Property is located adjacent to Shady Eh-n Road just South of Route 37 with access provided to Route 11 by Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road to die South (See Figure 1). Currently, the subject acreage is zoned RA (Rural Areas) but bounded to the North and West by property zoned M1 (Light Industrial) with property zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) bounding the project site to the East (See Figure 2). The Property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Recently, Frederick County approved revised boundaries for the Urban Development Area (UDA). Originally, die subject property was located widiin the UDA. With the adoption of die revised UDA boundary, however, the Property is now located outside of die UDA. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies that areas located outside of the UDA but widen die SWSA boundary are intended for commercial and industrial uses. This application seeks to rezone tie Property from RA (Rural Areas) to die M1 (Light Industrial) zoning district in an effort to integrate the site with the surrounding area, particularly those properties along Shady Elm Road to the north. Rezoning the Property from its current residential/agricultural designation to the light industrial zoning classification will provide for an increasingly viable industrial node that accommodates the County's future land use and transportation goals wlhile bolstering die County's tax base. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan (EFCLRLUP) identifies industrial as the intended land use designation for die Property and tie surrounding area to the Nortli. The site is also located within tie boundary of tie Route 11 South Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan does not identify an intended land use for the Property but instead simply indicates its current RA zoning designation. As such, tie EFCLRLUP can be considered tie guiding document regarding tie intended land use for die Property. The proposed M1 (Light Industrial) zoning designation would be in keeping with the intended land use identified by dze Comprehensive Plan. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION Currently, access to Route 11 is provided by Shady Ehn Road's connection to Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road connecting Shady Ehn Road with Route 11 to the South. The majority of project generated trips will travel north through the existing industrial area fronting Shady Elm Road. The adopted Eastern Road Plan includes a collector road located just South of the subject property that will connect Shady Ehn Road with Route 11. This future connection would allow commercial and industrial traffic to avoid using Apple Valley and Springdale Roads as a means of access to Route 11 from Shady Ehn Road. The recent Master Development Plan for d-ie Renaissance Commercial Center Property which is located east of the railroad tracks from the subject site has provided the alignment for this planned roadway from Route 11 to the railroad. The Applicant has proffered to design a four lane divided roadway from Shady Elm Road to the planned roadway within the aforementioned Renaissance Commercial Center. The road design would incorporate a 1 of 4 FIGURE 1 or 44 1r Nl�lt- PhOJECT.� SITE i y J • �� l`j 4 • _ tit M 2 " — ref ' � 1 • 0 v SHADY ELM Patton, Harris, Ru I ZONING CONTEXT 117 E. Picadilly St. V p Q VOICE: (540) 667-213 FREDERICK COUNTY, KRGIN/A M- st & Associates, pic finchester, Virginia 22601 3 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FIGURE 2 October 2007 0 • Artillery Business Center vertical alignment that would accommodate the future bridge that will be needed to cross the railroad tracks. The Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution of $50,000.00 for the design and/or construction of this bridge. The Applicant will 80 foot right of way dedication along a portion the southern property line and the construction of a two lane section of the collector for a minimum distance of 1,100 feet to implement the roadway on the west side of the railroad. The Eastern Road Plan also calls for Shady Elm Road to be a major collector. The Applicant has proffered sufficient right of way to along the Property's frontage with Shady Elm Road and also proffered to widen the existing northbound lane of Shady Elm Road to a width of 24 feet to accommodate the two future northbound through lanes. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7"' Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 5,950 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA uses two scenarios to analyze die impact of tie proposed rezoning on the subject area street system. Scenario A assumes access is provided by the existing road network with Apple Valley Road providing access to the North and Springdale Road providing access to the South. Using this scenario, 80 percent of the trips would utilize the northern connection where Shady Elm Road meets Apple Valley Road with the remaining 20 percent of die trips utilizing the Springdale Road — Route 11 intersection. The identified improvements needed to keep the transportation system operating at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better include the following: - Additional northbound and southbound through lanes for Route 11 at Apple Valley Road. - Signalization of Springdale Road — Route 11 Intersection - Signalization of Apple Valley Road — Shady Elm Road Intersection Scenario B assumes access provided by the future connection of Shady Elm Road directly to Route 11 as intended by die Eastern Road Plan. This scenario will serve as the ultimate transportation plan for the subject site as the roadway is currently being planned and provided for on the nearby Renaissance Commercial Center. Under Scenario B, the same improvements found under Scenario A would be needed where Route 11 intersects Apple Valley Road and Springdale Road. In addition, a signal would be needed at the intersection of the new collector road and Route 11. All improvements to this intersection with the exception of an additional northbound through lane are provided by the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center MDP. While the Applicant recognizes that the proposed development would yield increased traffic at the subject intersections, it is important to note that background traffic alone, with the exception of the Apple Valley — Shady Elm intersection, would result in a Level of Service (LOS) that is less than the specified "C" threshold as identified as the goal by the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant is implementing a road connection between Shady Elm Road and Route 11 which will help mitigate traffic congestion at both the Springdale Road and Apple Valley Road intersections with Route 11. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially lender development activities. The Property does not contain any areas of steep slopes, stream channels, flood plain, or 2 of 4 October 2007 Artillery Business Center wetlands. Verification of wetland data would be provided through a wetland delineation which would be required and completed during the master plan phase of the development process. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virguiia in that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Such geology is prevalent on land located West of Interstate 81 and accommodates cominercial and industrial development as evidenced by development on surrounding parcels. Drainage leaves the site to the East where it meets a drainage divide which directs drainage approximately 3,000 feet South into Opequon Creek. A lack of steep slopes on the 58.7 acre site result in little to no issues associated with drainage (See Figure 3). The site is underlaid by karst geology. During design of on site improvements, proffered geotechnicial studies will be completed to ascertain if there are areas of concern. The final design will reflect measures to address any critical geologic features discovered. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Water service can be provided to the Property by two different scenarios. The first option is to connect to the existing 8" water main on Prosperity Drive, east of the site. The second option is to connect to the existing 12" water main in the Dawson Industrial Park. Assuming a water consumption rate of 500 gpd/acre, water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer service would be provided to the site by connection via force main to tap into the existing 6" force main at the Dawson Industrial Park. Sewer flows would be roughly equivalent to the projected water consumption of 29,350 gallons per day. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this project. Develo ment Type Area (Square ft Waste Generation Total Waste lbs Light Industrial/Warehouse 1,022,790 .01 lbs/s .ft. 10,228 TOTAL 10,228lbs/day Solid waste would be transferred by private carrier and deposited at the County landfill. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES It is noted that the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies two older structures wid7in the vicinity of the site (See figure 4). One of the structures, identified as "The House off Route 651" (#34-1042), is located on the Property but is not listed as potentially significant. Figure 5 includes an up to date photo of the house. The adjacent property to the South includes the Carbaugh House (#34-1040). .Figure 6 depicts a current photo of the Carbaugh House which is located approximately 1/3 mile south of the subject Property. 3 of 4 FIGURE r bUNL A, OL WFW 0 k 7,1 I 0 jr . 4-4 I .1 tv 7L W-k i ol V4 a�a ,r = CCC r r f-• :Xr1 ✓�. ��}'.... r'��Ur1i► •r,�� �1' .. �'�'� "Fi'.`'s "• • ``rT� ~��lf _:�yy'7 �'�.. .r.�. .S •` X..i'�'�'Xii�Gt�`'2^ _` n--_....�-+'� 5,Ilp- �„{'{,• . r• s Y 4 � 's .r _ i .�' : '• � z �• +`A[. tea;, � .. t r y �iTjc%.+9 � ib•...,„ , rI { i • �Y: � f"•s[�y.+!#'F'• � � r •�'.� �� '� a .•��r` . .. sty �ls..� .� � •: �.. • � N �=^S' _ N - .. -. ,_ Jam_ �—A���•.w' � � � • n � +..ear+5��'� !^�'�"^ • s v: ' October 2007 • 0 Artillery Business Center The National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia indicates that the subject site is located well outside of any core battlefield areas. Figure 7 and Figure 8 depict the Property location with respect to the First Kernstown and Second Kernstown Battlefield. As labeled on each of the battlefield exhibits, the land use along Shady Ehn Road has been modified substantially since the 1991 study. As existing development separates the Property from the identified core battlefield for First and Second Kernstown, development of the site would not pose any detrimental impacts to viewsheds or interpretative quality of the battlefields. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The industrial uses proposed as with this rezoning results in a net positive fiscal impact for Frederick County. 4 of 4 idnou =f.- Ex 80 R t 3� �x 0 f a ` T i 1 `• ::;:.: is i:::::: i ::. •: > ::: •i,::•:::,,,.: '�' � • � � :]1:,� rd �'pistr�ibu is Center'—,_.. ili(.•. • :•:: Dawson I}tidtrstrial•. a k . NZ IndJstrial Use ; , r "�• Industrial Park ti PROJECT SITE US 11 - -' Retained Integrity Lost Integrity Study Area Boundary f Core Area Boundary Roads Streams and Rivers ' miles County or City Boundary A lb SHADY ELM Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc p�' I ( LOCATION MAP SECOND KERNSTOWN BATTLEFIELD 117 E.IC : (54)odilly 6 Winchester, Virginia0)6 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 v � FR£DERICK COUNTY, WGIN!A FIGURE 8 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To he b y completed �Sta � :. P J Planning �, I� u' . ,>. tx Fee Amount Paid $ /< Zoning Amendment Number Date Received c, PC Hearing Date t " : BOS Hearing Date /& 0 fj 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. Applicants: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: 540 667.2139 Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester. Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Venture I of Winchester, LLC Telephone: 540.247.4974 Address: 118 Armstrong Place Winchester, Virginia 22602 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patrick Sowers Telephone: (540) 667.2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X I T J 0 5. The Code of Virlzinia 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: Paige Manuel Mark Lynch James Lynch Randy Kremer 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential/Agriculture B) Proposed Use of the Property: Light Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 1,500 feet South of Route 37. 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 of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 75-A-1 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service Back Creek Stephens City Stephens City Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Sherando James Wood Orchard View 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres CurrentZoning Zonin Re uested 58.7 RA Ml 58.7 Total acreage to be rezoned ►A 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other 511,395 511,395 I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully snake 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 best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s)�-- —��— Date Z /.,77 3 `c ti Special Limited Power of Attorney County of Frederick, Virginia Frederick Planning Web Site: www.co.frederick.va.us Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395 Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We) (Name) Venture I of Winchester, LLC (Phone) 540.667.9794 (Address) 827 Armistead St Winchester, Virginia 22601 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 Number: 24270 and is described as Tax Map Parcel 75-A-1 Subdivision: do hereby make, constitute and appoint: (Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139 0,Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601 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 applications for my (our) above described Property, including X Rezoning (including proffers) _ Conditional Use Permits X 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) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this day of ,= , 200, State of Vir inia, C' /Countyof f '� �, c_'l{ ,To -wit: PC9 c� P /►' I Q I1�� I, L 14 1 F ' Ie* , a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, certify that fhe person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument persona _jI appeared before me and has acknowledged the same b/fore me ' the jurisdiction aforesaid this FA day of ck , 2007 . My Commission Expires: d 3� L� G D 7 otary Public PIN: 74-A-68 N/F HENRY J. & NORA CARBAUGH OB 574. PG 537 AT 5>r11�Y ��tE 6� NRpN1A 20 P� (da PIN: 75-A-1 A N/F SYNERGY VESTMENTS, LLC INST. NO. 11862 PIN: 75-A-1 D N/F FVC PROPERTIES, INC. INST. NO. 17707 o PIN: 75-A-1E N/F FVC PROPERTIES, INC. INST. NO. 9679 m m mo D N N n z N PIN: 75-A-113 cep N/F FVC PROPERTIES, INC. N o OB 896 PG 1326 PIN: 75—A-1 2,557,582 SF/5&74140 AC (AS NOW SURVEYED) ca SEE DETAL N/F CSX TRANSPORTATION INC. SHOWN ON VALMAP V-32.1 /3 PIN: 75—A—IC N/F COOUGATED CONTAINER CORP. DB 729, PG 929 11 rn ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates I � �bZONING BOUNDARY 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 O O Q VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, WRG/N/A REZONING APPLICATION 408-07 ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: October 23, 2007 (updated December 26, 2007) Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, 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: 11/07/07 Tabled by PC 12/19/07 Tabled by PC 01/16/08 Pending Board of Supervisors: 02/13/08 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-1 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) PRESENT USE: Agricultural and residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: M1 Use: Industrial South: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural East: B3 (Industrial Transition) Use: Commercial/vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Use: Agricultural M1 (light Industrial) Vacant PROPOSED USES: Light Industrial Office and Warehouse Uses (0.4 FAR proffered). Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: VirlZinia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 651, 652 and 11. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed several submissions of proposed transportation proffers offered to mitigate the development's potential trip generation. While not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application dated December 26, 2006, revised October 9, 2007, it appears that through a combination of previous proposed proffers, as well as the current proffer by the application the transportation concerns associated with this request can be adequately addressed. 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. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit and asbestos inspection shall be required prior to the removal of any structures. No additional comments required at this time. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to page 2 of 4, Transportation: The discussion of Scenario A indicates that 60 percent of the trips would utilize Apple Valley Road and 40 percent would use Springdale Road. It appears that the existing traffic distribution is approximately 80:20. Considering the current condition of Springdale Road, we conclude that the 80:20 distribution is more realistic than the 60:40 distribution. 2. Refer to page 3 or 4, Enviromnental Features: a. The narrative indicates that the property does not contain any wetlands. However, a review of available aerial photographs indicates the existence of a pond on the property. A wetland study needs to be performed to verify that this pond does not represent a wetland. b. The discussion of drainage needs to address stormwater management and the potential impact on a karst enviromnent. c. The discussion of soils needs to be expanded to include.a review of the karst geology and the potential for sink hole development. This condition is particularly relevant along the eastern property boundary. 3. Refer to page 4 of 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Indicate if the solid waste projection is presented as pounds per day or pounds per year. 4. Refer to the proffer statement, Site Development Item 2.2: The dedication right-of-ways should be sized to accommodate sufficient turning radii at the intersection with Shady Elm Road. The discussion indicates that "entrances to the said roadway will be located at a minimum of 400 feet apart". This statement raises the question, "apart from what?" Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department: We have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. 0 • Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objections as long as no septics or wells are proposed or existing. If any existing septics or wells are located, please call the Health Department for proper abandonment procedures. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application. Allowed uses under this rezoning should not impact airside operations at the Winchester Regional Airport therefore we have no further comment regarding this rezoning request. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah VallE. The subject parcel is the site of the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing a typical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The Henry Carbaugh House represents a typical vernacular Queen Anne -style dwelling constructed in the early twentieth century and still retains many elements of its original construction, as noted in Frederick County Virginia: History Through Architecture. Although neither of these two structures is listed as potentially significant by the Rural Landmarks Survey, mitigation of the impacts to these structures should be considered. In addition, a small portion of the property is located in the study area of the I" Kernstown Battlefield. Although not located in the core area of the battlefield, attention should be given to the potential archeological significance of this property in the battle for Kernstown. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct no more than 327,000 square feet of office space and no more than 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address several issues prior to the rezoning of this property. If the property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Archeological Survey and Documentation. The HRAB felt that there is a need to document the historic and archeological significance of the property based upon the proximity to the I" Kernstown Battlefield area and the location of the historic structure on the property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical significance including identifying past owners/occupants, building materials, architectural features, photographs of both the interior and exterior, etc. The HRAB also suggested a Phase 1 one archeological survey would be appropriate to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. Attorney Comments: 1. In Proffer 2.2, at the end of the second sentence I would recommend that the following words be added"..., in the location shown on the Generalized Development Plan." 2. In proffer 2.3, it is not clear who makes the determination that an internal access road is "necessary". That should be clarified. PlanninIZ Department: Please see letter dated March 23, 2007, signed by Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 4 PlanninI & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject property and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 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. I - 1] Fnnrl T vo The property is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Sewer and Water Service Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of planned commercial, and industrial development will occur. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan designate this area for industrial land use. The Plan recognizes the desire to provide for industrial uses along the CSX Railroad. The proposed M1 light industrial rezoning is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The application of quality design standards for firture development is also an objective of the Plan; in particular, along business corridors. These include landscaping, screening, and controlling the number and size of signs. Transportation 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 plamned road improvements and new roads shown on the road plan 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). Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 5 The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan calls for Shady Elm Road to be improved to a major collector road. hl addition, a new east west major collector road connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11 is identified. The County's Eastern Road Plan further defines the appropriate typical section for these major collector roads as an urban divided four -lane facility. The construction of planned major collector road typical sections, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is not provided for by this application. The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does not achieve a level of service C or better on the roads and intersections studied in the application's TIA. It is important to note that the County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to Springdale Road. Therefore, the Applicant should concentrate any efforts to address their transportation impacts on those roads and intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan; in particular, Shady Elm Road, the new east west major collector road, and the intersection of Apple Valley Road and Route 11. Site Access and circulation The Comprehensive Plan generally provides for a limitation on the number of entrances that may be located along business corridors. Further, the Plan generally seeks to address pedestrian accommodations. No pedestrian accommodations have been provided internally to the project and, more importantly, along the projects frontage with the plamled major collector roads. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any envirorunental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. The Frederick County Engineer has referenced the potential for wetlands to exist on this site based upon the presence of an existing pond. Also, the Frederick County Engineer has identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design as this area is also known for karst topography. The property is the site of a historical house, the Route 651 House (DHR # 1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing atypical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The HRAB suggested the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: the completion of an archeological survey and documentation of the property, and the completion of a Phase 1 archeological survey to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. The application does not presently address the comments provided by the HRAB. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 6 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Anal The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application evaluated two scenarios. Scenario A assumes the existing road network with development access to be provided via a single site driveway located on Shady Elm Road. Scenario B assumes, in addition to Scenario A, direct development access to Route 1 1 via a future roadway link planned over the existing railroad and through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. The TIA assumed 326,700 square feet of office use and 326,700 square feet of light industrial use. This was generally consistent with the proffered square footage limitation on the use of the property based upon a 0.25 FAR. However, concern has been raised regarding the trip generation figures used in the TIA. As a result, the inaccuracy of the trip generation figures brings into question the conclusions provided in the TIA. Using trip generation figures from the TIA, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 3,562 average daily trips (ADT). An addendum to the TIA, dated September 12, 2007, was provided which reflected a change in the land use and FAR. The proffered square footage limitation has been increased to a 0.4 FAR. As a result, the TIA assumes 511,395 square feet of light industrial land use and 511,395 square feet of warehousing resulting in a trip generation of 5,950 average daily trips (ADT). Concerns remain with the TIA, in particular with the land uses used and the trip generation numbers. The TIA may not represent the most intensive use of the property enabled by the M1 zoning or the proffered square footage limitations. The addendum to the TIA continues to indicate that, with the exception of the intersection of Route 11 and Springdale Road, Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads and intersections with the following improvements. A level of service D is identified at Route 11 and Springdale Road during Scenario B. 1. The proposed signalization of Springdale Road and Route 11, Scenario A (not a desirable avenue for industrial development traffic). 2. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Apple Valley Road and Route 11. 3. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Renaissance Driveway and Route 11 (Scenario B). 4. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Site Driveway and Shady Elm Road (Scenario A). 5. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Shady Elm Road and Apple Valley Road (Scenario A). The application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by the request as identified in the Applicant's TIA. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 7 Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program provides for right-of-way dedication along Shady Elm Drive (45 feet from centerline), construction of the widening of the northbound lane of Shady Elm Road, right-of-way dedication along the southern property line to partially accommodate an east west major collector road (80 feet in width), the design of a rural four -lane road to approximately the railroad bridge, the potential construction of a rural two-lane section (westbound lanes) of this road at such time a fourth building permit may be issued or a bridge crossing of the existing railroad is constructed by others, and a monetary contribution in the amount of $50,000 to the County for the design and construction of a railroad crossing. None of the above improvements identified in the TIA have been addressed by this application. In addition, the Applicant's transportation program does not provide for or advance the County's Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan. Bicycle and pedestrian accommodations have not been provided in the applicant's transportation program. B. Sewer and Water Water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer generation is projected to be equivalent to the water demand at approximately 29,350 gallons per day. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has stated that they have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. The wastewater from this site would be directed to the Parkin's Mill Wastewater facility. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on community facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriff's Office and $2,500 for general government purposes in an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 26, 2006; revised through October 9, 2007. A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has provided a basic Generalized Development Plan which simply illustrates the proffered transportation improvements described in this report. B) Land Use The Applicant has limited the development of the property to a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The Applicant has proposed signage limitations along Shady Elm and the collector road. However, the limitation proposed may be in excess of those signage standards currently being proposed through the DRRS. Rezoning 408-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 8 C) Transportation This application has provided for additional dedication of right-of-way along Shady Elm Road and the widening of the existing northbound lane along the property's Shady Elm frontage. The application has provided for the dedication of an 80 foot right-of-way along their southern property line for a minimum of 1,100 feet. The Applicant has proffered the design of a rural four - lane divided collector road to connect with proposed Renaissance Drive. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this important road as an Urban four- lane divided road. This should be recognized in this application. The design of the bridge necessary to accommodate this road has not been proffered by the Applicant. Therefore, care should be taken when evaluating the value of designing a major collector road without understanding the design, and ultimately obtaining the approval by CSX, of the bridge necessary to accommodate the road. The construction of the westbound two lanes as a two lane rural undivided road is proffered for a minimum of 1,100 feet. Please be aware that the proffer only guarantees that this rural two lane section will be constructed prior to the issuance of the fourth building permit. There is no guarantee that there will be a fourth building permit for the property. Therefore, there is no guarantee that this road will be constructed Any construction of this road by the Applicant is very questionable, and most certainly untimely with the development of this property. A second trigger is provided for the construction of 1,100 feet of this road as an R2, on the Applicant's property, which is at such time construction commences of abridge over the adjacent railroad. However, no design or construction of the bridge crossing is provided by the Applicant. In lieu of the above, the Applicant has proffered a contribution to the County in the amount of $50,000 for the design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad or for any other general transportation improvements as may be decided by the County. Presently, the County is not in the road building or bridge design business. It would be more appropriate for the Applicant to undertake this effort to secure the approval of a future bridge crossing, facilitate the future development of their property, and help mitigate the transportation impacts associated with the potential development of 58 acres of MI zoned land The Applicant has proffered a limitation on the number of entrance providing access to the site to two from the east -west collector road and two from Shady Elm Road. In addition, the Applicant has proffered to one tree every fifty feet along Shady Elm Road, and the collector road. D) Community Facilities This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriff's Office and $2,500 for general goverrunent purposes in an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities. Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 9 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 11/07/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning are generally consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. However, the application does not fully recognize the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan. Further, the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request, as identified in the Applicant's TIA, have not been mitigated by the Applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 11/07/07 MEETING: Six citizens spoke during the public comments portion of the hearing; all but one citizen was opposed to the rezoning. Those who were opposed were primarily residents of Hedgebrook Hills and adjacent areas and most were unaware this area had been designated for industrial development when they purchased their homes. They stated that allowing industrial and commercial uses to encroach on the existing residential neighborhood would be aesthetically unappealing and would negatively affect their quality of life. They believed industrial zoning would set a precedent for additional rezoning, particularly on the Carbaugh property, and it would negatively affect the value of their homes. They expressed concern about increased traffic on local roads and the safety of neighborhood children. It was noted that existing local roads did not have the capacity to handle industrial traffic and Springdale Road was not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. The one citizen who spoke in favor of the rezoning was a partner in a local business on Prosperity Drive. He agreed Springdale was substandard and a satisfactory connector road was needed through this entire area; he believed this rezoning could supply that new connector. Planning Commission members did not believe the rezoning package was sufficiently complete for them to vote at this time. They commented that the transportation package needed additional work; some questioned why the applicant had no plans for improving the road base or width of Shady Elm Road. Commissioners believed there were ways this site could be developed into an attractive industrial park and be compatible with the residential community around it. They suggested a number of ideas that could be incorporated to enhance the package, such as: segregating sidewalks from the industrial area; utilization of expanded buffers, berms, and landscaping; and, addressing the standard of appearance by avoiding steel - framed structures with metal exteriors. In addition, Commission members disliked receiving proffer revisions on the same day as the public hearing because it did not provide them enough time to thoroughly review the document. A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to table the rezoning application for 45 days to give the applicant additional time to enhance the rezoning package and to allow the Commission the opportunity to review the revised proffers. (Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting.) Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 10 STAFF UPDATE FOR 12/19/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: In response to the input the Applicant received before, during, and after the November 7, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, a revised proffer statement dated November 15, 2007, including a revised generalized development plan and proffered exhibit was submitted for the Plamling Commission's consideration. Previously, the Applicant had modified their proffer statement in a version dated 11 /06/07 which generally included transportation related changes. This effort was the result of a significant amount of communication and cooperation between staff, VDOT, and the Applicant and generally went a long way towards satisfying the outstanding transportation concerns associated with this project. As previously noted, the transportation proffer statement did not fully satisfy either scenario in the Applicant's TIA, rather it addressed elements of both scenarios modeled in the Applicant's TIA by attempting to deal with the longer term transportation solution while simultaneously offsetting the near term impacts. At your November 7 meeting, the Commission expressed additional concerns regarding the transportation impacts of this request. In the latest proffer statement, dated November 15, 2007, the Applicant has further modified the proffers in an effort to clarify the commitments they have made and to attempt to satisfy some of the concerns that have been expressed to date. In summary the Applicant has: • Modified their basic Generalized Development Plan to illustrate two land bays in addition to illustrating their proffered transportation improvements described in this report. The purpose of this is to provide an additional trigger for the construction of a portion of the east west collector road. • Included an exhibit, Exhibit A, which details the landscape buffers, hiker/biker facilities, and right- of-way dedication proffered in Section 3 of the proffer statement along both Shady Elm Road and the ftrture east west collector road. • Added Section 3 to the proffer statement which describes the above exhibit and further describes that the Applicant will make available for future dedication to the County or State an additional area along Shady Elm Road twenty feet in width. This is beyond that area previously dedicated in Section 2.1. This area is in the area commonly set aside for the twenty five foot parking lot setback. Outside of this twenty foot distance buffer, the provision of a fifteen foot trail and landscaping easement is proffered, in essence resulting in a thirty five foot front parking setback. Please recognize that when this right-of-way dedication is implemented, the front parking lot setback along Shady Elm Road would be reduced to fifteen feet, less than current standards. • Added to the landscaping buffer the planting of four ornamental trees between each of the previously proffered one street tree for every fifty feet along the collector road frontages of the property. • Clarified the provision of a hiker/biker trail along the collector road frontages of the property. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 11 • Clarified the initial dedication of right-of-way along Shady Elm Road in the amount of twenty feet. This is the same amount as would be required to be dedicated as part of the subdivision process. • Clarified the triggers for the construction of the east west collector road. • Provided for the signalization of any intersection in the vicinity of the site with a monetary cap in the amount of $200,000.00, or an equivalent cash contribution in the amount of $200,000.00 for general transportation improvements in the vicinity of the site. • Reduced the monetary contribution for the design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad or other improvements from $50,000.00 to $25,000.00 while maintaining flexibility with the application of these monies for the design and/or construction of the fixture east west collector road or any other transportation improvements deemed necessary by Frederick County or VDOT. • Included a proffer stating that the property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final build out. • Provided for a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000.00 for improvements to Star Fort and proffered to complete a survey documenting any historical structures on the property in general accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Historic Resources. Please recognize that no limitation of the specific uses has been proffered out nor have any restrictions been placed on the size and scale of the buildings or uses. The minimum of three users proffer provided is extremely flexible and should be carefully evaluated. The Plamling Commission previously expressed concern regarding large warehouse and distribution uses on this site. The County's targeted industries seek to maximize the available land uses from tax and revenue generation perspective. In relationship to the concerns expressed relating to the appearance of these developing business corridors and the buffering of the adjacent residential land uses, the net result of the modified proffer statement, above what would be required by ordinance, is the following; an additional ten feet in distance between the edge of the Shady Elm Road right-of-way and the parking lot resulting in a thirty five foot front parking setback, the street trees at a ratio of one tree for every fifty feet previously included in the proffer statement, and an additional four ornamental trees planted between each street tree. Staff has noted that a significant amount of landscaping has been proposed within a minimal 5' space between the proposed trail and the edge of the parking lot, in particular, when you take into consideration the parking lot landscaping required by ordinance. It may be more sustainable and offer a better buffer if the landscaping that is in addition to what is already required by ordinance (the Street and Ornamental Trees) is placed in the 5' to 10' area immediately in front of the trail. This would appear to be achievable along the east west collector road, and if care is taken to locate this additional landscaping as close to the west side of the trail as possible, also along Shady Elm Road. 0 • Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 12 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 12/19/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning remain consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. Careful consideration should be given to ensuring the Commission's satisfaction that the application fully recognizes the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan and mitigates the impacts of this request. In addition, the corridor appearance and buffering of the adjacent residential land uses should be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 12/19/07 MEETING: Following a lengthy public hearing at which twenty one citizens spoke, a motion was made and seconded to approve the rezoning; however, this motion was defeated by a majority vote. A second motion was made, seconded, and passed to table the rezoning application for 30 days to give the applicant additional time to address issues associated with this rezoning request. (Commissioner Manuel abstained from voting.) STAFF UPDATE FOR 01/16/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Applicant provided a revised Proffer statement dated December 21, 2007 in response to the issues raised by members of the Plarming Commission and members of the public at the December 19, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. The following is a summary of the changes. • Proffer 1.4 has been increased to provide for a monetary contribution to the County of Frederick in the amount of $250,000.00 for off -site transportation improvements. This is a net increase of $25,000.00 from the previous proffer and consolidates the monetary contribution for transportation. • Proffer 2.1 has been changed to provide for the dedication of forty feet of right-of-way along the property frontage for Shady Elm Road. This results in the necessary eighty foot right-of-way for an improved major collector road and the required twenty five foot parking lot setback in compliance with Ordinance requirements. • Proffer 2.7 has been added which states that no warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square feet shall be constructed on the property within five years of the date of final rezoning. Obviously, this is temporary, short term approach to addressing this concern. • Proffer 3.1 pertaining to landscaping and trails has been modified to provide for a densely planted landscape screen consistent with the Zoning Ordinances standards for a landscape screen, in addition to the street trees planted fifty feet on center. This landscaping and a ten foot trail will be located within the twenty five foot parking lot setback adjacent to the right-of-way. • Proffer 4.1 has been modified to refine the materials for the building facades. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center December 26, 2007 Page 13 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR O1/16/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning remain consistent with the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The corridor appearance, buffering of the adjacent residential land uses, and right-of-way dedication has been addressed to meet the minimum expectations. However, the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan and the mitigation of the transportation impacts of this request should be recognized further. The transportation impacts associated with this request as identified in the Applicant's TIA have not been fully mitigated. Patton Hari iRust & Associates 0 December 21, 2007 G FC 2 1 __ Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application Dear Mike: n /� Please find attached a revised Proffer Statement and supporting Generalized Development H \ Plan (GDP) and landscape exhibit for the Artillery Business Rezoning Application. The P revisions are intended to address issues raised by members of the Planning Commission and members of the public who spoke at the December 19, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. CORPORATE. The modifications are as follows: chant,uy • The previous monetary contribution of $25,000 for bridge design and $200,000 VIRGINIA OFFICES. earmarked for a traffic signal or other transportation improvements have been added together and increased into a single lump sum of $250,000 for offsite transportation improvements deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT. • The previous 20 foot Right of Way dedication and 20 foot buffer/Right of Way reserveation area have been added together to become a simple 40 foot Right of Way dedication. Parking lots would be located a minimum of 25 feet from the Right of Way to comply with Ordinance requirements. _ . • A material design palette has been added to stipulate that any building facades fronting Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector will be constructed exclusively of one or a combination of the following: cast stone, stone, brick, LAECRATORiES, architectural block, glass, wood, dryvit or stucco. �1altl. r • The proffered landscape screen now provides for street trees located 50 feet on center as well as 3 trees per 10 linear feet (1/3 deciduous, 2/3 evergreen). These MARYLAND OFFICES I landscape elements will be placed on either side of the proffered hiker/biker trail within the 25 foot parking setback which will ensure the sustainability of the landscape screen. ,eFm:Tnt,,, h • Proffer 2.7 has been added to address building size and phasing for warehouse- h,` l distribution type facilities should one be located on the Property. This proffer limits Hunt , iie any such users to a maximum of 200,000 square feet in size for five )Ears from the _ date of final rezoning. �ti; i,,om�,olt PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE I Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. A.ieoic..vu WEST VIRGINIA Sincerely, OFFICE. a�nnsbuig Patton Harris Ru t & sociates I 540.667 21 39 F -540 665 0493 PatrickR. Sowers 1 17 East Piccadilly Street ".,ulte 200 Nlnchestei VA • REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S): PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ. # o1.-0'7 Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] Venture I of'Ninchester, LLC Venture I of Winchester, LLC Artillery Business Center December 26, 2006 DE-C 2 1 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07; 11/5/07; 11/6/07; 11/15/07; 12/21/07 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised November 15, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 4 0 0 Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center 1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $250,000.00 for the design and/or construction of the future East-West Collector Road or for any other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT. Said monetary contribution shall be made within 60 days of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any structure located on the Property. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way for Shady Ehn road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of the first building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for a continuous right turn lane along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along the Southern Property boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100 feet of a future East-West Collector Road as depicted on the GDP from Point A to Point B prior to issuance of the first building permit. The Applicant shall design said collector road from Point A to Point B as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross section. The Applicant shall then construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the roadway for a minimum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP upon any of the following conditions, whichever occurs first: (See 2 on GDP) • Prior to issuance of the fourth building perinit for the Property. • Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure located in Land Bay 2. • Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure located in Land Bay 1 but with associated land area located in Land Bay 2 as depicted by site plan. • Upon commencement of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing of the proposed East-West Collector Road. • Prior to December 31, 2013. 2.2.1 The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2.2.2 Land Bay 2 as shown on the GDP shall have access via the easternmost entrance located on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2.3 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary to meet the requirements for lot access as identified by 5144-24C of the Frederick County Code, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.4 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2of4 0 0 Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center 2.5 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.6 The Property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final build -out. 2.7 No warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square feet shall be constructed on the Property within 5 years of the Date of Final Rezoning. 3. Landscape Buffers, Hiker/Biker Facilities, & Additional Right of Way 3.1 Within the 25 foot parking setback between the proposed right of ways for Shady Elm Road and the East-West collector as required by � 165-27E(5) of the Frederick County Code, the Applicant shall construct a 10 foot asphalt trail to Department of Recreation Standards. In addition, the Applicant shall provide a densely planted landscape screen as depicted by Exhibit A consisting of street trees planted 50 feet on center between the proposed right of way and the asphalt trail as well as all elements of a landscape screen as defined by 165-37B(1) of the FredefiaC County Code located between the proposed trail and any parking areas. 4. Design Standards 4.1 Any building facade fronting Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector shall be constructed of one or a combination of the following : cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, glass, wood, dry vit or stucco. 4.2 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 5. Historic Resources 5.1 The Applicant shall complete a survey documenting any historic structures on the Property in general accordance with the guidelines established by the Preliminary Information Form from the Department of Iistoric Resources. Any documentation created as part of said survey shall be provided to Frederick County Planning Staff and shall be completed prior to demolition of any buildings located on the Property. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for purposes associated with historic Star Fort prior to issuance of the first building permit. SIGNATURE(S) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) 3 of 4 Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center Venture I of Winchester, LLC By:4�t��JgrC 111�1Z�2(5L`� Date: ! — C -- 1-ex)-7 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: •r The�oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of3f ZeC� 2007, by , A�'!�� I,e: I My commission expires .j) '�N A.1�+,u Sty 2 L� i I Notary Public � ���� �� � - - 315 9' 1 5 of 5 < 4 Ww" 0' PICATION & ROAD W AING . ....... . . BUFFER, LXJ DSC ��P ING, & 10' LAND BAY 1 (Apprbx"2'83 acres) A\ X-140 0 LAND BAY`2 8D.- R/W DEDICATION& (App;rox. 30.0 acres CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM/ 1100' 2 LANE ROADWAY B" . . ....... ;;"% . ... .. ... FUTURE -SHADY ECM/ 00,11 t-CONNECTOR ROAD Z -W ROAD) EAST E/ZT/60LLE�TOR.. FUTURE BRIDGE . . ......... ... . ... ... .. /0 0 ARTIL I ER 1v BUSINESS Cl-AITE-1? Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc IC \ -k\l GE-NERALZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 Q) v 6- VOICE: (54D) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA SHADY ELM ROAD 3' HEDGEROW AS REQUIRED PER 165-27E(11)(a) —3 TREES PLANTED PER 10 LINEAR FEET (13 DECIDUOUS, Zls EVERGREEN) PARKING AREA STREET TREES 50' ON CENTER 40' RIX DEDICATION & NORTHBOUND LANE IMPROVMENTS EXISTING SHADY ELM ROAD (40' R/W) 25' PARKING SETBACK (MINIMUM) NOTE.- STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN (3 TREES PER 10 LINEAR FEET) PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE F4gT—WF-qT (_CAI 11=(-'TnP R[)Af) 3 ' .HEDGEROW AS REQUIRED PER 165-27E(11)(a) —3 TREES PLANTED PER 10 LNEAR FEET ('13 DECIDUOUS, '/3 EVERGREEN) PARKING AREA BO' RIF DEDICATION & ROAD CONSTRUCTION STREET TREES 50' ON CENTER 25' PARKING SETBACK (MINIMUM) NOTE.- STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN (3 TREES PER 10 LINEAR FEET) PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERWISL' REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE AI?TlLLEW BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc EXHIBIT A 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 v-PMTP1rW /`n/INTY VIPMAIIA • PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. & =-0 7 Rural Areas (RA) to/ ight Industrial (1\41) PROPERTY: 58.7 acres`+/-;` Tax Map P, els 75-A-1 [the "Property"] RECORD OWNER: Venture Yof , inchester, LLC APPLICANT: Venire I of Wi%chester, LLC PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) Business December 26, 2006 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 11/6/07;11/15/07 CC Im ID ;lq i-<' I _5 v N� 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1 /07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07; 11/5/07; The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezonuig of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following die last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised November 15, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: 1. Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 5 Proffer StatemeW � � Artillery Business CeWer 1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $25,000.00 for the design and/or construction of the future East-West Collector Road or for any other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT upon issuance of the fast building permit. 2. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 20 feet of right of way for Shady Ehn road along die Property frontage as depicted on die GDP prior to issuance of the first building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen die existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for a continuous right turn lane along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on die GDP. (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along tie Southern Property boundary ui the location depicted on tie GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100 feet of a future East-West Collector Road as depicted on the GDP from Point A to Point B prior to issuance of the first building permit. The Applicant shall design said collector road from Point A to Point B as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross section. The Applicant shall then construct die ultimate two westbound lanes of the roadway for a minimum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP upon any of the following conditions, whichever occurs first: (See 2 on GDP) • Prior to issuance of the fourth building permit for the Property. • Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure located in Land Bay 2. • Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure located in Land Bay 1 but with associated land area located in Land Bay 2 as depicted by site plan. • Upon commencement of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate die railroad crossing of the proposed East-West Collector Road. • Prior to December 31, 2013. 2.2.1 The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2.2.2 Land Bay 2 as shown on the GDP shall have access via the easternmost entrance located on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2.3 The Applicant shall construct a traffic signal, not to exceed $200,000 in cost, at an intersection located within the vicinity of the Property within 180 days of receiving written notice from the County and VDOT. The County may also choose to accept a monetary contribution of $200,000 for general transportation improvements within the vicinity of the site in lieu of the aforementioned traffic signal construction. The Applicant shall contribute the $200,000 monetary proffer within 60 days of receiving written notice from Frederick County and VDOT after issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any structure on the Property. If no written notification from the County and VDOT has been provided within 10 years from the date of 2of5 Proffer Statefnent 0 0 Artillery Business Center final rezoning, the Applicant shall contribute die monetary contribution of $200,000 to the County for general transportation improvements within the vicinity of the site and shall not be responsible for the aforementioned signal construction. 2.4 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessaiy to meet the requirements for lot access as identified by §144-24C of the Frederick County Code, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.5 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.6 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.7 The Property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final build -out. Landscape Buffers Hiker/Biker Facilities, & Additional Right of Way 3.1 The Applicant shall provide a 20 foot distance buffer as measured from the proposed right of way dedication for Shady Elm Road as depicted by Exhibit A. The Applicant shall make any area within the 20 foot buffer available for public right of way at no cost to the County or VDOT should any transportation improvements necessitate the use of the buffer area for right of way purposes. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide a 15 foot landscape easement between the aforementioned distance buffer and any future parking. Said 15 foot landscape easement shall include a ten foot asphalt trail constructed to Parks and Recreation Standards as well as a five foot landscape strip which willinclude street trees planted a maximum of 50 feet on center with four ornamental trees planted 10 feet on center between each street tree as depicted by Exhibit A. Building and parking setbacks from Shady Ehm Road shall be provided from the right of way boundary in existence at the time of each site plan submission. 3.2 Within the 25 foot parking setback provided from the proposed 80' right of way for the East-West Collector as required by § 165-27E(5) of the Frederick County Code, the Applicant shall provide a 10 foot distance buffer, a 10 foot asphalt trail constructed to Parks and Recreation standards, and a 5 foot landscape strip will include street trees planted a maximum of 50 feet on center with four ornamental trees planted 10 feet on center between each street tree as depicted by Exhibit A 4. Design Standards 4.1 The Applicant shall incorporate one or a combination of the following construction materials into any building facade fronting Shady Elm Road or the proposed East- West Collector: cast stone, stone, brick, glass, wood, stucco or other high -quality, long lasting masonry materials. By definition, standard, smooth -faced cinder block shall not be considered a high quality, long lasting masonry material. 4.2 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Ehn Road or the proposed East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 3 of 5 Proffer State»ie7il 0 M Arlilleiy Bush7ess Cewer 5. Historic Resources 5.1 The Applicant shall complete a survey documenting any historic structures on the Property in general accordance with the guidelines established by the Preliminary Information Form from the Department of Historic Resources. Any documentation created as part of said survey shall be provided to Frederick County Planning Staff and shall be completed prior to demolition of any buildings located on the Property. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for purposes associated with historic Star Fort prior to issuance of the first building permit. SIGNATURES) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) 4of5 Proffer Statement 0 • Artillery Business Center Venture I f • chester, LLC By: Date: l'(k—A) "7 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �/9 day of A1byr1z11 �,1 2007, by l� 1 !' M A itM r 1 - My co ssio pines Notary 1iblic ,'1��— U%�4�c%11•iC-'� � ('�'l�/•r1Y11Er?. PG6# i6' l cJ'7y 5 of 5 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. landscape Alchilecls. August 2, 2007 Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application Dear Mike: HRA Per our discussion earlier today, I would like to formally request to postpone the public hearing scheduled for August 15, 2007 for Artillery Business Center. We are CORPORATE: in the process of revising the Traffic Impact Statement (M) to better reflect the Chantilly potential buildout of the Property under an M1 (Light Industrial) scenario. I would request that a timeframe for this postponement not be specified to ensure that the VIRGINIA OFFICES: Bridgewater application will be complete when it returns to the Planning Commission. Chantilly Chorloltesville Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Fredericksburg Leesburg Newporl News Sincerely, Virginia Beach Patto Harris Rust & ASso lateS Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Patrick R. Sowers Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYIAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germanlown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. August 2, 2007 Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application Dear Mtke: PT HPer our discussion earlier today, I would like to formally request to postpone the public hearing scheduled for August 15, 2007 for Artillery Business Center. We are in the process of revising the Traffic .Impact Statement (nA) to better reflect the CORPORATE: potential buildout of the Property under an M1 (Light Industrial) scenario. I would Chantilly request that a timefrae for this postponement not be specified to ensure that the rr VIRGINIA OFFICES: application will be complete when it returns to the Planning Commission. Bridgewater Chantilly Charlottesville Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Sincerely, Virginia Beach Pattm Harris Rust & Asso iates Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: 1 �i R. Sowers Patrick Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 117 East Piccadilly, Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 REZONING APPLICATION 908-07 ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July 31, 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planniq StafA to pro •de info rinat o�i�to the Planning Commissia�i-d e Board f—Supervr rs to ass t the i in ina ing a ecisrn o�i thrs application. It nuty also be a eful t others intd•ested in this zo ing n atter. Unresolved issues concerning this'appli. ation a)I,, note by staff wh relevmz through , ut this staff report. viewe Action Planning Commission: /08/15/0 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/12/0 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezon 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is to south of Route 37. / MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-1 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Areas) adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet PRESENT USE: Agricultural and residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: MI South: RA (Rural Areas) East: B3 (Industrial Transition) West: RA (Rural Areas) M1 (light Industrial) Use: Industrial Use: Agricultural Use: Commercial/vacant Use: Agricultural Vacant PROPOSED USES: Light Industrial Office and Warehouse Uses (0.25 FAR proffered). 0 0 Rezoning 408-07 — Artillery Business Center July 31, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 651, 652 and 11. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the proffers offered in PHR&A's email dated April 25, 2007 from Patrick Sowers. The applicant is proposing building a two-lane road from Route 651 east to the railroad tracks. This road has been designated as part of Frederick County's Eastern Road Plan. VDOT acknowledges this substantial investment towards completing this comlection to Route 11. However, it should be noted that no additional fielding was offered to finance the needed railroad crossing. If Frederick County is satisfied with just the roadway construction, VDOT will not oppose rezoning. 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. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit and asbestos inspection shall be required prior to the removal of any structures. No additional comments required at this time. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to page 2 of 4, Transportation: The discussion of Scenario A indicates that 60 percent of the trips would utilize Apple Valley Road and 40 percent would use Springdale Road. It appears that the existing traffic distribution is approximately 80:20. Considering the current condition of Springdale Road, we conclude that the 80:20 distribution is more realistic than the 60:40 distribution. 2. Refer to page 3 or 4, Enviromnental Features: a. The narrative indicates that the property does not contain any wetlands. However, a review of available aerial photographs indicates the existence of a pond on the property. A wetland study needs to be performed to verify that this pond does not represent a wetland. b. The discussion of drainage needs to address storrnwater management and the potential impact on a karst environment. c. The discussion of soils needs to be expanded to include a review of the karst geology and the potential for sink hole development. This condition is particularly relevant along the eastern property boundary. 3. Refer to page 4 of 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Indicate if the solid waste projection is presented as pounds per day or pounds per year. 4. Refer to the proffer statement, Site Development Item 2.2: The dedication right- of-ways should be sized to accommodate sufficient turning radii at the intersection with Shady Elm Road. The discussion indicates that "entrances to the said roadway will be located at a minimum of 400 feet apart". This statement raises the question, "apart from what?" Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department: We have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center July 31, 2007 Page 3 Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objections as long as no septics or wells are proposed or existing. If any existing septics or wells are located, please call the Health Department for proper abandorunent procedures. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application. Allowed uses under this rezoning should not impact airside operations at the Winchester Regional Airport therefore we have no further comment regarding this rezoning request. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. The subject parcel is the site of the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing a typical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property(DHR 34-1040). The Henry Carbaugh House represents atypical vernacular Queen Anne -style dwelling constructed in the early twentieth century and still retains many elements of its original construction, as noted in Frederick County, , Virginia: History Through Architecture. Although neither of these two structures is listed as potentially significant by the Rural Landmarks Survey, mitigation of the impacts to these structures should be considered. In addition, a small portion of the property is located in the study area of the 1st Kernstown Battlefield. Although not located in the core area of the battlefield, attention should be given to the potential archeological significance of this property in the battle for Kernstown. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct no more than 327,000 square feet of office space and no more than 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address several issues prior to the rezoning of this property. If the property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Archeological Survey and Documentation. The HRAB felt that there is a need to document the historic and archeological significance of the property based upon the proximity to the 1st Kernstown Battlefield area and the location of the historic structure on the property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical significance including identifying past owners/occupants, building materials, architectural features, photographs of both the interior and exterior, etc. The HRAB also suggested a Phase 1 one archeological survey would be appropriate to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. Attorney Comments: 1. In Proffer 2.2, at the end of the second sentence I would recommend that the following words be added"..., in the location shown on the Generalized Development Plan." 2. In proffer 2.3, it is not clear who makes the determination that an internal access road is "necessary". That should be clarified. PlanninIZ Department: Please see letter dated March 23, 2007, signed by Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center July 31, 2007 Page 4 Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The original Frederick County zoning map (U.S.G.S. Stephens City Quadrangle) identifies the subject parcels as being zoned A-2 (Agricultural General). The County's agricultural zoning districts were subsequently combined to form the RA (Rural Areas) District upon adoption of an amendment to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance on May 10, 1989. The corresponding revision of the zoning map resulted in the re -mapping of the subject properly and all other A-1 and A-2 zoned land to the RA District. 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. I-]] T 171-7rT T Tcv The property is located within the County's Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and the site is within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. The Sewer and Water Service Area defines the general area in which more intensive forms of planned commercial, and industrial development will occur. The Southern Frederick Land Use Plan and the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan designate this area for industrial land use. The Plan recognizes the desire to provide for industrial uses along the CSX Railroad. The proposed M1 light industrial rezoning is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The application of quality design standards for future development is also an objective of the Plan; in particular, along business corridors. These include landscaping, screening, and controlling the number and size of signs. Transportation 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 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). Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center July 31, 2007 Page 5 The Eastern Road Plan of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan calls for Shady Elm Road to be improved to a major collector road. In addition, a new east west major collector road connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11 is identified. The County's Eastern Road Plan further defines the appropriate typical section for these major collector roads as an urban divided four -lane facility. The construction of planned major collector road typical sections, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, is not provided for by this application. The Plan also states that proposed industrial and commercial development should only occur if impacted roads function at Level of Service (LOS) Category C or better. This application does not achieve a level of service C or better on the roads and intersections studied in the application's TIA. It is important to note that the County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to Springdale Road. Therefore, the Applicant should concentrate any efforts to address their transportation impacts on those roads and intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan; in particular, Shady Elm Road, the new east west major collector road, and the intersection of Apple Valley Road and Route 11. Site Access and circulation The Comprehensive Plan generally provides for a limitation on the number of entrance that may be located along business corridors. Further, the Plan generally seeks to address pedestrian accommodations. No pedestrian accommodations have been provided internal to the project and more importantly along the projects frontage with the plamled major collector roads. 3) Site Suitability/Environment The site does not contain any enviromnental features that would either constrain or preclude site development. There are no identified areas of steep slopes, floodplains or woodlands. The Frederick County Engineer has referenced the potential for wetlands to exist on this site based upon the presence of an existing pond. Also, the Frederick County Engineer has identified that a detailed geotechnical analysis will be needed as part of the detailed site plan design as this area is also known for karst topography. The property is the site of a historical house, the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing atypical example of a vernacular 1-House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The HRAB suggested the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: the completion of an archeological survey and documentation of the property, and the completion of a Phase 1 one archeological survey to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. The application does not presently address the continents provided by the HRAB. 0 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center July 31, 2007 Page 6 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. The traffic impact analysis (TIA) prepared for this application evaluated two scenarios. Scenario A assumes the existing road network with development access to be provided via a single site driveway located on Shady Elm Road. Scenario B assumes, in addition to Scenario B, direct development access to Route I 1 via a fixture roadway link planned over the existing railroad and through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. The TIA assumed 326,700 square feet of office use and 326,700 square feet of light industrial use. This is generally consistent with the proffered square footage limitation on the use of the property based upon a 0.25 FAR. However, concern has been raised regarding the trip generation figures used in the TIA. As a result, the inaccuracy of the trip generation figures brings into question the conclusions provided in the TIA. Using trip generation figures from the TIA, the proposed rezoning is projected to generate 3,562 average daily trips (ADT). The TIA indicates that Level of Service C conditions or better will be maintained on study roads and intersections with the following improvements. 1. The proposed signalization of Springdale Road and Route 11 (not a desirable avenue for industrial development traffic). 2. Improvements to the intersection and signalization of Apple Valley Road and Route 11. 3. The connection to Route 11 via (Scenario B) The application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by the request as identified in the Applicant's TIA. Transportation Program. The Applicant's transportation program provides for right-of-way dedication along Shady Elm Drive (45' from centerline), right-of-way dedication along the southern property line to partially accornmodate an east west major collector road (50' in width), the construction of a rural two lane access road to the site within this right of way and a commitment to construct a rural two lane section of the east west collector road to the eastern property line at such time a bridge crossing of the existing railroad is constructed by others. None of the above improvements identified in the TIA have been addressed by this application. In addition, the Applicant's transportation program does not provide for or advance the County's Eastern Road Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan. • 0 Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center July 31, 2007 Page 7 B. Sewer and Water Water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer generation is projected to be equivalent to the water demand at approximately 29,350 gallons per day. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority has stated that they have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. The wastewater from this site would be directed to the Parkin's Mill Wastewater facility. C. Community Facilities The development of this site will have an impact on conununity facilities and services. However, it is recognized that commercial uses generally provide a positive impact on community facilities through the additional generation of tax revenue. This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriff's Office and $2,500 for general government purposes in an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities. 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 26, 2006; revised February 6, 2007, March 22, 2007, April 3, 2007, April 24, 2007, May 1, 2007, May 24, 2007, June 28, 2007 and July 3, 2007. A) Generalized Development Plan The Applicant has provided a basic Generalized Development Plan which simply illustrates the proffered transportation improvements described in this report. B) Land Use The Applicant has limited the development of the property to a 0.25 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). C) Transportation This application has provided for additional dedication of right-of-way along Shady Elm Road and the dedication of a fifty foot right-of-way along their southern property line. The construction of a two lane rural undivided road is proffered to access the site initially. The extension of this road, with the same typical section, to the eastern property line of this property is proffered to occur at such time construction conurrences of a bridge over the adjacent railroad. D) Community Facilities This application addresses the impacts to Fire and Rescue services by providing a monetary contribution in an amount of $5,000. The application also provides for a monetary contribution in the amount of $2,500 for the Sheriff's Office and $2,500 for general government purposes in an effort to address the impacts to these community facilities. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/15/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The land uses proposed in this rezoning are generally consistent with the South East Frederick Land Use Plan. Iowever, the application does not fully recognize the transportation improvements identified for this area in the County's Eastern Road Plan. Further, the transportation impacts associated with this rezoning request have not been mitigated by the Applicant. 0 • Rezoning 408-07 — Artillery Business Center July 31, 2007 Page 8 Followin,a the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. o- 0 0 REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: July , 2007 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, 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 Planning Commission: 08/01/07 Board of Supervisors: 08/22/07 Action Pending Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Back Creek PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 75-A-1 PROPERTY ZONING: PRESENT USE: ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: Use: South: Use: East: Use: West: Use: PROPOSED USES: Office (327,000 square feet) and Warehouse (327,000 square feet) Uses. 1] �J Rezoning #08-07 — Artillery Business Center July, 2007 Page 2 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 651, 652 and 11. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the proffers offered in PHR&A's email dated April 25, 2007 from Patrick Sowers. The applicant is proposing building a two-lane road from Route 651 east to the railroad tracks. This road has been designated as part of Frederick County's Eastern Road Plan. VDOT acknowledges this substantial investment towards completing this connection to Route 11. However, it should be noted that no additional funding was offered to finance the needed railroad crossing. If Frederick County is satisfied with just the roadway construction, VDOT will not oppose rezoning. 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. Fire Marshall: Plan approval recommended. Department of Inspections: Demolition permit and asbestos inspection shall be required prior to the removal of any structures. No additional comments required at this time. Department of Public Works: 1. Refer to page 2 of 4, Transportation: The discussion of Scenario A indicates that 60 percent of the trips would utilize Apple Valley Road and 40 percent would use Springdale Road. It appears that the existing traffic distribution is approximately 80:20. Considering the current condition of Springdale Road, we conclude that the 80:20 distribution is more realistic than the 60:40 distribution. 2. Refer to page 3 or 4, Environmental Features: a. The narrative indicates that the property does not contain any wetlands. However, a review of available aerial photographs indicates the existence of a pond on the property. A wetland study needs to be performed to verify that this pond does not represent a wetland. b. The discussion of drainage needs to address storrnwater management and the potential impact on a karst enviromnent. c. The discussion of soils needs to be expanded to include a review of the karst geology and the potential for sink hole development. This condition is particularly relevant along the eastern property boundary. 3. Refer to page 4 of 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Indicate if the solid waste projection is presented as pounds per day or pounds per year. 4. Refer to the proffer statement, Site Development Item 2.2: The dedication right- of-ways should be sized to accommodate sufficient turning radii at the intersection with Shady Elm Road. The discussion indicates that "entrances to the said roadway will be located at a minimum of 400 feet apart". This statement raises the question, "apart from what?" Frederick -Winchester Service Authority: No comments. Sanitation Authority Department: We have capacity and can provide sewer and water service to this site. r _ . • Department of Parks & Recreation: No comment. Health Department: The Health Dept. has no objections as long as no septics or wells are proposed or existing. If any existing septics or wells are located, please call the Health Department for proper abandonment procedures. Winchester Regional Airport: We have reviewed the proposed rezoning application. Allowed uses under this rezoning should not impact airside operations at the Winchester Regional Airport therefore we have no further comment regarding this rezoning request. Frederick County Public Schools: Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. Historic Resources Advisory Board: The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Report and the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. The subject parcel is the site of the Route 651 House (DHR #1042), dated from circa 1880-1910 and representing a typical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR 34-1040). The Heri y Carbaugh House represents a typical vernacular Queen Anne -style dwelling constructed in the early twentieth century and still retains many elements of its original construction, as noted in Frederick County, Virginia: History Through Architecture. Although neither of these two structures is listed as potentially significant by the Rural Landmarks Survey, mitigation of the impacts to these structures should be considered. In addition, a small portion of the property is located in the study area of the 1" Kernstown Battlefield. Although not located in the core area of the battlefield, attention should be given to the potential archeological significance of this property in the battle for Kernstown. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct no more than 327,000 square feet of office space and no more than 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address several issues prior to the rezoning of this property. If the property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: Archeological Survey and Documentation. The HRAB felt that there is a need to document the historic and archeological significance of the property based upon the proximity to the 1 S` Kernstown Battlefield area and the location of the historic structure on the property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical significance including identifying past owners/occupants, building materials, architectural features, photographs of both the interior and exterior, etc. The HRAB also suggested a phone one archeological survey would be appropriate to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. Attorney Comments: 1. In Proffer 2.2, at the end of the second sentence I would recommend that the following words be added"..., in the location shown on the Generalized Development Plan." 2. In proffer 2.3, it is not clear who makes the determination that an internal access road is "necessary". That should be clarified. PlanninjZ Department: Please see letter dated March 23, 2007, signed by Susan K. Eddy, Senior Planner. PlanninV & Zoning: 1) Site History 0 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 fixture physical development of Frederick County. [Comprehensive Policy Plan, p. 1-1 J Land Use Transportation 3) Site Suitability/Environment 4) Potential Impacts A. Transportation Traffic Impact Analysis. Transportation Program. B. Sewer and Water C. Community Facilities 5) Proffer Statement — Dated December 26, 2006; revised February 6, 2007, March 22, 2007, April 3, 2007, April 24, 2007, May 1, 2007, May 24, 2007, June 28, 2007 and July 3, 2007. A) Generalized Development Plan B) Land Use C) Transportation D) Community Facilities STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR 08/01/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Following the requirement for a public hearing, a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors concerning this rezoning application would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff 2, Fee Amount Paid $ �`ld Zoning Amendment Number Date Received 7 A.- o PC Hearing Date 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. Applicants: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 667.2139 Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Venture I of Winchester, LLC Telephone: 540.247.4974 Address: 118 Armstrong Place Winchester, Virginia 22602 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patrick Sowers Telephone: (540) 667.2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X i 5. The Code of Virginia 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: Paige Manuel Mark Lynch James Lynch Randy Kremer 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential/Agriculture B) Proposed Use of the Property: Light Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 0 feet South of Route 37. 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 of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 75-A-1 Districts Magisterial: Back Creek High School: Fire Service: Stephens City Middle School: Rescue Service: Stephens City Elementary School: Sherando James Wood Orchard View 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 58.7 RA M1 58.7 Total acreage to be rezoned 2 Adjoining Property Owners Artillery Business Center Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Synergy Investments, LLC 416 Battaile Dr Property#: 75-A-1A Winchester, VA 22601 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 840 S Broadway Property#: 75-A-1 D Hicksville, NY 11801 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 500 N Broadway, Ste 103 Property#: 75-A-1 E Jericho, NY 11753 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 500 N Broadway, Ste 103 Property #: 75-A-1 B Jericho, NY 11753 Name: Corrugated Container Corp 100 Development Ln Property #: 75-A-IC Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Vanco, LLC 102 Elderberry Dr Property #: 75A-6-B-41A Winchester, VA 22603 Name: RGB of Winchester, LLC 180-3 Prosperity Dr Property#: 75-A-2M Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Prosperity 81, LLC 1304 Severn Way, Ste F Property#: 75-A-2P Sterling, VA 20166 Name: Strosnyder, Lyle P, Inc. 220 Prosperity Dr Property#: 75-A-21F Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Pippin Enterprises, LLC 164 Meadow Trace Ln Property#: 75-A-2Q Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Alizarin Crimson, LLC P.O. Box 480 Property#: 75-A-2R Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Brim, Louise S et als 124 Springdale Rd Property#: 74-A-71 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Carbaugh, Henry J Trustee 831 Shady Elm Rd Property #: 74-A-68 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property#: 74-3-3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property#: 74-3-2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property#: 74-3-1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-5 Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-4 Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-3 Stephens City, VA 22655 • 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home Townhome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: 327.000 Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other 327,000 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 best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) `r Q4,4WA-v'' Date r� • 3 Frederick County, Virginia REZONING APPLICATION MATERIALS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Back Creek Magisterial District July 2007 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Saute 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone:540-667-2139 Fax:540-665-0493 PH RA 6 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Application II. Impact Analysis III. Proffer Statement IV. Agency Comments V. Survey Plat and Deed VI. Tax Ticket 6 �p I. APPLICATION • 0 AMENDMENT Action: PLANNING COMMISSION: January 16, 2008 - Recommended Denial BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: February 13, 2008 ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP REZONING #08-07 OF ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER WHEREAS, Rezoning 08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to MI (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Light Industrial Uses, was considered. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37, in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on January 16, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on February 13, 2008; 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 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, for Light Industrial Uses, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the property owner. PDRes #03-08 0 0 This ordinance shall be in effect on the date of adoption. Passed this 13th day of February, 2008 by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle, Chairman Aye Gary A. Lofton Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Charles S. DeHaven, Jr. Nay Philip A. Lemieux Aye A COPY ATTEST Join R�RiTJr." Frederick County Administrator PDRes #(?3=08 9 • PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. #-�''�`� Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) PROPERTY: 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] RECORD OWNER: Venture I of Winchester, LLC APPLICANT: Venture I of Winchester, LLC PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07; 11/5/07; 11/6/07; 11/15/07; 12/21/07; 1/15/08; 2/7/08 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property (`Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the followuzg conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant (`Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shallinclude within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised February 7, 2008 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 5 Proffer Statement 0 Artillery Business Center 1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $250,000.00 for the design and/or construction of the future East-West Collector Road or for any other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT. Said monetary contribution shall be made widen 60 days of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any structure located on die Property. 2. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way for Shady Elm road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of the first building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen die existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for a continuous right turn lane along the Property frontage with Shady Ehn Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maxitnuin of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall provide a double stripe lane marking for the centerline of Shady Ehn Road along the Property frontage with Shady Ehn Road (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall design a future East-West Collector Road utilizing an 80 foot right of way as depicted on the GDP from Point A to Point C, assuming an at grade railroad crossing, as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross section prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any stricture located on the Property. The Applicant shall then dedicate 80 feet of right of way and construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the Collector Road for a minimum of 1100 feet as shown from Point A to Point B on the GDP upon any of the following conditions, whichever occurs first: (See 2 on GDP) a Prior to issuance of the fourth building permit for the Property. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure located in Land Bay 2. • Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure located in Land Bay 1 but with associated land area located in Land Bay 2 as depicted by site plan. • Upon comrnenceiment of a railroad East-West Collector Road. o Prior to December 31, 2013. crossing as shown on the GDP for the 2.2.1 The Applicant shall make available an 80' wide tract of land across Tax Map Parcel 74-A-68 as depicted on the GDP from Point B to Point C in conformance with the road design provided by Proffer 2.2 for the future extension of the East-West Collector Road. The Applicant shall provide said property at no cost to the County, after December 31, 2008 and within 90 days of receiving written request from the County. 2.2.2 The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2of5 Proffer Stateme»t • • Artille7y Business Center 2.2.3 Land Bay 2 as shown on the GDP shall have access via the easterrunost entrance located on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2.3 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary to meet the requirements for lot access as identified by 5144-24C of the Fredo ck County Code, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a iyi i_rnun pavement width of 26 feet. 2.4 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.5 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.6 The Property shall contain a minimum of duce users upon final build -out. 2.7 No warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square feet shall be constructed on the Property within 5 years of the Date of Filial Rezoning. 2.8 Should the County or others obtain the rights to an at grade railroad crossing for the proposed East-West Collector Road as identified on the GDP, the Applicant shall fully fund the design of said at grade crossing. 3. Landscape Buffers, Hiker/Biker Facilities, & Additional Right of Way 3.1 Within the 25 foot parking setback between the proposed right of ways for Shady Elm Road and the East-West collector as required by 5 165-27E(5) of the Frederick County Code, the Applicant shall construct a 10 foot asphalt trail to Department of Recreation Standards. In addition, the Applicant shall provide a densely planted landscape screen as depicted by Exhibit A as revised 1/15/08 consisting of street trees planted 50 feet on center between the proposed right of way and the asphalt trail as well as a double row of evergreen trees with a minimum density of three plants per 10 linear feet and a minimum height of four feet at time of planting located between the proposed trail and any parking areas. 4. Design Standards 4.1 Any building facade fronting Shady Elin Road or the proposed East-West Collector -.'be constructed of one or a combination of the following : cast stone, stone, briek;`Architectutal block, glass, wood, dty vit or stucco. 4.2 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main enhance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. If revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance are made which would limit the size and/or number of signs to a greater extent than the aforementioned standards, then die Applicant shall conform with the sign ordinance standards in existence at the time of issuance of a permit for any sign located on the Property. 3 of 5 Proffer Statement 0 Artillery Business Center 5. Historic Resources 5.1 The Applicant shall complete a survey documenting any historic structures on the Property in general accordance with the guidelines established by the Preliminary Information Form from the Department of Historic Resources. Any documentation created as part of said survey shall be provided to Frederick County Planning Staff and shall be completed prior to demolition of any buildings located on the Property. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for purposes associated with historic Star Fort prior to issuance of the fast building permit. Escalator Clause 6.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors ("Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at die time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to tie most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) 4of5 Proffer Statement 0 * Artillery Business Center Venture I of Winchester, LLC By: Date: %� tJ9�ct 7� Z'�oC) e STATE Or VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: 7``l . The (��foregoing t um instnnent was acknowledged before e this day of ( e 6F, �f td, , 200%by P6,9E t`�ltAyu-eV My cornrmssioc� �xp' es TRIPLE TT Notary Public f% NOTARY I Common, o Virgini]2011 Rey. #335897 MY Commission Expires Aug. 3 5 of 5 \ ' .40' ICATION & ROAD WI ..NING \ ` , I a _ BUFFER, LANDSCAPING <;f & 10' ASPHALTAkAIC ofoo LAND .BAY ".1._ P c4 p acre s) s) � oz 28 7 e i • A: A t, ..i , LA R�W DEDICATION& \�� / -ND �oYa2eS) _.._.- % r \ , `CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM'°' 1100.2 LANE ROADWAY B : TM 74—A-68; , FUTOE—SHADY ELM%ROUTE'/11; CONNECTOR ROAD (EAST—WEST/"COILLE/ ,,,ROAD) /''i''' '- ,/ 80?..R%W,-RESERVATI0N'& W DESIGN" FROM'.` v `SHADY" ELM" ROAD,,TO RAILROAD � C >. FUTURE ; CAD �•' '� i � CROSSING , C3 Foy ti" ti ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc GENERALIZED DEl/ELOPMENT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 V Q VDICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREOERICK COUNTY, �IRCINIA SHADY ELM ROAD 3' HEDGEROl9 AS REQUIRED PER 165-27E(I7J(aJ 3 TREES P FINTED PER 10 LINEAR FEET (EVERGREEN) PARKING AREA STREET TREES 50' ON CENTER 40' R/W DEDICATION & NORTHBOUND LANE IMPROVMENTS EXISTING SHADY ELM ROAD (40' R/W) 25' PARKING SETBACK (MINIMUM) NOTE.- STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN (3 TREES PER 10 LINEAR FEET) PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE EAST —WEST COLLECTOR ROAD 3' REDGERGW AS REQUIRED PER 165-27E(11)(a) 3 TREES PI.4N7ED PER 10 LINEAR FEET (EVERGREEN) PARKING AREA 6 (GOOD 10 ASPHALT TRAIL �, �' BO ' R/W DEDICATION & ROAD CONSTRUCTION STREET TREES 50' ON CENTER 25' PARKING SETBACK (MINIMUM) NOTE. - STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN (3 TREES PER 10 LINEAR I'EET) PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc EXHIBIT A 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 V � � VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, I/lRGINIA Patton HorrOust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners Landscape Architects. CORPORATE Chantilly VIRGINIA OFFICES: Bridgewater Chantilly Charlottesville Fredericksburg Leesburg Newport News Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge LABORATORIES: Chantilly Fredericksburg MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Frederick Germantown Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540,667.2139 F 540.665.0493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 JAN 1 0 2008 January 16, 2008 Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application Dear Mike: Please fund attached two alternative Proffer Statements dated January 15, 2008 and supporting Generalized Development Plan (GDP) and landscape exhibit for the Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application. The revisions are intended to address concerns raised by Planning Commission members at both the November 7, 2007 and subsequent December 19, 2007 meetings. The two alternative approach which focuses on two transportation scenarios will allow the Planning Commission to provide direction on a their preferred transportation scenario for the County. The following is an explanation of the two proposed alternative proffer statements. Alternative 1- Comp Plan Road Construction and Monetary Proffer This alternative is similar to the most recent proffer statements in that it will provide for the construction of 1100 feet of the Shady Elm - Route 11 Connector Road as shown in the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the applicant would provide a monetary contribution of $250,000.00 for offsite transportation improvements and fully fund the design of an at grade railroad crossing if that right was obtained by the County or others. The modifications to Alternative 1 from the December 21, 2007 Proffer Statement are as follows: • Proffer 2.1 modified to add double stripe lane marking down centerline of Shady Elm Road along improved Property frontage. • Proffer 2.8 added which provides that the Applicant will fully fund the design of an at grade crossing of the railroad for the East-West Collector if rights to an at grade crossing are obtained by Frederick County or others. • Proffer 3.1 and associated Exhibit A have been revised to require that the double row of trees located between the proposed bike trail and parking areas will use evergreen trees exclusively rather than a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. This will provide for a year round screen. • Proffer 6.1 is an escalator clause which has been added to ensure that any monetary contributions made to the County after 30 months from the date of final rezoning will be adjusted for inflation per the Consumer Price Index. Artillerypsiness Center January 16, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Alternative 2 — Monetary Proffer in lieu of Comp Plan Road Construction This alternative would provide a phased monetary contribution in the amount of $500,000.00 for transportation improvements but would not provide right of wayfor or construction of the Shady Elm — Route 11 Connector Road. Like Alternative 1, the Applicant has committed to fully funding an at grade crossing of the railroad for the future connector roadway if that right is obtained by Frederick County or others. The modifications to Alternative 1 from the December 21, 2007 Proffer Statement are as follows: P hRA • Proffer 1.4 has been modified to provide a $500,000.00 monetary contribution for transportation purposes phased over three certificates of occupancy (V CO- $250,000.00; 2nd CO- $125,000.00; 3`d CO- $125,000.00). • Previous Proffer 2.2 which specified right of way dedication and 1100 feet of road construction for the East-West Collector has been removed. • Proffer 2.1 modified to add double stripe lane marking down centerline of Shady Elm Road along improved Property frontage. • Proffer 2.7 added which provides that the Applicant will fully fund the design of an at grade crossing of the railroad for the East-West Collector if rights to an at grade crossing are obtained by Frederick County or others. • Proffer 3.1 and associated Exhibit A have been revised to require that the double row of trees located between the proposed bike trail and parking areas will use evergreen trees exclusively rather than a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees. This will provide for a year round screen. • Proffer 6.1 is an escalator clause which has been added to ensure that any monetary contributions made to the County after 30 months from the date of final rezoning will be adjusted for inflation per the Consumer Price Index. • Minor changes to additional proffers that previously made reference to the East-West Connector Roadway being located on the property. The two scenario approach will give the Planning Commission flexibility in deciding which transportation alternative best addresses transportation needs in this area of Frederick County. I have also attached a CD containing a PowerPoint presentation we would like to use at this evening's meeting which includes a location map as well as the revised GDP and Exhibit A for both proffer statement alternatives. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Patton Harris Rust Asso iates Patrick R. Sowers Enclosure 0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT — REZONING: RZ. # Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) PROPERTY: 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] RECORD OWNER: Venture I of Winchester, LLC APPLICANT: Venture I of Winchester, LLC PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07; 11/5/07; 11/6/07; 11/15/07; 12/21/07; 1/15/07 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised January 15, 2008 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 5 Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center 1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sure of $$250,000.00 for the design and/or construction of the future East-West Collector Road or for any other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT. Said monetary contribution shall be made within 60 days of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any structure located on the Property. 2. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way for Shady Elm road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of the first building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for a continuous right turn lane along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maxirnum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall provide a double stripe lane marking for the centerline of Shady Ehn Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along the Southern Property boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100 feet of a future East-West Collector Road as depicted on the GDP from Point A to Point B prior to issuance of the first building permit. The Applicant shall design said collector road from Point A to Point B as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross section. The Applicant shall then construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the roadway for a minimum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP upon any of the following conditions, whichever occurs first: (See 2 on GDP) • Prior to issuance of the fourth building permit for the Property. • Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structure located in Land Bay 2. • Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any structure located in Land Bay 1 but with associated land area located in Land Bay 2 as depicted by site plan. • Upon commencement of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing of the proposed East-West Collector Road. • Prior to December 31, 2013. 2.2.1 The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2.2.2 Land Bay 2 as shown on the GDP shall have access via the easternmost entrance located on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2.3 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary to meet the requirements for lot access as identified by 5144-24C of the Frederick Coulety Code, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a rninimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2of5 0 0 Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center 2.4 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.5 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.6 The Property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final build -out. 2.7 No warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square feet shall be constructed on the Property within 5 years of the Date of Final Rezoning. 2.8 Should the County or others obtain the rights to an at grade railroad crossing for the proposed East-`Y/est Collector Road as identified on the GDP, the Applicant shall fully find the design of said at grade crossing. 3. Landscape Buffers, Hiker/Biker Facilities & Additional Right of Way 3.1 Within the 25 foot parking setback between the proposed right of ways for Shady Elm Road and the East-West collector as required by 5 165-27E(5) of the Frederick County Code, the Applicant shall construct a 10 foot asphalt trail to Department of Recreation Standards. In addition, the Applicant shall provide a densely planted landscape screen as depicted by Exhibit A as revised 1/15/08 consisting of street trees planted 50 feet on center between the proposed right of way and the asphalt trail as well as a double row of evergreen trees with a minimum density of three plants per 10 linear feet and a ininimum height of four feet at time of planting located between the proposed trail and any parking areas. 4. Design Standards 4.1 Any building facade fronting Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector shall be constructed of one or a combination of the following : cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, glass, wood, dry vit or stucco. 4.2 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 5. Historic Resources 5.1 The Applicant shall complete a survey documenting any historic structures on the Property in general accordance with the guidelines established by the Preliminary Information Form from the Department of Historic Resources. Any documentation created as part of said survey shall be provided to Frederick County Planning Staff and shall be completed prior to demolition of any buildings located on the Property. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for purposes associated with historic Star Fort prior to issuance of the first building permit. 3 of 5 0 0 Proffer- Statement Artillery Business Center Escalator Clause 6.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of this rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) 4 of 5 Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center Venture I of Winchester, LLC G / , By: Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 16 day of 2007, by ! i t? e r^n� My co Notary Public 5 of 5 LILA M. TRIPLETT NOTARY PUBLIC `fl'n01 1wea1Fhof Virginia RP-g #�5097 'lission Expires Aug. 31, 2011 SHADY ELM ROAD 25' PARKING SETBACK (MINIMUM) NOTE. - STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN (3 TREES PER 10 LINEAR FEET) PROVIDED IN .ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE EAST —WEST COLLECTOR ROAD 3' HEDGEROW AS REQUIRED PER 165-27E(ll)(a) —3 TREES PLANTED PER 10 LINEAR FEET (EVERGREEN) PARKING AREA s1M ASPHALT TRAIL } 80' R/iY DEDICATION & ROAD CONSTRUCTION STREET TREES 50' ON CENTER 25 " PARKING SETBACK (MINIMUM) NOTE. - STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN (3 TREES PER 10 LINEAR FEET) PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc EXHIBIT A U 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 ALTERNATIVE 1 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, uiRciNiA RZ. # Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] Venture I of Winchester, LLC Venture I of Winchester, LLC PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 11/6/07;11/15/07;12/21/07;1/15/08 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised January 15, 2008 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetaty Contribution The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center 1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the total sum of $500,000.00 for the design and/or construction of the future East-West Collector Road or for any other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT. Said monetary contribution shall be phased according to issuance of certificate of occupancy for structures located on the Property utilizing the following schedule: • Within 60 days of issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy - $250,000.00 • Within 60 days of issuance of the second Certificate of Occupancy - $125,000.00 • Within 60 days of issuance of the third Certificate of Occupancy - $125,000.00 2. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way for Shady Ehn road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of the first building permit. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for a continuous right turn lane along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall provide a double stripe lane marking for the centerline of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Ehn Road (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary to meet the requirements for lot access as identified by §144-24C of the Frederick County Code, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.3 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.4 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.5 The Property shall contain a minimum of three users upon final build -out. 2.6 No warehouse -distribution facility greater than 200,000 square feet shall be constructed on the Property within 5 years of the Date of Final Rezoning. 2.7 Should the County or others obtain the rights to an at grade railroad crossing for the proposed East-West Collector Road as identified on the GDP, the Applicant shall fully fund the design of said at grade crossing. 3. Landscape Buffers Hiker/Biker Facilities, & Additional Right of Way 3.1 Within the 25 foot parking setback between the proposed right of ways for Shady Elm Road as required by 5 165-27E(5) of the Frederick County Code, the Applicant shall construct a 10 foot asphalt trail to Department of Recreation Standards. In addition, the Applicant shall provide a densely planted landscape screen as depicted by Exhibit A as revised 1/15/08 consisting of street trees planted 50 feet on center between the proposed right of way and the asphalt trail as well as a double row of evergreen trees with a minimum density of three plants per 10 linear feet and a 2of4 Proffer- Statement Artillery Business Center minimum height of four feet at time of planting located between the proposed trail and any parking areas. Design Standards 4.1 Any building facade fronting Shady Elan Road shall be constructed of one or a combination of the following : cast stone, stone, brick, architectural block, glass, wood, dry vit or stucco. 4.2 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. Historic Resources 5.1 The Applicant shall complete a survey documenting any historic structures on the Property in general accordance with the guidelines established by the Preliminary Information Form from the Department of Historic Resources. Any documentation created as part of said survey shall be provided to Frederick County Planning Staff and shall be completed prior to demolition of any buildings located on the Property. 5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for purposes associated with historic Star Fort prior to issuance of the first building permit. Escalator Clause 6.1 In the event the monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement are paid to the Frederick County Board County Supervisors (`Board") within 30 months of the approval of this rezoning, as applied for by the Applicant, said contributions shall be in the amounts as stated herein. Any monetary contributions set forth in the Proffer Statement which are paid to the Board after 30 months following the approval of tivs rezoning shall be adjusted in accordance with the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI-U") published by the United States Department of Labor, such that at the time contributions are paid, they shall be adjusted by the percentage change in the CPI-U from that date 24 months after the approval of this rezoning to the most recently available CPI-U to the date the contributions are paid, subject to a cap of 6% per year, non -compounded. SIGNATURES) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) 3 of 4 0 • Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center Venture I of Winchester, LLC By: Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L�Lday of _J 4•y��.� 2007, by L I A .:'� ��1 J P n r� LILA M. TRIPLETT My commission eti ires� NOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public ;'I%L4 �%� ommonwealth of Virginia My Commission Expires Aug. 31, 2011 4 of 4 O /* ;40' vw DICATION ROAD WI NING ............... BUFFER, IJNIJI WING . ..... .. . ...... 10' ASOf " L- 0 J F0I`TURF,--SHA'0Y -'ELM`/`R0 1 1//C'ONNECTOR ROAD ..... ..... ..... ..... FUTURE ,RAILROAD ..... .. .... CROSSING M NSF /0 00/0; ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc o�,, GENERALIZED DEW-LOPIVE-NT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 O Cb A L TE ??NA T1 VE - 2 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY VIRGINIA RHAnY FI KA RC)An 3' HEDGEROW AS REQUIRED PER 165-27E(11)(a) —3 TREES PLANTED PER 10 LTNEAR FEET (EVERGREEN) PARKING AREA 10 ASPHALT TRAIL' STREET TREES 50' ON CENTER 40' R/;F DEDICATION & NORTHBOUND LANE IMPROVMENTS EXISTING SHADY ELM ROAD (40' R/W) 25' PARKING SETBACK (MINIMUM) NOTE.- STREET TREES AND LANDSCAPE SCREEN (3 TREES PER 10 LINEAR FEET) PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO ANY LANDSCAPING OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris; Rust &Associates, pc EXHIBIT A 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 0 o a ALTERNAT1VE 2 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 �l FREOERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA At 44 REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S): PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ. # Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] Venture I of Winchester, LLC Venture I of Winchester, LLC Artillery Business Center December 26, 2006 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07; 11/5/07; 11/6/07 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to subunit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised November 6, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 4 4 Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center 1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $25,000.00 for the design and/or construction of the future Shady Elln-Route 11 connector road or for any other transportation improvements as deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.5 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the suin of $5,000.00 for purposes associated with historic Star Fort prior to issuance of the first building Permit. 2. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way from the center line of existing Shady Ehn road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Ehn Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road to provide for a continuous right turn lane along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Ehn Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along the Southern Property boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100 feet of a future East-West Collector Road prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. The Applicant shall design said collector road from Point A to Point B as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross section. The Applicant shall then construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the roadway for a nuiiiinum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP prior to issuance of the fourth building permit for the Property or the issuance of a building permit for any structure located in Land Bay 2 as shown on the GDP. In the event that a structure is proposed in Land Bay 1 but includes area within Land Bay 2 as depicted by site plan, the Applicant shall be responsible for constructing the 1100 feet of roadway as identified above prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for said structure. In the event that construction commences of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing for the collector road, the Applicant shall construct the 1100 feet of the ultimate two westbound lanes of the collector road as shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall construct a maxiinwn of two entrances on the portion of the collector road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. (See 2 on GDP) 2.2.1 Should any conditions specified in Proffer 2.2 requiring the construction of 1100 feet of the two ultimate westbound lanes of the future East-West Collector Road not occur, the Applicant shall construct said improvement prior to December 31, 2013. 2.2.2 Land Bay 2 as shown on the GDP shall have access via the easternmost entrance located on the portion of the East-West Collector Road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. 2of4 Proffer Stateinent 0 Artillery Business Center 2.3 The Applicant shall enter into a signalization agreement «rith VDOT for an amount of up to $200,000.00 for the construction of a traffic signal at any intersection within the vicinity of the site as deemed necessary by Frederick County and VDOT. Said traffic signal shall be installed within 180 days of written notification from Frederick County and VDOT. 2.4 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.5 Street trees shall be located a maximum of 50 feet on center along the Property frontage with Shady Ehn Road, the 1100' of the proposed east -west collector road and both sides of any internal public access road that may be constructed.. 2.6 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.7 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.8 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Elm Road or the proposed East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. SIGNATURE(S) APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) 3 of 4 Proffer Statement 0 Artillery Business Center Venture I of Winchester, LLC Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, by My commission expires Notary Public 4of4 Owr ' O ~� a Vv \O `40' RAW DICATION •' & ROAD WI NING •"" �F STREET TREES LAND BAY 1 (Approx. 28.7 acres) zs • �c • LAND BAY 2 8O R/W DEDICATI N & `�• , (Approx, 30.0 acres) CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM �. 11DO" 2 LANE ROADWAY �• 0 FUTURE SHADY ELM/ROUTE 11, CONNECTOR ROAD O FUTURE BRIDGE`- OPO F��R .,a �Q•4POFOR To 1 Nov ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates, pc ll`�\ GENERALIZED DLIVELOPMENT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly 5t Winchester, Virginia 22601 p v v o VOICE; (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 fREDERICK COUNTY, MGNIA Patton Harris Rust & Associates • Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. ���•,j 1 6 117 East Piccadilly Street RA Winchester, Virginia 22601 PH T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Mike Ruddy Organ izationlCompany: Frederick County Planning From: Patrick Sowers Date: November 16, 2007 Project Name/Subject: Artillery Business Center Please find attached a revised proffer statement, revised generalized development plan, and proffered exhibit all dated November 15, 2007 for the Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application. The revisions are intended to satisfy concerns expressed by members of the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, and residents of nearby properties that spoke during the November 7h Public Hearing. The revisions include the following: 1. Proffer 2.1 has been revised to state that the Applicant shall proffer 20' of right of way across the Shady Elm Road property frontage. This provides the same amount of right of way as the previous proffer which read 40' from the road centerline but describes more clearly the amount of land being dedicated in addition to the right of way already in existence. 2. Proffer 2.2 has been re -written to provide the triggers for the construction of the East-West Collector Road in a bulleted format. This should aid the review process and clarify the Applicant's intent. 3. Proffer 2.3 has been revised to give the County and VDOT the option for the construction of a traffic signal at any intersection in the vicinity of the site or an equivalent cash proffer of $200,000.00 for general transportation improvements. This will provide greater flexibility for the County and VDOT in addressing transportation issues. 4. Proffer 2.7 has been added which requires a minimum of 3 users upon final build -out. This proffer is intended to address concerns of Planning Commissioners as to the scale and potential type of end user for the site. 5. Proffer 3.1 has been revised to provide a 20' distance buffer that is in addition to the 20' right of way being dedicated along Shady Elm Road. This 20' distance buffer will provide viewshed impacts but the proffer is also worded to allow the buffer area to be dedicated as public right of way if need be. If this area were taken for right of way purposes in addition to the right of way already proffered, the Applicant would be providing the full 80' of right of way needed for Shady Elm Road's ultimate build -out without the need for additional right of way from other properties on the opposite side of Shady Elm Road. 6. Proffer 3.1 also provides for additional screening and hiker/biker trail accommodations along Shady Elm Road within a 15' landscape easement between the 20' distance buffer and any future parking areas located on the Property. The Applicant has now proffered street trees every 50 feet with ornamental trees spaced 10 feet apart between the street trees. With the addition of the hedgerow required by ordinance, this will provide for an attractive screening element that will improve the aesthetics of Shady Elm Road. Exhibit A depicts the proffered buffer/landscape/trail improvements for Shady Elm Road and the East-West Collector. 7. Proffer 3.2 provides for identical landscaping and hiker/biker trail elements along the East-West Collector excluding the additional 20' distance buffer as the Applicant is already proffering the full 80' right of way needed to accommodate the future major collector roadway. Exhibit A depicts these improvements as well. 8. Proffer 4.1 ensures that any building facades shall incorporate one or a combination of high quality construction materials into any facade fronting Shady Elm Road or the East-West Collector. 9. In addition to the $5,000.00 monetary contribution for improvements at Star Fort, the Applicant has proffered to complete a survey for historic structures on the Property using guidelines established by the Department of Historic Resources to address impacts to historic resources by the proposed rezoning. As always, please feel free to call with any questions you may have. Thank you. PRS REZONING: PROPERTY: RECORD OWNER: APPLICANT: PROJECT NAME: ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: REVISION DATE(S) PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT RZ. # 02, C q Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] Venture I of Winchester, LLC Venture I of Winchester, LLC Artillery Business Center December 26, 2006 0 �� 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced Ml conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to die plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised October 5, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sutra of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 3 Proffer Statement 10 • Artillery Business Center 2. Site Develoument 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way from the center lute of existing Shady Ehn road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along the Southern Property boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100 feet of a future East-West Collector Road prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. The Applicant shall design said collector road from Point A to Point B and from Point C to Point D as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (114D) cross section to connect with proposed Renaissance Drive as shown on the GDP. The design shall incorporate a vertical and horizontal alignment that will accommodate a future bridge over the Railroad from Point B to Point C as depicted on the GDP. The Applicant shall then construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the roadway for a minimum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP prior to issuance of die fourth building permit for the Property. In die event that construction commences of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing for the collector road, the Applicant shall construct the 1100 foot R2 roadway as shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of the collector road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. (See 2 on GDP) 2.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $50,000 for design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad as depicted from Point B to Point C on the GDP or for any other general transportation improvements as may be decided by the County. Said monetary contribution shall be made within 90 days of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any building on site. 2.4 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.5 Street trees shall be located a maximum of 50 feet on center along the Property frontage with Shady Ehn Road, the 1100' of the proposed east -west collector road and both sides of any internal public access road that may be constructed.. 2.6 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.7 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.8 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Ehn Road or the proposed East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 2 of 3 Proffer Statement r Artillery *ess Center Venture I of Winchester, LLQ 'I \\'_� '% - ( " tj A6-c_"� Date: �)r_'l�h &A. (Z STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: L The foregoin instrument was acknowledged before me this 2 day of ( , 2007, by �({-1 Qom' Mfg! L'c f ir My coiru-ussion expires J A Notary Public R I. { 23 5 CT"7 3 of 3 C) .. . ........ .. . ..... ... ... 3, C, xx ;A' 'R'/W DICATION ..... ROAD WI NING in,• - -------- - v STREET fTTS'11- PROJECT ,"SITE CAT Rj W DEDi ION'• -CONSTPUCTION F MINIMUM'`�•� 1100'_2 LANE ROAD • "FUTURE--SHADY'iLM/ROIJTE'l 1/CbNNECT( DR R6AD !:(DESIGRE'D-BY APPCICAT/&' CONSTRUCTED' BY//OTHERS) B .... . ........... . FUTURE BRIDUL .......... . J X I AR TlL k ER Y BUSINESS CENTER o Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc GENERALIZED DLW-L0PMkNT PLAN 117 E. Piadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 O v O Q VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIROVIA 0 6 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # 0 9—C)`q Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) PROPERTY: 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] RECORD OWNER: Venture I of Winchester, LLC APPLICANT: Venture I of Winchester, LLC PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07; 10/9/07 The undersigned hereby proffers drat the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with die following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed witidrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which die Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in tie appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming tie decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, tie "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to die plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised October 5, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to die County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 3 Proffer Statement 41 Artillery Business Center 2. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way from the center line of existing Shady Elm road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. Additionally, the Applicant shall widen the existing northbound lane to a total width of 24 feet of pavement as measured from the center line of Shady Elm Road along the Property frontage with Shady Elm Road. Direct access to the Property from Shady Elm Road shall be limited to a maximum of 2 entrances as shown on the GDP. (See 1 on GDP) 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 80 feet of right of way along the Southern Property boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100 feet of a future East-West Collector Road prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. The Applicant shall design said collector road from Point A to Point B and from Point C to Point D as a Rural 4 Lane Divided (R4D) cross section to connect with proposed Renaissance Drive as shown on the GDP. The design shall incorporate a vertical and horizontal alignment that will accommodate a future bridge over the Railroad from Point B to Point C as depicted on the GDP. The Applicant shall then construct the ultimate two westbound lanes of the roadway for a iniivinum 1100 feet as shown on the GDP prior to issuance of the fourth building permit for the Property. In the event that construction commences of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing for the collector road, die Applicant shall construct the 1100 foot R2 roadway as shown on the GDP. The Applicant shall construct a maximum of two entrances on the portion of the collector road constructed by the Applicant as shown on the GDP. (See 2 on GDP) 2.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $50,000 for design and/or construction of a bridge over the railroad as depicted from Point B to Point C on the GDP or for any other general transportation improvements as may be decided by the County. Said monetary contribution shall be made within 90 days of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any building on site. 2.4 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.5 Street trees shall be located a maximum of 50 feet on center along the Property frontage with Shady Ehn Road, the 1100' of the proposed east -west collector road and both sides of any internal public access road that may be constructed.. 2.6 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.7 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 2.8 Freestanding business signs shall be limited to one monument style sign per lot that shall not exceed 20 feet in height. In addition, the Applicant may construct one main entrance/tenant directory sign along either Shady Ehn Road or the proposed East-West Collector as a monument style sign that shall not exceed 30 feet in height. 2 of 3 Proffer Statemew •� Venture I of Winchester, LLQ By. "4)'Y'L.(p.4ri.4Cq-c_� Date: Vc- ays e-o(Z , 'LO Artillery I STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: t The foregoing, instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2007, by ;(�a Nl&Vy-_C ( My co�' Notary Public nu:vssion expires ,� J ��u �s� 0) 1 �p�� lay'' j 3 of 3 # . I S) VR/W DILATION 1ON ROAD WI NING sr o • j 1 STREET JF PROJECT SITE 810" R/W DEDICATION "CONSTRUCTION OF MINIMUM/ 1100',,.2 LANE ROADWAY F6TUR'E,SHADY ELM/ROUTE/ 1 I/CONNEQTOR ROAD '(DESIGNS' D'BY APP[lCA4T/& CONSTRUCTED BY/,/6THEk �S) B FUTURE BRIDGE ti o A R TlL t ER Y BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc GENERALIZED DEVELOPMENT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22501 VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) PROPERTY: 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] RECORD OWNER: Venture I of Winchester, LLC APPLICANT: Venture I of Winchester, LLC PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 8/1/07; 8/17/07; 9/14/07; 9/19/07; 9/21/07 The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance with the following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property widi "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect dle meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of the proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised September 21, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriff's office purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of 3 Proffer Statement Artillery Business Center 1.4 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $20,000.00 for the design and/or construction of a bridge that will facilitate that connection of a connector road between Shady Ehn Road and Route 11 upon issuance of the first building permit. (See 1 on GDP) 2. Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 40 feet of right of way from the center line of existing Shady Ehn road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 50 feet of right of way along the Southern Property boundary in the location depicted on the GDP to accommodate a minimum of 1100 feet of a future east -west collector road prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. The Applicant shall construct the aforementioned road as a two lane rural undivided (R2) cross-section as needed to serve the site. In the event that construction commences of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing for the collector road, the Applicant shall construct the 1100 foot R2 roadway as shown on the GDP. Entrances to said roadway shall be located a minimum of 400 feet apart. (See 2 on GDP) 2.2.1 In the event that construction of the aforementioned bridge has not commenced within 10 years from the date of final rezoning, the Applicant may, at the discretion of the Applicant, contribute to the County the sum of $200,000 adjusted for inflation per the Urban Consumer Price Index ("CPI- $"), published by the United States Department of Labor, and the Applicant shall not be responsible for the construction of die collector roadway. If the Applicant elects not to contribute die aforementioned voluntary proffer, then the Applicant shall remain responsible for die construction of a minimum 1100 feet of die proposed collector roadway as outlined in Proffer 2.2. 2.3 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.4 Street trees shall be located a maximum of 50 feet on center along both sides of any internal access roads. Said street trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. 2.5 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.6 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES 2 of 3 Proffer Statement 0 0 Artillery Business Center Venture I o W chester, LLC, By: 4A(..,,o41vWAA A A 4Q Date: STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: The oregomg in ttument was acknowledged before me this day of . 2007, by A 19 E 0g1yv. - ( - My commission ex ftes C) Notary Public 3 of 3 0 I 0 0 PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT REZONING: RZ. # Rural Areas (RA) to Light Industrial (M1) PROPERTY: 58.7 acres +/-; Tax Map Parcels 75-A-1 [the "Property"] RECORD OWNER: Venture I of Winchester, LLC APPLICANT: Venture I of Winchester, LLC PROJECT NAME: Artillery Business Center ORIGINAL DATE OF PROFFERS: December 26, 2006 REVISION DATE(S): 2/6/07; 3/22/07; 4/3/07; 4/24/07; 5/1/07; 5/24/07; 6/28/07; 7/3/07 The undersigned hereby proffers that d-ie use and development of the subject property ("Property"), as described above, shall be in strict conformance widl die following conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto. In the event that the above referenced M1 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied for by the applicant ("Applicant"), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final rezoning of the Property with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on tie day following the last day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the "Board") decision granting the rezoning may be contested ui the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, tie day following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal. The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of any provision of tie proffers. The term "Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its ineaning all future owners and successors in interest. When used ui these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan," shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Artillery Business Center" dated February 6, 2007 revised June 28, 2007 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following: Monetary Contribution 1.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $5,000.00 for fire and rescue purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick the sum of $2,500.00 for Sheriffs office purposes upon issuance of the first building perinit. 1.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the County of Frederick die sum of $2,500.00 for general government purposes upon issuance of the first building permit. 1 of Proffer Statement 0 0 Site Development 2.1 The Applicant shall dedicate 45 feet of right of way from the center line of existing Shady Ehn road along the Property frontage as depicted on the GDP prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. 2.2 The Applicant shall dedicate 50 feet of right of way along the Southern Property boundary as depicted on the GDP to accommodate a future east -west collector road prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. The Applicant shall constrict said collector road as a two lane rural undivided (R2) cross- section as needed to provide access to the site in die location shown on the GDP. At such time that construction commences of a bridge as shown on the GDP to facilitate the railroad crossing east and adjacent to the Property, the Applicant shall construct the collector roadway to the Eastern Property Boundary to align with the bridge. Entrances to said roadway will be located a minimum of 400 feet apart. 2.3 The Applicant shall construct an internal access road, if necessary, to serve the Property to Virginia Department of Transportation standards with a minimum pavement width of 26 feet. 2.4 Street trees shall be located a maximum of 50 feet on center along both sides of any internal access roads. Said street trees shall be planted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building on site. 2.5 A geotechnical analysis shall be prepared and submitted to Frederick County for any structures prior to site plan approval. 2.6 Development of the Property shall not exceed a 0.25 Floor Area Ratio (FAR). SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES 2 of 3 • Proffer Statement • Venture I f Winchester, LLC, By: Al6*n. Date: g �� -7 STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE FREDERICK COUNTY, To -wit: Lynch - Shady Ehn Property TheVa e oin instrument was acknowledged before me this ) I (\ Z6D7 g g g day o f� /}•S'� 2007, by i Q e M& 1U tj My commission expires,, 3 ZUD Notary Public 3 of 3 45-Foot t of Way ication i :from C�L o zisting--Sha Elm 'Rd' r to, accomodat ture major (lector r � _ r PROJECT SITE J r II/ Co truc4 Rural Unvidivided (R2)�� ' Collec 6ad"As Needed Fori Site Access 50 foot Right of -Way` Dedication �� '��; along 'length at,,. Southern property "line/ �toaccomodate .futurecollector road t� 1 Upon commencement -of bridge c " structi6n, -� r' i t r R2, Collector Roadshall be extended, to align :with bridge, i 1 1 Futures Brid l ` Over '.Raill r, d,` r 1 f 1 till ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Patton, Harris, Rust &Associates, pc GENERALIZED DEVELOPILIENT PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 O v VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA • PROPOSED PROFFER S' COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 173 �gFAX: 540/ 665-6395 A March 23, 2007 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Shady Elm Property Dear Patrick: I have had the opportunity to review the draft rezoning application for the Shady Elm Property. This application seeks to rezone 58.74 acres of land from the RA (Rural Areas) District to the B3 (Industrial Transition) District. Staff's review comments are listed below for your consideration. 1. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The site is designated on the Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan for industrial use. The site is within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). The site is within the limits of the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan calls for industrial uses along the CSX Railroad and specifically designates the site for industrial use. The proposed B3 rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Shady Elm area north and south of Route 37 is a thriving industrial area, and its integrity should not be compromised with quasi -retail uses. While the B3 District can function as a transition between business and industrial areas, the Kernstown Business Park immediately to the east, which is Zoned B3, already serves as the transition between the retail uses alon Vallev Pike (Rni:te 1 1) and this manned industrial area. An M1 rezoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Policy Plan. 2. Comprehensive Policy Plan. A number of road improvements in the vicinity of this site are called for in the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan. These include a new interchange of Route 37 at Shady Elm Road, Shady Elm Road upgraded to a major collector road, and a new east/west collector road connecting Shady Elm Road to Route 11. The County's Eastern Road Plan further defines these road plans. Shady Elm Road is to be improved to an urban four -lane divided section. This applicant will need to address any right-of-way needed for this road and also address any additional paving needed along their frontage. The new east/west collector road is planned to be an urban four -lane • divided section. The applicant is encouraged to work with the owners of the 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 e Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 Page 2 • Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property March 23, 2007 Renaissance Commercial Center, who will be constructing a section of the collector road east of the CSX railroad line, and work with the CSX to plan for the connection of the new road as it meets their property on the eastern border. The applicant should address any right-of-way and road paving associated with this road as it traverses their property. 3. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service Category C or better to be maintained on roads adjacent to and within new developments in the County. This application does not provide that expected Level of Service. See TIA comments below. 4. Comprehensive Policy Plan. The Comprehensive Policy Plan recommends a number of design features for properties along business corridors. These include landscaping, screening and controlling the size and number of signs. These design elements should all be addressed in this application. 5. Impact Analysis Statement — Proposed Uses. The application states the rezoning is for 327,000 square feet of office and 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. Unless a specific use and/or floorspace are proffered, the County will assume the maximum possible development as per the County's rezoning application (18,848 square feet of retail use per acre in the B3 District). The applicant will need to base all analysis, including the TIA, on these numbers unless the proffers ensure a lesser scale of development. 6. Traffic Impact Analysis. The proposed development trip generation in the TIA was based on office and light industrial floorspace. See comment #5 above on basing the TIA on the worst case scenario as called for in the rezoning application. Also, light industrial use is not allowed in the B3 District. While the County is sisppor•tive of industrial uses in this loc.a.tinri, a TIA for a B3 rezoning should not be based on light industrial use, which is not allowed in the B3 District. Since the application lists the proposed uses as office and warehouse, the TIA should reflect these uses. 7. Traffic Impact Analysis. As stated previously, the Comprehensive Policy Plan calls for Level of Service C or better. While this application would not be the sole cause of the poor levels of service, rezoning should not exacerbate existing or projected failing situations. The TIA lists three intersections where improvements are needed: A. Route 11/Springdale Road: Traffic signalization is required at this intersection. The application does not address this issue. i Page 3 Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property March 23, 2007 B. Route 11/Apple Valley Road: Additional northbound and southbound thru lanes are required. The application does not address this issue. C. Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization and additional lanes are required at this intersection. A new traffic signal at the intersection of Route 11 and the new east/west collector road may be provided by the owners of the Renaissance Commercial Center. Liaise with this property owner on the proposed lane configuration and the timing of the traffic signal. The County's Eastern Road Plan does not call for improvements to Springdale Road. Therefore, the applicant should direct their efforts to solving transportation problems at the intersection of Route 11 and Springdale Road and, most importantly, to upgrading Shady Elm Road and providing a new collector road on their property. 8. Proffer Statement 2.1. As stated above, the applicant should be addressing not only right-of-way along Shady Elm Road, but should also be addressing the road improvements called for along their frontage. 9. Proffer Statement 2.2. The Eastern Road Plan calls for the new collector road to be an urban four -lane divided section. The applicant should be addressing half of this road section (with the adjacent property owner to eventually provide the other two lanes) along the entire southern property boundary. The 800 linear feet proposed only covers half of the boundary line. 10. Proffer Statement 2.2. For good access management, access to the site should be llt.rrted to on;� access, point on Shady Eln? Road arld lrr to two access points on the new collector road. The applicant is encouraged to consider limiting access to the site to these three points. 11. Proffer Statement 2.3. Staff assumes this would be a state road built to state standards. 12. Proffer Statement 2.4. Given that the land directly across Shady Elm Road is subdivided for future residential purposes, it would be beneficial to also include street trees along the frontage of Shady Elm Road. 0 • Page 4 • Mr. Patrick Sowers RE: Proposed Rezoning of Shady Elm Property March 23, 2007 13. Other. Include a copy of the recorded deed and a survey or plat of the parcel. Please use the correct acreage of the site throughout the application. (Both 60 acres and 58.74 acres are used in this application.) 14. Adjoiners. The list of adjoining property owners was not included with this preliminary application. A complete list must be included with the rezoning. 15. Agency Comments. Please provide appropriate agency comments from the following agencies: Fistoric Resources Advisory Board, Virginia Department of Transportation, Frederick County Department of Public Works, Frederick County Fire Marshall, Frederick County Department of Parks and Recreation, Frederick County Sanitation Authority, Frederick -Winchester Health Department, Stephens City Fire and Rescue Company, the Frederick - Winchester Service Authority and the Frederick County Attorney. 16. Fees. The fee for this application includes a $3,000.00 base fee plus $100.00 per acre, and a $50.00 public hearing sign fee. This is based on fees as of January 27, 2005. Fees may change. • All of the above comments and reviewing agency comments should be appropriately addressed before staff can accept this rezoning application. Please feel free to contact me with questions regarding this application. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior ?Tanner SKE/bad cc: Venture I of Winchester, LLC, 827 Armistead Street, Winchester, VA 22601 'd d Ronald A. Mislowsky From: Ingram, Lloyd[Lloyd.ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 3:29 PM To: Ronald A. Mislowsky Cc: Copp, Jerry; Mike Ruddy; Eric Lawrence Subject: Artillery Rezoning Comments Ron, The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Route 651, 652 and 11. These routes are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed several submissions of proposed transportation proffers offered to mitigate the development's potential trip generation. While not satisfied that the transportation proffers offered in the Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application dated December 26, 2006, revised October 9, 2007, it appears that through a combination of previous proposed proffers, as well as the current proffer by the applicant the transportation concerns associated with this request can be adequately addressed. 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. Lloyd A. Ingram Transportation Engineer VDOT -- Edinburg Residency Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, VA 22824 (540) 984-5611 (540) 984-5607 (fax) 1 Patrick R. Sowers From: Funkhouser, Rhonda [Rhonda.Funkhouser@VDOT.Virginia.gov] on behalf of Ingram, Lloyd [Lloyd.ingram@VDOT.Virginia.gov] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 3:00 PM To: Patrick Sowers Cc: Ronald A. Mislowsky; Eric Lawrence; Ingram, Lloyd Subject: Shady Elm Property Rezoning Application (dated 12/26/06, revised 04/24/07, revised by email 04/25/07) - Route 651, Frederick County The documentation within the application to rezone this property appears to have significant measurable impact on Routes 651, 652 and 11. These route are the VDOT roadways which have been considered as the access to the property referenced. VDOT has reviewed the proffers offered in PHR&A's email dated April 25, 2007 from Patrick Sowers. The applicant is proposing building a two-lane road from Route 651 east to the railroad tracks. This road has been designated as part of Frederick County's Eastern Road Plan. VDOT acknowledges this substantial investment towards completing this connection to Route 11. However, it should be noted that no additional funding was offered to finance the needed railroad crossing. If Frederick County is satisfied with just the roadway construction, VDOT will not oppose the rezoning. 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. Lloyd A. Ingram, Transportation Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Edinburg Residency -- Land Development 14031 Old Valley Pike Edinburg, Virginia 22824 Phone #(540) 984-5611 Fax #(540) 984-5607 n'wi e �i� �yii; , ����tgshd ,t9 Plan Review and Goniments j VIRGINIA Control number RZ07-0004 Project Name Shady Elm Property Address 117 E. Piccadilly St. Type Application Rezoning Current Zoning RA Automatic Sprinkler System Yes Other recommendation Emergency Vehicle Access Not Identified Siamese Location Not Identified Emergency Vehicle Access Comments Access Comments Additional Comments Date received Date reviewed Date Revised 3/12/2007 3/13/2007 Applicant Patton Harris Rust & Associates City State Zip Applicant Phone Winchester VA 22601 540-667-2139 Tax ID Number Fire District Rescue District 75-A-1 11 11 Recommendations Automatic Fire Alarm System Yes Na(9(D]U F0�n051 Hydrant Location Not Identified Roadway/Aisleway Width Not Identified Election District Back Creek Residential Sprinkler System No Fire Lane Required No Special Hazards No Plan Approval Recommended Reviewed By Signature L. Yes J. Neal Title ,6�'—�_..-- 0 0 is Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton, Harris, Rust, and Associates 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Shady Elm Rezoning Frederick County, Virginia Dear Patrick: March 14, 2007 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Public Works 540/665-5643 FAX: 540/ 678-0682 We have completed our review of the Shady Elm rezoning application and offer the following comments: 1. Refer to page 2 of 4, Transportation: The discussion of Scenario A indicates that 60 . percent of the trips would utilize Apple Valley Road and 40 percent would use Springdale Road. It appears that the existing traffic distribution is approximately 80:20. Considering the current condition of Springdale Road, we conclude that the 80:20 distribution is more realistic than the 60:40 distribution. �1 2. Refer to page 3 of 4, Environmental Features: a. The narrative indicates that the property does not contain any wetlands. However, a review of available aerial photographs indicates the existence of a pond on the property. A wetland study needs to be performed to verify that this pond does not represent a wetland. b. The discussion of drainage needs to•address stormwater management and the potential impact on a karst environment. C. The discussion of soils needs to be expanded to 'Include a review of the karst geology and the potential for sink hole development. This condition is particularly relevant along the eastern property boundary. Refer to page 4 of 4, Solid Waste Disposal Facilities: Indicate if the solid waste projection is presented as pounds per day or pounds per year. 107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 E Shady Elm Rezoning March 14, 2007 Page 2 4. Refer to the proffer statement, Site Development Item 2.2: The dedicated right of ways should be sized to accommodate sufficient turning radii at the intersection with Shady Elm Road. The discussion indicates that "entrances to the said roadway will be located at a minimum of 400 feet apart". This statement raises the question "apart from what?" I can be reached at 722-8214 if you should have any questions regarding the above comments. Sincerely, HarveY E.�Slrawsnyder, Jr., P.E. Director of Public Works HES/mlr cc: Mark Cheran, Zoning and Subdivision Administrator file 0 CAProgram RilesMordPerfect Office X3\Rhonda\TEMPCOMMGNTS\SHADYGLMREZCOM.wpd 0 E • 0 7- Rezoning Comments Shady Elm Frederick County Department of Inspections Mail to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5650 Hand deliver to: Frederick Co. Dept. of Inspections Attn: Director of Inspections Co. Administration Bldg., 4th Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Applicant: I Please :fill out, the' inf6 *"' ation as accurately as.:p'oSs ble in:_order to�. assist ,the D"epartinentof Public Works i th:their review. Attach a.copy of your application, `form,,location map, proffer statement, -impact analysis, and :any other pertinent information, Applicant's Name: Mailing Address: Location of Property: Patton Harris Rust & Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667.2139 ;V-1 The Property is located East and adiacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 1,500 feet {,_SI!ouy('thcol!Eppi `tp,Utl7Niyip l!0iOQG �; fti40. ii�ST C4itilie Route 37. Current Zoning RA Zoning Requested: B3 Acreage: 60.0 Department of Inspections Comments: /Y- z/ / l "v. j 4-S �� S -e� r S/��r�� �e v�� vc�-e� i�v � � ivcru v<r, o o•�t S c� U�rS %J r Inspections Signature & Date: G 7 Notice to Dept. jI ections -Please Return This F tot e Applicant 10 • 0 • • • Rezoning Comments Shady Elm Frederick County Sanitation Authority D n i 5 0 U W Mail to: Hand deliver to: VAR ) a W Frederick Co. Sanitation Authority Frederick Co. Sanitation Author !o0 V.S Attn: Engineer Attn: Engineer P.O. Box 1877 315 Tasker Road FCSA Winchester, VA 22604 Stephens City, VA (540) 868-1061 Applicant: Please fill out the 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. Applicant's Name Mailing Address Location of Property: Patton Harris Rust & Associates c/o Patrick Sowers 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540) 667.2139 The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 1,500 feet South of Route 37. Current Zoning RA Zoning Requested: B3 Acreage: 60.0 Sanitation Authority Comments: fif' A /Ti i5� iy.� lU1- rr, V, d ie' ��.c` ,f►' r�vJ L�kA c Sanitation Authority Signature & Date: Notice to Sanitation Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant 14 • • 0 I* Rezoning Comments Shady Elm Frederick -Winchester Service Authority Mail to: Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett, Executive Director P.O. Box 43 Winchester, VA 22604 (540) 722-3579 Hand deliver to: Fred-Winc Service Authority Attn: Jesse W. Moffett 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 MAR 12 2007 Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Department of Public Works with their review. Attach a copy of your application forilr, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Phone: (540) 667.2139 c/o Patrick Sowers Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 1,500 feet South of Route 37. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B3 Acreage: 60.0 Fred -Winchester Service Authority's Comments: FWSA Signature & Date: 311.9 Notice to Fred-Winc Service Authority — Please Return This Form to the Applicant is is 0 • • • Rezoning Comments Shady Elm Frederick — Winchester Health Department Mail to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 Hand deliver to: Frederick -Winchester Health Dept. Attn: Sanitation Engineer 107 North Kent St., Suite 201 Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 722-3480 BY. V,4. . _ ----- Applicant: Please fill out the information as accurately as possible in order to assist the Frederick - Winchester Health Department with their review. Attach a copy of your application form, location map, proffer statement, impact analysis, and any other pertinent information. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Phone: (540) 667.2139 c/o Patrick Sowers Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 1,500 feet South of Route 37. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B3 Acreage: 60.0 Frederick — Winchester Health Department's Comments: C�c� cc t 'o -.� a S/ �u�.,s q S ►emu �cP1��c S <�✓ �CI�S C.�C /f �Q �S�[ f)v-XiC44, nXS "}: ..•c S`F `•LS /dCn+-c�( ��cc,Ct all Inc k(C,(+L, �,/cFa,4�.,c..{� tc D��ticc- c° (OaMo(o�. w�c D�oCe-dU S Health Signature & Date: 3/) Notice to Health Department — Please Return This Form to the Applicant I> Rezoning Comments Shady Elm rFrederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Mail to: Frederick County Dept. of Parks & Recreation 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 665-5678 Hand deliver to: Frederick County Department of Parks & Recreation Co. Administration Bldg., 2nd Floor 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 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 info inatio :. Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Phone: (540) 667.2139 c/o Patrick Sowers Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: • The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 1,500 feet South of Route 37. Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B3 Acreage: 60.0 Dept. of Parks & Recreation Comments: Parks Signature & Date: Notice to Dept. 0 arks & Recreation — Please Return This/Forrii to the Applicant 12 COUNTY of I+REDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 May 16, 2007 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Shady Elm Property Rezoning; Property Identification Number (PIN): 75-A-1 Current Zoning District: RA (Rural Areas); Proposed Zoning District: 133 (Industrial Transition) Dear Mr. Sowers: The Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) considered the above referenced rezoning proposal during their meeting of May 15, 2007. The HRAB reviewed information associated with the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey Re >] Or and the Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley. Historic Resources Advisory Board Concerns The subject parcel is the site of the Route 651 House (DHR#34-1042), dating from circa 1880- 1910 and representing atypical example of a vernacular I -House. This project also adjoins the Henry Carbaugh property (DHR #34-1040). The Henry Carbaugh House represents a typical vernacular Queen Anne -style dwelling constructed in the early twentieth century and still retains many elements of its original construction, as noted in Frederick County, Virginia: rit:iUry 1 ttiGi,igti hl'Lliitecttiie. tdituGilgit Iiciitici of tiiCoe %w0 StriiCtiliCS 1S listed as pOtCiitiaii"y' significant by the Rural Landmarks Survey, mitigation of the impacts to these structures should be considered. In addition, a small portion of the property is located in the study area of the 1" Kernstown Battlefield. Although not located in the core area of the battlefield, attention should be given to the potential archeological significance of this property in the battle for Kernstown. The application states that the applicant proposes to construct no more than 327,000 square feet of office space and no more than 327,000 square feet of warehouse space. The HRAB feels that this proposed development can address several issues prior to the rezoning of this property. If the property is developed for commercial use, the HRAB suggests the following be considered to mitigate impacts on historic resources: 107 North bent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 • Mr. Patrick Sowers Re: Shady Elm Rezoning Proposal May 16, 2007 Page 2 Archeological Survey and Documentation: The HRAB felt that there is a need to document the historic and archeological significance of this property based upon the proximity to the I" Kernstown Battlefield area and the location of the historic structure on the property. The HRAB suggested documenting the house and any out -buildings for their historical significance including identifying past owners/occupants, building materials, architectural features, photographs of both the interior and exterior, etc. The HRAB also suggested a phase one archeological survey would be appropriate to determine the presence of any battlefield artifacts on the property. Thank you for your presentation to the HRAB and for the opportunity to comment on this rezoning proposal. Please feel free to contact me with any questions concerning these comments from the HRAB. Since 161 , e Lauren E. Krempa Plamling Technician LEK/bad cc: Rhoda Kriz, HRAB Chairman Barbara Van Osten, Back Creek District Supervisor Susan K. Eddy, Principal Planner 0 0 RezoninIZ Comments Shady Elm 0 Mail to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Winchester Regional Airport Hand deliver to: Winchester Regional Airport Attn: Executive Director 491 Airport Road Winchester, VA Applicant;, Please fill.out the information as accurately as possible ni, order to assist the; Winchester Regional' Airport with :their review ` Af tack a copy,. of your application form,, location map; proffer statement; impact analy'i ;and any other perthient informations e Applicant's Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Phone: (540) 667.2139 c/o Patrick Sowers Mailing Address: 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Location of Property: The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 1,500 feet South of Current Zoning: RA Zoning Requested: B3 Acreage: 60.0 Winchester Regional Airport's Comments Winchester Regional Airport Signature & Date:�Nn(l M a Notice to Winchester Regional Airport — Please Return This Form to the Applicant U 16 • • WINCHESTER REGIONAL AIRPORT SERVING THE TOP OF VIRGINIA / March 13, 2007 491 AIRPORT ROAD WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22602 (540) 662-2422 Patton Harris & Rust Associates Patrick Sowers 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Re: Rezoning Comments Shady Elm Property Back Creek Magisterial District Winchester, Virginia Dear Mr. Sowers: We have reviewed the referenced rezoning proposal. Allowed uses under this rezoning should not impact airside operations of the Winchester Regional Airport therefore we have no further comment regarding this rezoning request. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to review these plans and for 10 supporting the Winchester Regional Airport. Sincerely, Serena R. Manuel Executive Director • �`` $01 CTIGS An Z_CP P� • II O p¢ V� F cW � m C Ems-. 4 0 Frederick County Public Schools Coordinator of Construction Visit us at www.frederick.k12.va.us and Facilities Use March 27, 2007 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Sowers: RE: Rezoning comments for Shady Elm Property e-mail: kapocsis@frederick.k12.va.us This letter is in response to your request for comments concerning the zoning application • for the proposed Shady Elm Property. Based on the information provided that states no residential units will be part of the rezoning, there will be no impact to the school population upon build -out. • Respectfully yours, Stephen Kapocsi Coordinator of Construction and Facilities Use SMK/dkr cc: Patricia Taylor, Superintendent of Schools Al Orndorff, Assistant Superintendent for Administration Charles Puglisi, Director of Transportation 540-662-3889 Ext 112 1415 Amherst Street, Post Office Box 3508, Winchester, VA 22604-2546 FAX 540-662-3890 • • May 30, 2007 Mr. Patrick Sowers Patton Harris Rust & Associates 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Proposed Rezoning of the Shady Elm Property Dear Patrick: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 Attached you will find review comments from the County Attorney's office concerning the proposed proffer statement for the rezoning of the Shady Elm Property. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Susan K. Eddy, AICP Principal Planner SKE/bad Attaclunent 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILBUR C. HALL (1892-1972) 7 S 307 EAST MARKET STREET 9 EAST BOSCAWEN STREET THOMAS V. MONAHAN (1924-1999) LEESBURG, VIRGINIA WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA SAMUEL D. ENGLE O. LELAND MAHAN TELEPHONE 703-777-1050 TELEPHONE 540-662-3200 ROBERT T. MITCHELL, JR. FAx 540-662-4304 NAMES A. KLENKAR E-MAIL lawyers@hallmonahan.com STEVEN F. JACKSON May 29, 2007 DENNIS J. MCLOUGHLIN, JR. Susan K. Eddy, AICP Senior Planner Frederick County Department of Plaruiing & Development 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 M AY 3 0 2007 PLEASE REPLY TO: P. O. Box 848 WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA 22604-0848 Re: Shady Elm Property (Venture I of Winchester, LLC) Proffer Statement Dear Susan: I have reviewed the above -referenced Proffer Statement, with the revised date of February 6, 2007. It is my opinion that the Proffer Statement is generally in a form to meet the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and the Code of Virginia, subject to the following conunents: 1. In Proffer 2.2, at the end of the second sentence I would recommend that the following words be added "..., in the location shown on the Generalized Development Plan." 2. In Proffer 2.3, it is not clear who makes the determination that an internal access road is "necessary." That should be clarified. It should be noted that I have not reviewed the substance of the proffers as to whether the proffers are suitable and appropriate for the rezoning of this specific property, or whether other proffers would be appropriate, as it is my understanding that that review will be done by the staff and the Planning Conunission. HALL, MONAHAN, ENGLE, MAHAN & MITCHELL Susan K. Eddy May 29, 2007 Page 2 If there are any questions concerning the foregoing comments, please contact me. Very truly yours, Robert T. Mitchell, Jr. RTM/ks 0 IV. AGENCY COMMENTS Patton Harris RustoAssociates, Inc Engneers. Surveyors. Planners. landscape Architects. PH R+Afflliarnsport, 1 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 Maryland 21795 Phone: 301.223.4010 Fax: 301.223.6831 To: Organization/Company: From: Date Project Name/Subject PHR+A Project file Number: Llovd In --ram 0 Memorandum VDOT — Edinburg Residency Michael Glickman, PE January 31, 2008 Supplemental Analysis to: An Addendum to: A Tram act Analysis of the Lvnch-Shadv Elm Road Proberty, dated September 12, 2007 14846-1-1 For Informational purposes, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this supplemental analysis to: An Addendum to: A Traadic Impact Analysis of the Lynch-Shadv Elm Road Pro e , by PHR+A, dated September 12, 2007. The purpose of this document is to present the traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Development upon the existing traffic volumes. Therefore, growth rates and "other developments" are omitted from this analysis in an effort to differentiate the direct impacts of this project from those created by the background traffic. All other methodology remains consistent with the aforementioned September 12, 2007 memorandum. Accordingly, PHR+A has provided analysis for both build -out scenarios included in the original report. The proposed development trips, as shown in Table 1, were added to the existing conditions traffic volumes to determine the "existing plus development" build -out traffic volumes. Figures 1a and 1b show the "existing plus development" build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 2a and 2b show the corresponding lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1* Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Ehn Road Trin Gpnprntinn Snmmary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 Total 1 669 109 779 1 127 677 805 1 5,950 l:opea vemaum rrom: An Aaoenuum W: n r raia rmpan nnaxy- uua a yr.a. y e.... now ...ye. y. "-.«.-p...•.-"^ "� ........ Page 1 of 6 i a Patton Harris RAG Associates, Inc Addendum Page 2of6 Conclusion Based upon Synchro results, the following details the "suggested improvements" for all intersections located within the study area. Note: Funding for these improvements has yet to be identified. Scenai io A: • Shady Elm Road/Apple Valley Road: Signalization will be required. • Shady Elm Road/Soldiers Rest Lane/Site-Driveway: one right -turn lane in northbound direction and 4" leg in westbound direction will be required. Scenario B: • Route 11 /Renaissance Driveway/Site-Driveway: This is a new intersection. Signalization will be required. NOTE: Intersections, where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement, must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers 9 Surveyors 9 Planners . Landscape Architects Patton Harris RusO Associates, Inc It Addendum Page 3 of 6 N M � O No Scale N M (292)I p3`�� (369)122 ]� b � 7 `4- e /e y �Jj49 (134) 957 71 (139) D a� k,`F ry� I Sr�a ` � s Prs / (0 JO �r► s��e 2 J SITEam`?(I3S �2 ��' 4a d a ti ry� .Y b av e (j �93J �o�a � •. �j 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) nT Try 1 i Figure 1a Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rus Associates, Inc 16 Addendum Page 4of6 0 e a No Scale (224)92` (200)94 v� 9AAQL 11 jj ae dui ey � �Oa a ��J�J�T9` 1��173(134) a (G3) o`° 71 - 1 �`F tiq Sraa Sr�a� L �OlafP�h�' Y fro), ► �5,��0(030SJ J21�14a i Ld dn'�r39) d. pLe'�!`Yry 0 p b SITE ^q z p t oro) J i �6pJ��0 oz, r JJ o Po �e `ay 11 ti"'`�,Y q` sp�f q`ry�pbNn1 0 p 63,y� �3 q�co 6 11 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) DailyAverage nT T�+n Figure 1b Scenario B "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Ruslk Associates, Inc 10 Addendum Page 5of6 Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) Signalization U Q Signalized No Scale I �bA Intersection �y !e Overall LOS A(C) >C(C) (C)C= o y� �rroa� ` 9A'�e 11 11 L dJJe J� oa a Gy'OAJe �a � �1 r A(A)* 0 9 a�F *80, Srsa 5r` s0 -. "Suggested Improvements" WB - 4th Leg NB - 1 Right L JD 4a shedo C*re).* SITE F #, D ycm 1� s wog � 11 e *� n0 e AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T T+ A Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 2a Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rus* Associates, Inc ff Addendum Page 6 of 6 �Q nSignalized ho Intersection i/ Overall LOS A(B) No Scale Q Q 9A'�!e L 11 11 �!e y� �eJ- fr (a � r A(A)* 40 `4°a,,v� S s S °!a �s 1� Signalized New Intersection" SITE Intersection BB & WB - New Leg LOS=A(B) 11 _ ea s d�. (C)C%..o* 01 S •� e� J� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) IJT TT+n Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 2b Scenario B "Existing plus Development" Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS Engineers 9 Surveyors o Planners 9 Landscape Architects 0 • Patton Harris Engineers. Surveyors. P R+A H Rust & Associates, Inc Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 Williamsport, Maryland 21795 Phone: 301.223.4010 Fax: 301.223.6831 To: Organization/Company: VDOT — Edinburg Residen From: Michael Glickman Date: Project Name/Subject: PHR+A Project file Number: Addendum September 12, 2007 An Addendum to: A Traffic Impact Anal sis of the Lyncb-Shade Elm Road Propertv, dated November 29, 2006 14846-1-1 Per your request, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an addendum to: A Tra lc Impact Ann ry it of the Lyttcb-Shady E Ili Road Proffer , by PHR+A, dated November 29, 2006. The purpose of this document is to present a revised traffic impact analysis due to modifications in proposed land use and change in FAR (Floor Area Ratio) from 0.25 to 0.4. The revised development includes 511,395 square feet of Light Industrial and 511,395 square feet of warehousing. PHR+A has provided traffic analysis for 2010 build -out conditions. All methodology and existing & background conditions remain consistent with the aforementioned November 29, 2006 report. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route 11 and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR+A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site -driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, ill addition to the site -driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7`t' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Ttzo Generatiotr Rebod, PHR+A has provided Tables 1a thru 1f to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 1 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 2a and 2b show the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 3a and 3b show the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Page 1 of 18 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 2 of 18 Table la 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Report dated February, 2006) 310 Hotel 120 rooms 31 20 51 38 33 71 701 444 Theater w/ Mat. 16 screens 11 3 14 129 194 324 2,453 820 Retail 85,500 SF 87 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 853 Conven. Mart Mpumps 4,250 SF 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 912 Drive-in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 43 80 80 160 895 932 1-1-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H-T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 27 17 44 509 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 Total 477 407 884 856 882 1,738 18,310 *Total Pass By: 25 25 50 62 62 124 1,459 Total "New Trips": 452 382 833 794 820 1,614 16,851 * Pass By trips are fifteen percent (15%) of total retail development and Convenience Mart Table lb 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse/Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1737 19,130 Table lc 2010 "Other Developments": Volvo Car Delarship Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total 841 Car Sales 23,446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Engineers e Surveyors o Planners • Landscape Architects • • Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 3 of 18 Table Id 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property Trip Generation Summary In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single -Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse/Condo 123 units 10 51 61 48 24 71 1,070 920 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9,098 Total 588 316 904 1 658 995 1,653 15,910 Table le 2010 "Other Developments": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bay A 210 Single -Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single -Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Trips 84 244 328 340 214 554 6 935 Totallntemal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Trips" 83 243 326 325 198 523 6,828 Table if 2010 "Other Developments": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 7,546 Total 175 82 257 369 486 855 1 8282 Engineers . Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust S Associates, Inc No Scale 4b `�d�,Plainrye�Dr � a _ ! � ii, r 0 \ off' Oa�, yraal a i amh,�r ay Commonwealth Ct k� SITE�'<<ry k4' a h CrosSpointe �'Kernstown Center Q Common 0 Renaissance 8, ' Comm. Center Voho ��pw De�larship N tacSQ Eavtonswille ? P TI l4- 1 H1, Figure 1 Addendum Page 4 of 18 C ree k _P .._....,,,,,..,,......_..._ Artrip N O'rs� Dr Development Rayland- Russell CdSCjP �.tr G�\p`F�� C� 1h N ckl' '� Location Map - 2010 Background Developments Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 5 of 18 No Scale y� rd �a rj2JY29 71 �� 7.3 3)) s� A q / �OJ a II �F a av W N �lo/arr �`41�41 (96)76�,1 /} <de (180)96� 2� % N r o J�% 11g ry��ryo SITE 11 o� �� qN O 69 �O�a r2IJ9 �3l q� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) nT TV+A - Figure 2a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 6of18 No Scale rJ22Jrya ^66(242) 9`r`� �`173(63) M y t` b ,11 So a��01,q 9q (96)76*.%1 } (254)13 1� �' fa �`m es�� fiefs ti�,��, 9ti 11 o !- o O — a� oCr c �G c SITE . ,`ey2 7e�d<rr fib. §1 p b`1 R<, ti ti ry /o �� hq osy (4r349 pJp�e�o�i�' %9 d QIJ9`� N ,Yo AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) nT Try-4-A Figure 2b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects r� U 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 7 of 18 w C4 Signalized No Scale 4 Overall l erall L coon LOS B(D) dllJ• A�� V A(A)* C. 11 I1 a 5r` a ¢o p9 Signalized "Suggested gr' Intersection Improvements" LOS=13(13) NB & SB - 1 Thru U r� esrt �yJ9 nc (C)C� j1 i `� `SITE II s Rryd�e� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) IJT TQ+n * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects • 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 8of18 8 W Signalized 01i Intersection No Settle Overall LOS QF) 9 '9p o eJ pp/� p/e G 11 11 0 ,Z5 Signalized "Suggested 9r o'sJ Inters. 1. Improvements" NB & SB - 1 Thru LOS=B(c) des r �P Signalized "New Intersection' SITE Intersection CB & WB - New Leg. Q NB - I Thru, I left K r4 % 11 LOS=B(B) SB - I thru, I Right qt� sir 4r,� w ert;�Oce '+.y 1''(Q r ° S pied,°, 11 a/e x(�J �Odry AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) L T+A '1` Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 9of18 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7°i Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trig Generalion -Resod, PI IR+A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property development. Table 1 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Trin Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 Total 669 109 779 127 677 805 1 5,950 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of revised trips for Scenario A and Scenario B, shown in Figures 4a and 4b, respectively, remain consistent with the November 2006, study. Figures 5a and 5b show the respective revised development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 2a and 2b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 6a and 6b show the revised 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 7a and 7b show the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Engineers . Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects • 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 10 of 18 CONCLUSION Per IICS+ analysis results, assuming suggested improvements, all intersections will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B, except the intersection of Route 11/Springdale Road. The aforementioned unsignalized intersection will maintain levels of service "D" during Scenario B. The signal warrants will not be met for this intersection during Scenario B. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. • Route 11 /Springdale Road: Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. The signal warrants for this intersection will not be met during Scenario B. • Route 11 /Apple Valley Road: An additional northbound and southbound thru lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. • Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario B. • Shady Elm Road/Site Drive#1: Traffic signalization along with a westbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. • Shady Eln Road/Apple Valley Road: Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. NOTE: Intersections where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects • 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 11 of 18 No Scale -I- Figure 4a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 12of18 No Scale Figure 4b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 13 of 18 No Scale v eyA'% Q, �°`• d..w402(76) ma�`tinb bI 'O�c� L'e! I1 h b •7j a ,a e-° Sr M rVl N der(4- 33 (203) 203) �,1 1 33 SITE h� ti �o2J JS i �6 o� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure Sa Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects • i Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 14 of 18 Mr No Scale �1s3 1 NJ,y �1 �eJolae bryy, ��`bryn (12 2 ...� (34 r J5� ,• �'oA cf 1� G i �sr3 �3OSJ nova �F mad b�� a g� L 4or ejr � ?qr e Off. ne SI E 11 c, 7'nero �'cc Re'� �b ern (2 N SA, (6�J jl �� n a� b ■TJ A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) ■' T TP / 1 z� Figure 5b Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B) Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects 11 L`J Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 15of18 d�eyAn/e No Scale r,� J�Jr29� �gp(1,15 S7S(13 ) o q A/ 11 q n �Fp1'Y oy � n L r y0 ✓-� �J a 4°tea S��p9 N b N T 16, 0100), (383)129 rOJ� si( 20�Oj(SY2J � ty 11 SITE L 11 ti tiN �qN sn�, P hq � 3l a~ b n AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 6a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 • Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum I Page 16 of 18 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 6b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects • 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 17of18 Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=C(C) Signalization k Q' Signalized d�6A� Intersection eJ• c0 1(• 1 Overall LOS C(Is) No Scale 0J�+�'d >C(n) o U 4 arm AAl� � 11 11 p!! J� O� O' d �yAlc Ir B(A)* 4SsJ a Signalized' "suggested Intersection Improvements" a� *` LOS=B(C) NB & SB - 1 Thru r° 5 U Soles Signalized ` "Suggested erz �4` Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(B) NVB I Right & Signalizelion J� s. c �7 I1 SITE ���c s,v �4i �a O,y.l a° 5r- GG s �!e Signalized "Suggested �Jd Intelseeti011 Improvements" LOS=B(C) Signalization ij dale � Roa A* 11: � AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T �+ A 1' Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 18 of 18 w �°j Sters ctio 1 ed Lllcrsection Overall I,OS B(F) No Scale (D,C % j 90 9AA/° � 11 11 L� �Vd d eyA'% �d Signalized "Suggested A(A) o^a Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) NB & SB - 1 Thru a�`4�c*G4 I s5 Signalized"New Intersection" SITE Intersection BB & 1VB - New Leg NB - 1 Thru, 1 Left S��e 11 LOS=B(C) SB - 1 Thnj, 1 Right C(C) 4 LTAM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) TP+/ A \ Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7b 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects �J A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch - Shady Elm Road Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Paige Manuel Commercial Realty 440 W. Jubal Early Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. 102 Governor Lane Boulevard P�PA Suite 1002 Williamsport, Maryland 21795 T 301.223.4010 • F 301.223.6231 November 29, 2006 Ll OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development located along the south side of Route 37, east of Shady Elm Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to be comprised of 326,700 square feet of light industrial and 326,700 square feet of office. PHR+A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site -driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site - driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the Year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Lynch - Shady Elm Road development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development, • Distribution and assignment of the Lynch - Shady Elm Road development development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions. PH A Trn is Impnct Annlysis of the Lynch-Shndy t Nu Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page I • 0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 11/Apple Valley Road, Apple Valley Road/Shady Elm Road, Shady Elm Road/Soldiers Rest Lane, Prosperity Drive/Route 11 and Springdale Road/Route 11. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9.0 % based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lvnch Slmdv tElin Nu Road Property Project Number: r 29, 2 1 6 November 29, 2006 Page 2 No Scale Figure 1 Vicinity Map - Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property, Frederick County, VA PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch Shady Elm Road PropeProject Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 3 No Scale j; 9AA 7 �6 ) o°aJ 9A ao. �a �40 Sr •� w oil r r2Jy���c (166)89 � l l J w� ry1,No SITE tiN L 11 rz�J4 � 3l N� M AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) nT Try+n Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions PH A Trn�c I»innct Analysis of tl:e Lynch-Shnje t Nu Road ProperProject Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 4 • No Scale go DIntersection AM Yeak Hour (FAII Yeak Hour) * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service PHRA A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ehn Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 5 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route 11 and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR+A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site - driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site -driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7lh Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Tables la thru if to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 5a and 5b shows the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 6a and 6b shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table la 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak hour Out Total ADT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Report dated February, 2006) 310 hotel 120 rooms 31 20 51 38 33 71 701 444 Theater w/ Mat. 16 screens 11 3 14 129 194 324 2,453 820 Retail 85,500SF 87 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 853 Conven. Man w\pumps 4,250 SF 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 912 Drive-in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 43 80 80 160 895 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 I-1-T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 27 17 44 509 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 Total 477 407 884 856 882 1738 18 310 *Total Pass By: 25 25 50 62 62 124 1,459 Total "New Trips": 452 382 833 794 820 1,614 16,851 - rass tsy trips are nucen percent (imlo) of totaa retau oevetopment ana uonvenaence man PHR±N A Trn c Gnpact Annlysis of the Lynch-SProje Elm Road PropertProject Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, age 6 Page 6 Table lb 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse/Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1,737 19,130 Table le 2010 "Other Developments": Volvo Car Delarship Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT In Out Total In Out Total 841 Car Sales 23,446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Table ld 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property Trip Generation Summary In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single -Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse/Condo 123 units 10 51 61 48 24 71 1,070 820 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9,098 Total 588 316 904 658 995 1653 15,910 A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ehn Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 7 0 • Table I 2010 "Other Developments": Villages at Arlrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bay A 210 Single -Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single -Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Trips 84 244 328 340 214 554 6,935 Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Trips" 83 243 326 325 198 523 6,828 Table if 2010 "Other Developments": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 7,546 Total 1 175 82 257 1 369 486 855 1 8282 PH A Tragic lntpact Analysis of the Lynch-ShadyProje Elm beer: 4 o6-1-0Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 8 n • No Scale Y \ 0 ` tea° t liT, r ell, o' lay Commonwealth Ct t� 3 Of St f i ff SITE��� yOrkn Kernstown Ct �) Commons 81 t: Renaissance Comm. Center Volvo Dd ship j! � W Bartonsville +,. Creek Artrip RaylandY� 0� �Dr Development q vs Russellel ~ Cascade Or C�S�aQvv� ,4 Ien Crosspointe Center Figure 4 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments PHP-`N A Tragic Imnact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: r 29, 2 1 6 November 29, 2006 Page 9 No Scale HA 73(14g) �aI 0 4-n 9AA 11 �OJ a I v A V w N �1 es�L q �J (96)76,,.* r (180)96-% r,9J2�� ° .d, o ry1,�o SITE ry1 L 11 ti gryo P°Ja %9J � 3I' h~ bo 1 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) n. Try+A --fy Figure 5a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) PH A Traffic lmpncl Ana/ysis of the Lynch -Shady EN a Road ProperProject Number: 14846-I-0 November 29, 2006 Page 10 I AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) A Tra is Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady N ERoad Property Project Nuu mber: 14846-1-0 RANovember 29, 2006 PH Page 11 w Signalized No Scale tj� OverallLIntersection OS B(D) d eyA'%o CU 1�V 4-aft (A)* �o 0 �a �r as 4-O Signalized "Suggested Sr°a� Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(B) NB & SB - 1 TLru U 4 rs� es� it Nr SITE s Raa�e� °aa Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(B) Signalization � SPrin date R°a T T Il AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) IJT JQ+A Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 6a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) PH A Tra is hn�nct Annl s f the Lyitch-Shady t Nu Road Pro�6-1-0Project Number: 14846-I-0 November 29, 2006 Page 12 0 A Oil Signalized Intersection No Scale Overall LOS QF) (C)C= % U i y A(A)* �O�a 0 a� * Signalized "Suggested `ors 40�a Intel ection ImprovemcnLs" y�r LOS=B(C) NB S. SB - I Th. Sr�a9 `' �11 r0 _ er 1 (C)C� � �! �gJgr11 ." �c � Signalized "New Intersection" SITE Intersection RB & WB - New Leg NB - 1 thm, 1 left %` 11 LOS=B(B) 1 SB - 1 thru, 1 Right r _� ci` Yp S R eb Signalized "Suggested I» tersectiol Improvements" LOS=B(B) Sigualization q Prpl, ale Road C�'�l Q 11 . AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) R TPI A x Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement -I- ! Figure 6b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) PH A Tia�ic hn�act Annlvsis of the Lynch Shaje t Nu beer 4846-1-0Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 13 0 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tri/) Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property. Table 2 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Trin Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 326,700 SF 261 36 296 36 267 304 2,339 710 Office 326,700SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 Total 412 56 468 67 417 484 1 3,562 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips for Scenarios A and B, shown in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively, were based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development site. Figures 8a and 8b shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figures 5a and 5b) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 9a and 9b shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and B, respectively. Figures 10a and 10b shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenario A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH A Traffic I»mact Analysis of the Lunch-Shnje t Nu Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 14 a 0 No Scale is Figure 7a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) PH A Tragic bnpact Annlysis of the Lynch-Shadyt Nu Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 15 0 0 No Scale me Figure 7b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) PH" A Trn ec Impact Annlysis of the Lynch-Shnje Elm beer: ProperProject Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2016 Page 16 • 0 No Scale 9 djlP� ple rj�J�2 �°' pwo247(40) a I[ Sr�a�4' �10ry��1" d ,a �¢6 S� N C N W (125)17 o (12S)17 UJ 11 SITE 11 s ry (r2jJ3 3J<P bry AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 8a Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) PH A Traffic bnpnct Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: r 29, 2 1 6 November 29, 2006 Page 17 J�egAAe No Scale p R Jo fa , �1P,a (83)11 C�`ti� ` (21)3 y it e N - ,�aJ� jJ �o S•c�a� �1ti o°a Sr s ova, rr r `L J7 e `ter e SI E 11 Srre �'y!r IpR1 r sr .y q `of` 7Lc gay ce °moo• 4j J2I` I1 � ti bI N bN TJ AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) I A f « Figure 8b Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B) PH A Traffic Gn�act Analysis of the Lvnclt Shad�Ebn Road 4846-r-0bn�nct Analysis of the Lynch Shorty t Nu Road 4846-r�Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 18 0 • No Scale 7�feyA'% 2 50(145 420(10 0 �� 9,OAl 11 a 4 V A (221)93 r J2JF e v (30S)11300 PZt, ? Oj 1J CIO v 7 °, n 11 N SITE o~y��No �dv�e � 3l h �n q I A AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) PH A Tra is bn�nct Analysis of the Lynch Shady t Nu Road 4846-1-0Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 19 0 9 -I-- AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) PH A Trn ac hnpnct Analysis of the Lynch -Shady t Nu Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Paige 20 • w1 Signalized kill Intersection No Scale Overall LOS II(E) (D)C % U A 9AA/° G 11 11 od ,y a c, •6 �I r A(A)* i ova 4°' Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" Sim LOS=B(C) I NB & SB - I Thru U �� 11 s�eri � e SITE s d/e Odd Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(B) Signalization AQ *` S n� dale Road (C)C, Yj AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) TJ TQ T/ I A * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement ■—T F _ Figure 10a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) PH A Trn c hnpnct Analysis of the Lvnch-Sltnje t Nu Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 21 Signalized Intersection No Scale Oil Overall LOS B(r) 11 U 9`OA/e 11 G i l 01 J�°yAIP ry �V Slgllah'LCd ".SIIggCStl`d (A)* pia Litersection IniprUVl`ments" LOS=B(C) NB & SB - 1 Thru `G1� �, SrJ�w U 11 moo/ ° �s�er'LJ P`P, (C)B ,r,zeQo Q�I Signalized *� SITE s. Intersection LOS=B(C) U �e �2 C(C) L � )^ r s d'pJ/e� °Ja �J� Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(B) Signalization m SPlin dale Ro a Il AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) TJ P T/ I A ■—T T * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement PHIZ/� AA Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ehn Road Property Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ebn Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 22 0 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development are acceptable and manageable. Assuming suggested improvements, all intersections, will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better- during 2010 build -out conditions during Scenario A and B, respectively. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 9a and 9b. • Route 11/Springdale Road: Traffic signalization will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2010 background and build -out conditions for both Scenario A and B, respectively. • Route 11/Apple Valley Road: An additional northbound and southbound thru lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2010 background and build -out conditions for both Scenario A and B, respectively. • Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -turn lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during Scenario B 2010 background and build -out conditions. PHIZl� A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ehn Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 23 0 • APPENDIX • 0 HCS+ Work Sheets 0 a 11 /30/2006 HCS+'M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 70 89 143 574 307 67 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 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, 11 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 10 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 1 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 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 74 94 151 604 323 71 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 440 595 1066 1066 932 v/c Ratio, X 0.15 0.21 0.25 0.57 0.30 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 24.5 25.0 8.9 11.4 9.3 8.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.6 25.2 9.2 12.1 9.4 8.0 Lane Group LOS C C A 8 A A Approach Delay 25.0 11.5 9.2 Approach LOS C 8 A Intersection Delay 12.5 Xc = 0.45 Intersection LOS 8 Patton Harris Rust Associates • 11 /30/2006 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11 /30/2006 3:22 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 89 166 98 574 653 87 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 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 I A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 12.0 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 10.0 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 1Y= 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 94 175 103 604 687 92 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 440 302 1066 1066 932 v/c Ratio, X 0.19 0.40 0.34 0.57 0.64 0.10 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 24.8 26.4 9.5 11.4 12.3 8.1 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.16 0.22 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 25.0 27.0 10.2 12.1 13.6 8.1 Lane Group LOS C C B B B A Approach Delay 26.3 11.8 13.0 Approach LOS C B B Intersection Delay 14.6 X = 0.57 Intersection LOS B Patton Harris Rust Associates U Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:23 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 11/30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Rdad Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd 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 119 45 173 46 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0 125 47 182 48 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 - -- 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 7 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 7 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 4 3 1 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 182 48 C (m) (veh/h) 1405 771 /C 0.13 0.06 95% queue length 0.45 0.20 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.9 10.0 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.0 Approach LOS -- - A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:23 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 1 1 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Rdad Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd 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 81 12 63 134 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0 85 12 66 141 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 1 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 35 99 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 36 0 104 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 66 140 C (m) (veh/h) 1496 839 /C 0.04 0.17 95% queue length 0.14 0.60 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 10.1 LOS A 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.1 Approach LOS -- - e Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:24 PM Patton Han -is Rust Associates 0 • 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 1 20 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 1 21 0 0 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 4 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 4 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 1 6 C (m) (veh/h) 1610 1008 lc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 8.6 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.6 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:24 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 1 1 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 12 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 2 12 0 0 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- - Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 6.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 2 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 2 2 C (m) (veh/h) 1572 954 lc 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 8.8 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.8 pproach LOS -- -- A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:24 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Age c/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection S ringdale Ro&Rt 11 Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existing Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 13 328 213 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 13 345 0 0 224 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 19 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 20 0 4 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 13 24 C (m) (veh/h) 1332 580 lc 0.01 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.13 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 11.5 LOS A 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.5 Approach LOS -- - 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+T M Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:25 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 1 1 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection S ringdale Ro&Rt 11 Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year Existinq Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 5 323 414 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 5 340 0 0 435 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 9 0 22 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 r 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 5 31 C (m) (veh/h) 1107 511 /c 0.00 0.06 95% queue length 0.01 0.19 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.3 12.5 LOS A 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) - -- 12.5 Approach LOS -- -- 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:46 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 1 1 /30/2006 HCS+'' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 76 96 155 875 1 642 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, LIE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 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 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 1 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP t 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 17776 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 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 I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 80 101 163 921 676 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 440 310 1066 1066 932 v/c Ratio, X 0.16 0.23 0.53 0.86 0.63 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 10.59 Uniform Delay, di 24.6 25.1 11.0 15.5 12.1 8.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.13 0.39 0.21 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.3 1.7 7.5 1.2 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.7 125.3 12.7 23.0 13.4 8.0 Lane Group LOS C C 8 I C B A Approach Delay 25.1 21.5 12.8 Approach LOS C C B Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 I 1 /30/2006 IIntersection Delay I 18.6 I XC = 0.66 I Intersection LOS I 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:46 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 1 t/30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 1 i & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 96 180 106 1162 1164 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 1 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 1 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Na 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 1 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 6.0 G= 58.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 1Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 91.0 Lane Group Capacity, Confro/ Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 101 189 112 1223 1225 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 292 261 199 1273 1154 1009 v/c Ratio, X 0.35 0.72 0.56 0.96 1.06 0.10 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.16 0.16 0.70 10.70 0.64 0.64 Uniform Delay, di 33.7 36.0 21.3 12.4 16.5 6.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.28 0.16 0.47 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 9.6 3.6 16.7 44.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 34.4 45.6 25.0 29.0 60.9 6.4 Lane Group LOS C D C C E A Approach Delay 41.7 28.7 56.9 Approach LOS D C E Patton Harris Rust Associates Ll 11 /30/2006 • Intersection Delay 42.6 X� = 1.07 I Intersection LOS Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:46 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates . • 11 /30/2006 HCS+'' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A Suggested Im 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 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 76 96 155 875 642 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 5 5 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, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 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 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 1 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 28.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 50.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 77 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 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 I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 80 101 163 921 676 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 551 492 378 1914 1914 879 v/c Ratio, X 0.15 0.21 0.43 0.48 0.35 0.09 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.31 0.31 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 Uniform Delay, d1 22.4 22.8 11.7 12.1 11.1 9.3 Progression Factor, PF 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 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 22.5 23.0 12.5 12.3 11.2 9.4 Lane Group LOS C C B B TJ A Approach Delay 22.8 12.3 11.0 Approach LOS C B B Patton Harris Rust Associates 11 /30/2006 0 Intersection Delay I 12.8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved X� = 0.38 I Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:47 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • . 1 1 /30/2006 HCS+'°' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements 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 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 96 180 106 1162 1164 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 1 5 5 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, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 9.0 G= 49.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 IY= 0 1 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 101 189 112 1223 1225 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 531 475 247 1998 1688 1346 v/c Ratio, X 0.19 0.40 0.45 0.61 0.73 0.07 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.85 Uniform Delay, di 26.0 27.8 14.9 13.7 20.2 1.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.29 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.5 1.3 0.6 1.6 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.2 28.4 16.2 14.2 21.8 1.2 Lane Group LOS C C B B C A Approach Delay 1 27.6 14.4 20.2 Patton Harris Rust Associates 11 /30/2006 Approach LOS C 8 C Intersection Delay 18.3 XC = 0.66 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:47 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11/30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Rdad Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 10/20/2006 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd 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 129 45 173 50 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0 135 47 182 52 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 -- -- 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 7 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 7 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 182 48 C (m) (veh/h) 1393 762 lC 0.13 0.06 95% queue length 0.45 0.20 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 10.0 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 10.0 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:47 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Isite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Rdad Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd 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 88 12 63 145 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 92 12 66 152 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 1 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 35 99 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 36 0 104 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 66 140 C (m) (veh/h) 1488 827 lc 0.04 0.17 95% queue length 0.14 0.61 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.5 10.2 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) - -- 10.2 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:47 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 1 1 /SUlGUUO TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shad Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 1 20 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 1 21 0 0 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 1 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 4 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 4 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 1 6 C (m) (veh/h) 1610 1008 lc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 8.6 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.6 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:48 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 1 1 /JU/LUUO TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln urisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Back round Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 12 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 2 12 0 0 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 -- 3 1 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 2 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 2 2 C (m) (veh/h) 1572 954 /C 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 8.8 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.8 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright© 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:48 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Springdale Ro&Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 13 607 593 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 13 638 0 1 0 624 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 19 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 20 0 4 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 13 24 C (m) (veh/h) 946 266 lc 0.01 0.09 95% queue length 0.04 0.29 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 19.9 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 19.9 Approach LOS - -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:48 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 1 1 /JU/2U116 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Springdale Ro&Rt 11 Age c/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 5 973 920 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 5 1024 0 0 968 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 - -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 6.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 9 0 22 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 5 31 C (m) (veh/h) 698 185 lC 0.01 0.17 95% queue length 0.02 0.59 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.2 28.3 LOS B D Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 28.3 Approach LOS -- -- D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:48 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 19 4 1 13 633 1 605 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 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, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 1 0 0 1 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 IY= G= G= IY= G= 63.0 G= G= G= 7776 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 24 680 646 Lane Group Capacity, c 444 2158 1194 v/c Ratio, X 0.05 0.32 0.54 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 8.5 10.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 10.11 0.14 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.5 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.6 8.6 10.9 Lane Group LOS C A B Approach Delay 28.6 8.6 10.9 C A B Patton Harris Rust Associates Approach LOS Intersection Delay 10.1 XC = 0.40 Intersection LOS 8 • • 11 /30/2006 SHORT REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Volume and Timinci Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume (vph) 9 21 5 1029 993 15 % Heavy Vehicles 0 2 2 0 0 0 P H F 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed/Actuated (P/A) A A A A A A Startup Lost Time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking/Grade/Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking/Hour Bus Stops/Hour 0 0 0 Minimum Pedestrian Time 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 23.0 G= 0.0 IY= G= G= IY= G= 65.0 G= G= IY= G= IY= Y= 6 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis hrs = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay,and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Adjusted Flow Rate 10 1088 1061 Lane Group Capacity 412 2241 1232 v/c Ratio 0.02 0.49 0.86 Green Ratio 0.23 0.65 0.65 Uniform Delay di 29.8 8.9 13.9 Delay Factor k 0.11 0.11 0.39 Incremental Delay d2 0.0 0.2 6.4 PF Factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control Delay 29.8 9.1 20.4 Lane Group LOS C A C Approach Delay 29.8 9.1 20.4 Approach LOS C A C Intersection Delay 14.7 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:49 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 1 1 /30/2006 HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Renaissance Dr & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements 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 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane Group L TR LTR L TR LT R Volume, V (vph) 69 0 12 2 0 11 26 700 5 30 816 149 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 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, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 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 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 13.0 G= G= G= 45.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= 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 73 13 14 27 742 891 157 Lane Group Capacity, c 616 580 235 233 1807 1635 808 v/c Ratio, X 0.12 0.02 0.06 0.12 0.41 0.54 0.19 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.50 10.50 Uniform Delay, di 18.8 18.2 33.2 11.9 14.2 15.5 12.5 Progression Factor, PF 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 0.15 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 18.9 18.2 33.3 12.2 14.3 15.8 12.6 Lane Group LOS B B C B B B B Approach Delay 18.8 33.3 14.2 15.4 Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11 /30/2006 Approach LOS B C B B Intersection Delay 15.2 X� = 0.40 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:53 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Renaissance Dr & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements 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 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane Group L TR LTR L TR LT R Volume, V (vph) 413 0 73 6 0 36 55 1174 4 23 1087 301 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 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, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 112.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 G= 13.0 G= G= IG= 45.0 G= G= G= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 6 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 435 77 44 58 1240 1168 317 Lane Group Capacity, c 578 580 232 140 1808 1615 808 v/c Ratio, X 0.75 0.13 0.19 0.41 0.69 0.72 0.39 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.37 0.37 0.14 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Uniform Delay, d1 23.9 19.0 33.9 14.2 17.1 17.6 14.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.31 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.25 0.28 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 5.5 0.1 0.4 2.0 1.1 1.6 0.3 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 19.1 34.3 16.2 18.2 19.3 14.3 Lane Group LOS C B C B B 8 B Approach Delay 27.9 34.3 18.1 18.2 Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 1 1/30/2006 Approach LOS C C 8 e Intersection Delay 19.9 Xc = 0.71 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:53 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 76 131 171 900 695 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 5 5 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, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 1 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 1 G_=__J G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 1 y IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 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 I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 80 138 180 947 732 1 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 492 440 270 1066 1066 932 v/c Ratio, X 0.16 0.31 0.67 0.89 0.69 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.28 0.28 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 24.6 25.7 12.5 15.9 12.8 8.0 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.24 0.41 0.26 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.4 6.1 9.4 1.9 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.7 26.1 18.7 25.3 14.6 8.0 Lane Group LOS C C B C 8 A Approach Delay 25.6 24.2 14.0 Approach LOS C C B Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 1 1 /30/2006 Intersection Delay I 20.5 I XC = 0.70 I Intersection LOS I C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:53 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 1 1 /30/2006 HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Year Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 96 254 203 1308 1274 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 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, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 63.0 G= 0.0 G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C 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 101 267 214 1377 1341 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 295 264 83 1267 1267 1108 v/c Ratio, X 0.34 1.01 2.58 1.09 1.06 0.09 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.17 0.17 0.70 10.70 0.70 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 33.1 37.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 4.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 58.3 744.1 52.3 42.3 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 33.8 95.8 757.6 65.8 55.8 4.4 Lane Group LOS C F F E E A Approach Delay 78.8 158.9 52.2 Approach LOS E F D Patton Harris Rust Associates . 0 11 /30/2006 IIntersection Delay I 105.0 I XC = 2.29 I Intersection LOS I F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:54 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #BSuggested Improvements 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 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 76 131 1 171 900 695 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 12.0 112.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP f 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 9.0 G= 49.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB I WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 80 138 180 947 732 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 531 475 404 1998 1688 1346 v/c Ratio, X 0.15 0.29 0.45 0.47 0.43 0.06 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 10.49 0.85 Uniform Delay, di 25.7 26.8 11.1 12.2 16.5 1.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 10.11 10.11 10.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 25.8 27.2 11.9 12.3 16.7 1.2 Lane Group LOS C I I C B B B A Approach Delay 26.7 12.3 15.2 Patton Harris Rust Associates . 0 11 /30/2006 Approach LOS C 8 B Intersection Delay 14.8 X = 0.47 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:54 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates . 11 /30/2006 HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements 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 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 96 254 203 1308 1 1274 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 1 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, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 1 12.0 112.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 30.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 10.0 G= 48.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 IY= 0 1 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 101 267 214 1377 1341 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 531 475 251 1998 1654 1330 v/c Ratio, X 0.19 0.56 0.85 0.69 0.81 0.07 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.30 0.30 0.58 0.58 0.48 0.84 Uniform Delay, di 26.0 29.5 25.5 14.7 22.1 1.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.16 0.39 0.26 0.35 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 1.5 23.6 1.0 3.2 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.2 31.0 49.0 15.7 25.3 1.4 Lane Group LOS C C D 8 C A Approach Delay 29.7 20.2 23.7 Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 1 1 /30/2006 Approach LOS C C C Intersection Delay 22.7 c = 0.80 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:54 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 1 I /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Rdad Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd 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 164 45 173 66 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0 172 47 182 69 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided FIT 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 7 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 7 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 182 48 C (m) (veh/h) 1350 720 lc 0.13 0.07 95% queue length 0.47 0.21 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.1 10.4 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- - 10.4 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Rdad Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd 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 162 12 63 242 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 170 12 66 254 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 - -- 2 -- - Median Type Undivided FIT 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 35 99 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 36 0 104 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 66 140 C (m) (veh/h) 1393 709 lC 0.05 0.20 95% queue length 0.15 0.73 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 11.3 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.3 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • . 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 1 20 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 1 21 0 0 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 4 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 4 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 1 6 C (m) (veh/h) 1610 1008 lc 0.00 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 8.6 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 8.6 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Back round Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 12 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 2 12 0 0 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 2 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 2 2 C (m) (veh/h) 1572 954 lc 0.00 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 8.8 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh) - -- 8.8 Approach LOS -- -- A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 1 1 /JU%LUUO TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Springdale Ro&Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 13 633 605 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 13 666 0 0 636 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 L -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 19 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 20 0 4 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 13 24 C (m) (veh/h) 936 255 We 0.01 0.09 95% queue length 0.04 0.31 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.9 20.6 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 20.6 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:55 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 1 1 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Age c/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Ro&Rt 11 Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Project Descri tion Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 5 1029 933 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 5 1083 0 0 982 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 21 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 9 0 22 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 5 31 C (m) (veh/h) 690 177 /C 0.01 0.18 95% queue length 0.02 0.62 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.3 29.6 LOS B D Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 29.6 Approach LOS -- -- D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:56 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+'M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 19 4 12 633 605 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 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, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 112.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 24 679 646 Lane Group Capacity, c 444 2160 1194 v/c Ratio, X 0.05 0.31 0.54 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 8.5 10.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 10.14 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.5 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.6 8.6 10.9 Lane Group LOS C A B Approach Delay 28.6 8.6 10.9 Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 1 1 /30/2006 Approach LOS C A 8 Intersection Delay 10.1 XC = 0.40 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:56 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Background Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 9 21 5 1029 933 15 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 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, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 12.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 1 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 1 0 0 1 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Y= Y= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 10 1088 998 Lane Group Capacity, c 448 2172 1194 We Ratio, X 0.02 0.50 0.84 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 10.0 14.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.37 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.2 5.3 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.3 10.2 19.8 Lane Group LOS C B B Approach Delay 28.3 10.2 19.8 Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 1 1 /30/2006 Approach LOS C 8 8 Intersection Delay 14.8 XC = 0.60 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:56 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates . . 11 /30/2006 HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 93 113 278 875 642 196 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 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, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 11.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 1 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 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 56.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 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 I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 98 119 293 921 676 206 Lane Group Capacity, c 433 387 351 1126 1126 985 v/c Ratio, X 0.23 0.31 0.83 0.82 0.60 0.21 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.24 0.24 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Uniform Delay, di 27.2 27.8 13.4 13.1 10.3 7.4 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.37 0.36 0.19 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.5 15.8 4.9 0.9 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 27.5 128.2 129.2 1 17.9 11.2 7.5 Lane Group LOS C C C I B B A Approach Delay 27.9 20.7 10.3 Approach LOS C C B Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 1 1 /30/2006 • Intersection Delay 17.4 XC = 0.69 I Intersection LOS Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:50 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #A 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 221 305 126 1162 1164 114 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 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 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 1 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= 0.0 IY= G= 0.0 G= G= 8.0 G= 58.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 233 321 133 1223 1225 120 Lane Group Capacity, c 389 348 216 1195 1050 918 v/c Ratio, X 0.60 0.92 0.62 1.02 1.17 0.13 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.22 0.66 0.66 0.58 0.58 Uniform Delay, di 35.0 38.2 22.8 17.0 21.0 9.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.19 0.44 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 2.6 29.4 5.2 32.1 85.5 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 37.6 67.5 27.9 49.1 106.5 9.6 Lane Group LOS D E C D F A Approach Delay 54.9 47.1 97.9 Approach LOS D D F Patton Harris Rust Associates 11 /30/2006 s Intersection Delay 69.4 X� = 1.16 I Intersection LOS E Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:50 PM Patton Hanis Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 93 113 278 875 642 196 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 5 5 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, li 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 15.0 G= 37.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 98 98 293 921 676 185 Lane Group Capacity, c 511 827 491 1990 1416 1214 v/c Ratio, X 0.19 0.12 0.60 0.46 0.48 0.15 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.52 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 24.1 10.9 11.2 11.0 19.4 2.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 2.0 0.2 0.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.3 11.0 13.2 11.1 19.7 2.8 Lane Group LOS C B B B B A Approach Delay 17.6 11.6 16.1 B B B Patton Harris Rust Associates • 1 1 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 13.8 Xc = 0.52 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:50 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements 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 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 221 305 126 1162 1 1164 114 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 2 5 5 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, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 15.0 G= 37.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 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 233 232 133 1223 1225 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 511 827 378 1990 1416 1214 v/c Ratio, X 0.46 0.28 0.35 0.61 0.87 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.52 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.77 Uniform Delay, di 26.2 12.0 14.3 12.4 24.2 2.6 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 0.39 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.6 5.9 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 26.9 12.2 14.8 13.0 30.1 2.6 Lane Group LOS C B B B C A Approach Delay 19.6 13.2 28.0 B B C Patton Harris Rust Associates . M 11 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 20.4 Xc = 0.70 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11 /30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 1 1 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Apple Valley Road Intersection Orientation: East-West Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T Volume veh/h 129 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 135 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 - Median Type RT Channelized Lanes 0 1 Configuration Upstream Signal 0 Minor Street Northbound Movement 7 8 L T Volume veh/h 18 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 18 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach N Storage 1 RT Channelized Lanes 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 4 Lane Configuration LT (veh/h) 442 C (m) (veh/h) 1296 lc 0.34 95% queue length 1.53 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 LOS A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- Approach LOS -- -- Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Road Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions orth/South Street: Sha, tudv Period (hrs): 0.25 Southbound HCS+TM Version 5.2 Southbound 10 1 11 1 12 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Road Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd 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 88 25 103 145 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0 92 26 108 152 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 -- -- 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 118 349 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 124 0 367 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 108 491 C (m) (veh/h) 1470 780 lc 0.07 0.63 95% queue length 0.24 4.53 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 17.1 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 17.1 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 1 20 82 329 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 1 21 86 346 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 1 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 4 0 2 11 0 45 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 4 0 2 11 0 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela , Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 1 346 58 6 C (m) (veh/h) 1610 1478 649 323 lc 0.00 0.23 0.09 0.02 95% queue length 0.00 0.91 0.29 0.06 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 8.2 11.1 16.4 LOS A A B C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.1 16.4 Approach LOS -- -- B C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 12 13 54 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 2 12 13 56 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 0 0 83 0 333 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 2 0 0 87 0 350 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 2 56 437 2 C (m) (veh/h) 1572 1583 984 395 lC 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.11 2.32 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 7.4 11.5 14.2 LOS A A B B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 11.5 14.2 Approach LOS -- -- B B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:51 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Agency/Co. PHR+A _ Jurisdiction Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudv Period hrs : 0.25 ringdale Ro&Rt 11 ,derick County, VA 10 Buildout Condit Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 75 607 593 30 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 78 638 0 0 624 31 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 - - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Signal 0 6 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 22 12 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 23 0 12 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 78 35 C (m) (veh/h) 928 229 lc 0.08 0.15 95% queue length 0.27 0.53 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.2 23.5 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) - -- 23.5 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:52 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Age c/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Year Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #A East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudv Period hrs : 0.25 ,ngdale Ro&Rt 11 Jerick County, VA 0 Buildout Conditions Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 15 973 920 18 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 15 1024 0 0 968 18 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 - -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 30 84 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 31 0 88 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach Y N Storage 1 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 15 119 C (m) (veh/h) 696 262 lc 0.02 0.45 95% queue length 0.07 2.22 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.3 29.7 LOS B D Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 29.7 Approach LOS -- -- D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:52 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • I 1 /30/2006 HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 22 12 75 607 593 30 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 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, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= 177 6 IY= 0 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 36 718 656 Lane Group Capacity, c 435 2015 1189 v/c Ratio, X 0.08 0.36 0.55 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 28.7 8.8 10.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.15 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.6 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.8 8.9 11.1 Lane Group LOS C A B Approach Delay 28.8 8.9 11.1 C A B Patton Harris Rust Associates 11/30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 10.4 1 Xc = 0.42 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:52 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 11 /30/2006 HCS+'' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #A Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 30 84 1 15 973 920 18 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 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, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 99 1040 987 Lane Group Capacity, c 419 2153 1194 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.48 0.83 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 10.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, d1 29.9 9.8 14.3 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.36 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 10.2 4.9 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 30.2 10.0 19.2 Lane Group LOS C B B Approach Delay 30.2 10.0 19.2 C B B Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 1 1 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 15.2 XC = 0.66 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:52 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 1 1 /30/2006 HCS+' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Renaissance Dr& Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane Group L TR LTR L TR LT R Volume, V (vph) 92 0 53 2 0 11 32 700 5 30 816 416 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 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 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 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 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 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 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 20.0 IY= G= 12.0 G= G= I G= 10.0 G= 36.0 G= IY= G= 0 Y= 6 Y= Y= IY= 0 Y= 6 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 90.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 97 56 7 34 742 891 438 Lane Group Capacity, c 401 563 213 310 1847 1304 1113 v/c Ratio, X 0.24 0.10 0.03 0.11 0.40 0.68 0.39 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.22 0.36 0.13 0.51 0.51 0.40 0.69 Uniform Delay, d1 28.8 19.4 33.9 13.1 13.5 22.3 16.0 Progression Factor, PF 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 0.25 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.5 0.2 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 2Pd 19.5 34.0 13.2 13.7 23.8 6.2 Lane Group LOS 8 I C B B C A Approach Delay 25.6 34.0 13.7 18.0 C C B B Patton Harris Rust Associates 1 1 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 17.1 Xc = 0.44 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:56 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 11 /30/2006 HCS+'' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Renaissance Dr & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project I D Scenario #B Suggested Improvements 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 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 Lane Group L TR LTR L TR LT R Volume, V (vph) 580 0 80 6 0 36 97 1174 4 23 1087 357 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 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 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 11.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 10.0 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 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 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only EW Perm 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 24.7 1 G= 10.5 G= G= G= 5.0 G= 33.1 G= G= 775 1Y= 6 Y= Y 1Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 85.3 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 611 84 38 102 1240 1168 376 Lane Group Capacity, c 678 653 196 191 1615 1204 1208 v/c Ratio, X 0.90 0.13 0.19 0.53 0.77 0.97 0.31 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.41 0.41 0.12 0.45 0.45 0.39 0.75 Uniform Delay, di 22.3 15.5 33.6 18.5 19.9 25.6 3.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.42 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.32 0.48 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 15.2 0.1 0.5 2.9 2.3 19.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 37.5 15.6 34.1 21.4 22.2 44.7 3.7 Lane Group LOS D B C C C D A Approach Delay 34.9 34.1 22.1 34.7 C C C C Patton Harris Rust Associates 11 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 30.1 XC = 1.01 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:57 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11 /30/2006 HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 87 134 171 905 797 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 5 5 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, 11 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 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 1 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 1 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 56.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= 776 IY= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 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 92 141 180 953 839 77 Lane Group Capacity, c 433 387 235 1126 1126 985 v/c Ratio, X 0.21 0.36 0.77 0.85 0.75 0.08 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.24 0.24 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Uniform Delay, di 27.1 28.2 12.3 13.6 12.0 6.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.32 0.38 0.30 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.6 14.0 6.1 2.7 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 27.3 28.8 26.3 19.7 14.7 6.8 Lane Group LOS C C C B B A Approach Delay 28.2 20.8 14.1 Approach LOS C C B Patton Harris Rust Associates • 11 /30/2006 • Intersection Delay 18.8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved X� = 0.71 1 Intersection LOS HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:57 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+'°" DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project ID Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Scenario #B 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 1 1 1 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 180 274 203 1349 1291 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 1 5 5 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, li 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 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 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G JG= 56.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= IY= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 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 189 288 214 1420 1359 99 Lane Group Capacity, c 433 387 83 1126 1126 985 v/c Ratio, X 0.44 0.74 2.58 1.26 1.21 0.10 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.24 0.24 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Uniform Delay, d1 28.8 31.4 17.0 17.0 17.0 6.9 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.30 0.50 0.50 1 0.50 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 7.6 744.1 124.8 101.7 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.5 39.0 761.1 141.8 118.7 6.9 Lane Group LOS C D F F F A Approach Delay 35.2 222.9 111.1 Approach LOS D F F Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 11 /30/2006 IIntersection Delay I 152.1 I XC = 2.07 I Intersection LOS I F Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:57 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 11 /30/2006 HCS+'°' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 11 & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements 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 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 87 134 171 905 797 73 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 5 5 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 13.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N D 1 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 f 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 15.0 G= 37.0 G= 0.0 1 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 1Y= 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 92 120 180 953 839 56 Lane Group Capacity, c 511 827 433 1990 1416 1214 v/c Ratio, X 0.18 0.15 0.42 0.48 0.59 0.05 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.29 0.52 0.58 0.58 0.41 0.77 Uniform Delay, d1 24.0 111.1 11.2 111.1 20.6 12.5 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 24.2 11.2 11.9 11.3 21.3 2.6 Lane Group LOS C B B B C A Approach Delay 16.8 11.4 20.1 B B C Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 1 1 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 15.4 1 X� = 0.50 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:57 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 11 /30/2006 HCS+T°' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Rt 1 i & Apple Valley Rd Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements 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 1 2 2 1 Lane Group L R L T T R Volume, V (vph) 180 274 203 1349 1291 94 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 2 2 1 2 5 5 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, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 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 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 20 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 1 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm 1 Buses Stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, GP 3.2 1 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only NS Perm 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= 0.0 G= G= 20.0 G= 53.0 G= 0.0 G= Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= 0 Y= 1Y= 0 Y= 6 Y= 0 Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 110.0 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 189 199 214 1420 1359 78 Lane Group Capacity, c 402 734 390 2286 1660 1209 v/c Ratio, X 0.47 0.27 0.55 0.62 0.82 0.06 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.23 0.46 0.66 0.66 0.48 0.76 Uniform Delay, di 36.8 18.1 24.5 10.6 24.4 3.2 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.36 0.11 Incremental Delay, d2 0.9 0.2 1.6 0.5 3.4 0.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 37.6 18.3 26.1 11.1 27.8 3.3 Lane Group LOS D B C B C A Approach Delay 27.7 13.1 26.4 C B C Patton Harris Rust Associates . 11 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 20.3 X� = 0.74 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:58 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Rdad Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions i 'ro'ect Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B ast/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd ntersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 ✓ehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound dovement 1 2 3 4 5 L T R L T ✓olume veh/h 164 127 173 66 leak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 -lourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 0 172 133 182 69 'ercent Heavy Vehicles 12 -- -- 2 -- Jledian Type Undivided �T Channelized 0 -anes 0 1 0 0 1 configuration TR LT J stream Signal 0 0 IAinor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 18 53 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 18 0 55 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 FIT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 182 73 C (m) (veh/h) 1256 616 lC 0.14 0.12 95% queue length 0.51 0.40 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.4 11.6 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh) - -- 11.6 Approach LOS -- -- B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:58 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates . • 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Apple Valley Road Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Apple Valley Road North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd 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 162 25 63 242 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 0 170 26 66 254 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 12 -- -- 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 118 203 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 124 0 213 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 4 2 3 4 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 1 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 66 337 C (m) (veh/h) 1377 652 lc 0.05 0.52 95% queue length 0.15 2.98 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 16.3 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) - -- 16.3 Approach LOS -- -- C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:58 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 . I 1 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln/Site Driveway North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 1 20 21 82 9 1 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 1 21 22 86 9 1 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 4 0 2 3 0 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 4 0 2 3 0 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration I LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 1 86 29 6 C (m) (veh/h) 1610 1566 993 772 lC 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.01 95% queue length 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.02 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 7.4 8.7 9.7 LOS A A A A Approach Delay (s/veh) -- - 8.7 9.7 Approach LOS -- - A A Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:58 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 1 1 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Shady Elm Rd&Soldiers Rest Ln Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Soldiers Rest Ln North/South Street: Shady Elm Rd Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 12 3 13 35 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 2 12 3 13 36 2 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1-- 2 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 2 0 0 21 0 188 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 2 0 0 22 0 197 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 2 13 219 2 C (m) (veh/h) 1572 1603 1047 634 lc 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.00 95% queue length 0.00 0.02 0.79 0.01 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.3 7.3 9.3 10.7 LOS A A A B Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.3 10.7 Approach LOS -- - A B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:59 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 1 1 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency/Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudv Period hrs : 0.25 ringdale Ro&Rt 11 .derick County, VA 10 Buildout Conditions Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 16 639 647 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 16 672 0 0 681 9 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 - - 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 19 25 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 20 0 26 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach y N Storage 1 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 16 46 C (m) (veh/h) 900 499 /C 0.02 0.09 95% queue length 0.05 0.30 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.1 18.5 LOS A C Approach Delay (s/veh) -- - 18.5 pproach LOS -- - C Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:59 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates • • 11 /30/2006 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information ISite Information Analyst PHR+A Intersection Springdale Ro&Rt 11 Agency/Co. PHR+A Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Date Performed 1012012006 Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Project Description Lynch -Shady Elm Road -Scenario #B East/West Street: Springdale Road North/South Street: Rt 11 Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h 26 1071 1000 15 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 27 1127 0 0 1052 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 3 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT T TR U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 24 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h) 9 0 25 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 3 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach Y N Storage 1 1 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR (veh/h) 27 34 C (m) (veh/h) 649 299 lc 0.04 0.11 95% queue length 0.13 0.38 Control Delay (s/veh) 10.8 31.6 LOS 8 D Approach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 31.6 Approach LOS -- - D Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 3:59 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 0 1 1 /30/2006 HCS+'M DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, N1 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 19 25 16 639 647 9 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, h 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 1 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 112.0 112.0 1 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, NB 0 1 0 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= Y= 6 IY= 0 Y= Y= JY= 6 Y= Y= 1Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SIB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted Flow Rate, v 46 690 690 Lane Group Capacity, c 425 2151 1195 v/c Ratio, X 0.11 0.32 0.58 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, di 28.9 8.6 10.8 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.17 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 0.1 0.7 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 29.0 8.7 11.5 Lane Group LOS C A B Approach Delay 29.0 8.7 11.5 C A B Patton Harris Rust Associates • 0 11 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 10.7 1 X� = 0.44 Intersection LOS 8 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 4:00 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 . 11 /30/2006 HCS+- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst PHR+A Agency or Co. PHR+A Date Performed 1112112006 Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection Springdale Rd & Route 11 Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction Frederick County, VA Analysis Year 2010 Buildout Conditions Lynch -Shady Elm Road - Project ID Scenario #B Suggested Improvements Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of Lanes, Ni 0 0 0 2 1 0 Lane Group LR LT TR Volume, V (vph) 9 24 26 1071 1000 15 % Heavy Vehicles, %HV 0 2 2 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 10.95 Pretimed (P) or Actuated (A) A A A A A A Start-up Lost Time, li 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of Effective Green, e 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival Type, AT 3 3 3 Unit Extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering/Metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial Unmet Demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR Volumes 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking Maneuvers, Nm Buses Stopping, Ns 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Min. Time for Pedestrians, Gp 3.2 3.2 1 3.2 Phasing EB Only 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= 0.0 G= G= G= 63.0 G= G= G= 776 1Y= 0 Y= Y= IY= 6 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 100.0 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 13 1154 1069 Lane Group Capacity, c 437 2131 1194 v/c Ratio, X 0.03 0.54 0.90 Total Green Ratio, g/C 0.25 0.63 0.63 Uniform Delay, di 28.3 10.4 15.7 Progression Factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 Delay Calibration, k 0.11 0.14 0.42 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 10.3 9.0 Initial Queue Delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay 28.4 10.7 24.8 Lane Group LOS C B C Approach Delay 28.4 10.7 24.8 C B C Patton Harris Rust Associates 0 • 11 /30/2006 Approach LOS Intersection Delay 17.5 1 X� = 0.65 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 11/30/2006 4:00 PM Patton Harris Rust Associates E • Traffic Counts 0 0 Intersection: E-W: SPRINGDALE RD Weather Dry File Name N-S: ROUTE 11 Count ByjjjP Input By JJP Location JWINCHESTER,VA Count Date #######II 15 Minute EB: SPRINGDALE RD WB: NB: ROUTE I I SB: ROUTE 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 7 60 0 67 0 17 0 17 89 7:00 7:15 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 55 0 56 0 27 1 28 90 7:15 7:30 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 77 0 79 0 46 3 49 132 7:30 7:45 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 3 88 0 91 0 51 2 53 150 7:45 8:00 6 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 4 96 0 100 0 60 3 63 170 8:00 8:15 5 0 l 6 0 0 0 0 4 67 0 71 0 56 1 57 134 8:15 8:30 3 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 56 0 58 0 54 4 58 122 8:30 8:45 5 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 1 49 0 50 0 47 2 49 1 105 8:45 A.M. Total 36 0 10 46 0 0 0 0 24 548 0 572 0 358 16 374 992 A.M. Total 16:00 2 0 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 70 0 104 2 106 184 16:00 16:15 5 0 9 14 0 0 0 0 0 66 0 66 0 92 3 95 175 16:15 16:30 2 0 3 5 0 0 0 0 2 71 0 73 0 118 5 123 201 16:30 16:45 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 2 84 0 86 0 97 1 98 188 16:45 17:00 3 0 7 10 0 0 0 0 l 89 0 90 0 98 2 100 200 17:00 17:15 4 0 7 11 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 79 0 101 7 108 198 17:15 17:30 3 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 68 0 113 2 115 188 17:30 17:45 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 59 0 59 0 93 1 94 159 17:45 P.M. Tota] 20 0 43 63 0 0 0 0 5 586 0 591 0 816 23 839 1493 P.M. Tota] 1 Hour EB: SPRINGDALE RD WB: NB: ROUTE 1 l SB: ROUTE I I I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thor Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 17 0 4 21 0 0 0 0 13 280 0 293 0 141 6 147 461 7:00 7:15 19 0 4 23 0 0 0 0 10 316 0 326 0 184 9 193 542 7:15 7:30 19 0 4 23 0 0 0 0 13 328 0 341 0 213 9 222 586 7:30 7:45 18 0 7 25 0 0 0 0 13 307 0 320 0 221 10 231 576 7:45 8:00 19 0 6 25 0 0 0 0 11 268 0 279 0 217 10 227 531 8:00 16:00 9 0 22 31 0 0 0 0 4 291 0 295 0 411 11 422 748 16:00 16:15 10 0 23 33 0 0 0 0 5 310 0 315 0 405 11 416 764 16:15 16:30 9 0 21 30 0 0 0 0 5 323 0 328 0 414 15 429 787 16:30 16:45 10 0 20 30 0 0 0 0 3 320 0 323 0 409 12 421 774 16:45 17:00 11 0 21 32 0 0 0 0 1 295 0 296 0 405 12 417 745 17:00 1 Hour EB: SPRINGDALE RD WB: NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE 11 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 19 0 4 23 0 0 0 0 13 328 0 341 0 213 9 222 586 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.82 PHF = PHF = 0.85 PHF = 0.88 0.86 A.M. Peak 16:30 9 0 21 30 0 0 0 0 5 323 0 328 0 414 15 429 787 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.68 PHF = PHF = 0.91 PHF = 0.87 0.98 P.M. Peak 0 • Intersection: E-W: SPRINGDALE RD Weather Dry File Name 1/0/1900 N-S: ROUTE I I Count ByjJJP Input By JJP Location I WINCH ESTER, VA Count Datel mmuti" ROUTE I I A.M. PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 1 222 (49%) 347 9 213 0 0 �— 22 (4%) 19 —t t— 0 23 0 —' '— 0 '— 0 4 �— 0 (0%) 0 —' SPRINGDALE RD I I r 13 328 0 217I (48%) 341 I 1 ROUTE l l ROUTE l I P.M. PEAK HOUR 16:30 - 17:30 1 429 (48%) 332 15 4114 0 0 20 (3%) 9 % 0 30 —. 0 0 0 21 i— 0 (0%) 0 —� SPRINGDALERD .y * r 5 323 0 435 1 (48%) 328 t ROUTE 11 Distribution To/From Percent East 0.00% West 3.51% North 48.45 % South 48.04% 100% Intersection: E-W: ISOLDIERS REST LN Weather RAIN File Namel N-S: I SHADY ELM RD Count B JJP Input By JJP Location IWINCHESTER,VA Count Date ######## 15 Minute EB: SOLDIERS REST LN WB: NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: SHADY ELM RD 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 1 0 l 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 3 0 3 12 7:00 7:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 2 0 2 6 7:15 7:30 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 7 7:30 7:45 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 3 0 3 11 7:45 8:00 1 0 l 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 2 0 2 12 8:00 8:15 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 1 0 l 5 8:15 8:30 0 0 1 l 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 3 1 4 9 8:30 8:45 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 4 8 8:45 A.M. Total 7 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 2 36 0 38 0 19 1 20 70 A.M. Total 16:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 9 1 10 12 16:00 16:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 8 8 16:15 16:30 0 0 1 l 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 5 1 6 10 16:30 16:45 1 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 1 7 14 16:45 17:00 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 11 0 11 14 17:00 17:15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 10 1 11 13 17:15 17:30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 8 0 8 12 17:30 17:45 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 5 0 5 8 17:45 P.M. Total 2 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 4 17 0 21 0 62 4 66 9l P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: SOLDIERS REST LN WB: NO: SHADY ELM RD SB: SHADY ELM RD 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Tarn Right Total Left TIwu Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 0 9 0 9 36 7:00 7:15 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 21 0 22 0 8 0 8 36 7:15 7:30 5 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 0 7 0 7 35 7:30 7:45 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 0 9 1 10 37 7:45 8:00 3 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 1 16 0 17 0 10 1 11 34 8:00 16:00 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 Il 0 28 3 31 44 16:00 16:15 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 11 0 30 2 32 46 16:15 16:30 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 11 0 13 0 32 3 35 51 16:30 16:45 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 12 0 14 0 35 2 37 53 16:45 17:00 l 0 l 2 0 0 0 0 3 7 0 10 0 34 1 35 47 17:00 1 Hour EB: SOLDIERS REST LN WB: NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: SHADY ELM RD Period N,S, Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W 7:45 4 0 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 21 0 9 1 10 37 EPeak A.M. Peak PHF = 0.75 PHF = PHF = 0.66 PHF = 0.63 0.77 16A'; 2 0 0 2 00 0 0 2 12 0 14 0 35 2 37 53P.M. Peak PHF = 0.50 PHF = PHF = 0.58 PHF = 0.84 0.95 • • Intersection: E-W: SOLDIERS REST LN Weather RAIN File Name l 1/0/1900 N-S: SHADY ELM RD Count Byljjp Input By JJP Location I WINCH ESTER, VA Count Datel ######## SHADY ELM RD A.M. PEAK HOUR I 7:45 - 8:45 1 10 (46%) 24 I 9 0 .1 1 L 0 �— 2 (11 %) 4 — t L— 0 6 0 0 0 2 —, 0 (0%) 0 SOLDIERS REST LN F 11 20 0 111 (43%) 211 SHADY ELM RD SHADY ELM RD P.M. PEAK HOUR 16:45 - 17:45 1 37 (48%) 14 2 35 0 J 1 L 4 (6%) 2 L_ 0 2 0 0 0 0 —j �— 0 (0%) 0 —� SOLDIERS REST LN I 1 F 2 12 0 35 1 (46%) 14 1 SHADY ELM RD Distribution To/From Percent East 0.00% West 8.24% North 47.03% South 44.73% 100 % CJ • Intersection: E-W: APPLE VALLEY RD Weather RAIN File Name N-S: SHADY ELM RD Count Byjjjp Input By JJP Location WINCHESTER,VA Count Date ######## 15 Minute EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: APPLE VALLEY RD NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 14 3 17 31 9 0 40 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 63 7:00 7:15 0 27 6 33 22 10 0 32 3 0 6 9 0 0 0 0 74 7:15 7:30 0 35 7 42 36 5 0 41 1 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 92 7:30 7:45 0 33 19 52 64 17 0 81 1 0 10 11 0 0 0 0 144 7:45 8:00 0 24 13 37 51 14 0 65 2 0 15 17 0 0 0 0 119 8:00 8:15 0 22 2 24 19 17 0 36 1 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 66 8:15 8:30 0 17 1 18 14 23 0 37 1 0 9 10 0 0 0 0 65 8:30 8:45 0 22 2 24 21 8 0 29 5 0 13 18 0 0 0 0 71 8:45 A.M. Total 0 194 53 247 258 103 0 361 14 0 72 86 0 0 0 0 694 A.M. Total 16:00 0 21 3 24 7 29 0 36 2 0 29 31 0 0 0 0 91 16:00 16:15 0 16 4 20 11 29 0 40 7 0 28 35 0 0 0 0 95 16:15 16:30 0 15 3 18 16 25 0 41 4 0 31 35 0 0 0 0 94 16:30 16:45 0 16 4 20 23 28 0 51 6 0 29 35 0 0 0 0 106 16:45 17:00 0 16 5 21 11 40 0 51 18 0 21 39 0 0 0 0 111 17:00 17:15 0 23 2 25 11 33 0 44 6 0 27 33 0 0 0 0 102 17:15 17:30 0 26 1 27 18 33 0 51 5 0 22 27 0 0 0 0 105 17:30 17:45 0 18 2 20 11 24 0 35 3 0 16 19 0 0 0 0 74 17:45 P.M. Total 0 151 24 175 108 241 0 349 51 0 203 254 0 0 0 0 778 P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: APPLE VALLEY RD NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: 1 Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 0 109 35 144 153 41 0 194 5 0 30 35 0 0 0 0 373 7:00 7:15 0 119 45 164 173 46 0 219 7 0 39 46 0 0 0 0 429 7:15 7:30 0 114 41 155 170 53 0 223 5 0 38 43 0 0 0 0 421 7:30 7:45 0 96 35 131 148 71 0 219 5 0 39 44 0 0 0 0 394 7:45 8:00 0 85 18 103 105 62 0 167 9 0 42 51 0 0 0 0 321 8:00 16:00 0 68 14 82 57 111 0 168 19 0 117 136 0 0 0 0 386 16:00 16:15 0 63 16 79 61 122 0 183 35 0 109 144 0 0 0 0 406 16:15 16:30 0 70 14 84 61 126 0 187 34 0 108 142 0 0 0 0 413 16:30 16:45 0 81 12 93 63 134 0 197 35 0 99 134 0 0 0 0 424 16:45 17:00 0 83 10 93 51 130 0 181 32 0 86 118 0 0 0 0 392 17:00 1 Hour EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: APPLE VALLEY RD NB: SHADY ELM RD SB: Period N,S, Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W 6Peak 7:15 0 119 45 164 173 46 0 219 7 0 39 46 0 0 0 0 429 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.79 PHF = 0.68 PHF = 0.68 PHF = 0.74 16:45 0 8l 12 93 63 134 0 197 35 0 99 134 0 0 0 0 424P.M. Peak PHF = 0.86 PHF = 0.97 PHF = 0.86 PHF = 0.95 0 • Intersection: E-W: I APPLE VALLEY RD Weather RAIN Pile Name 1/0/1900 N-S: SHADY ELM RD Count ByjJJP Input By JJP Location WINCH ESTER,VA Count Date ###tt#### 0 A.M. PEAK HOUR 7:15 - 8:15 0 (0%) 0 0 0 0 LAPPLE VALLEY RD 53 t (25%) 0 0 164 119 46 '— 219 45 —j �— 173 (44%) 158 —' APPLE VALLEY RD F 7 0 39 2181 (31%) 461 SHADY ELM RD 0 P.M. PEAK HOUR 16:45 - 17:45 i 0 (0%) 0 0 0 I0 L APPLE VALLEY RD — 169 (31 %) 0 t t_ 0 93 —. 81 —. .— 134 197 12 i— 63 (44%) 180 —� APPLE VALLEY RD I0 35 99 75 1 (25%) 1341 SHADY ELM RD Distribution To/From Percent East 44.20% West 28.09% North 0.00% South 27.71 % 100 % Intersection: E-W: APPLE VALLEY RD WeatherlDry File Namel N-S: ROUTE 1 I Count Byljjp Input By JJP Location WINCHESTER,VA Count Date ######N## 15 Minute EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: NB: ROUTE I I SB: ROUTE 11 15 Min. Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 30 0 36 66 0 0 0 0 25 89 0 114 0 75 12 87 267 7:00 7:15 16 0 32 48 0 0 0 0 18 106 0 124 0 76 15 91 263 7:15 7:30 18 0 25 43 0 0 0 0 32 144 0 176 0 74 17 91 310 7:30 7:45 15 0 23 38 0 0 0 0 38 148 0 186 0 77 22 99 323 7:45 8:00 20 0 22 42 0 0 0 0 40 144 0 184 0 73 17 90 316 8:00 8:15 17 0 19 36 0 0 0 0 33 138 0 171 0 83 ll 94 301 8:15 8:30 11 0 18 29 0 0 0 0 29 135 0 164 0 86 16 102 295 8:30 8:45 12 0 22 34 0 0 0 0 38 149 0 187 0 94 19 113 334 8:45 A.M. Total 139 0 197 336 0 0 0 0 253 1053 0 1306 0 638 129 767 2409 A.M. Total I6:00 23 0 25 48 0 0 0 0 19 144 0 163 0 179 16 195 406 16:00 16:15 25 0 33 58 0 0 0 0 19 160 0 179 0 161 17 178 415 16:15 16:30 17 0 34 51 0 0 0 0 25 154 0 179 0 155 19 174 404 16:30 16:45 16 0 35 51 0 0 0 0 22 144 0 166 0 158 21 179 396 16:45 17:00 22 0 43 65 0 0 0 0 24 143 0 167 0 189 24 213 445 17:00 17:15 34 0 54 88 0 0 0 0 27 133 0 160 0 151 23 174 422 17:15 17:30 27 0 36 63 0 0 0 0 24 132 0 156 0 164 16 180 399 17:30 17:45 25 0 25 50 0 0 0 0 17 109 0 126 0 125 12 137 313 17:45 P.M. Total 189 0 285 474 0 0 0 0 177 1 l 19 0 1296 0 1282 148 1430 3200F P.M. Total 1 Hour EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: NB: ROUTE 11 SB: ROUTE l I I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:00 79 0 116 195 0 0 0 0 113 487 0 600 0 302 66 368 1163 7:00 7:15 69 0 102 171 0 0 0 0 128 542 0 670 0 300 71 371 1212 7:15 7:30 70 0 89 159 0 0 0 0 143 574 0 717 0 307 67 374 1250 7:30 7:45 63 0 82 145 0 0 0 0 140 565 0 705 0 319 66 385 1235 7:45 8:00 60 0 81 141 0 0 0 0 140 566 0 706 0 336 63 399 1246 8:00 16:00 81 0 127 208 0 0 0 0 85 602 0 687 0 653 73 726 1621 16:00 16:15 80 0 145 225 0 0 0 0 90 601 0 691 0 663 81 744 1660 16:15 16:30 89 0 166 255 0 0 0 0 98 574 0 672 0 653 87 740 1667 16:30 16:45 99 0 168 267 0 0 0 0 97 552 0 649 0 662 84 746 1662 16:45 17:00 108 0 158 266 0 0 0 0 92 517 0 609 0 629 75 704 1579 17:00 1 Hour EB: APPLE VALLEY RD WB: NB: ROUTE 1 I SB: ROUTE I l I Hour Period N,S, Period Begining Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total Left Thru Right Total E & W Begining 7:30 70 0 89 159 0 0 0 0 143 574 0 717 0 307 67 374 1250 7:30 A.M. Peak PHF = 0.92 PHF = PHF = 0.96 PHF = 0.94 0.97 A.M. Peak 16:30 89 0 166 255 0 0 0 0 98 574 0 672 0 653 87 740 1667 16:30 P.M. Peak PHF = 0.72 PHF = PHF = 0.94 PHF = 0.87 0.94 Leak i Intersection: E-W: APPLE VALLEY RD WeatherlDry File Namel 1/0/1900 N-S: ROUTE I I Count By JJP Input By JJP Location WINCH ESTER, VA Count Datel #######i# ROUTE I I A.M. PEAK HOUR 7:30 - 8:30 1 374 (41 %) 644 67 307 0 0 �— 210 (15 %) 70 —t t-- 0 159 0 0 0 89 _1 r— 0 (0%) 0 —' APPLE VALLEY RD } F 143 574 0 396I (45%) 717I 1 ROUTE I I ROUTE I P.M. PEAK HOUR 16:30 - 17:30 1740 (42%) 663 87 653 I0 �— 185 (13%) 89 —1 L_ 0 255 —. 0 0 0 166 --- 0 (0%) 0 —� APPLE VALLEY RD + 98 574 0 819 l (45%) 672 t ROUTE I Distribution To/From Percent East 0.00% West 13.98% North 41.40 % South 44.621/. I00% 4t 0 II. IMPACT ANALYSIS Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. R+A 117 East Piccadilly Street PH Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 Memorandum 493 To: Mike Ruddy Organization/Company: Frederick County From: Ron MislowskkN\AN Date: February 1, 2008'j Project Name/Subject: Artillery Business Park - With so many questions coming up about the Traffic Impact Analysis, we thought we would simplify the study to identify only the Artillery Business Park impacts. As you know the background trips in the current TIA include many approved but very future developments. There are: Kernstown Commons 16,851 TPD Goss Pointe 19,130 TPD Volvo Kemstown 782 TPD Russell Stephens City 15,910 TPD Villages at Artrip 6,828 TPD Renaissance Commercial 8,282 TPD While these projects were included in the analysis, it is probable that only two maybe three will be fully developed by the year 2010. The supplement attached predicts the impact of the Artillery generated trips of 5,950 on the existing traffic volumes. We believe this is a more realistic description of the impacts that our development will have in the near term. Again, two scenarios are studied. One with the east/west connector, and one without. As previously, with the east/west connector, our impacts are minimal. We show a signal required at Rt. 11, but we understand that Renaissance is responsible for that installation. Without the connector, a signal is required at Apple Valley and Shady Elm and we have recognized that in our cash proffer of $250,000. Sometimes, the scope of our project gets lost in the many other trips recognized in the study. We hope this additional analysis helps in your review. Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. R+A 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 PH T 540.667.2139 F 540,665.0493 Memorandum 493 To: Mike Ruddy Organization/Company: Frederick County From: Ron Mislows Date: February 1, 200 Project Name/Subject: Artillery Business Park With so many questions coming up about the Traffic Impact Analysis, we thought we would simplify the study to identify only the Artillery Business Park impacts. As you know the background trips in the current TIA include many approved but very future developments. There are: Kernstown Commons 16,851 TPD Cross Pointe 19,130 TPD Volvo Kernstown 782 TPD Russell Stephens City 15,910 TPD Villages at Artrip 6,828 TPD Renaissance Commercial 8,282 TPD While these projects were included in the analysis, it is probable that only two maybe three will be fully developed by the year 2010. The supplement attached predicts the impact of the Artillery generated trips of 5,950 on the existing traffic volumes. We believe this is a more realistic description of the impacts that our development will have in the near term. Again, two scenarios are studied. One with the east/west connector, and one without. As previously, with the east/west connector, our impacts are minimal. We show a signal required at Rt. 11, but we understand that Renaissance is responsible for that installation. Without the connector, a signal is required at Apple Valley and Shady Elm and we have recognized that in our cash proffer of $250,000. Sometimes, the scope of our project gets lost in the many other trips recognized in the study. We hope this additional analysis helps in your review. F C ' 1 200a Patton Harris Ruso Associates, Inc End neersSurveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PH10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 R n 1 1 Williamsport, Maryland 21795 Phone:301.223.4010 Fax: 301.223.6831 To: Organization/Company From Date: Project Name/Subject: PHR+A Project file Number: Lloyd Ingram VDOT — Edinburg Residency Michael Glickman, PE is Memorandum January 31, 2008 Supplemental Analysis to: An Addendum to A Tra{fic Isnbact Anal Lis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Prot�et•ty, dated September 12, 2007 14846-1-1 For Informational purposes, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this supplemental analysis to: An Addendum to: A Tra& Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Pro ei , by PHR+A, dated September 12, 2007. The purpose of this document is to present the traffic impacts associated with the build -out of the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Development upon the existing traffic volumes. Therefore, growth rates and "other developments" are omitted from this analysis in an effort to differentiate the direct impacts of this project from those created by the background traffic. All other methodology remains consistent with the aforementioned September 12, 2007 memorandum. Accordingly, PHR+A has provided analysis for both build -out scenarios included in the original report. The proposed development trips, as shown in Table 1, were added to the existing conditions traffic volumes to determine the "existing plus development" build -out traffic volumes. Figures 1a and 1b show the "existing plus development" build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 2a and 2b show the corresponding lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All Synchro levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table 1* Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road T,•;n f`_nnoratinn .Qnmmnry Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 Total 669 109 779 1 127 677 805 5,950 • uop= v. uum —".U. —, w..... o.,.,..�..,..... Page 1 of 6 0 0 No Scale d PyAA�e ZO(145) O(103) aaI 0 ¢% 9AA�e 11 c'raa�l ��, gyp oaa as 4° �F ti aA b ,A es�Laa �� i (221)93 r (305)113� 11 N SITE L 11 o~ 8dale r& J!92 12 M � 3l q AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A Figure 9a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of die Lynch -Shady Elm Road 4846-1-0Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 19 0 0 4- AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 9b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ehn Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 20 0 • w Signalized Oil Intersection No Scale Overall LOS B(E) (b)c� � r A 9AA�e G 11 11 a�fe Oa o• a eyA'��r "(A) * ,a Signalized "Suggested �k `G1 cVDa Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) NB & SB -1 Thru s0 e w. rs 9* e#! 11 SITE s ale Signalized, "Suggested �dJC Intersection Improvements" LOS B(B) Signahzation S �°�dale Road (C)C AAM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) �T TP+/ \ .r Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 10a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) PH"A+ A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch Shady Elm Road ProperProject Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, e 06 21 Page 21 0 Signalized Intersection No Scale 1 Overall LOS B(r) (v)C-.JI, U 9O.oje L 11 11 .l� o� a d/f yAle �a Signalized "Suggested A(A)* ooa Intersection Improvements" roa F4 LOS B(C) NB & SB - 1 Thru U spa (C,B �J,Q 11 tt■r1—� �r s�l�ed� 9J� Signalized SITE Intersection ' leek, 11 �e 3`2 Yeka ice (C)C --A �. - � U ray 11 �- S 7, �pae� �J6, Signalized` "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS B(B) Sign alization 3pnn��dale t _ (C)O r T AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) IfT TT+n * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 22 • 0 CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development are acceptable and manageable. Assuming suggested improvements, all intersections, will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions during Scenario A and B, respectively. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 9a and 9b. • Route 11/Springdale Road: Traffic signalization will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2010 background and build -out conditions for both Scenario A and B, respectively. • Route 11/Apple Valle: An additional northbound and southbound thru lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during 2010 background and build -out conditions for both Scenario A and B, respectively. • Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -turn lane will be required to maintain acceptable levels of service during Scenario B 2010 background and build -out conditions. PH A Traffic bnpact Analysis of the Lyttch-Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 23 0 0 APPENDIX • 0 September 2007 Arlilleg Business Center INTRODUCTION The 58.7 acre Shady Elm Property is comprised of a single tax map parcel identified as 75-A-1. The Property is located adjacent to Shady Ehn Road just South of Route 37 with access provided to Route 11 by Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road to the South (See Figure 9). Currently, the subject acreage is zoned RA (Rural Areas) but bounded to the North and West by property zoned M1 (Light Industrial) with property zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) bounding the project site to the East (See Figure 2). The Property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Recently, Frederick County approved revised boundaries for the Urban Development Area (UDA). Origuially, the subject property was located within the UDA. With the adoption of the revised UDA boundary, however, the Property is now located outside of the UDA. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies that areas located outside of the UDA but within the SWSA boundary are intended for commercial and industrial uses. This application seeks to rezone the Property from RA (Rural Areas) to the M1 (Light Industrial) zoning district in an effort to integrate the site with the surrounding area, particularly those properties along Shady Ehm Road to the north. Rezoning the Property from its current residential/agricultural designation to the light industrial zoning classification will provide for an increasingly viable industrial node that accommodates the County's future land use and transportation goals while bolstering the County's tax base. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan (EFCLRLUP) identifies industrial as the intended land use designation for the Property and the surrounding area to die North. The site is also located within d-ie boundary of die Route 11 South Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan does not identify an intended land use for die Property but instead simply indicates its current RA zoning designation. As such, the EFCLRLUP can be considered the guiding document regarding the untended land use for tie Property. The proposed M1 (Light Industrial) zoning designation would be in keepuig with the intended land use identified by the Comprehensive Plan. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION Currently, access to Route 11 is provided by Shady Elm Road's connection to Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road connecting Shady Ehn Road with Route 11 to the South. The majority of project generated trips will travel north through the existing industrial area fronting Shady Ehn Road. The adopted Eastern Road Plan includes a collector road located just South of the subject property that will connect Shady Ehn Road with Route 11. This future connection would allow conunercial and industrial traffic to avoid using Apple Valley and Springdale Roads as a means of access to Route 11 from Shady Ehn Road. The recent Master Development Plan for the Renassiance Commercial Center Property which is located east of the railroad tracks from the subject site has provided the alignment for this planned roadway from Route 11 to the railroad. The Applicant has proffered a 50 foot right of way dedication along a portion the southern property line and the construction of a two lane section of the collector for a minimum distance of 1,100 feet to 1 of 4 • September 2007 • Artillery Business Center implement the roadway on the west side of the railroad. Said road construction would be triggered by the construction of a bridge to cross the railroad. If the bridge is not constructed within 10 years of rezoning approval, the Applicant has the option to contribute $200,000.00 in place of constructing the roadway. The Eastern Road Plan also calls for Shady Ehn Road to be a major collector. The Applicant has proffered sufficient right of way to along the Property's frontage with Shady Ehn Road to allow for this improvement. A traffic impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7`" Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 5,950 vehicle trips per day (VI'D). The TIA uses two scenarios to analyze the impact of the proposed rezoning on the subject area street system. Scenario A assumes access is provided by the existing road network with Apple Valley Road providing access to the North and Springdale Road providing access to the South. Using this scenario, 80 percent of the trips would utilize die northern connection where Shady Elm Road meets Apple Valley Road with die remaining 20 percent of the trips utilizing the Springdale Road — Route 11 intersection. The identified improvements needed to keep die transportation system operating at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better include die following: - Additional northbound and southbound through lanes for Route 11 at Apple Valley Road. - Signalization of Springdale Road — Route 11 Intersection - Signalization of Apple Valley Road — Shady Elm Road Intersection Scenario B assumes access provided by the future connection of Shady Elm Road directly to Route 11 as intended by the Easter Road Plan. This scenario will serve as the ultiinate transportation plan for the subject site as the roadway is currently being planned and provided for on the nearby Renaissance Commercial Center. Under Scenario B, die same improvements found under Scenario A would be needed where Route 11 intersects Apple Valley Road and Springdale Road. In addition, a signal would be needed at die intersection of die new collector road and Route 11. All improvements to this intersection with the exception of an additional northbound through lane are provided by the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center MDP. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially hinder development activities. The Property does not contain any areas of steep slopes, stream channels, flood plain, or wetlands. Verification of wedand data would be provided through a wetland delineation which would be required and completed during the master plan phase of the development process. The General Soil Map of die Soil Survey of Frederick County, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Popli-mento-Oaklet soil association. Such geology is prevalent on land located West of Interstate 81 and accommodates commercial and industrial development as evidenced by development on surrounding parcels. Drainage leaves the site to the East where it meets a drainage divide which directs drainage approximately 3,000 feet South into Opequon Creek. A lack of steep slopes on die 58.7 acre site result in little to no issues associated with drainage (See F'igTnc 3). 2 of 4 September 2007 Artillery Business Center The site is underlaid by karst geology. During design of on site unprovements, proffered geotechnicial studies will be completed to ascertain if there are areas of concern. The final design will reflect measures to address any critical geologic features discovered. SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Water service can be provided to the Property by two different scenarios. The first option is to connect to the existing 8" water main on Prosperity Drive, east of the site. The second option is to connect to the existing 12" water main in the Dawson Industrial Park. Assuming a water consumption rate of 500 gpd/acre, water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer service would be provided to the site by connection via force main to tap into the existing 6" force main at the Dawson Industrial Park. Sewer flows would be roughly equivalent to the projected water consumption of 29,350 gallons per day. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this project. Development Type Area (Square ft) Waste Generation Total Waste (Ibs) Light Industrial/Warehouse 1,022,790 .01 lbs/s .ft. 10,228 TOTAL 10,228lbs/day Solid waste would be transferred by private carrier and deposited at the County landfill. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES It is noted that the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies two older structures within the vicinity of the site (See figure 4). One of the structures, identified as "The House off Route 651" (#34-1042), is located on the Property but is not listed as potentially significant. .Figure 5 includes an up to date photo of the house. The adjacent property to the South includes the Carbaugh House (#34-1040). .Figure 6 depicts a current photo of the Carbaugh House which is located approximately 1/3 mile south of the subject Property. The National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia indicates that the subject site is located well outside of any core battlefield areas. Figure 7 and Figure 8 depict the Property location with respect to the First Kernstown and Second Kernstown Battlefield. As labeled on each of the battlefield exhibits, the land use along Shady Ehm Road has been modified substantially since the 1991 study. As existing development separates the Property from the identified core battlefield for First and Second Kernstown, development of the site would not pose any detrimental impacts to viewsheds or interpretative quality of the battlefields. 3 of 4 September 2007 M Artillery Business Center IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The industrial uses proposed as with this rezoning results in a net positive fiscal impact for Frederick County. 4 of 4 • 0 REZONING APPLICATION FORM FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA To be completed by Planning Staff Fee Amount Paid $ Zoning Amendment Number Date Received PC Hearing Date 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. Applicants: Name: Patton Harris Rust & Associates Telephone: (540) 667.2139 Address: 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 2. Property Owner (if different than above) Name: Venture I of Winchester, LLC Telephone: 540.247.4974 Address: 118 Armstrong Place Winchester, Virginia 22602 3. Contact person(s) if other than above Name: Patrick Sowers Telephone: (540) 667.2139 4. Checklist: Check the following items that have been included with this application. Location Map X Agency Comments X Plat X Fees X Deed of property X Impact Analysis Statement X Verification of taxes paid X Proffer Statement X 11 0 S. 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: Paige Manuel Mark Lynch James Lynch Randy Kremer 6. A) Current Use of the Property: Residential/Agriculture B) Proposed Use of the Property: Light Industrial 7. Adjoining Property: SEE ATTACHED. 8. Location: The property is located at (give exact location based on nearest road and distance from nearest intersection, using road names and route numbers). The Property is located East and adjacent to Shady Elm Road approximately 1.500 feet South of Route 37. 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 of intensity scenario for the proposed Zoning District as described on page 9 of the application package. 9. Parcel Identification/Location: Parcel Identification Number: 75-A-1 Magisterial: Fire Service: Rescue Service Back Creek Stephens City Stephens City Districts High School: Middle School: Elementary School Sherando James Wood Orchard View 10. Zoning Change: List the acreage included in each new zoning category being requested. Acres Current Zoning Zoning Requested 58.7 RA M1 58.7 Total acreage to be rezoned 2 0 • 11. The following information should be provided according to the type of rezoning proposed: Number of Units Proposed Single Family Home Towi-Ahome Multi -Family Non -Residential Lots Mobile Home Hotel Rooms Office Retail Restaurant 12. Signature: Square Footage of Proposed Uses Service Station Manufacturing Flex - Warehouse Other 511,395 511,395 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 best of my (our) knowledge. Applicant(s) Date Z. Z-7 3 • Patton Harris Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. PRA1 17 East Piccadilly Street H Winchester, Virginia 22601 T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Mike Ruddy Organization/Company: Frederick County Planning From: Patrick Sowers Date: September 21, 2007 Project Name/Subject: Artillery Business Park Please find attached the following documents regarding the Artillery Business Park Rezoning Application: 1. Notarized Proffer Statement dated 9/21/07 2. Revised GDP dated 9/21 /07 3. TIA Addendum which analyzes industrial uses at a 0.4 Floor Area Ratio 4. Revised Application which incorporates the proposed industrial square footage. 5. Revised narrative for the impact analysis statement. These documents are intended to replace the materials contained within the rezoning application as previously submitted to your office. Please feel free to call with any questions that you may have. Thank you. PRS July 2007 Artillery Business Center INTRODUCTION The 58.7 acre Shady Elie Property is comprised of a single tax map parcel identified as 75-A-1. The Property is located adjacent to Shady Elm Road just South of Route 37 with access provided to Route 11 by Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road to the South (See Figure 1). Currently, the subject acreage is zoned RA (Rural Areas) but bounded to the North and West by property zoned M1 (Light Industrial) with property zoned B3 (Industrial Transition) bounduig the project site to the East (See Figure 2). The Property is located wholly within the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA). Recently, Frederick County approved revised boundaries for the Urban Development Area (UDA). Originally, the subject property was located within the UDA. With the adoption of the revised UDA boundary, however, the Property is now located outside of the UDA. The Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies that areas located outside of the UDA but within the SWSA boundary are intended for commercial and industrial uses. This application seeks to rezone the Property from RA (Rural Areas) to the M1 (Light Industrial) zoning district. in an effort to integrate the site with die surrounding area, particularly those properties along Shady Elm Road to the north. Rezoning the Property fiom its current residential/agricultural designation to the light industrial zoning classification will provide for an increasingly viable industrial node drat accommodates the County's future land use goals while bolstering the County's tax base. COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan (EFCLRLUP) identifies industrial as the intended land use designation for the Property and the surrounding area to the North. The site is also located within the boundary of the Route 11 South Land Use Plan. This small area land use plan does not identify an intended land use for the Property but instead simply indicates its current RA zoning designation. As such, the EFCLRLUP can be considered t11e guiding document regarding the intended land use for the Property. The proposed M1 (Light Industrial) zoning designation would be in keeping with the intended land use identified by the Comprehensive Plan. ACCESS AND TRANSPORTATION Currently, access to Route 11 is provided by Shady Elm Road's connection to Apple Valley Road to the North and Springdale Road connecting Shady Elm Road with Route 11 to the South. The majority of project generated trips will travel north through the existing industrial area fronting Shady Elm Road. The adopted Eastern Road Plan includes a collector road located just South of the subject property that will connect Shady Elm Road with Route 11. This future connection would allow commercial and industrial traffic to avoid using Apple Valley and Springdale Roads as a means of access to Route 11 from Shady Elm Road. The Applicant has proffered a 50 foot right of way dedication along the southern property line and the construction of a two lane section of the collector roadway from Shady Ehm Road to the eastern property boundary to implement the Eastern Road Plan. Said road construction would be triggered by the construction of a bridge to cross the railroad tracks which bound the Property to the East. The Eastern Road Plan also calls for Shady Elm Road to be 1 of 3 FIGURE 1 l-cchr f •'-ti r r r PhOJECT SFTE I.i 4 ?I',- h i fl • 4. M 2 01 r • j, i t i s i ' r {ti G� T 1 - oSHADY ELM Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc ZONING CONTEXT 117 E. Picadilly St. V6nchester, Virginia 22601 VOICE: (54{l) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 FR£DER/CK COUN7YNRG/NG9 FIGURE 2 July 2007 Artillery Business Center a major collector. The Applicant has proffered sufficient right of way to along the Property's frontage with Shady Ehn Road to provide for this improvement. A traffic Impact analysis (TIA) was prepared for this application using composite data collected from other studies in the area as well as actual traffic counts. Using traffic generation figures from the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual, 7`h Edition, the TIA projects that the proposed development will produce 3,562 vehicle trips per day (VPD). The TIA uses two scenarios to analyze the impact of the proposed rezoning on the subject area street system. Both scenarios indicate that background traffic alone necessitates the same improvements as the combination of background traffic and project build out. Scenario A assumes access is provided by the existing road network with Apple Valley Road providing access to the North and Springdale Road providing access to the South. Using this scenario, 80 percent of the trips would utilize the northern connection where Shady Ehn Road meets Apple Valley Road with the remaining 20 percent of the trips utilizing the Springdale Road — Route 11 intersection. The identified improvements needed to keep the transportation system operating at a Level of Service (LOS) C or better include the following: - Additional northbound and southbound through lanes for Route 11 at Apple Valley Road. - Signalization of Springdale Road — Route 11 Intersection. Scenario B assumes access provided by the future connection of Shady Elm Road directly to Route 11 as intended by the Easter Road Plan. While this tmay be the ultimate transportation system utilized for access to the site, it is very likely that such a connection will not a occur for some time until issues regarding additional right of way and a railroad crossing south of the Property are addressed. Under Scenario B, the same improvements found under Scenario A would be needed where Route 11 intersects Apple Valley Road and Springdale Road. In addition, a signal would be needed at the intersection of the new collector road and Route 11. ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES The site does not contain conditions that would preclude or substantially finder development activities. The Property does not contain any areas of steep slopes, stream channels, flood plain, or wetlands. Verification of wetland data would be provided through a wetland delineation which would be required and completed during the master plan phase of the development process. The General Soil Map of the Soil Survey of Frederick Count, Virginia indicates that the soils comprising the subject parcels fall under the Frederick-Poplimento-Oaklet soil association. Such geology is prevalent on land located West of Interstate 81 and accommodates commercial and industrial development as evidenced by development on surrounding parcels. Drainage leaves the site to the East where it meets a drainage divide which directs drainage approximately 3,000 feet South into Opequon Creek. A lack of steep slopes on the 58.7 acre site result in little to no issues associated with drainage (See .Figure 3). The site is underlaid by karst geology. During design of on site improvements, proffered geotechnicial studies will be completed to ascertain if there are areas of concern. The final design will reflect measures to address any critical geologic features discovered. 2 of 3 • • FIGURE 3 July 2007 0 0 Artillery Business Center SEWAGE CONVEYANCE AND WATER SUPPLY Water service can be provided to the Property by two different scenarios. The first option is to connect to the existing 8" water main on Prosperity Drive, east of die site. The second option is to connect to the existing 12" water main in the Dawson Industrial Park. Assuming a water consumption rate of 500 gpd/acre, water demand for the site would be approximately 29,350 gallons per day. Sewer service would be provided to the site by connection via force main to tap into the existing 6" force main at the Dawson Industrial Park. Sewer flows would be roughly equivalent to the projected water consumption of 29,350 gallons per day. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITIES The following table shows a projection of solid waste generation as a part of this project. Development Type Area (Square ft Waste Generation Total Waste lbs Office Park 320,000 .05 lbs/s .ft. 16,000 Warehouse 320,000 .01 lbs/sq ft. 3,200 TOTAL 19,2001bs/day Solid waste would be transferred by private carrier and deposited at die County landfill. HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES It is noted that the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey identifies two older structures within the vicinity of the site (See figure 4). One of the structures, identified as "The House off Route 651" (#34-1042), is located on the Property but is not listed as potentially significant. Figure S in an up to date photo of the house. The adjacent property to the South includes the Carbaugh House (#34-1040). Figure 6 depicts a current photo of the Carbaugh House which is located approximately 1/3 mile south of the subject Property. The National Park Service's Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia indicates that the subject site is located well outside of any cote battlefield areas. .Pigaue 7 and .Figure S depict the Property location with respect to the First Kernstown and Second Kernstown Battlefield. As labeled on each of the battlefield exhibits, the land use along Shady Eh-n Road has been modified substantially since the 1991 study. As existing development separates the Property from the identified core battlefield for First and Second Kernstown, development of the site would not pose any detrimental impacts to viewsheds or interpretative quality of the battlefields. IMPACT ON COMMUNITY FACILITIES The industrial uses proposed as with this rezoning results in a net positive fiscal impact for Frederick County. 3 of 1144 w i 1 ��1 t'1� •�� '� •'�'y — .vim e�t =7 r; 4 � �.r • �.* ' `C, it ,af' i � r� f,Ri� a v . e f _ ry N' } FUSE OF T 1.. : + '+���;d+r "j- 34c, 1042 Safi E r Cam . fUGH H 4''r347-1040 ��"(j�, ���.�2 �_ �� �,A+,�It.,�. ` - f '•fie a-� •i /t',y� ` aN SHADY ELM Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates o l HISTORIC STRUCTURES 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601 O (b VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493 p V Q fRWERICK COUMY, WRCINA FIGURE 4 I a'A .................. Ll k I mlo V-4 . . . . . . . . . . . 40 FIGURE 8 Patton Harris Rusot Associates, Inc • Addendum Conclusion Page 2of6 Based upon Synchro results, the following details the "suggested improvements" for all intersections located within the study area. Note: Funding for these improvements has yet to be identified. Scenaizo A: • Shady Elm Road/Apple Valley Road: Signalization will be required. • Shady Elm Road/Soldiers Rest Lane/Site-Driveway: one right -turn lane in northbound direction and 4"' leg in westbound direction will be required. Scena?zo B: • Route 11 /Renaissance Drivewav/Site-Driveway: This is a new intersection. Signalization will be required. NOTE: Intersections, where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement, must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects Patton Harris Ruse Associates, Inc Addendum Page 3of6 jy-.0 No Scale `fo �� 46(134) Ire 575(139) d,. SITE ,y b may e rl r7 J INQ, 61 23J2o�� -I- ¢o1 AM Peak Hour(PM Peak Hour) DailyAverage Figure 1a Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions 1 Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Farris RAW Associates, Inc 0 Addendum No Scale Page 4of6 Average Daily Trips , LF FFH igure lb Scenario B "Existing plus Development" Build -out Traffic Conditions Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Farris RJR Associates, Inc No Scale Signalized I "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(C) Signalization >C(C) 0 a '__ *` yeti d\ SITE "Suggested Improvements" WB - 4th Leg NB - 1 Right 4D Site�n C�C�* 5•cro -,C' 10 Addendum Page 5of6 U Q Signalized / Intersection 'i■ Overall LOS A(C) Q AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour a° nenntec Critical Left -turn Movement I 1 1 1 1. A — �_ ul - Figure 2a Scenario A "Existing plus Development" Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris IRus Associates, Inc Addendum Page 6of6 401 Signalized Intersection erall LOS A(B) No Scale r A(A)* „a t }� 4e e SITE Signalized "New Intersection" * Intersection EB & WB -New Leg LOS=A(B) afs 4pekayee ` i/ A(A) �Ld AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour '" Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement C7 Figure 2b Scenario B "Existing plus Development" Build -out Lane Geometry and LOS Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Engi neers.SSurveyors. H P L + � Rust & Associates, Inc Planners. Landscape Architects. 10212 Governor Lane Blvd, Suite 1007 Williamsport, Maryland 21795 Phone: 301.223.4010 Fax: 301.223.6831 To: Organization/Company: From: Date: Project Name/Subject: PHR+A Project file Number: Lloyd Ingram VDOT — Edinburg Residency Michael Glickman Addendum September 12, 2007 An Addendum to: A Tra& Impact Anal yrir of the Lvnch Sl�ady Elm Road b e a, dated November 29, 2006 14846-1-1 Per your request, Patton Harris Rust & Associates (PHR+A) has prepared this document as an addendum to: A Tra(ftc Impact Analyrir of Me Lvnch-Shady Elm Road Promh, by PHR+A, dated November 29, 2006. The purpose of tlus document is to present a revised traffic impact analysis due to modifications in proposed land use and change in FAR (Floor Area Ratio) from 0.25 to 0.4. The revised development includes 511,395 square feet of Light Industrial and 511,395 square feet of warehousing. PHR+A has provided traffic analysis for 2010 build -out conditions. All methodology and existing & background conditions remain consistent with the aforementioned November 29, 2006 report. 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route 11 and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR+A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site -driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site -driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 7"' Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trig Generation RePo�t, PHR+A has provided Tables 1a thru 1f to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 1 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 2a and 2b show the 2010 background ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 3a and 3b show the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Page 1 of 18 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 2 of 18 Table la 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Report dated February, 2006) 310 Hotel 120 rooms 31 20 51 38 33 71 701 444 Theater w/ Mat. 16 screens 11 3 14 129 194 324 2,453 820 Retail 85,500 SF 87 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 853 Conven. Mart w\pumps 4,250 SF 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 912 Drive-in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 43 80 80 160 895 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H-T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 27 17 44 509 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 Total 477 407 884 856 882 1,738 18,310 *Total Pass By: 25 25 50 62 62 124 1,459 Total "New Trips": 1 452 382 833 794 820 1,614 16,851 *Pass By trips are fifteen percent (15%) of total retail development and Convenience Mart Table lb 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse/Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 890 847 1737 19,130 Table lc 2010 "Other Developments": Volvo Car Delarship Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total 84) Car Sales 23,446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 1 27 43 70 782 Engineers 9 Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 3 of 18 Table ld 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property Trio Generation Summary In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single -Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse/Condo 123 units 10 51 61 48 24 71 1,070 820 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9,098 Total 1 588 316 904 658 995 1,653 15,910 Table le 2010 "Other Developments": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trin Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bay A 210 Single -Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single -Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Trips 84 244 328 340 214 554 6,935 Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Trips" 83 243 326 1 325 198 523 6,828 Table if 2010 "Other Developments": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trin Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ADT Code Land Use Amount In Out Total In Out Total 110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 7,546 Total 175 82 257 1 369 486 855 8282 Engineers 9 Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 4 of 18 No Scale N� A Q e 437 t N P SITE C Renaissance Comm. Center . e, Volvo elarsh' 0- p -"z comaWnrealth Ct Crosspointe Center Artrip Development Figure 1 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments Engineers * Surveyors 9 Planners * Landscape Architects I,J C� Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 5 of 18 No Scale 5 h SO(145) r� 173(63) q y oa a D II \F A 4 W N L la, � e (96)76`%I (I80)96 s% y -: dam; q ti SITE ry1N tiry L 11 SAS �q yq"> O R°ad r9 C2 fJl Jy �A _ y�v q AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) nT TP-4-A Figure 2a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers 9 Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 6of18 90 (airy AIe 162J ,Qa (j2Jp69� to �ryi No Scale �6(242) 3(G3) a ♦aai Lq�1 (96)76ft.%1 (254)131 �es� fa 7 r ry1 h1 y 11 � o o ((2J J v � 0 D1� . as �4`c ^',,° • as ♦ Sraa� yry `coo — Sic s ova rrs Lao e r SITE sre%` 11 �Lr�2 dr�ais ?Det`ahce � n1 �'Y °41 ay q b~ Cb ti a 01 °y y 39 I G9 p (3 (i3�(0)o �1 z(6) (9 boa (2 Jly a + b 3 2 q AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 2b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects CJ Patton Harris Rest & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 7 of 18 w q Signalized Intersection No Scale Overall LOS B(D) U d�PyAA�e �V.. �V *� sAAf Il `i e�WA (A)* a 11 a 0 a Sr2 �a signalized "Suggested Sraa� Intersection NB & SB ovem1 771ru LOS=I3(I3) U ; t r .ce 11 �- #� SITE 11 s gaa/e Dad AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) -P,r ,]Q+/ A \ * Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement —1 _ff \1 Figure 3a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects 0 is Patton Farris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 8 of 18 1:q Signalized iJ Intersection No Scale y� Overall LOS C(t) U r. 9 eyA'Oe Abie D 11 11 ?a die A(A)� Oda as "Suggested 5raa Signalized Infeisection Improvements" °aa 4 LOs--*c NB & SB -1 Thru woo SraD9 - � U 9 �e e Signalized "New Intersection" �t T SITE Intersecti6h EB & WB New Legs - NB - I thru, I left LOS=B(B) f 11 SB - 1 thru, I Right $e ,• � fjL 'j•° et` dd C . AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) 1 �,. rl l+� Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 3b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 9 of 18 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7`h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Tiy� Generation Reboil, PHR+A has prepared Table 1 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property development. Table 1 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road T,.;,, ('tinn C1lmmnrV Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 511,395 SF 452 62 514 68 500 568 3,718 150 Warehousing 511,395 SF 217 48 265 59 178 237 2,232 Total 669 109 779 127 677 805 5,950 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of revised trips for Scenario A and Scenario B, shown in Figures 4a and 4b, respectively, remain consistent with the November 2006, study. Figures 5a and 5b show the respective revised development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 2a and 2b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 6a and 6b show the revised 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and Scenario B, respectively. Figures 7a and 7b show the corresponding 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects • 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 10of18 CONCLUSION Per HCS+ analysis results, assuming suggested improvements, all intersections will maintain overall levels of service "C" or better during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B, except the intersection of Route 11/Springdale Road. The aforementioned unsignalized intersection will maintain levels of service "D" during Scenario B. The signal warrants will not be met for this intersection during Scenario B. The following describes the suggested roadway improvements for each of the study area intersections as shown in Figures 7a and 7b. • Route 11 /SSpringdale Road: Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. The signal warrants for this intersection will not be met during Scenario B. • Route 11 /Apple Valley Road: An additional northbound and southbound thru lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A and Scenario B. • Renaissance Driveway/Route 11: Traffic signalization along with an additional northbound thru lane, northbound left -turn lane, an additional southbound thru lane and a southbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario B. • Shady Elm Road/Site Drive#1: Traffic signalization along with a westbound right -turn lane will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. • Shady Elm Road/Apple Valley Road: Traffic signalization will be required during 2010 build -out conditions for Scenario A. NOTE: Intersections where signalization is suggested in order to meet the Frederick County level of service requirement must satisfy signal warrants as outlined in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) prior to installation. Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 11of18 No Scale Figure 4a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 :7 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 12 of 18 No Scale 4- Figure 4b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects E Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 13of18 No Scale �yAA/e r, J, �r 402(76) �a 4" ti ASP 11 a� 0 1 N �� �"'b`~�� oil ie s/t � (203)33 d(203)33 � 1 j22 J rj3 s 11 SITE Il b spn .� gads rd�?�gJy,P�Oda Jj6 0 0 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5a Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors 9 Planners • Landscape Architects Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc ti J''orip � b °aa rJ33 a� rc8�1i Addendum Page 14of18 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Engineers • Surveyors a Planners 9 Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc Addendum Page 15of18 a P, yAAle No Scale (.?J�2�a 50(145) r�57S(139) Abe �.% A, \ G ally 11 Sraa� L°h,1� h °a a - °aa I Sr ,� na N b s �l (300 )IO 1 q`e S C 11 ti "`"' SITE "� sp' h \ gale ( (q3 Oda ir 1 q� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) T ■-T T��/ A \ 1 1 Figure 6a 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects 0 0 Patton Harris Rust &,Associates, Inc Addendum I Page 16of18 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 6b 2010 Build -out Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) Engineers • Surveyors . Planners . Landscape Architects • CJ Patton Harris Rust & Associates, Inc No Scale go .Addendum Page 17 of 18 w Q Signalized Intersection Overall LOS C(G) 11)�� l U / Q AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7a 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) Engineers • Surveyors • Planners 9 Landscape Architects u r: Patton Harris Rust i& Associates, Inc Addendum Page 18 of 18 w �q Signalized 1 Overall No Scale LOS B(IF) t w 9pA�e L 11 11 y �0 a a ce, �o �! Signalized "Suggested r A(A)h oTa m Intersection Improveents" NB & SB - 1 Thru rq rT s off°, ... .. AFj( SJ�ed 9� Opc Jx 1� 1 Signalized• "New Intersection" *�Q Intersection Ell & WB - New Leg SITE NB -1 Thru,1 Left sri 11 LOS=B(C)_ SB -1 Thru,1 Right e0 a� t dy q e� JC AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) TT _P+ n Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 7b 2010 Build -out Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) Engineers a Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects • APPENDIX • A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch - Shady Elm Road Property Located in: Frederick County, Virginia Prepared for: Paige Manuel Commercial Realty 440 W. Jubal Early Drive Winchester, VA 22601 Prepared by: Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc Engneers. Surveyors. Planners. LandscaaeArchitects. 102 Pt Lane Boulevard te 1002 Wii lamsportGovernor,Marylan d 21795 T 301.223.4010 • F 301.223.6231 November 29, 2006 OVERVIEW Report Summary Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pe (PHR+A) has prepared this document to present the traffic impacts associated with the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development located along the south side of Route 37, east of Shady Elm Road, in Frederick County, Virginia. The proposed project is to be comprised of 326,700 square feet of light industrial and 326,700 square feet of office. PHR+A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site -driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site - driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. The project is to be built -out over a single transportation phase by the Year 2010. Figure 1 is provided to illustrate the location of the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development with respect to the surrounding roadway network. Methodology The traffic impacts accompanying the Lynch - Shady Elm Road development were obtained through a sequence of activities as the narratives that follow document: • Assessment of background traffic including other planned projects in the study area, • Calculation of trip generation for the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development, • Distribution and assignment of the Lynch - Shady Elm Road development development -generated trips onto the completed roadway network, • Analysis of capacity and level of service using the latest version of the highway capacity software, HCS+, for existing and future conditions. PHR±N A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ehn Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page I EXISTING CONDITIONS PHR+A conducted AM and PM peak hour manual turning movement counts at the intersections of Route 11/Apple Valley Road, Apple Valley Road/Shady Elm Road, Shady Elm Road/Soldiers Rest Lane, Prosperity Drive/Route 11 and Springdale Road/Route 11. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) was established along each of the study area roadway links using a "k" factor (the ratio of PM peak hour traffic volumes to 24-hour traffic volumes) of 9.0 % based on the published Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) traffic count data. Figure 2 shows the existing ADT (Average Daily Trips) and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area roadway network. Figure 3 illustrates the respective existing lane geometry and levels of service. All traffic count data and HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch Shady tElyn Nu beer: Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 2 0 0 No Scidc Ae P' Comfoonwealb) Ct `F r 3 St i SITE 01 tidrro� a` Figure 1 Vicinity Map - Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property, Frederick County, VA PA Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 H11,�A November 29, 2006 Page 3 0 0 No ScalerA a 9A l�:f, Abe rrrJlj9 ~ft46(134) Jvs r t 173(63) Z 0 9A (89)70 as Ta aa� Sr a w (166)89 ] I z� s SITE A N1 ti 11 � Nryd�e r2IJ4 ` 3O• N� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) ■T' Figure 2 Existing Traffic Conditions 1-hR+A A Traffic hnpact Analysis o the Lynch -Shady t Nu Road Property Project NumUer: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 4 0 0 No Scale 9A 1 �a Sr2a� *` aly �o 0. �a 4-° w�F Tay Sr 'Q signalized �o Intersection rs� e Overall LOS B(B) s� (C)C ►w." �9J9 `; rQ I *� SITE 11 11 s "?g aa/ e� J� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement ■—T T��{ Figure 3 Existing Lane Geometry and Levels of Service f-hR+A A Traffic hnnact A»alysis of the Lynch -Shady t Nu Road 4846-1-0Project Number: 14846-]-0November 29, 2006 Page 5 �J 2010 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Based upon the VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation) historical average daily traffic data, a growth rate of 5% and 2% was calculated and applied to Route 11 and Apple Valley Road, respectively, to obtain the 2010 base conditions. PHR+A has prepared analyses for two (2) alternative future roadway network scenarios: Scenario A assumes the existing roadway network with development access to be provided via a single site - driveway located along Shady Elm Road (opposite Soldiers Rest Lane) and no direct access to Route 11; Scenario B assumes, in addition to the site -driveway described under Scenario A, direct development access to Route 11 via a future roadway link planned through the proposed Renaissance Commercial Center. Additionally, PHR+A included specific future developments located within the vicinity of the proposed site. Using the 71h Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has provided Tables la thin 1f to summarize the 2010 "other developments" trip generation. Figure 4 shows the location of the background developments with in the vicinity of the proposed development. Figures 5a and 5b shows the 2010 background ADT and AMlPM peak hour- traffic volumes at key locations throughout the study area network during Scenarios A and B, respectively. Figures 6a and 6b shows the respective 2010 background lane geometry and AMIPM peak hour levels of service during Scenarios A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. Table la 2010 "Other Developments" - Kernstown Commons Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Kernstown Commons (From Limited Access Break Report dated February, 2006) 310 Hotel 120 rooms 31 20 51 38 33 71 701 444 Theater w/ Mat. 16 screens 11 3 14 129 194 324 2,453 820 Retail 85,500 SF 87 56 142 271 294 565 6,134 853 Conven. Mart w\pumps 4,250 SF 97 97 194 129 129 258 3,594 912 Drive-in Bank 3,500 SF 24 19 43 80 80 160 895 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H-T Restaurant 4,000 SF 24 22 46 27 17 44 509 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 932 H-T Restaurant 6,000 SF 36 33 69 40 26 66 763 934 Fast Food w/ DT 3,500 SF 95 91 186 63 58 121 1,736 Total 477 407 884 856 882 1738 18,310 *Total Pass By: 25 25 50 62 62 124 1,459 Total "New' 452 382 833 794 820 1,614 16,851 .Pass liy trips are Il teen percent (ll%) of total retail development and Uonvemence Mart P A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elnt Road Property Project Number: 14846-I-0 H November 29, 2006 Page 6 0 Table Ib 2010 "Other Developments" : Crosspointe Center Development (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total PM Peak Hour In Out Total ADT 210 Single -Family Detached 775 units 138 414 552 435 245 679 7,750 230 Townhouse/Condo 200 units 15 74 89 73 36 109 1,740 253 Elderly Housing - Attach 100 units 4 3 7 6 4 10 348 710 Office 90,000 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 820 Retail 440,000 SF 236 151 386 801 868 1,669 17,673 Total Trips 544 661 1,205 1,346 1,302 2,648 28,735 Total Internal 80 80 159 330 330 660 6,954 Total Pass -by 29 29 58 125 125 250 2,651 Total "New Trips" 435 553 988 1 890 $47 1737 19,130 Table 1c 2010 "Other Developments": Volvo Car Delarslup Trip Generation Summary AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Code Land Use Amount ADT In Out Total In Out Total 841 Car Sales 23,446 SF 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Total Trips 36 12 48 27 43 70 782 Table Id 2010 "Other Developments" : Ryland/Russell Property Trip Generation Summary In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 470,448 SF 410 56 466 61 448 509 3,412 210 Single -Family Detached 233 units 43 129 173 145 85 230 2,330 230 Townhouse/Condo 123 units 10 51 61 48 24 71 1,070 820 Retail 156,816 SF 125 80 205 404 438 842 9,098 Total 588 316 904 658 995 1,653 15 910 PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch Shady tE17n Nu Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 7 Table le 2010 "Other Developments": Villages at Artrip (Phase 2) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT Land Bay A 210 Single -Family Detached 102 units 20 60 81 69 40 109 1,017 230 Townhouse/Condo 438 units 29 140 168 135 67 202 3,811 820 Retail 10,000 SF 24 15 39 66 71 137 1,520 Land Bay B 210 Single -Family Detached 37 units 9 27 36 28 16 44 373 Land Bay C 488 Soccer Complex 3 field 2 2 4 43 19 62 214 Total Trips 84 244 328 340 214 554 6,935 Total Internal 1 1 2 16 16 31 107 Total "New Trips" 83 243 326 325 198 523 6,828 Table if 2010 "Other Developments": Renaissance Commercial Center (Scenario B only) Trip Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 11.20 acres 70 14 84 35 123 158 736 820 Retail 117,612 SF 105 67 173 334 362 697 7,546 Total 1 175 82 257 1 369 486 855 1 8282 PHP ATraffic Impact Analysis o� the Lynch -Shady t Nu Road ProperProject Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, age 8 Page 8 0 0 No Scale 4- Figure 4 Location Map - 2010 Background Developments PH A TrafFc ]IltpaCf Analysis of the Lynch Shady ENu Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 9 0 0 No Scale 9A d�J� Abe rl2Jj o� Sa(1gS 9s �` 173(63� TaJ 0 4-n 9'0A 11 q, �Oa a I A N W d N S olO, es�t q (96)76ft,%t (180)96� r 2 s. `%��e � %r` �% Q 11 ` N N��ryo SITE N1 ti 11 No Y q � �aajr �Oay r.9 Jl 9� 3 q� AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Figure 5a 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario A) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Proper ty fhR+A Project Number: , 21 Novemberr 2929010 6 Page 10 0 0 9 afie AAfe �162J NO Scale �d r22JFl6v� �173(242) r ti (96)76,,%1 (259)131 Jo --�, esf� lers ,tiry ��1 9AA 11 ^.�' a �iey� o °p 11 V �r2J Y J2`� 1 ♦♦ oad aJ� Sraa� L \�4 S� s la?° S� a SITE ipe sa?ce n'\, orb O?a�00�y oN kay 13� �f Spr/ bo IIq r�J OJo9� ~ OJ 2r6- ♦ R 6 'goad .i� �1 lJA` oo-h hh q ti AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A �T T-D+/ _ 1. � Figure 5b 2010 Background Traffic Conditions (Scenario B) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady EGn Road Property PH R+A Project Number: r 29,21 6 November 29, 2006 Page 11 Is No Scale -P. F� e"-A(A)* 40 4- a 4-% w :Q Signalized I itersection Overall LOS B(D) (D)C, � j U \� rgdalP Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" rLOS B(B) Signahzation SPon dale r (C)C 11 AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 6a 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario A) AA Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Road Property Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ellin Road Proper PT_�+_A Project Number: 14846-1-0 HNovember 29, 2006 Page 12 0 0 8 A� Signalized Oil Intersection No Scale Overall LOS C(F) U w a Py'°,olP 9'�.OjP D 11 11 y A (A) �pOaa as SiiallZed "Suggested mtC , tinn Improvements" ti�c4 LOS B(q NB & SB - 1 Thru Sra U s �11 2 s� aq rgJ�:11 y ` `Signalized' "New Intersection" 'SITE rsectiorinteGB & WB -New Le NB - 1 thru, I left t 11 LOS=B(B)' SB - 1 thru, 1 Right s 1t Ote ka S ale Signalized "Suggested Intersection Improvements" LOS=B(B)' Signalization 41 Pnq�'dale ' Ro 11 < AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) IJT TT+A r Denotes Critical Left -turn Movement Figure 6b 2010 Background Lane Geometry and Levels of Service (Scenario B) PH A Traffic Lnnact Analysis of the Lynch Shady Elm Road PropertyProject Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 13 0 TRIP GENERATION Using the 7th Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Report, PHR+A has prepared Table 2 to summarize the trip generation for the proposed Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property. Table 2 Proposed Development: Lynch - Shady Elm Road Trin Generation Summary Code Land Use Amount In AM Peak Hour Out Total In PM Peak Hour Out Total ADT 110 Light Industrial 326,700 SF 261 36 296 36 267 304 2,339 710 Office 326,700 SF 151 21 171 31 150 180 1,224 Total 412 56 468 67 417 494 3,562 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRIP ASSIGNMENT The distribution of trips for Scenarios A and B, shown in Figures 7a and 7b, respectively, were based upon local travel patterns for the roadway network surrounding the proposed Lynch - Shady Elm Road development site. Figures 8a and 8b shows the respective development -generated AM/PM peak hour trips and ADT assignments. 2010 BUILD -OUT CONDITIONS The Lynch - Shady Elm Road development assigned trips (Figures 7a and 7b) were added to the 2010 background traffic volumes (Figures 5a and 5b) to obtain 2010 build -out conditions. Figures 9a and 9b shows the 2010 build -out ADT and AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes at key locations within the study area during Scenario A and B, respectively. Figures 10a and 10b shows the respective 2010 build -out lane geometry and AM/PM peak hour levels of service during Scenario A and B, respectively. All HCS+ levels of service worksheets are included in the Appendix section of this report. PH A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2006 Page 14 0 0 No Scale 4- Figure 7a Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario A) PH A Tra �c hnpact Analysis of the Lynclt-Shady Elm Road Property Project Number: r 29, 2 1 6 November 29, 2006 Page 15 0 0 No Scale Figure 7b Trip Distribution Percentages (Scenario B) PH"A+ A Tra cc hnpact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady ENu Road ProperProjectNumber: 14846-1-0 November 29, 2016 Page 16 No Scale 9 der yAAle rl9� pow24700) 2 o�aJ 9A 61i dff y�0 aQ. o(125)17 c¢ ' Sr R N W e ti r � f125J17 �IICV 4�J o 11 ti SITE 11 s N~ f� 4. e�Oaa 0 ■T' AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) A Figure 8a Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario A) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Elm Road Property PH R+A Project Number: r 29,2 1 6 November 29, 2006 Page 17 0 0 d�e�A,p fe No Scale 2��tiI �y oil � 1 11 e �� 9A"Ole L a �� 2S dr�ry 11 abJ� IJ �o ti S,c�a� �1ti o'Da 4 Sr s °lo.. S �dne r-e SI E 11 `rre �I G°' i�e``d nee pie P� (I6� y J22 11 (3 ry JAI` 11 �" lj, 3 ti b� N bN AM Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) TAT TP+A - Figure 8b Development -Generated Trip Assignments (Scenario B) A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Lynch -Shady Ehn Road Property PH 1 `l l Project Number: r 29,2 16 November 29, 2006 Page 18 7563-8242 EBY/cmj W 46 a24?'7a W THIS DEED, made and dated this 27T2 day of December, 2006 by and between KATHERINE B. PERRY, Trustee for the Maurice W. Perry Trust, under Trust Agreement dated October 12,1990, and EVELYN L. PERRY, Executrix of the Estate of Garland E. Perry, and as Trustee of Trust A and as Trustee of Trust B, hereinafter called the Grantors, and VENTURE I OF WINCHESTER, LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company, hereinafter called the Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10,00), cash in hand paid and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the Grantors do grant and convey, with Special Warranty, unto the Grantee, in fee simple, together with all rights, rights of way, privileges improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging, all of the following realty: All of that certain tract or parcel of land situated about five (5) miles Southwest of Winchester in Shawnee Magisterial District, Frederick County, Virginia, on the East side of Shady Elm Factory Road, containing sixty (60) acres, more or less. LESS AND EXCEPT a small portion thereof conveyed to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the improvement of Virginia Secondary Highway No. 651 by Deed dated October 30, 1963 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, in Deed Book 296, at Page 93. AND BEING the same property conveyed to Katherine B. Perry, Trustee for the Maurice W. Perry Trust, under Trust Agreement dated October 12,1990 by Deed from Katherine B. Perry, Executor under the Last Will and Testament of Maurice W. Perry, Deceased, dated October 12,1990 and duly probated in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Winchester, Virginia, as instrument Number WF040000032 by Deed dated June 15, 2004 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia, as Instrument Number 040011492 which was an one-half ('/2) interest of the subject property, the other one-half ('/z) interest was conveyed to Garland E. Perry by Deed from J. Frederick Larrick and William M. Mote, Special Commissioners, dated January 12, 1971 of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, 1 0 0 1 Virginia, in Deed Book 372, at Page 608, ".'he said Garland E. Perry died testate on June 4, 2006, and his Will is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Winchester, Virginia, as Instrument Number 2006-79. Under Article VII of said Will, the said Garlanc. E. Perry nominate and appoint his wife, Evelyn L. Perry as Executrix. Under Article III of said Will, the said Garland E. Perry devised and bequeath his one-half (%) undivided interest in the aforesaid subject property to Trustee of Trust A. Reference is hereby made to the aforesaic. instruments and the references contained therein for a further and more particular descri-3tion of the ;property conveyed herein. This conveyance is made subject to all lega:ly enfbrced:) a restrictive covenants and easements of record affecting the aforesaid realty. the Grantors do hereby covenant that they have the right to convey to the Grantee; that the Grantee shall have quiet and peaceable possession of the said property, free from all liens and encumbrances; and they will grant such further assurances of title as may be requisite. WITNESS the following signature and seal: i CA'.I ",UNE .3. P 1RY,Trustad for the Maurice W. Perry Trust, under Trust Agreement dated October 12,1990 I VEL L. PERRY, Er cu of the Estate of Gar.'and 3. Perry and Trustee of Trust A and as Trustee of Trust B STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -wit: I, Cathy M. Jewell, a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Katherine B. Perry, Trustee for the Maurice W. Perry Trust, under Trust C 0 J Uri I Agreement dated October 12, 1990 whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed, dated this 27' j day of December, 2006 has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my I State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given une.er my' and. fvs 27' day of December, 2006. My commission expires: 12/31/08. Notary P41ic STATE OF VIRGD41A COUNTY OF FREDERICK, To -wit: I, Cathy M. Jewell, a Notary Public in and for the State and jurisdiction aforesaid, do hereby certify that Evelyn L. Perry, Executor of the Estate of Garland E. Perry and Trustee of ! Trust A anC '-'rust 3 whose name is signed to the foregoing Deed, dated this 27" day of December, 2006 has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and jurisdiction aforesaid. Given under my hand this 27' day of December, 2006. a.,,,y My commission expires: 12/31/08. Notary olic +' VIRGIIdA FREDERICK COUNTY.SCT. 'This instrument of writing was produced to me on 21ee-• �� a017 at I /"az a,M- and with certificate acknowledgement thereto annexed was admitted to record. Tax imposed by Sec. 58.1-802 of cy I $11so_, and 58.1-801 have been paid, if asse3ssable. ��clerki V. SURVEY PLAT & DEED ViewDetail 0 0 Page 1 of I Real Estate Public Inquiry Ticket Detail 2006 REAL ESTATE TAXES Department# : RE2006 Ticket #: 277780002 FRQ: 2 Sup#: 0 Name: PERRY, GARLAND E Name 2: Address: & PERRY, KATHERINE B TRUSTEE 316 S STEWART ST WINCHESTER, VA Account#: 24052 Map#: 75 A 1 Description: 60.00 ACRES 22601 Bill Date: 12/05/2006 Due Date: 12/05/2006 Land: $1,836,000 Improve: $231,700 Use: $79,510 Original Bill: $816.93 Payments: $816.93- Acres: 60.00 Penalty Paid: Int Paid: Discount: Amount Owed: Other: Last Date: 11/28/2006 Total Owed: Penalty: Interest: Note that il'payment has been received within the last 10 business days. any returned items may not be posted at this time. Please check the website again. Date Type Transaction # Amount Balance 12/5/2006 Charge 0 $816.93 $816.93 11/28/2006 Payment 31984 ($816.93) $0.00 1 Use the print key for your browser to print a copy of taxes paid for this year. New Search Previous https://www.co.frederick.va.us/applications/REPubliclnquiry/ViewDetail.aspx 7/6/2007 VI. TAX TICKET COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 August 15, 2011 Venture I of Winchester, LLC Attn: Randy Kremer 827 Armistead Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Right -of -Way Proffer for Artillery Business Center, Rezoning #08-07 Dear Mr. Kremer: This letter is the County's formal request for the transfer of right-of-way to the County from tax map parcel 74-A-68, otherwise known as the Carbaugh property, per proffer 2.2.1 of the Artillery Business Center Rezoning. The proffers are attached for reference. If I can offer any assistance or address any concerns you may have, please feel free to contact me at 540-665-5651. Sincerely, John A. Bishop AICP Deputy Director -Transportation Frederick County Planning and Development Enclosures JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 o Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 9 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 MEMORANDUM TO: Memo to Files: ,,Artillery Business Center Rezoning (Rezoning #08-07) Renaissance Commercial Center (MDP 910-07) FROM: John A. Bishop AICP, Deputy Director - Transportation���� RE: CSX Crossing DATE: March 16, 2009 Written correspondence and working papers directly related to the procurement on a new railroad crossing associated with this development and connecting with Renaissance Drive on the Renaissance Commercial Center is located in a separate file in the transportation files labeled "New CSX Crossing —Renaissance Drive". JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 TRANSPORTATION Benjamin P. Biesterveld Principal Engineer -Public Projects 500 Water Street (S/C J301) Jacksonville, FL 32202 Tel. 904-359-1158 Benjamin_Biesterveld@csx.com March 10, 2009 Mr. John A. Bishop Deputy Director -Transportation County of Frederick 107 North Kent St., Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601 Subject: Establishing a new crossing in Stevens City, Virginia: Renaissance Drive. Dear Mr. Bishop: This letter is to acknowledge your letter dated February 17, 2009 received by CSX Transportation Public Projects March 9, 2009 regarding a formal request for a new crossing at the above location. CSXT is willing to work with :the County to establish the new crossing as long as the following requirements are met: ♦ The three (3) crossings shown below will be closed: o Springdale Road (Route 649) o Cougill Road (Route 634) o Emporia, Virginia — Park Avenue (Closure already in process) ♦ CSX will not be responsible for any costs associated with the design and construction of the subject project as will be laid out in the Preliminary Engineering and Construction Agreements. If I can be of further assistance please feel free to call. Sincerely, Benjamin iesterveld Principal Engineer, Public Projects --. - --- - cc: David Farley MAR 1 6 2009 L J i I Feb. 12. 2008 10:36AM February 12, 2008 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Panning Director Frederick County, Virginia rIX 5 /0-GGS"-G3 ff- Dear Mr. Ruddy: I am fazing to you the following: No. 4234 • Memo - February 12, 2008 - Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER • Copy of Letter to Venture 1, of Winchester, LLC - February 6, 2008 - Subject: Your LETTER OF INTENT, January 27, 2008, Artillery Business Center In light of the upcoming meeting that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 7:15 p.m., I am submitting to you on behalf of my father, Henry J. Carbaugh, the above documentation. I am unable to attend the meeting, due to other commitments. It is not Henry Carbaugh's intentions, nor my intentions, to speak against any neighbor or owner of property along Shady Elm Road. We do see and understand the significant development along Shady Elm Road, both light industrial and residential. • A significant amount of the light industrial development was located along Shady Elm Road some time before any of the residential development of the most recent years. This was not unknown to the residential owners. • We do not envision any property on the East side of Shady Elm Road for residential usage, as the railroad and high voltage power line would somewhat prohibit residential development. • The residential subdivisions are so located on the West/Southwest side of Shady Elm Road, where there is not any significant negativity and adverse elements for the residential owners. Shady Elm Road does in a somewhat defining way, separate the rural and residential area from the light industrial, along the West side of Shady Elm Road from Soldiers Rest Lane to Springdale .Road. • There is light industrial development on the East and West side of Shady Elm Road, and this has been the intent of the Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan for 15 to 20 years. • Owners must learn to work together for improvement of roadways and public safety. The development is already there, and now what roadways will best address better roadways and public safety? I hope this is some way gives our views, as our family has been owners at 831 Shady Elm Road for nearly 90 years, while all the other owners have sold off their property over the last 30 - 40 years. You may share any of this documentation with any member of the Board of Supervisors for their upcoming meeting. Venture I of Winchester, LLC have signed the Letter of Intent of February 6, 2008. Wely, Wayde W. Carbaugh Feb, 12, 2008 10:36AM No, 4234 P. 2 '. ' • is February 12, 2008 TO: Michael T. Ruddy, .A.ICP, Deputy Planning ]director, Frederick County, Virginia FROM. Wayne W. Carbaugh for Henry J. Carbaugh (Owner of Knoll Dale Farm) Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER My father understands that the owners of the Artillery Business Center will be presenting their plans before the board of supervisors on February 1.3, 2008. He is not able to attend the meeting, and no authorized individual will be there to speak on his behalf. There are certain items I would like to address as follows: Henry Carbaugh continues to support the efforts of the Artillery Business Center Group, particularly for improving ublic safe and roadways. He has a signed intent to sell four to six acres, more or less, to support the planned collector road from tine railroad property to a certain point along the line of the Carbaugh property and the Artillery Business Center property. This intent to sell is strictly contingent with the following two conditions with certain time limitations: 1. The Artillery Business Center Group must receive approval from the appropriate Frederick County officials and departments for their rezoning request. 2. The Artillery Business Center Group must receive approval from the Frederick County's Transportation Department and VDOT for their collector roadway design and plans. There should be a high priority for improving the road system to support the development that has and is occurring along the Shady Elul corridor. We recognize the development that has occurred and will continue to increase on the East and West of Shady Elm Road with the following statements, as was made on January 18, 2008: The Artillery Business Center Group does appear to be aligning its development within Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan. The ,Artillery Business Center Group's property is in a designated urban development area. It is a property that would not be suitable for residential construction, because of the railroad and the high voltage power line. • Henry Carbaugh has never opposed any development of any neighboring property owners, as he has always believed a property owner should have the freedom to develop within the guidelines of Frederick County. He has never spoken against any neighbor's development efforts, which has occurred to the west and north of his farm. • It is recognized that Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road need improvements for public safety and to meet VDOT standards for business and light industrial Feb, 12, 2008 10:36AM No.4234 P. 3 developmezat"1 have addressed my views toward zoa*provement for Shady Elm Road to Mr. Bishop of the Frederick County Transportation Department. • Development of businesses and light industrial facilities along Shady Elm has been approved for some time. • Any property East of Shady Elm Road should not be developed for residential homes, because of the railroad and high voltage power line. In summary, the Shady Elm Roadway needs to be improved, and it is believed that the East to West roadway from U. S. Route 11 to Shady Elm Road is most essential to support the traffic and public safety heeds on Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road. The intent agreement to sefturchase between Henry J. Carbaugh and 'Venture I of Winchester, LLC (Artillery Business Center Group) is a private agreement, being signed. by Henry J. Carbaugh and Venture I of Winchester, LLC. Venture f of Winchester, LLC has permission to disclose the terms and conditions of the agreement to the Board of Supervisors, upon their reauest. 1, Wayne Carbaugh, am the only person who is authorized to speak for Henry Carbaugh. W ne W. Carbaugh (540) 868-7127 work (540) 667-0655 home Feb, 12, 2008 10:36AM No, 4234 P. 4 February 6, 2008 Mr. H. Paige Manuel, Managing Member Venture I of Winchester, LLC Winchester, Virginia 22601 Subject: Your LETTER OF INTENT, January 27, 2008, Artillery Business Center Dear Mr, Manuel: Thank you for the opportunity to review and consider your offer of intent to purchase four acres, more or less, for a minimum price of $150,000.00, or up to six acres for a maximum price of $224,000,00. It is understood and agreed that the price for four acres is at a price of $37,500.00 per acre. Further it is understood and agreed that the purchase over four to six acres, more or less, will be based on a price of $37,000.00 per acre. The four to six acres, more or less, is located in the North/Northeast comer of the Carbaugh property, having boundary with the Venture 1 of Winchester, LLC property and railroad property. This letter is to document certain terms and conditions of the sale for prices stated above, and based on the following two conditions: 1. The sale will only occur if the rezoning to M-1 (Light industrial) is approved for Venture 1 of Winchester, LLC for 58 acres, more or less, located at 551 Shady Elm Road (Tax Map 75-A-1), Frederick County, Virginia, by the appropriate governing authorities of Frederick County, Virginia. 2_ -The sale will only occur if approvals are granted by the Nrrginia Department of Transportation for the designated collector road from a certain point at Shady Elm Road to the railroad property, bordering the East/Northeast corner of the Carbaugh property. Closing and settlement will be determined for a future date, based on the fulfillment of the above two conditions. It is agreed that as part of this agreement, an $18,500.00 non- refundable option payment will be made to Henry J. Carbaugh, Trustee, not later than July 30, 2008, for purpose of extending the closing and settlement beyond July 30, 2008. it is understood and agreed if settlement occurs on or before July 30, 2008, the payment due will be $18,500.00, with the balance of one half of the purchase price,due on or before December 31, 2008. It is agreed that the $19,500.00 option payment will be part of the purchase price, if the sale is completed after July 30, 2-008. It is understood and agreed by both parties that the closing and settlement will not extend beyond December 31, 2008, Should settlement occur on or before December 31, 2008, one half of the purchase price will be paid at settlement, as stated above, with the balance paid in the calendar year 2009, but no later than June 30, 2009, Feb. 12. 2008 10:36AM No, 4234 P. 5 If Venture I of Winchester, LLC purchases the four to six acres, more or less, they agree to the fallowing three conditions: l . The four to six acres, more or less, will be surveyed at the expense of Venture I of Winchester, LLC- Z. Cattle fencing along the Carbaugh property and new boundary lane will be installed at the expense of Venture I of Winchester, LLC. The fence shah be no less than six feet in height. 3, Venture I of Winchester, LLC will request in writing from Frederick County authorities that any "roll -backs real estate taxes" be waived for Henry I Carbaugh, Trustee, in light of goodwill for the transaction to support the proposed new roadway £roux Shady Elm Road to the railroad property. My signature below indicates my intent to sell four to six acres, more or less, per the terms and conditions, as stated in this letter. If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions, please indicate your acceptance by returning a signed copy of this letter to me_ Sincerely, Henry J. Carbaugh, Trustee Owner of Knoll Dale Farm Accepted and Approved: Date: H_ Paige Manuel, Managing Member Venture I of Winchester, LLC Jan, 16, 2008 1:54PM January 16, 2008 j92j TO: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director, Frederick County, Virginia FROM: Wayne W. Carbaugh for Henry J. Carbaugh (Owner of Knoll Dale Farm) Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER I will not be able to attend this evening's public hearing for the Rezoning Application H08-07 for Artillery Business Center. I have had discussions with my father, Henry, the owners of the proposed .Artillery Business Center, and Darrell and Andrea Habron at 188 Hockman Court. There are certain items I would like to address as follows: )-Henry Carbaugh does not oppose the efforts of the Artillery Business Center. He did offer to sale a certain tract of land, either 3.97 acres or S.182 acres to provide in part an East to West roadway from. U. S. Route 11 to Shady Elm Road. It is our contention that a better road system is needed to support the development that has and is occurring along the Shady Elm corridor. We recognize that development has occurred and will continue on the East and West of Shady Elm Road. The Artillery Business Center Group has not agreed to purchase any property for a roadway easement from Henry Carbaugh. • The Artillery Business Center Group does appear to be aligning its development within Frederick CouDty's Comprehensive Plan.. • The .Artillery Business Center Group's property is in a designated urban development area. It is a property that would not be suitable for residential construction, because of the railroad and the high. voltage power line. • Henry Carbaugh has never opposed any development of any neighboring property owners, as he has always believed a property owner should have the freedom to develop within the guidelines of Frederick County. He has never spoken against any neighbor's development efforts, which has occurred to the west and north of his farm. • It is recognized that Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road need improvements for public safety and to meet VDOT standards for business and light industrial development. I have addressed my views toward road improvement for Shady Elm Road to Mr. Bishop of the Frederick County Transportation Department. • Development of businesses and light industrial facilities along Shady Elm has been approved for some time. • Any property East of Shady Elm Road should not be developed for residential homes, because of the railroad and high voltage power line. In summary, the Shady Elm Roadway needs to be improved, and it is believed that the East to West roadway from U. S. Route 11 to Shady Elm Road is most essential to support the transportation needs on Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road. I, Wayne Carbaugh, am the only person who is a��to�pe� my Carbaugh. Wayne W. Carbaugh (540) 868-7127 • January 8. 2008 To: Patrick R. Sowers Patton Hams Rust & Associates 1 l7 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application From: Liz Hunter Andi Habron J A N 1 6 2008 The following is a list addressing the aesthetics/use of the proposed application property: • Building height shall be restricted to no more than 50 feet in height for primary_ and auxiliary aspects of any structures. • Per the Zoning Code 165-37 D stating that "Whenever Imid is to he developed ill the B3, MI or M2 zoning district that is adjacent to land used for residential purposes in the RA district a C C:ategory buffer shall he provided on the land to he developed". The property proposed to be rezoned is not directly adjacent to residential, however, the property is within 1,000 feet of residential which the code allows that "if proposed developments are within 1000 feet of the houtidaries of existing uses the Planning Commissions may require increased or additional distance hr ffers to separate different uses to achieve the intention of this section ". Therefore the developer shall provide Category C screen/buffer which provides 150' inactive distance buffer and 50' active (parking). The Planning Commission is being requested to require this level of screening/buffering. This will ensure a consistent appearance with future development along Shady Elm Road. • The increased landscape buffer is detailed on the attached diagram. Evergreen trees should be a combination of Leyland cypress and various species of pines and should be at least 6' in height at planting. Hardwood deciduous trees should be a minimum of 10' in height and 8" caliper/diameter at planting and should be a combination of hardy varieties (i.e., red maple, oaks). The street trees should be 8" caliper, 12' in height and ornamental trees a minimum 6" caliper and 8' in height. • No warehouse distribution center to be located at this site. . 4 (7 • S or--e- �0- n U U v n1 C2) y�,ul yV� qD �rnC�ill��r j ' &lI (4, O >1 Ct_ it Z4 D, I I I "(, I" i: I, - a3. 17 � II Frederick County, VA R 'Z 7: 08 - 07 A,,)pIica',.ion Artillery Business > Center '7 1; A - I Location in the r-Ountj Map Features H:iriv-, L-C R-O, Land Use APOI-11 O^ �i co--!v c'. FJI.m P137 3ypls, p—,!— L--Pods !tV.0na Sbeots Rcc Pflmnty en_ 1) L01— Are, SItiSA a, to so ♦ '16 % t Case Planner. Mike Map Dccument. (N-'I.Planninzj_Ar-,ci_Deve;opment\-l_Locator-Mps�AqilleryBusinessCenter-REZO8C,7_0712C7.mxd) 7112/2007 -- 3:13:13 PM 0 Patton Hare Rust & Associates Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. January 29, 2008 Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application JAINl 2 9 2(.0 PA+ Dear Mike: HAt the January 16, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting, I presented two alternative proffer statements for the Planning Commission's consideration regarding the CORPORATE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application. I would like to formally withdraw Chantilly the proffer statement identified as Alternative 2 as submitted to your office. As VIRGINIA OFFICES: such, the proffer statement previously identified as Alternative 1 will be the proffer Bridgewater statement that we will present to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration at Chantilly the public hearing scheduled for February 13, 2008. Charlottesville Fredericksburg I have attached a proffer statement that is identical to the previously submitted Leesburg Alternative 1 but without the heading on the title page identifying it as such to avoid Newport News Vany confusion. Virginia Beach Winchester Woodbridge If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139. LABORATORIES: Sincerely, Chantilly Fredericksburg Patton Harris Rust & Associates MARYLAND OFFICES: Baltimore Columbia Patrick R Sowers Frederick Germantown Enclosure Hollywood Hunt Valley Williamsport PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Allentown WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: Martinsburg T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 1 17 East Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 0 Madam Chairman and members of the commission: BAN 1 6 2003 Thank you for your time and your service. I would like to express my concerns regarding the Artillery Business Center re -zoning application. First, in the interest of aesthetics and continuity, as I'm sure you are aware, Zoning Code 165-37 D allows the commission to require increased buffers on M 1 development that is within 1,000 feet of land used for residential purposes, just as if the MI property were directly adjacent to residential land. This would constitute a Category C screen/buffer which provides for 150' of inactive distance buffer and 50' active buffer. I respectfully request that, if this application is approved, The Planning Commission require this level of screening/buffering in this instance. This will make the proposed development much more palatable to the area residents as well as ensure a consistent appearance with future development along Shady Elm Road that will be directly adjacent to residential properties. With regard to health and safety, it has been pointed out in relation to past rezoning applications on neighboring properties that the ground in that area has a high concentration of very dense limestone. Limestone contains asbestos that will inevitably be released into the air during the construction phase, especially when any drilling or blasting occur. What plan does the developer have to protect the surrounding area from airborne asbestos and more importantly how are they going to protect my family and the families in my community from this hazard? I have seen no mention of this in any of the paperwork that the developer has submitted. Next, because of the close proximity to residential areas that are currently operating with well water systems, what assurances is the developer offering that any interruption of water availability or adverse impact on these wells caused by any phase of construction will be corrected? I have seen no mention of this in any paperwork that the developer has submitted. Finally, with regard to the impact on the existing road network, there is absolutely no realistic way to expect that the current network will be able to support the increase in usage that will without question occur when this and the other projects in this area are completed. The TIA submitted by VDOT in relation to this application does not take into account the other projects currently under construction in this area that will contribute to a cumulative increase in traffic that the current roads cannot support. Each morning when I leave for work I see traffic on Route 11 North that is backed up all the way up the ramp to westbound Route 37 and often onto 1-81. This, already bad, situation will only get worse. In addition, basing a decision to approve this rezoning on a feeder road and railroad bridge or at grade crossing that may or may not ever be built is pure fantasy. Not only is there is no county funding allocated for these projects, or any request for state or federal funding assistance, there hasn't even been a serious attempt to determine what these projects would cost. For all we know these projects may not be completed for 5, 10 or 20 years ... if ever. In addition, Mr. Sowers himself, at previous meetings has said that CSX would require other crossings to be closed if one were proposed here. This would seem to necessitate additional costs to the county and state for roads to be re-routed or other bridges to be built to replace the crossings that are closed. It is interesting to note that while VDOT apparently considers this current TIA adequate without taking other development projects into account, in a November 2006 letter from VDOT that I have attached to my comments they found fault with an independent TIA done by GSA regarding the proposed FBI facility for exactly that reason; not taking into account the impact other development would have on the road network. Specifically, the letter stated "The study does not mention or consider any surrounding land development projects that are currently underway, nor does the study appear to include background traffic growth or traffic to be generated by adjacent development recently approved or currently being built." That letter closed by saying "Until this study includes a thorough analysis of each development scenario and is prepared according to recommendations provided in previous meetings, VDOT cannot conduct a detailed review and provide adequate comments." Even without including these other projects, the GSA TIA indicated that peak hours on Apple Valley Road, Route 11 and Route 37 would see service level F. Failing to include these other development projects makes the current VDOT TIA theoretical at best and quite possibly flawed. This commission should expect better information with which to base decisions that will impact the entire county. Development of this magnitude has to be approached in a measured and deliberate way and this requires facts. The facts present at this time do not support approval of this application. 0 Thank you. Gregory Brown Hockman Court 0 Federal Bureau of Investiqation Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX F Responses to Comments Received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 1:1 0 Federal Bureau of Investigation Final Environmental Impact Statement This page left intentionally blank 0 0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Records Complex in Winchester, Virginia was released to the public and the Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on October 27, 2006. Written comments of the draft Environmental Impact Statement were accepted until December 11, 2006, and are addressed herein. A Public Hearing was held on the draft EIS on November 14, 2006. A transcript of the hearing and responses to comments received at the hearing follow the written comments. The following table of contents can be referenced in order to find comments from specific people/organizations and the responses to those comments. Reponses to individual comment letters/emails follow after each letter/email. F- 1 0 0 Ms. Katrina M. Scarpato Page 13 on -site contractors, regular field inspection, prompt action against non- compliance, and/or other mechanisms consistent with agency policy. The GSA is encouraged to contact the Department of Conservation and Recreation to obtain plan development or implementation assistance so as to ensure project compliance during and after construction; see "Regulatory and Coordination Needs," item 8, below. (b) Storm water Management. GSA must also comply will) the Stormwater Management Law (Virginia Code section 10.1-603)_ A Stormwater Management Plan is required for any project involving land disturbance of 1 acre or more. Types of projects include clearing and grading activities, installation of staging areas, parking lots, roads, buildings, utilities, or other structures, soil/dredge spoil areas, or related land conversion activities. It is recommended that the proposed project be considered in conjunction with other existing or planned projects so as to minimize stormwaler runoff on nearby waterways and other natural resources. As with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan requirement (above), GSA is ultimately responsible for achieving project compliance through oversight of on - site contractors, regular field inspection, prompt action against non-compliance, and/or other mechanisms consistent with GSA policy. For stormwater management plans, GSA is encouraged to contact the Department of Conservation and Recreation to obtain plan development or implementation assistance so as to ensure project compliance during and after construction. The project should be considered in conjunction with any other existing or proposed land use conversion or expansion plans for the property in order to adequately address the cumulative impacts upon the receiving drainage, as well as to identify appropriate strategies for reducing the non -point source pollution from the developed and developing areas of the site (see also item 2(d)(vi), above). See "Regulatory and Coordination Needs," item 8, below. (c) VPDFS Stormwater Genera/ Permit. Projects involving land disturbance of one acre or more are also subject to the requirements of the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities. See "Regulatory and Coordination Needs," item 9, below. #21 (con't) #22 9. Transportation. The Department of Transportation (VDOT) points out several deficiencies in the transportation analysis of the Draft EIS. VDOT indicates that its staff has attended a number of meetings with Federal Bureau of #23 Investigation (FBI) representatives, discussing items that should be in a traffic study (i,e„ the Carbaugh site), and notes that the traffic portions of the Draft EIS have been prepared contrary to VDOT's recommendations. Accordingly, limited comments on the deficiencies follow. F-20 0 0 Ms. Katrina M. Scarpato Page 14 The Draft EIS does not adequately depict or evaluate impacts of the proposed complex on the surrounding road system, Instead, it presents a "snapshot" of existing conditions, and adds the complex to those conditions to predict future conditions. No analytical supporting documentation, or study methodology, is provided. • The Draft EIS does not mention or consider surrounding land developments taking place. Nor does it appear to include background traffic growth, or traffic to be generated by current or recent surrounding development. • Some mitigation discussions are over -simplified, and presented without #23 (con't) analysis. For example, the Draft EIS concludes that an improvement would require "provision of dual receiving lanes on the Virginia Route 37 ramp" (page 4-77). Given the close proximity of Interstate Route 81, there is very limited weaving area available for eastbound Route 37 traffic to I- 81. This "provision" would be costly and difficult to approve and build with acceptable safety and level of service. Frederick County has also offered comments on the Transportation Impact Analyses for two of the sites and levels of service; see item 15(b), below. 10. Natural Area Preserves, According to the Department of Conservation and Recreation, there are no state Natural Area Preserves in the project vicinity. 19. Forest and Tree Protection. (a) Findings and Recommendations of the Department of Forestry. The Department of Forestry indicates that the construction of the Central Records Complex, at any of the sites under consideration, would not significantly affect #24 the forest resources of the Commonwealth, Open areas not proposed for building construction could be planted to improve aesthetics and water filtering capacity of the property. (b) General Guidance. In order to protect trees not slated for removal from the effects of construction activities associated with this project, the proponent should mark and fence them at least to the dripline or the end of the #25 root system, whichever extends farther from the tree stem. Marking should be done with highly visible ribbon so that equipment operators see the protected areas easily. Parking and stacking of heavy equipment and construction materials near trees can damage root systems by compacting the soil. Soil compaction, from I #26 F-21 0 COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 i01 CAST SRCCID SI R EET David S. Ekern, P.E. RII;14MOND, VIRGINIA 2120.20ou OOMI.tISS1 4FR November 29, 2006 Mr. Charles H. Ellis III Department of Fnvironmental Quality Office OfF.nvironmcntal Impact Review 629 Last Main Street, Sixth Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Re: Federal Bureau of Investigation Central Records Complex Dear Mr. Ellis: RECEIVED Nov , 0 2.006 DEQ400(Emironmenu The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed the information provided for the referenced project. Our review covers impacts to existing and proposed transportation facilities. Following are our comments for the above project: 1, The study as presented does not adequately depict or evaluate impacts of the proposed FBI facility on the surrounding road system. The study presents a snap-sliot of existing conditions (traffic count data and minimal analysis), an overlay of future conditions by simply adding the FBI site to existing conditions, and offers no analytical supporting documentation or description of study methodology. 2. The study does not mention or consider any surrounding land development projects that are currently underway, nor does the study appear to include background traffic growth or traffic to be generated by adjacent development recently approved or currently being built. 3. Discussion of some mitigation solutions are over simplified and presented without analysis. As an example, referencing page 4-77, the conclusion is made that an improvement would require "I lie provision of dual receiving lanes on the VA Route 37 ramp With the close proximity of I-81, there is a very limited weaving area available for eastbound Rt. 37 ramp traffic to 1-81; this "provision" would be quite costly and difficult, if not impossible, to approve and build with acceptable safely and Level of Service, Virginiab07.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING F-55 #1 #2 #3 0 VDOT staff cannot review and provide significant traffic -related continents to this EIS in its present form, VDOT staff has attended many meetings with FBI representatives discussing items that should be included in this traffic study (i.e., the Carbaugh Site) and have noticed that the traffic portions of this EIS report have been prepared contrary to VDOT's reeonmicndations. #4 Until this study includes a thorough analysis of each development scenario and is prepared according to recommendations provided in previous meetings, VDOT cannot conduct a detailed review and provided adequate, comments. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Mary II! Stanley Environmental Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation (804) 786-0868 F-56 The three eligible properties are Sarsparilla Springs, which is a farm house adjacent to the site on the southeastern corner, the Millcreek Ridgeway Historic District located north of the site in West Virginia and a small front gable cottage house located north of the project site in West Virginia. If the properties are determined eligible, the Sarsparilla Springs farm house is located within visual range of the Sempeles property and construction would induce visual elements inconsistent with the historical setting and character of the rural farm house, thus creating an adverse effect. The Millcreek Ridgeway Area Historic District and the cottage house are located within visible range of the property, but because they would be screened by some vegetation, there would only be a slight adverse effect to these properties. Ground disturbing activities would occur at any of the three sites under consideration. Past archeological investigations in the general vicinity of the sites indicate that there is a high potential for the presence of archeological resources at each location, which could be adversely effected by construction. The location of the complex at any of these sites could necessitate infrastructure improvement and housing and commercial constructions to accommodate the increased work force which would entail additional ground disturbing activities. These activities could also adversely impact archeological resources. Regardless of which site is selected, GSA will continue coordinating with the Virginia Department of Historical Resources and the West Virginia Division of Culture and History to identify and mitigate adverse impacts to cultural resources. A traffic study for each of the three sites was prepared as part of this analysis. The study analyzed the level of service for each site. The level, a level of service is defined as a qualitative measure for describing operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception by a motorist. There are six levels of service ranging from A to F, with A presenting the optimal operating conditions with minimal delays and F representing congestion, most areas considering an OSD acceptable. For the Carbaugh site, two scenarios for the access to the site were analyzed. Under scenario one, access to the Carbaugh site would be provided from Shady Elm Road. The intersection of Apple Valley Road, US 11, and the US 11 Virginia 37 west and east bound F109 0 0 ramps are expected to operate at a level of service F under this condition during peak period times. All other intersections are expected to operate at a LOSD or better. This would create a major adverse impact on the roadway network. Under scenario two, access to the site would be provided by a new road that would connect Shady Elm Road with US 11. Under this scenario, the US 11 VA 37 west and east bound ramps are expected to operate at a LOSF during peak times periods. This would create major adverse impacts. All other intersections are expected to operate at an LOSD or better, however under either scenario, mitigation would occur such that all intersections would be expected to operate at an LOSD or better. The Carpers Valley Golf Course site was approved for rezoning in October 2005. Conditions for this approval included the following transportation improvements. A new collector road, which means constructing a four lane major collector road, Coverstone Drive connecting US 50, Sulphur Springs Road intersection and Prince Frederick Drive, connection to US 50. No additional connections to US 50 would be allowed. The existing Golf Course entrance, the existing entrance would be restricted to a right in right out only and the existing median opening would be closed. Traffic signal improvements and traffic plans at US 50 Sulphur Springs Road, Costello and Prince Frederick Drive and US 50 Victory Lane. Hiker/Biker trail - a hiker and biker trail would be built adjacent to planned major collector road. Traffic impact studies - additional traffic impact studies and mitigation measures would be provided to reflect changing uses of the property and extend the collector road to US 522, provide partial funding to extend major collector road to future realigned US 522. Given these improvements and restrictions at the existing entrance, access options into the Carpers Valley Golf Course property are generally expanded. Options for site access include from US 50 the existing entrance, which be a right in and right out only, Sulphur Springs Road intersection to Coverstone Drive, Prince Frederick Drive to Coverstone Drive and from US 522 to Costello Drive to Prince Frederick Drive to Coverstone Drive. F110 MS. ESTES: Thank you. MR. LAWRENCE: Thank you. MS. ESTES: John Conrad? MR. CONRAD: It's not very often I have a chance to follow Eric, so this is a real treat for me. This is, oh John Conrad, C-O-N-R-A-D. I felt that the EIS was probably the most comprehensive program I've ever seen and you certainly should be congratulated for all the work you did. Two issues that I'd like to speak to are the geotechnical report are as it relates to limestone and the social aspect that leads to the corporate enjoyment of the campus community. I've had more experience in the excavation of limestone than I ever want to have in my life. It is our #6 understanding that both the Sempeles site and the Carbaugh site are, have a high proximity to limestone composition. Our knowledge of the two sites say that the limestone is very, very dense. Besides the cost involved in the excavation, which could run between $50 and $100,000 per acre, there are other issue that come with limestone. First of all, there is a presence of asbestos in limestone that has to be dealt with, particularly once the drilling of limestone occurs and the asbestos becomes airborne. There's also a consequential damage to the neighboring property, potential for consequential damage to neighboring properties. First of all, with the blast zone, with the blast wave and also the chance of well interruption with water. The social aspect is something a little bit more subjective, but it really centers around the potential for the location of the facility that is remotely removed from restaurants, shopping and retail. Ideal location for an employment center is one that has close by, and preferably walkable, retail facilities. Public transportation is also something that brings with it a certain level of comfort for employees and also it opens a ride range of employees who may not have vehicles at the time. Thank you for your time, thank you for your bringing this to us. MS. ESTES: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to give any comments at this time? I notice that some people came in as we were talking, if you didn't get a chance to, if you could just sign in before you leave so we just have a record of who came, that would be great. F114 #7 It 49 • Statement of James E. Clark Pertaining to Rezoning Application 08-07 JAN 1 6 2000 January 16, 2008 My name is James E. Clark and I reside at 126 Ladderback Court in Cross Creek Village on Apple Valley Road, Shawnee District. I appeared at the December 19 hearing on this matter, so I will not repeat my criticisms of the disconnect between the status of highway development and land development in this part of the county. The applicant cannot possibly provide the highway improvements required to support this development. Let me quickly enumerate what the applicant's own analysis deems necessary. • A new four -lane connection between Shady Elm Road and US- 11 including a bridge over a railroad.. • Four through lanes on US -I I at Apple Valley Road. • Four through lanes on US- 11 at the proposed connector. • No improvements on tiny Springdale Road but up to a 400 percent traffic increase. • New signalization at four intersections. A pledge of $250,000 for highway design and construction, and additional width for right-of-way on Shady Elm Road, as generous as they are, are no assurance of these multi -million dollar improvements What is needed is an approved scheduling and funding plan for these major highway upgrades. Only then would it make sense for the government of Frederick County to consider approvals of upzoning. Comprehensive plans are just that. a 4 They prescribe a number of united actions. Going forwd with only the land development components of a comprehensive plan is just another form of plan non-compliance. I believe the ball is in the county's court. Begin preparing for these needed highway improvements so that land developments do not overwhelm the existing highway network. "The transportation impacts associated with this request ... have not been fully mitigated." Although delicately stated, these words from your own professional staff are words of warning. Except for those who would have us believe that denial of upzoning is tantamount to holding an applicant hostage, rejection of upzoning proposals is precisely what is expected from a public body when it identifies unacceptable or unmitigated impacts. To do less would be a betrayal of the trust we have placed in our public officials. Ig , _� _L` ,%�.t Statement of James E. Claris Pertaining to Rezoning Application 08-07 December 19, 2007 My name is James E. Clark and I reside at 126 Ladderback Court in Cross Creels Village on Apple Valley Road. From my reading of the public documents you have supplied, the applicant for the Artillery Business Center is certainly justified in applying for light industrial zoning of a 59 acre parcel of land on Shady Elm Road. The request appears to conform to the Comprehensive Plan and the land is within an area currently served by both water and sewer services. But, as you know, the applicant is also expected to avoid costly or unmanageable impacts of land development. We, the public, encourage and expect you to examine zoning proposals for any unmitigated impacts that the public can suffer and to reject those proposals that cause unacceptable impacts.. I have concluded that this development proposal is terribly flawed, as well as untimely, because of traffic impacts on the adjacent two-lane road network. The single improvement that would appear to significantly aid in traffic management is a good concept, but not a reality. The developer can give no assurances that a connector road between Shady Elm Road and US- 11 will ever be built. So far as I know, the connector is not designed, nor priced, nor funded, nor scheduled, nor is it known what right-of-way acquisition problems may be involved. The promise of a short section of this road on the applicant's property is simply of no use unless the entire roadway is built. The development must, therefore, depend on the existing road network for access and egress. Have you observed current conditions, particularly at the intersection of Apple Valley Road and US- 11 in the afternoons when traffic on US-11 must k 0 -2- • wait through three and four signal cycles —service level E, in other words. Or have you witnessed the delays caused by train traffic at the US -I I crossing. These are not signalization or turn lane problems. They are capacity problems. Have you thought how this congestion will be exacerbated by the traffic impacts of the other two developments under construction on Shady Elm and Apple Valley Roads. At this stage, those impacts are all estimates. Have those estimates been added to the estimates for the current proposal? And how good are the estimates. The Opus developer is still determining the split between office and warehouse uses. We should remember that level of service analyses do not take into consideration weather, or darkness, or accidents, or train crossings or other inevitable fluctuations of traffic patterns . It is not an exact science. And please let us not forget the impacts on the residents of Apple Valley Road, a road with no pedestrian or bicyclist accommodations. Excessive traffic speeds will continue to be a concern, but think of the growing conflict with the 40 driveways that connect to this thoroughfare. Most traffic engineers will agree that driveway entrances on major roads should be minimized for safety reasons, all the more reason to be concerned as Apple Valley Road begins to take on the characteristics of an arterial road. In conclusion, I suggest that serious consideration be given to the denial of this application. The cumulative impacts of this proposal and those of ongoing developments are too serious to risk. It is in no one's interest to overload an already stressed network of two lane roads. This proposal is a classic case of putting the cart in front of the horse. Tell the developer that the traffic impact of his proposal is not acceptable at this time. • • Page 1 of I hunter From: <RobPT@aol.com> To: <hunter@wave2net.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:22 PM Subject: Re: Planning meeting Weds. - letter to submit Dear Planning Commission of Frederick County. Unfortunately, we could not be present at the planning commission meeting on Wednesday, January 16. Our son is getting married this weekend. We have some very serious concerns regarding the rezoning application for property on Shady Elm Rd. that we would like to express. First, the application fails to address the transportation impacts generated by this request, as stated on page 6 of Rezoning Application #08-07. The surrounding roads will not be able to handle the increased traffic, particularly truck traffic, that this project, as well as the new FedEx and Opus projects, will produce. This will cause major trafic issues, as well as major tax increases, since there is presently no money available to do any of the necessary improvements. Secondly, the property is within 1000 feet of residential property and no proffers have been written stating what the developer plans to do to comply with the existing code. They could build a major distribution center right in the midst of residential and agricultural areas. This would be a major detriment to residents' properties in the area. We urge you to seriously consider these concerns before you allow the Shady Elm property to be rezoned. Sincerely, Robert and Donna Diaz 1006 Shady Elm Rd. Winchester, VA Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitnesstwinter-exercise?NCI D=aolcmp00300000002489 01 /15/2008 Page 1 of 1 Mike Ruddy From: Patrick R. Sowers [Patrick.Sowers@phra.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 3:44 PM To: Ingram, Lloyd; Eric Lawrence; Mike Ruddy; John Bishop Cc: Ronald A. Mislowsky Subject: Artillery Revisions Lloyd and Fred Co Planning Staff: I've attached a revised proffer that I hope you will find in accordance with our conference call earlier today. The revised GDP breaks the Property into two tracts - A 28.7 acre tract which fronts Shady Elm Road and a 30.0 acre tract which fronts the railroad on the back side of the Property. The revised proffers provides for the construction of the 1100 foot section of the east west collector road with the following triggers (whichever occurs first): 1) Prior to issuance of the 4th building permit. 2) Upon bridge construction over the railroad. 3) Prior to issuance of a building permit in Land Bay 2. 4) Prior to December 31, 2013. 5) Should one large user take down the site, I have also added a clause to Proffer 2.2 which states that if a structure is proposed in Land Bay 1 but includes land located within Land Bay 2 as depicted on site plan then the roadway would have to be constructed prior to a certificate of occupancy for that building. Proffer 2.2.2 requires that Land Bay 2 have access provided via the easternmost entrance on the East-West Collector road as shown on the GDP. After talking to the client, I have modified the signalization agreement language to place a $200,000 cap on the agreement. Let me know if you would like to see any language modifications or if you have any questions. Thanks, Patrick Patrick R. Sowers Planner Patton Harris Rust & Associates, pc 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 P 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 www.phra.com 11 /6/2007 Patton Harris Rust & As Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. R+A 117 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 PH T 540.667.2139Memorandum F 540.665.0490493 To: Mike Ruddy Organization/Company: Frederick County Planning From: Patrick Sowers Date: February 7, 2008 Project Name/Subject: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application My client has reached an agreement with Mr. Carbaugh to purchase the land necessary to extend the East-West Collector Road from Shady Elm Road to the railroad right of way. As such, I have attached a revised proffer statement dated 2/7/08 which provides the land area necessary for this extension of the Collector Road. In addition to providing this off site area, my client has now proffered to design the roadway as an R4D cross section from Shady Elm Road to the railroad right of way. The proffer statement maintains the previously provided transportation commitments including construction of 1100 feet of the East West Collector, Shady Elm Road Improvements, funding of an at grade crossing of the railroad, and a monetary contribution of $250,000.00 for offsite road improvements. Additionally, proffer 4.2 regarding signage has been modified to clarify that if the County adopts stricter sign controls than what is proffered, then the sign limits will be regulated by the future ordinance. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the revisions. PRS Feb, 12, 2008 10: 36AM February 12, 2008 0 Mr. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Panning Director Frederick County, Virginia �4�C 5%a—dGS—G3 9S` Dear Mr. Ruddy: I am fazing to you the following: 0 No. 4234 Memo — February 12, 2008 — Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER Copy of Letter to Venture I, of Winchester, LLC February 6, 2008 — Subject: Your LETTER OF INTENT, January 27, 2008, Artillery Business Center In light of the upcoming meeting that the Frederick County Board of Supervisors has scheduled for Wednesday, February 13, 2008, at 7:15 p.m., I am submitting to you on behalf of my father, henry J. Carbaugh, the above documentation. I am unable to attend the meeting, due to other commitments. It is not Henry Carbaugh's intentions, nor my intentions, to speak against any neighbor or owner of property along Shady Elm Road. We do see and understand the significant development along Shady Elm Road, both light industrial and residential. • A significant amount of the light industrial development was located along Shady Elm Road some time before any of the residential development of the most recent years. This was not unknown to the residential owners. • We do not envision any property on the East side of Shady Elm. Road for residential usage, as the railroad and high voltage power line would somewhat prohibit residential development. • The residential subdivisions are so located on the West/Southwest side of Shady Elm Road, where there is not any significant negativity and adverse elements for the residential owners. Shady Elm Road does in a somewhat defining way, separate the rural and residential area from the light industrial, along the West side of Shady Elm Road from Soldiers Rest Lane to Springdale Road. • There is light industrial development on the East and West side of Shady Elm Road, and this has been the intent of the Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan for 15 to 20 years. • Owners must learn to work together for improvement of roadways and public safety. The development is already there, and now what roadways will best address better roadways and public safety? I hope this is some way gives our views, as our family has been owners at 831 Shady Elm Road for nearly 90 years, while all the other owners have sold off their property over the last 30 — 40 years. You may share any of this documentation with any member of the Board of Supervisors for their upcoming meeting. Venture I of Winchester, LLC have signed the Letter of Intent of February 6, 2008. Sin;ce�ely, Wayrfe, W. Carbaugh Feb, 12. 2008 10:36AM M 0 No, 4234 P. 2 February 12, 2008 TO: Michael T. Ruddy, A.ICP, Deputy Planning Director, Frederick County, Virginia FROM: Wayne W. Carbaugh for Henry J. Carbaugh (Owner of moll Dale Farm) Subject: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER My father understands that the owners of the Artillery Business Center will be presenting their plans before the board of supervisors on February 13, 2008. He is not able to attend the meeting, and no authorized individual will be there to speak on his behalf. There are certain items I would like to address as follows: Henry Carbaugh continues to support the efforts of the Artillery Business Center Group, particularly for improving public safety and roadways. He has a signed intent to sell four to six acres, more or less, to support the planned collector road from the railroad property to a certain point along the line of the Carbaugh property and the Artillery Business Center property. This intent to sell is strictly contingent with the following hvo conditions with certain time limitations: 1. The Artillery Business Center Group must receive approval from the appropriate Frederick County officials and departments for their rezoning request. 2. The Artillery Business Center Group must receive approval from the Frederick County's Transportation Department and VDOT for their collector roadway design and plans. There should be a high priority for improving the road system to support the development that has and is occurring along the Shady Elm corridor. We recognize the development that has occurred and will continue to increase on the East and West of Shady Elm Road with the following statements, as was made on January 18, 2008: • The .Artillery Business Center Group does appear to be aligning its development within Frederick County's Comprehensive Plan. • The Artillery Business Center Group's property is in a designated urban development area. It is a property that would not be suitable for residential construction, because of the railroad and the high voltage power line. • Henry Carbaugh has never opposed any development of any neighboring property owners, as he has always believed a property owner should have the ;freedom to develop within the guidelines of Frederick County. He has never spoken against any neighbor's development efforts, which has occurred to the west and north of his farm. • It is recognized that Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road need improvements for public safety and to meet VDOT standards for business and light industrial Feb.12. H 10;3 development. I havlodressed my views toward road impro*ent for Shady Elm Road to Mr. Bishop of the Frederick County Transportation Department. Development of businesses and light industrial facilities along Shady Elm has ' been approved for some time. Any property East of Shady Elm Road should not be developed for residential homes, because of the railroad and high voltage power line. In summary, the Shady Elm Roadway needs to be improved, and it is believed that the East to West roadway from U. S. Route 11 to Shady Elm Road is most essential to support the traffic and public safety reeds on Apple Valley Road and Shady Elm Road. The intent agreement to sell/purchase between Henry J. Carbaugh and Venture I of Winchester, LLC (Artillery Business Center Group) is a private agreement, being signed by Henry J. Carbaugh and Venture I of Winchester, LLC. Venture I of Winchester, LLC has permission to disclose the terms and conditions of the agreement to the Board of Supervisors, upon their request. 1, Wayne Carbaugh, am the only person who is authorized to speak for Henry Cazbaugh. W�W. Carbaugh (540) 868-7127 work (540) 667-0655 home Feb. 12. 2008 10:36AM 0 No, Q34 N. 4 February 6, 2008 Mr. H. Paige Manuel, Managing Member Venture I of Winchester, LLC Winchester, Virginia 22601 Subject: Your LETTER OF INTENT, January 27, 2008, .Artillery )Business Center Dear Mr. Manuel: Thank you for the opportunity to review and consider your offer of intent to purchase four acres, more or less, for a minimum price of $150,000.00, or up to six acres for a maximum price of $224,000.00, It is understood and agreed that the price for four acres is at a price of $37,500.00 per acre. Further it is understood and agreed that the purchase over four to six acres, more or less, will be based on a price of $37,000.00 per acre. The four to six acres, more or less, is located in the North/Northeast corner of the Carbaugh property, having boundary with the Venture 1 of Winchester, LLC property and railroad property. This letter is to document certain terms and conditions of the sale for prices stated above, and based on the following two conditions: 1. The sale will only occur if the rezoning to M-1 (Light Industrial) is approved for Venture 1 of Winchester, LLC for 58 acres, more or less, located at 551 Shady Elm Road (Tax Map 75-A-1), Frederick County, Virginia, by the appropriate governing authorities of Frederick County, Virg nia. 2_ -The sale will only occur if approvals are granted by the Nrirginia Department of Transportation for the designated collector road from a certain point at Shady Elm Road to the railroad property, bordering the East/Northeast corner of the Carbaugh property. Closing and settlement will be determined for a future date, based on the fulfillment of the above two conditions. it is agreed that as part of this agreement, an $18,500.00 non- refundable option payment will be made to Henry J. Carbaugh, Trustee, not later than July 30, 2008, for purpose of extending the closing and settlement beyond July 30, 2008. it is understood and agreed if settlement occurs on or before July 30, 2008, the payment due will be $18,500.00, with the balance of one half of the purchase price.due on or before December 31, 2008. It is agreed that the $19,500.00 option payment will be part of the purchase price, if the sale is completed after July 30, 2008. It is understood and agreed by both parties that the closing and settlement will not extend beyond December 31, 2008, Should settlement occur on or before December 31, 2008, one half of the purchase price will be paid at settlement, as stated above, with the balance paid in the calendar year 2009, but no later than June 30, 2009. Feb. 11 If Venture I of Winchester, LLC purchases the four to size acres, more or less, they agree to the following three conditions: I _ The four to six acres, more or less, will be surveyed at the expense of Venture I of Winchester, LLC- Z. Cattle fencing along the Carbaugh property and new boundary line will be installed at the expense of Venture I of Winchester, LLC. The force shall be no less than six feet in height. 3. Venture I of Winchester, LLC will request in writing from Frederick County authorities that any "roll -back zeal estate taxes" be waived for Henry T. Carbaugh, Trustee, in light of goodwill for the transaction to support the proposed new roadway from Shady Elm Road to the railroad property. My signature below indicates my intent to sell four to six acres, more or less, per the terms and conditions, as stated in this letter. If you are in agreement with the terms and conditions, please indicate your acceptance by returning a signed copy of this letter to me. Sincerely, 1 N,, Henry J. Carbaugh, Trustee Owner of Knoll Dale Farm Accepted and Approved: H. Paige Manuel, Managing Member Venture I of Winchester, LLC Date: Patton Harris Rust & Associates f=nylneeis Sul,yr,Ir Ph inn of ,.[wndu nls A, hit,,. t,. January 29, 2008 Mr. Michael Ruddy Planning and Development Frederick County, Virginia 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 RE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application I JAN 20� P n A Dear Mike: HAt the January 16, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting, I presented two alternative proffer statements for the Planning Commission's consideration regarding the CORPORATE: Artillery Business Center Rezoning Application. I would like to formally withdraw Chant,.l. the proffer statement identified as Alternative 2 as submitted to your office. As VIRGINIA OFFICES: such, the proffer statement previously identified as Alternative 1 will be the proffer Bridge•.%ate, statement that we will present to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration at the public hearing scheduled for February 13, 2008. r—'., I have attached a proffer statement that is identical to the previously submitted LeeSb`I'_' Alternative 1 but without the heading on the title page identifying it as such to avoid any confusion. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (540) 667-2139. Sincerely, Patton Harris Rust & Associates MARYLAND OFFICES: Patrick R. Sowers Enclosure PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Aller!3 n WEST VIRGINIA OFFICE: MaFtlnsbulg T 540-667 2139 F 540.665 0493 1 17 East P,ccaddl, Street uite 200 Ninchestei, VA 22601 Patton Harris Rust & Associates • Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects. RA1 17 East Piccadilly Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 PH T 540.667.2139 F 540.665.0493 To: Mike Ruddy, AICP Organization/Company: Frederick County Planning and Development From: Patrick Sowers Date: October 12, 2007 Project Name/Subject: Artillery Business Park Rezoning Application Please find attached the following revised materials for the Artillery Business Park Rezoning Application: 1. Revised Proffer Statement 2. Revised Impact Analysis Statement 3. VDOT Comment Feel free to call if you have any questions. Thanks. PRS SEP 2 1 Z^r6 Document Approval Form 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 YOU WOULD LIKE TO HA VE COMPLETED. INITIALS Candice Angie Mark Dana Eric (Mik John Lauren COMMENTS: G Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): U:\Pam\Common\Document Approval Form.wpd DATE & TIME The Winchester Star Pagel of 3 - Today's Weather - Winchester, VA 28 OF Clear at 8:40 Arvl. 4r1 Click for Forecast Winclleslcr Sla►. Deliver my E-Edition `I�H'`13111�N�11'r �iilr :MMAN INONRM Try out The Star's new E-Edition for Free Every page of The Winchester Star delivered to your desktop. It's the print edition -- minus the ink on your hands. Questions or comments SITE FEATURES Auto Guide Homes Guide Auctions Help Wanted Lap By Lap NASCAR Place Classifieds Advertising Rates Stocks Dear Abby Movie Listings TV Listings Other Newspapers Online Games The Star Story Engagement Form Thursday, February 14, 2008 Back to Home Page Artillery Business Center rezoning approved By Robert Igoe The Winchester Star Winchester — The rezoning of the Artillery Business Center will proceed after all. At its regular meeting on Wednesday in the Frederick County Office Complex, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors voted 6-1 to approve a request by Patton, Harris, Rust, and Associates to rezone 58.7 acres of property along Shady Elm Road from Rural Areas to Light Industrial. The board's decision went against the recommendation of the Frederick County Planning Commission, which opposed the rezoning last month after a series of spirited public hearings in which nearby residents urged denial. The commission based its recommendation for denial on concerns over the impact the rezoning would have on vehicle traffic patterns and levels. A traffic impact analysis states that the rezoning would create more problem areas on roads in the Kernstown area, though the same study also showed that a connector road between Shady Elm Road and U.S. 11, which is part of PHR&A's plan, would mitigate some of these problems. Several residents presented their concerns again at the board's hearing on Wednesday. "Until the road is finally built, we would have to rely upon current road conditions," said Jim Clark of Cross Creek Village. "Do we really want to worsen these problems?" Not everyone was opposed to the rezoning. "I've travelled those roads for 20 years," said developer Bruce Dawson. "I see no problem there." Ethics Panel: Idaho Senator Acted Improperly Play I Former Brovens QB Booty Arrested, p�yF, �, �� Tnserr7l ►` Play Man Slashes NYC PsychOlogisl to Death n,�4� i play FAITH ,TEMPLE CHIUSHAN Ciit K01 1$inche. er, t"srFieia ItIr Valley Health http://www.winchesterstar.coin/article_details.php?ArticleID=4661 2/14/2008 The Winchester Star Page 2 of 3 Wedding Form Anniversary Form BYRD NEWSPAPERS The Winchester Star Daily News -Record The Warren Sentinel Shen. Valley -Herald Page News & Courier The Valley Banner *THE VALLEY SCOPE* .................................................. ,UTIRS PAYOFF YOEJ7 L HOUSE IN AS LITTLE AS 1/3TO IY2TItETImE. N7THOuT REFINANCING DouGLAs HYATT 540.550- 4234 PHR&A officials told the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday that the Planning Commission's decision punished them unfairly. "It's not fair to ask us to offset impacts caused by other developments and existing conditions," said PHR&A engineer Ron Mislowsky. "Our task is to mitigate impacts caused by our own developments. I think we have done more than our fair share in doing that." The commission also based its decision on the firm's presentation of two proffer agreement options the day of the final hearing, and felt that allowing an applicant to force the commission to chose between agreements would set a bad precedent. Two changes to the PHR&A plan since then seemed to tilt the scale in the Artillery Business Center's favor. One change was a revised proffer agreement that eliminated the other alternatives and offered the county $250,000 for transportation improvements, as well as a promise to design and build a railroad crossing over CSX tracks in the road's path. The plan also called for PHR&A to build two 1,100-foot lanes in a four -lane, east -west connector road from Shady Elm Road to the edge of the business center, which borders land owned by the Carbaugh family. The other change was an agreement with the Carbaugh family, who owns property that part of the road would be built on, for a right of way that would allow the road to be built up to the CSX railroad tracks. "We have to look to the future," said Supervisor Gary Lofton, who made the motion to approve the request. "In the long term, it is better to have that east -west connector road. Without the right-of-way agreement, I would not approve this. But with the right-of-way, the road is closer to completion, and this will mitigate a lot of transportation issues." A relative of the property owners spoke against the plan out of concern that the road would not be able to go any farther. "I hate to see good farmland go out of production, because it never comes back," said Joe Carbaugh. "I just don't see the purpose of this road. It will just go to the railroad tracks and no farther." While an agreement to cross the tracks was not part of the deal, PHR&A engineer Patrick Sowers said during the Planning Commission hearings that he was confident that an agreement with CSX could be reached, though he said the railroad would prefer an overpass to a new grade crossing. Supervisor Charles DeHaven was the only board member to vote against the request on Wednesday. The center's approval was met by frustration from opponents who shouted their feelings to the Get Local TV Listings tiSC �Pavrerryed by n View TV Listings Ads by'Google HomeBuzz.info Local Online Homes Guide Search for Homes in VA&WV www homebuzz.info http://www.winchesterstar.conl/article_details.php?ArticleID=4661 2/14/2008 The Winchester Star Page 3 of 3 s as they left. ten to us," said Chuck Hunter. hen the road is done," said Greg Brown. — Contact Robert Igoe at rigoe@winchesterstar.com Back to Home Page Click here to review past issues of www.winchesterstar.com February 141February 131February 121February 111February 9 ARCHIVES Copyright © 2002.2008 by The Winchester Star - All Rights Reserved. PRIVACY POLICY http://www.winchesterstar.com/article_details.php?AlticleID=4661 2/14/2008 40 El COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING January 30, 2008 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER On behalf of the Frederick County Board of Supervisors, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, February 13, 2008 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 #08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Light Industrial Uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend the 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 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: www.co.frederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP ; `f Deputy Planning Director MRT/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the ttached correspondence was mailed to the following on ®� from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 75 - A- - 2-M 75 -A- - 1- RGB OF WINCHESTER, LLC VENTURE I OF WINCHESTER, LLC 827 ARMISTEAD ST 180.3 PROSPERITY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4017 WINCHESTER,VA 22602 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC 117 F. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 75 -A- - 1-A SYNERGY INVESTMENTS, LLC 416 BATTAILE OR WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4263 75 -A- - 1-1) FVC PROPERTIES, INC 840 S BROADWAY HICKSVILLE, NY 11801-5017 75 -A- - 1-C CORRUGATED CONTAINER CORP 100 DEVELOPMENT LN WINCHESTER, VA 75A - 6- B- 41-A VANCO, LLC 102 ELDERBERRY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2572 75 - A- - 2-P PROSPERITY 81, LLC 1304 SEVERN WAY STE F STERLING, VA 20166.8916 75 - A- - 2-F STROSNYDER, LYLE P, INC. 220 PROSPERITY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.5320 75 - A- - 2-0. PIPPIN ENTERPRISES, LLC 164 MEADOW TRACE LN MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1851 75 - A- - 2-13 ALIZARIN CRIMSON, LLC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 22603 i i, ✓L� cc.� / �� oLe �p Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, do eby certify that Mic. ael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Pi ng an Development, whose name is signed to the foregoing, dated 0 2 , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my S ate anft County aforesaid. Given under my hand this N(� day of Ca d 0 My commission expires on NOTARYjyJBLIC HVERLY H. DELLINGER NOTARY ID # 331878 NOTARY PUBLIC COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JULY 31, 2011 74 -A- - 71- BRIM, LOUISE S. ET ALS 124 SPRINGDALE RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2538 74 - A- - 68- CARBAUGH, HENRY J TRUSTEE 831 SHADY ELM RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2534 74 - 3- - 3- HOCKMAN, KITTY B 690 SHADY ELM RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2525 63 -7- - 5- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING January 4, 2008 THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 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 #08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1. Any interested parties having questions or wishing to speak may attend the 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 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. Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that . t e Attached correspondence was mailed to the following on /& D from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: RGB OF WINCHESTER, LLC VENTURE I OF WINCHESTER, LLC 827 ARMISTEAD ST 180-3 PROSPERITY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22601-4017 WINCHESTER,VA 22602 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 SYNERGY INVESTMENTS, LLC 416 BATTAILE DR WINCHESTER, VA FVC PROPERTIES, INC 840 S BROADWAY HICKSVILLE, NY PROSPERITY 81, LLC 1304 SEVERN WAY STE F STERLING, VA 20166-8916 STROSNYDER, LYLE P, INC. 220 PROSPERITY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.5320 22601.4263 PIPPIN ENTERPRISES, LLC 164 MEADOW TRACE LN MIDDLETOWN, VA 11801.5017 ALIZARIN CRIMSON, LLC CORRUGATED CONTAINER CORP 100 DEVELOPMENT LN WINCHESTER, VA /bA - b- 5. 41-A VANCO, LLC 102 ELDERBERRY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2572 22603 a• w giiwgW� qi 9gPiipG' PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22645-1851 22655-0480 i RP is .i pgAq�fi°p qp 99PGGi9 Fa Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director / Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK a Notaiy Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, d ereby certify that ichael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Pl ' g /af Development, whose naive is signed to the foregoing, dated f p , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my Stat4 and County aforesaid. Given under my hand this My commission expires on day of ad v SEVERILY H, DELLINGER NOTARY ID # 331878 NOTARY PUBLIC % (;COMMONWEALTH OF VIRG, 201 NOTARY UBLIC tv L-.OMISSION MMISSION EXPIRES juy 31; BRIM, LOUISE S. ET ALS 124 SPRINGDALE RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602-2538 i CARBAUGH, HENRY .J TRUSTEE 831 SHADY ELM RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2534 HOCKMAN, KITTY B 690 SHADY ELM RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2525 UJ - I- - u- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 0 i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2007 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 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 #08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to Ml (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1. 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 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, ..-Z4-1 7 Michael T. Ruddy, AICP Deputy Planning Director MRT/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 This is to certify that the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on o' from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virginia: 75 -A- - 1- VENTUREI OF WINCHESTER, LLC 827 ARMISTEAD ST WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4017 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 75 -A- - 1-A 75 - A- - 2-M RGB OF WINCHESTER, LLC 100-3 PROSPERITY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602 75 - A- - 2-P PROSPERITY 81, LLC 1304 SEVERN WAY STE F STERLING, VA 20166.0916 75 - A- - 2-F STROSNYDER, LYLE P, INC. SYNERGY INVESTMENTS, LLC 220 PROSPERITY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-5320 416 BATTAILE DR 75 - A- - 2.0 WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4263 PIPPIN ENTERPRISES, LLC 75 -A- - 1-D 164 MEADOW TRACE LN FVC PROPERTIES, INC MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1851 840 S BROADWAY 75 - A- - 2-R HICKSVILLE, NY 11801.5017 ALIZARIN CRIMSON, LLC 75 -A- - 1-C CORRUGATED CONTAINER CORP 100 DEVELOPMENT LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2572 75A - 6- B- 41-A VANCO, LLC 102ELDERBERRY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22603 STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director Frederick County Planning Department 1, , 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 74 -A- - 71- BRIM, LOUISE S. ET ALS 124 SPRINGDALE RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2538 74 - A- - 68- CARBAUGH, HENRY J TRUSTEE 831 SHADY ELM RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2534 74 -3- - 3- HOCKMAN, KITTY B 690 SHADY ELM RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2525 63 -7- - 5- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 r' or Lq Z-C-,e y b Adjoining Property Owners Artillery Business Center TARBARA-DATA PROCESSING FROW BEV - Planning Dept. Please print sets of labels HANKS! Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Synergy Investments, LLC 416 Battaile Dr Property#: 75-A-1A V Winchester, VA 22601 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 840 S Broadway Property#: 75-A-1 D -' Hicksville, NY 11801 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 500 N Broadway, Ste 103 Property#: 75-A-1 E Jericho, NY 11753 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 500 N Broadway, Ste 103 Property#: 75-A-1B Jericho, NY 11753 Name: Corrugated Container Corp 100 Development Ln Property#: 75-A-1C V Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Vanco, LLC 102 Elderberry Dr Property #: 75A-6-B-41A Winchester, VA 22603 Name: RGB of Winchester, LLC 180-3 Prosperity Dr Property#: 75-A-2M v Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Prosperity 81, LLC 1304 Severn Way, Ste F Property#: 75-A-2P v Sterling, VA 20166 Name: Strosnyder, Lyle P, Inc. 220 Prosperity Dr Property#: 75-A-2F `-� Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Pippin Enterprises, LLC 164 Meadow Trace Ln Property #: 75-A-2Q t/ Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Alizarin Crimson, LLC P.O. Box 480 Property#: 75-A-2R Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Brim, Louise S et als 124 Springdale Rd Property #: 74-A-71 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Carbaugh, Henry J Trustee 831 Shady Elm Rd Property#: 74-A-68 t/ Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property#: 74-3-3 ✓ Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property#: 74-3-2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property#: 74-3-1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-5 Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-4 Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-3 Stephens City, VA 22655 0 0 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING October 26, 2007 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, 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 #08-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1. 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 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, AICP Deputy Planning Director MRT/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 0 • This is to certi th t the attached correspondence was mailed to the following on from the Department of Planning and Development, Frederick County, Virgin 75 - A- - 2-M 75 -A- - 1- RGB OF WINCHESTER, LLC VENTURE 1 OF WINCHESTER, LLC 827 ARMISTEAD ST 180.3 PROSPERITY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22601.4017 WINCHESTER, VA 22602 Patton Harris Rust Associates, PC Attn: Charles Maddox 117 E. Piccadilly Street, Suite 200 Winchester, VA 22601 75 -A- - 1-A SYNERGY INVESTMENTS, LLC 416 BATTAILE DR WINCHESTER, VA 75 -A- - 1-D FVC PROPERTIES, INC 840 S BROADWAY HICKSVILLE, NY 75 -A- - 1-C 75 - A- - 2-P PROSPERITY 81, LLC 1304 SEVERN WAY STE F STERLING, VA 2016E-8916 75 - A- - 2-F STROSNYDER, LYLE P, INC. 220 PROSPERITY DR WINCHESTER, VA 22602-5320 22601.4263 75 - A- - 2.0. PIPPIN ENTERPRISES, LLC 164 MEADOW TRACE LN MIDDLETOWN, VA 22645.1851 11801.5017 75 - A- - 2-11 ALIZARIN CRIMSON, LLC CORRUGATED CONTAINER CORP PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655.0480 100 DEVELOPMENT LN WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2572 75A - 6- B- 41-A VANCO, LLC "`� `� 102 ELDERBERRY DR Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Direct r WINCHESTER, VA 22603 Frederick County Planning Department STATE OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF FREDERICK �- I, , a Notary Public in and for the State and County aforesaid, d41eby certify that Mich l T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director for the Department of Planning ,and Development, whose naive is signed to the foregoing, dated /D /j . , has personally appeared before me and acknowledged the same in my State and"County aforesaid. c Given under my hand this2L-11day of My commission expires on MO R NOTA IRGINIAMY 31, 2011 d" � � g "M J, - -xV, " NOTARY P LIC 74 • A- • 71- • BRIM, LOUISE S. ET ALS 124 SPRINGDALE RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2538 74 - A- - 68. CARBAUGH, HENRY J TRUSTEE 831 SHADY ELM RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2534 74 -3- - 3- HOCKMAN, KITTY B 690 SHADY ELM RD WINCHESTER, VA 22602.2525 63 -7- - 5- JASBO, INC PO BOX 480 STEPHENS CITY, VA 22655-0480 Y COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING August 3, 2007 TO:\THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS On behalf of the Frederick Cori. rity Planning Commission, ypri are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, August t 2007, at 7:00 p.m,: in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North 'Kent Street ,Inchester, Virginia to consider the following application: Rezoning 08-07 of Artillery Busin ess,,C enter, subm-itted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural A,Y,das) District to M1 (Light ndustrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. �Tfie property is located east aild, adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magistel istrict, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1. A copy of the application will be available for review at the Handley Library and the B wman Library the week of 0 meeting, or at the Department of Plamiing and Development located at 10 � � orth Kent Street it Winchester, Virginia, or by calling (540) 665-5651. You can also visit us on the web at: o.fiederick.va.us. Sincerely, Michael T. Ruddy, AICP r/ Deputy Planning Director MRT/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning & Development 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 Winchester, Virginia 22601 DEC 1 3 75A - 6- B- 41-A VANCO, LLC = 102ELDERBERRY DR WINCHESTER,VA 22603 016H265i6'2 " 2 6,2 1:7ai1e? Frew 22&D i NIXIE. '2101 DE :L Ct) I j i : L 0 r' € Tc� r n&— RTD --y--tt:�.`s�n�`�i� -•- �;.t,i;.i.i;��;.iF, ��,g,i._,��,,.:��. '?:..�;i,,�,x, ti ,i COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/ 665-6395 NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2007 TO: THE APPLICANT(S) AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER(S) RE: REZONING APPLICATION #08-07 FOR ARTILLERY BUSINESS CENTER On behalf of the Frederick County Planning Commission, you are hereby notified of a public hearing being held on Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 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 408-07 of Artillery Business Center, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to rezone 58.7 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to M1 (Light Industrial) District, with proffers, for Office and Warehouse Uses. The property is located east and adjacent to Shady Elm Road, approximately 1,500 feet south of Route 37 in the Back Creek Magisterial District, and is identified by Property Identification Number 75-A-1. 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 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, t Michael T. Ruddy, AICP r Deputy Planning Director MRT/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 INDUSTRIAL • OFF;CE 3ro6O ACRES P"ERCIAL REALTY REZONING UBUC HEARING �< Board Room Frederick County Administration Building _ - � 665.56IF vll� ,tt a. ?� 'r�' it�ht}�, ,�;. ������ A i L�' , •�1� jr• -fit\ �. �� .fir.\ � .' >., ' '•� !.t`' ��� 1� . `n�' fi �, • �. �. �� ."�. �� �\ +'?�.,4:'�� 't -i,c., t � �.�..• l.. e. .yam ca,vg! ?r. �Y +� �� `�µ.1 t �'. ;�� .. y tj ���. ,`. '\,Y 1 ;y�i1 -� � 1.�1. _ _ �., ��' � �i _ i'tl= - � ,`�' �j,� Y . ,ys,1��. , -.7 �,. • _ e: � . I � y ;ram) �., • ,� .`q � ,� w . T PJ`bdil�. �'.i�, ���`'�,�,� `"` �1• REZONING ,4 PUBLIC NEARING, . Board Room Frederick County Administration Building r .. 66505651 w _ _ t yi, - •-.: i .o'L IY AW vo / ':�iti '..►•.. .L+► £ �'�✓aP3.. f{{f,�{�������y`/rn/' p _:a i m Q Il _i INDUSTRIAL •OFFICE 3TobQ ACRES ., C eeEncyy, nr _ 4 is A _ .. EZOHIHG _ ., , PUBLIC HEARING x Board Room FredericAdministrationk ck County Building 665-5651; e - kF2-- -d- 19g_02 A-K i jLC -C-"eY C X , P tAJ 75-4---/ COPY Adjoining Property Owners Artillery Business Center TARBARA-DATA PROC S T E S NG FROW BEV - Planning Dept. Please print sets of la I HANKSI Name Address Property Identification Number (PIN) Name: Synergy Investments, LLC 416 Battaile Dr Property#: 75-A-1A Winchester, VA 22601 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 840 S Broadway Property#: 75-A-1 D Hicksville, NY 11801 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 500 N Broadway, Ste 103 Property#: 75-A-1 E Jericho, NY 11753 Name: FVC Properties, Inc 500 N Broadway, Ste 103 Property#: 75-A-113 Jericho, NY 11753 Name: Corrugated Container Corp 100 Development Ln Property#: 75-A-1C Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Vanco, LLC 102 Elderberry Dr Property #: 75A-6-B-41A Winchester, VA 22603 Name: RGB of Winchester, LLC 180-3 Prosperity Dr Property#: 75-A-2M Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Prosperity 81, LLC 1304 Severn Way, Ste F Property#: 75-A-2P Sterling, VA 20166 Name: Strosnyder, Lyle P, Inc. 220 Prosperity Dr Property#: 75-A-2F Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Pippin Enterprises, LLC 164 Meadow Trace Ln Property#: 75-A-2Q Middletown, VA 22645 Name: Alizarin Crimson, LLC P.O. Box 480 Property #: 75-A-2R Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Brim, Louise S et als 124 Springdale Rd Property #: 74-A-71 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Carbaugh, Henry J Trustee 831 Shady Elm Rd Property #: 74-A-68 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property #: 74-3-3 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property#: 74-3-2 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Hockman, Kitty B. 690 Shady Elm Rd Property #: 74-3-1 Winchester, VA 22602 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-5 Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-4 Stephens City, VA 22655 Name: Jasbo, Inc. P.O. Box 480 Property#: 63-7-3 Stephens City, VA 22655 1 w N S E REQUESTING AGENT: f DEPT. OF GEOGRAPIUC INFORMATION1 SYSTEMS FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGRiIA GIS, MAPPING, GRAPHICS WORK QUEST DATE RECEIVED: % o 0 REQUESTED COMPLETION DATE: Department, Agency, or Company:_ Mailing and/or Billing Address: Telephone: E-mail Address: ESTIMATED COST OF PROTECT: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (Write additional �o �-d,e- DIGITAL: SIZES: COLOR: PAPER: FAX: BLACKIWIETE: STAFF MEMBER - COMPLETION DATE: MATERIALS: DATE OF PICK-UP/DELIVERY: AMOUNT DUE: AMOUNT BILLED: METHOD OF PAYMENT: FAX: fi,-T«451ey s ltsl A)C'�s �E loth .- -'7s-n -I NUMBER OF COPIES: HOURS REQUIRED: AMOUNT PAID: CHECK NO.# Frederick County GIS, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, VA 22601, (540)665-5651) J-U L 6 2001 Document Approval :Form 60�r� PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT. IF THIS DO CUMENT .APPROVAL PLEASE ��, AND PROVIDE THE DATE AND APPROVAL. OFTIME MEETS YOUR IF HaSDOC TDOESNOTMEET YOUR APPROVAL PLEASE Pk OYV)E COA LVENZ"SAS TO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COMPLETED. INITIALS DATE & TrgF, Candice Bernie Mark Susan Eric Kevin C _ John Lauren COMNIDNTS: Received by Clerical Staff (Date & Time): U:\Pam\Common\Document Approval Form.wpd