The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About004-90 Twin Lakes - Loggia Develop. Corp. - Backfile (3)Impact Analysis Statement Final March 6, 1990 (Revised March 27, 1990) Prepared For Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects mid Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners :.::.::...::.:.:::.:.:...::::::..:::.:....::.:.a t.::::: A: n. rz: l..: s:. s.:>::;:.;:�5>.ct.: :::m Table of Contents Page ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................1 1.0 Project Background.............................................................................................................3 1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................3 1.2 Location........................................................................................................................3 1.3 Zoning and Land Use................................................................................................4 1.4 Site Suitability ..............................................................................................................5 1.4.1 Landform........................................................................................................5 1.4.2 Vegetation.......................................................................................................5 1.4.3 Soils..................................................................................................................6 1.4.4 Views................................................................................................................6 1.4.5 Hydrology.......................................................................................................7 2.0 Development Plan................................................................................................................8 3.0 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................10 3.1 Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................10 3.1.1 Vegetation/Wildlife....................................................................................10 3.1.2 Soils/Geology...............................................................................................11 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality ..........................................................................11 3.1.4 Air Quality ....................................................................................................12 3.1.5 Drainage........................................................................................................12 3.2 Utility Systems Impact.............................................................................................13 3.2.1 Sewage Conveyance....................................................................................13 3.2.2 Water Supply................................................................................................15 3.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal..................................................................................16 3.3 Community Facilities...............................................................................................17 3.3.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities.........................................17 3.3.2 Historic Sites................................................................................................17 3.3.3 Education Facilities....................................................................................18 3.3.4 Libraries........................................................................................................19 3.3.5 Emergency Services..............................................................................:.....20 4.0 Fiscal Impact......................................................................................................................21 4.1 Demographic Estimates..........................................................................................21 4.2 Capital Impacts..........................................................................................................22 4.3 Revenue Projections.................................................................................................23 4.4 Capital Contributions...............................................................................................26 4.5 Short -Term Impacts.................................................................................................27 Addendum.........................................................................................................................34 11 Twin Lakes impact. Analysis .,Statement List of Figures Figure RegionalLocation Map.....................................................................................................................1.1 SurroundingProperties.....................................................................................................................1.2 SiteAnalysis.........................................................................................................................................1.3 SewerService Area.............................................................................................................................3.1 UtilitiesPlan.........................................................................................................................................3.2 CommunityFacilities.........................................................................................................................3.3 Executive Summary Twin Lakes Imp.ac:t Analysis ,Statement . EXECUTIVE SUMN ARY The following Impact Analysis Statement has been prepared for the Twin Lakes development as required by Frederick County for the rezoning application of the property. The Development Plan includes a residential community proposed within the RP Residential Performance District and a small support retail center proposed within the B-2 Business General District zones. The program proposed for this development includes approximately 1200 residential units and 35,000 square feet of retail space. An open space system of approximately 115 acres provides passive and active recreational space to this community which is organized around the centrally located lakes. A major collector road serves both this new community and the surrounding areas, linking Senseny Road to Route 7. Located within the Frederick County Urban Development Area, this project is an important component of planned residential growth in the County. Assembling approximately 400 acres, the project provides an opportunity for the application of sound comprehensive planning principles and sets high standards for the future development of this area of Frederick County. This site is part of the growth area designated by Frederick County for a number of reasons, including the suitability of this land for development, current land use patterns and availability of utility services. Our analysis of environmental and physical components of this site indicates that there is great opportunity for development within a framework that respects and incorporates existing natural systems. The development of Twin Lakes provides numerous benefits to the greater Frederick County community. Some of these benefits are less easily quantified, such as the aesthetic contributions of well planned project that fits into the landscape and into the fabric of the residential community of the County. Other benefits are readily numerated. These include direct benefits in County revenue, employment and income. 1 r7 1 Twin Lakes Impact Analysis ,St.atement At the full build -out of Twin Lakes, County revenues are projected to total approximately $1.9 million, including: $990,000 per year in Residential Real Property taxes. $743,750 per year in Residential Personal Property taxes. $169,336 per year in Frederick County's portion of state sales taxes. These revenues are estimated to be approximately 35% above the County average on a per -household basis. The additional revenues and potential capital contributions offered by the project would offset the increased demand for schools and recreational facilities that can be attributed to the proposed development. The support retail area will provide 88 permanent on -site jobs and the capital expenditures will provide 1,140 annual jobs throughout the area during the construction phase. The proposed population, having an income projected to be approximately 33% higher than the County average, will contribute nearly $17 million to the local economy in retail sales and services annually. A proposed major collector road will provide a vital transportation link to the County at a cost to the developer of at least $2 million. This connection of Senseny Road to Route 7 will eliminate the current need for the County to improve Greenwood Road. The Twin Lakes plan takes full advantage of the existing natural features of the site, develops a community of neighborhoods that are visually and physically linked by an open space network and provides services to the residents and to the greater Frederick County area. The developers, planners and designers of this project confidently submit this Impact Analysis Statement for review and look forward to the opportunity to develop this site with the approval of Frederick County. 2 I] rl 11 ri Twin Lakes Imp-aet Analysis _ S.t.a:tement 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction The Twin Lakes project is approximately a 400-acre site located in eastern Frederick County, Virginia, and falls within the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. Loggia Development Corporation is proposing to develop this property as a residential neighborhood with a neighborhood center that includes support retail, a possible school site and a park for the residential community. The purpose of this document is to provide an assessment of the impacts and benefits to Frederick County which results from development of the Twin Lakes residential community. These impacts and benefits are discussed in accordance with the Impact Analysis Statement as required by Frederick County for a rezoning application. For purposes of this analysis, impacts have been assessed for a development of 1200 dwelling units. The property is currently zoned Rural. The rezoning application for this site will request rezoning approximately 394 acres to RP -Residential Performance District and 6 acres to B-2 Business General District. The Development Plan which illustrates the rezoning intent appears in Section 3.0 of this report. 1.2 Location and Access The 400-acre Twin Lakes property is located in eastern Frederick County. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek, to the south by Senseny Road, and to the north by Route 7. The City of Winchester is two miles west and can be accessed from the property by Senseny Road and Route 7. Interstate 81 runs north -south just to the east of the City of Winchester and can be accessed from Route 7 (see Figure 1.1). 3 _..._ ....... I.... I ............... .......................................... Twin, Lakes _ Impact Analysis Statement r- Y; Location Map Figure 1.1 TWIN LAKE S Frederick County, Vf'r.c�fnln Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' 750' 1750' 0 1 � I Twin Lakes Zoning and Land Use • fm..�act .Ana..j.ys:ss:.:..slatement Twin Lakes is located within the "Urban Development Area" as designated by Frederick County, which encompasses the City of Winchester and areas adjacent to the city to the north, south and east. This development area is intended for more intensive development based on current land use, suitability of land for development and existing and planned sewage facilities. Recently, several of the parcels within this area were rezoned for residential and commercial uses with several other parcels in iLakes the planning stages for development. The remaining parcels, including the Twin Property, are zoned Rural, but due to their inclusion in the Urban Development Area, it is anticipated these parcels will be rezoned for residential and commercial uses. The current status of the parcels surrounding Twin Lakes include two parcels to the south, Apple Ridge and Bedford Village which are being developed as residential subdivisions, and a third which has already been rezoned for residential development. The adjoining parcels directly east of the property are still zoned rural although some of the parcels along Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) have been rezoned and being developed as residential subdivisions. (See Figure 1.2) Adjoining the property directly to the north is a sewage treatment facility operated by the Frederick County Sewage Authority. This is a new facility and will service development occurring in this part of the County. Historically, the Twin Lakes property has been used for agriculture uses including pasture and cultivated crops. A large section through the center of the property has remained wooded due to steep slopes and poor farming soils. The remainder of the site includes a large central lake and several smaller ponds and streams running through the property. t I Twill bakes v Impact Analysis Statement 0 a ah h �.. cam' P f TWIN LAKE S R x h P ! Frederick County, Yir,Qttrin Rui, :; F� Prepared For: Loggia Development n z° Corporation t >.� Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners g. 7V a 2 Gilbert W. Clifford & G f �I A. Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporatioxi Planners Surrounding Properties Figure 1.2 0' 250' 750' 1750' I � I Twin Lakes 41 fmpa:ct Anglys.is Statement 1.4 Site Suitability 1.4.1 Landform Twin Lakes is located along the western edge of the Opequon Creek. This area is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills with steep slopes along the Opequon Creek and other waterways which feed into the Opequon. The site is characteristic of the varied topography found in this region. The southern and northern section of the property are generally flat to gently rolling with steeper slopes occurring along the Opequon in the northern section. The central section of the property is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills which define the central lake and waterways. Figure 1.3 provides a site analysis map which identifies steep slopes in two categories: slopes 15-25% and slopes 25% and greater. According to this analysis, approximately 10% of the site falls within the 15-25% category and approximately 7% of the site falls within 25% and greater category with the remainder of the property falling into 0-1567,- category which is highly suitable for development. The varying topography in effect, provides a naturally occurring parcelization of the site into appropriately scaled neighborhood units. 1.4.2 Vegetation The Twin Lakes property contains a number of stands of mature vegetation which contribute significantly to the positive visual environment of the site. 47% of the overall Twin Lakes property is covered by mature vegetation. Because of the past agricultural uses of the property, this mature vegetation is concentrated in the central section corresponding to steeper slopes and areas less suited for agricultural use. 5 Twin Lakes Impact An.a.tys;i.s;:. S.tatement . This correlation of steeper slopes and vegetation provide the opportunity to provide naturally occurring buffer areas between the proposed development parcels (see figure 1.3). 1.43 Soils The following soils analysis is based on the Frederick County, Virginia Soil Survey, issued during January 1987. Frederick County is underlain by sedimentary rock with eastern Frederick characterized by shale and fine-grained sandstone. The general soil map for Frederick County indicates the Twin Lakes property falls within the Weikert- Berks-Blairton soils classification which is characterized by gentle to moderate slopes, shallow to moderate depth, and well -drained to poorly drained areas. Within the Twin Lakes property, the soils are generally moderately deep and moderately drained silt loam. A majority of the site is well suited for development with limitations for community development within a small percentage of the property. These limitations might be due to steep slopes, a seasonally high water table, and depth to bedrock. 1.4.4 Views The visual environment of Twin Lakes is a major contributor to the site's character and attractiveness. Views into the site occur mainly along the northern and southern sections of the site. These views indicate a gently rolling site with masses of vegetation along the edges. The central portion of the site provides interior views which are characterized by steep, heavily vegetated hillsides which define a lake and creek bed. Views off the site also occur along the northern and southern sections of the property. The views from the northern section include views to the west of surrounding residential properties and views northeast to Clarke County. The sewage treatment facility is only partially visible during winter months. The views from the southern section of the site include views of the surrounding residential properties to the south, east and west (see figure 1.3). 6 Twin Lakes • 1.4.5 Hydrology fmp.axt A.n.r:l.:ysis::..Statement The property is located within two drainage areas of the Opequon Creek basin. The northwestern portion of the property drains into the Abrams Creek sub -basin and the southeastern portion drains into the Senseny area sub -basin. There is one stream which flows east to west on the property. It has been damed to form a 14 acre pond in the center of the site. Two other small ponds exist on the site along with several intermittent streams. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Federal Insurance Administration have mapped the 100-year floodplain associated with the Opequon Creek. The floodplain only effects 3% of the Twin Lakes property as illustrated in Figure 1.3. 7 ...... .......... .... ........... ... .. ...... ..............�' Impact Ant�lysis .',statement L e g e n d Steep Slopes (15-25%) Steep Slopes (>25%) Mature Vegetation Water Feature Flood plain View Point Site, Analysis Figure 1.3 l� 0 LA T r. it& U1r V1 SSW A 61L F CLr m r. va T F A-C 11. rry TWIN LAKES Frederick Countv. Virvinia --grp. "-c Iupiilviit Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' 750' 17500 I LJ 1 � I � I 1 k 1 Twin Lakes 0. Impact Analysis St.atement 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Twin Lakes development proposes a new residential community in the Sensenv and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. This community is comprised of smaller residential neighborhoods which are defined by and follow the natural flow and form of the land. These residential neighborhoods are visually and physically linked by an open space system of lakes and greenways. A major collector road links the neighborhoods and provides connection from Senseny Road to Route 7. Attached at the back of this document is an illustration of the Development Plan and the intent of the design concept. A small Neighborhood Center is located along the major collector road within the northern quarter of the property. This area is characterized by an open landscape, flat topography and proximity to Route 7. The Neighborhood Center consists of a support retail component, residential areas, open space components and a potential school site, which collectively will provide a focus for the community. The park area within the neighborhood center provides a center green and also links into the overall open space network. The central section of the property contains several of the significant natural features of the property including the existing 14 acre pond, stands of mature hardwood trees, topographic variety and views of the pond and surrounding hillsides. The focus of residential neighborhoods in this portion of the development is the unique waterfront environment afforded by the expansion of the existing lake. Each neighborhood is sited to take advantage of views to the water bodies and the rolling topography. The southern section of the site, which is relatively level and open, will be developed into several residential neighborhoods. The open space network will link these parcels to the central amenity area. Entrances into the project and into each neighborhood will be identified as gateways by special landscape features, including walls or fences and more intensive planting. 11 Twin Lakes Impact Analysis Statement The suitability of the site affords the opportunity for developing between 1,200 and 1,400 housing units. The Twin Lakes community is expected to include approximately 600/c single-family detached units and 40% townhomes, eventually reaching a population of approximately 2,800. A summary of the Land Account for the plan is presented along with the development plan attached at the back of this report. 9 3.0 Impact Analysis I I 1 Twin Lakes • 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS Impact Ana.lv:sis Statement This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed Twin Lakes community relative to environmental concerns, public utility and community facility issues, and fiscal impacts. These impacts have been assessed for a development consisting of 1200 dwelling units. Mitigation measures related to the project's impact on the site and surrounding environment have also been identified. 3.1 Environmental Impacts 3.1.1 Vegetation/Wildlife Impacts to vegetation will result from clearing required for road right-of-ways and construction of buildings. As required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, no more than 25% of the mature woodlands on the site will be disturbed. Vegetation on steep slopes and along waterways will be protected through sensitive site planning to help minimize erosion and impacts to water quality. (See Sections 3.1.2 Soil/Geology and 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality for more information). Selective clearing practices will also be used to help mitigate loss of vegetation on the site. Wildlife potentially can be affected by the development of a residential community in the following ways: • through the loss of or disturbance to a specific vegetative habitat; • through creation of a habitat; and • through the loss of aquatic species due to sedimentation or water pollution. As noted above, the proposed Twin Lakes development will result in clearing of vegetation for road right-of-way and buildings, and alteration of waterways through I 10 Train Lakes 4 Impact Analysis Statement dams to create two new ponds and enlarge the existing one. Removal of the vegetation will cause relocation of wildlife until construction is complete. The impact will not be significant as long as the habitat of any sensitive or endangered species are not involved. No endangered species are presently known to exist in this portion of Frederick County. However, the disruption of existing habitat for aquatic species due to alteration of waterways is considered a slight impact for the development. 3.1.2 Soils/Geology Impacts as a result of soil erosion will be minimized through proper construction specifications and right-of-way preparation techniques. Most notably, these include the installation of soil erosion barriers prior to construction, prompt revegetation of the affected areas immediately after construction and protection of existing vegetation on steep slopes. Since these techniques will be employed during and after construction of the Twin Lakes Development, the potential for soil erosion should be minimized and any adverse impacts resulting from the project will be neither long-term nor significant. 3.13 HydrologyiWater Quality The greatest potential for impacts to water quality would occur during the construction phases of Twin Lakes. Construction adjacent to the Opequon Creek and its tributaries will potentially increase turbidity levels (or levels of suspended particles) as eroded soil particles are carried into these water bodies by surface drainage. Specific erosion control measures during construction (e.g., sediment traps and fences, straw bales, etc.) will be required to minimize impacts to these streams. If these measures are used, and all cleared areas are revegetated with lawn, groundeover or landscape materials after construction, impacts to the Opequon Creek should be short-term construction - related effects only. 11 I � I � I � I 11 11 1 I 1 1 Twin Lakes 0 Impact Analysis. Statement 3.1.4 Air Quality The ambient quality in eastern Frederick County is typical of rural areas in Virginia. There are no point sources of pollution in vicinity of the site and the ambient air quality is excellent. Construction activities, including construction of foundations, roadways, and erection of structures, could have slight effects on local air quality, especially in regard to particulate (dust) concentrations. Measures can be taken, such as sprinkling construction roads with water or reducing vehicular traveling speeds along these roads to reduce dust levels at or near construction sites. Vehicular exhaust pollutants will be increased due to increased traffic caused by the development, but this impact is considered negligible given the natural dispersion capabilities of local and regional air currents. 3.1.5 Drainage The drainage region of which the site is part involves an unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek and drains at its confluence with Opequon Creek approximately 900 acres of urban development area land. At present about 20% of this service area is developed. After the Twin Lakes project is built out approximately 65% of the drainage area would be developed if no other land is converted during that period of time. The drainage system is simplified by the fact that all property of the development is included in the storm water channel involved with the unnamed tributary. By discharging to the Opequon, a stream of much larger drainage area (approx. 57 sq. miles at this point), the effects on down stream flooding are minimal. Another factor reducing the impact of this development on hydrologic events in Frederick County involves the storage of peak discharge due to the major dam facility located on site. 12 11 Twin Lakes Impwxt Ancalysi.s:....S:t:ate.thent During final design this structure will be augmented and improved as necessary to handle increase flow amounts and to provide for peak flow detention as required to properly mitigate downstream impacts. Another major use of this embankment is to capture discharge of sediment ladent runoff prior to reaching the Opequon. While this does not eliminate the need for good erosion control techniques in accordance with Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control manual, it does provide a "safety net" to handle major events and mitigate downstream problems due to stream sediment. The stormwater management plan for the Twin Lakes development will include detailed calculations regarding the detention capabilities of the existing ponds, design of new ponds and stormwater impacts on the Opequon downstream water shed. With the Twin Lakes project wholly within the urban development area specified by Frederick County Planning, it is understood that appropriate erosion control techniques can and will be used to mitigate environmental and quality of life issues due to impacts from this development. 1 3.2 Utility Systems Impact 3.2.1 Sewage Collection and Treatment Certain sewage disposal services are offered to this site by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). The FCSA purchases wholesale sewage treatment services from the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) at their Opequon Regional Wastewater Treatment facility immediately north of the project site. The principal route of sewage collection in areas through and adjacent to this project is by pump to the west and north and entering the Service Authority trunk main in the vicinity of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Rte. 656) and Valley Mill Road (Rte. 659), Figure 3.1. Although this has been an adequate route for sewage delivery over 13 • , , s a , ' Lii OPEQUO REGION; J~� PLANT LIMITS OF -GRAVITY' // �•- 1 /�� -� t. E$V ICE: AREA. I 41k `rtif n i� r N. A r { V �'}f�� i Y� 1. � � ' � • ' � � � / ( /'« j � �� J 1 '�)� J t EX. APPLIi flIDGL -- >', $ J.+ ••-� : • LIFT S LSAT ION � . �-�i� fir•,. _ � f l IA R ` EX. G* $N'atOOD. . 1!r _ �• ',\ LIFT STATION jam, :�`. ,:� a �1\\\ .- _�; •� 'i.�;. i EZ ai71S3►•1M� 2131S3H�NIMI - - "_- MW :: z9rs Scale: 1 "-2,000' _ • Figure 3.1 igilbert w. cliffa�s4ciatea, inc. swn SUV I O ARRA or TWIN LSPROJX V:q Eerners - Land Plne• Surve'yore 340 COb"`o-�"Dr22 '""'°`"""" �reNsle� Coeat� Virginia �..,..::�"os3i •w nn err•••.. �trr:r•a• mn ca nn � I � I � I � I Train. Lakes 41 Impact Analysis ,Statement the past 12 years, its capability to handle substantial increases in sewage delivery is small and can not be assumed to be the favored alternative for handling the long term sewage collection needs of the service area. The existing Apple Ridge pump station is projected to produce 100 gpd of sewage while the existing Greenwood sewage lift station can handle 250 gpm in addition to the discharge from Apple Ridge. Using a peak factor of 2.5 and a 12 hour max. cycle per day the capacity of the stations are 100,800 gpd for the Greenwood station and 28,800 gpd for the Apple Ridge Station. At present the sewage flows are 20 gpm at Apple Ridge and 40 gpm at Greenwood lift station. This flow is projected to become 40 at Apple Ridge and 260 at Greenwood due to already -zoned parcels of land being planned for development at this time. It is anticipated that the sewage lift stations involved will be taken off line systematicallyas the development of the Twin Lakes project proceeds. These facilities do, however, have certain ability and value in the initial phase of the development of Twin Lakes by handling the initial sewage flows as available within Health Department directives and guidelines. The proposed project has a mixed use sewage flow generation of: 1) Singe family use - 720 units at 200 gpd = 144,000 gpd. 2) Townhouse use - 480 units at 150 gpd = 72,000. 3) Commercial use - 35,000 sf. at 200 gpd/1000 sf. = 7,000. Total flow at project build -out = 223,000 gpd The sewage produced can be assumed to be normal strength domestic waste only, not requiring industrial pretreatment. Figure 3.2 shows a feasible alternative to sewering the Twin Lakes project. The system involves a series of collection mains ending in a major regional sewage wastewater pumping station which should deliver flow to another gravity main connecting with the main sewage lift station at the Opequon Regional Plant. A metering facility would be 14 r m m m m m m m = = = = = = = = r 1' igtire 3.2 UTILITi2S PLAN FUTURE CONNECTION TO T IV IN 1LS ,(/19`b LAZES PRO AiR'CT RTE. 7 & VALLBT MILL -- /V --- ROAD WATER. Frederick County Virginia adberl w CiLI10 2130CMIC3. Inc Eg1eMr. L-d 14aowe.. / t• Srr veyr. FUTURE CONNECTION PER /ADJACENT APPROVED M.D.P. Y - St FUTURE CONNECTOR TO LIN& `\ GREENWOOD TANG y r; r EX. GREENWOOD LIFT STATIgN, i' `• �c 1 (TAKE OFF LINE) INN,, T w f REGIONAL. F . LIFT STATION ,j EX. SEWER LIN .i EX. APPLE RIDGE LIFT ST 114QM / (TAKE OFF LINE) se'rS-r4,- ••/ ` Location maV Scale: 1"-800' \ 41 V � I � I � I L� Twin Lakes Imp a.ct _A :a.lysis. .Statement provided in route to the Opequon plant. The total area in addition to Twin Lakes that would be served by this sewage pumping station is about 1200 acres, yielding an estimated total flow to the lift station of about 400,000 gpd at build -out. Plans for sewage collection and pumping must be approved by the Virginia Department of Health -Bureau of Sanitarian Engineering as well as the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Utilizing a peak factor of 2.5, a peak delivery rate of this lift station should be 700 gpm. Flows of this magnitude can be adequately handled by the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority main pump station which is sized for a 16,000 gpm delivery rate to the plant. Investigation of design sequencing of the pump station are necessary in order to optimize the variable speed pumping capabilities of the Opequon Regional plant. At present the County of Frederick has 900,000 gpd established for use at the regional facility by the County. Present flows leave approximately 4,500,000 gpd available for capacity. This project will not over stress the existing available capacity of the regional facility at 100% development and will provide a substantially improved sewage delivery system meeting the requirements of a regionalized solution to sewer throughout the service area involved. 3.2.2 Water Supply and Distribution System Water distribution to this area is provided through the FCSA who purchases water from the City of Winchester at master meters located throughout the service area. Principal water line facilities serving this area involve a eight inch distribution main along Senseny Road. Recent hydrant testing and hydrologic evaluations have indicated that this main has minimal service capability for fire fighting in the 15 r I I Twin Lakes 6 Impa.e.t. An:a:tysi.s...Statement general vicinity of Twin Lakes. This line is fed from a elevated water storage tank at the Greenwood Fire Hall which stabilizes the water pressure during fire events in this general area. The addition of water mains adjacent to this site will offer the ability to loop major portions of the Twin Lakes project into the main distribution grid of FCSA. A hydrologic analysis attached as an appendix assumes an integrated Abrams Creek water system with loop established and shows that pressures in such a case are adequate for project use. The water mains required to serve the Twin Lakes project will provide the necessary looping assumed by this hydraulic analysis and will additionally serve the area of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Plant with fire flow meeting municipal requirements. Water demand for purposes of this analysis can be assumed to be equal to sewage flow. The sewage flow from previous analysis was 223,000 gpd. The present agreement between the City of Winchester and Frederick County provides for 2 million of water supply of which the County presently utilizes 750,000 gpd. The County will not experience a problem providing domestic water service and fire flow to this project under the conditions presented above. 3.23 Solid Waste Disposal Solid waste disposal for the area is provided by the Winchester -Frederick County Landfill which is located approximately 2 miles south of the project. The landfill originally consisted of approximately 50 acres. It has now been expanded through the acquisition of approximately 200 acres of adjacent land. The newer portion of the landfill is currently undergoing preparations to serve the future disposal needs of the County. According to the Landfill Superintendent, the current portion of the landfill is expected to remain usable for approximately two years and the expansion area is expected to provide 10-12 years of capacity. The proposed development is not expected to impact on solid waste disposal in the County. 16 F L I � 1 Li 11 11 11 I 1 Twin .Lakes 3.3 Community Facilities Impact Analysis Statement 33.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities Frederick County is currently developing two regional parks to serve unmet County- wide recreational needs. Clearbrook Park consists of 57 acres and serves the northern part of the County with active and passive recreation programs. Sherando Park is approximately 330 acres and serves the southern part of the County. In the central part of the County, many residents use the Winchester Recreation Park, which is maintained by the City. As a result, there is projected to be adequate County -wide recreation capacity available prior to development of the proposed project that would satisfy project -generated demand for regional recreation facilities.. In regards to local recreational needs, there are five neighborhood parks in the County which typically provide picnic areas, playground equipment and athletic fields for local recreational use. In response to a growing demand for recreation and parks, County zoning regulations require that open space and recreational facilities be provided in most new developments. According to County standards for local recreational activities, the projected population of Twin Lakes would generate a need for local recreational facilities. The majority of the necessary athletic fields and courts would be included as part of the proposed elementary school site. In addition, the proposed Twin Lakes development would provide a variety of recreational and leisure opportunities for community residents. As a result, the proposed development would have a near net zero -impact on County parks and recreation facilities. 33.2 Historic Sites The subject property does not contain any registered historic features. The Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society has undertaken an architectural survey 17 Twin Lakes 6 Impact.. of all structures at least 50 years old within the County. One such building was identified and surveyed on the property. Known as the Haggerty House (#34-398), this rural farmhouse is an example of the American 4-Square building style that was popular in the period between World War I and World War II (1920-1940). Howevcr, the house was not found to be eligible for national, state or local historic registers. The nearest structure of historic significance to the proposed development is Mill Bank, located approximately 1/2 mile from the northern edge of the property. However, the mill has lost its architectural integrity, according to representatives of the County Historical Society, due to disrepair and the theft of all its architectural details. According to members of the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Committee, the site does not contain any recognized historic concerns (battlefields fortifications, entrenchments, etc.) related to the Civil War. The majority of activity from that period occurred to the north of the property. Given that there are no recognized historic or archeological resources on the property, the proposed development would not have an impact on historic or archeologic resources in the County. 3.33 Educational Facilities There were 8,238 students enrolled in Frederick County schools in 1989. These students included 4,024 elementary, 1,833 middle and 2,381 high school pupils. In response to capacity needs, Frederick County is constructing an elementary school in Middletown for 650 students, with another elementary school committed for the western part of the County and a third elementary school under consideration for the eastern part of the County. In addition, the County has recognized a capacity shortage at its existing high school facilities. IN Twin Lakes Impact Ana.l�si:s.:..,S:t:atement Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a total of 661 new students upon final build -out as shown in the summary table below. These figures are based on County demographic figures and ratios for students per household according to dwelling unit types. Summary of Student Population Total ES MS HS Single Family 476 222 108 146 Townhouse 185 101 38 46 Total 661 323 146 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development; EDAW, Inc. The proposed project's impact on educational facilities represents approximately one- half of the capacity of an elementary school and about fifteen percent of a typical high school. 33.4 Libraries Library resources in Frederick County are currently provided by Handley Regional Library, which also serves the City of Winchester and Clark County. The total population of the serving area is estimated to be 71,000 persons. Virginia resource guidelines suggest that libraries should maintain two volumes for in each persons their serving area. Handley Library currently contains approximately 86,000 volumes, approximately 56,000 fewer volumes than recommended. At current funding levels, the library has been adding 6,000 volumes a year. However, there is not enough shelving space to accommodate an additional 60,000 volumes. According to the Library Director, approximately 20,000 square feet of building area is 1 needed to provide the necessary expansion space, including shelving and staff offices. r 19 L, Twin .lakes Impact Anal;ys:s' Statement r The proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to include 2,784 residents. Given State guidelines, the project would generate the need for approximately 5,570 volumes or 3,372 volumes based on the current County ratio. With an average book cost of $15, the 5,568 volumes translates to $83,520 and the 3,372 volumes translates to $50,580. In ' addition, the development would contribute to the existing demand for new library shelving space. However, no projections have been made by the County concerning new library space. 33.5 Emergency Services There are currently 10 volunteer fire companies (one of which has fire and rescue capabilities) and one rescue squad facility in Frederick County. There are approximately 200 voluntary fire company members capable of emergency response in the County, which translates to approximately 20 members per company. However, some rural companies are experiencing personnel shortages and have less than the average number. Ideally, the County would prefer to hire two career firefighters at each station to satisfy daytime staffing needs. Under the County's First Responder Program, the County is divided into 10 fire/rescue response districts so that each fire company has a designated First Due area. Twin Lakes lies within the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company First Response Area, which has a population of approximately 7,800. The fire station is located approximately 2 miles from the subject property on existing roadways. A central feature of the proposed development is its contribution to the local transportation system. By improving the roadway network of the area, particularly by providing connections to existing roadways, the project would have a positive impact on the response time for emergency services in Frederick County. According to the Frederick County Department of Emergency Services, the projected population of Twin Lakes should not generate a need for new facilities or firefighting apparatus. However, additional firefighting personnel may be required at the Greenwood Fire Company as a result of development in the response area. These personnel are expected to be provided by new residents moving to the County. 20 T u, i N 1, fi k e s James Wood Ridge High School 0 1- 12 • 1mf) 1 4' 1 '�In aII,sis ,SI(IIc?1if,nI Opequop Regional - WWTP j� c Greenwod Voluntett Fire Company ... k' ill Frederick, ;. County = s Landfill y 1♦ Winchester �i Municipal Airport • Parkins Mill WWTP TWIN LAKES Frederick County, Virginia 0 • Sherando Park Robert Aylor Middle School Community Facilites Figure 3.3 Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' 750' 175o' 4.0 Fiscal Impact Tivin: .L.a.ke.s • 4.0 FISCAL IMPACT 4.1 Demographic Estimates To determine population estimates and characteristics for the Twin Lakes community, this analysis utilized demographic projections and household data provided by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. The overall population of the community is a direct result of the proposed development program and expected average household sizes. It is assumed that the development will eventually consist of 1200 dwelling units for purposes of this analysis. Based on County figures, the proposed development could reach a population of 2,784 at final build -out, as shown at the end of this section in Table 1. To calculate the student population, estimated ratios of school -age children per dwelling unit obtained from the County were utilized. As shown in Table 2, the project is expected to generate 0.661 students per single-family household and 0.385 per townhome unit. As a result, the total number of students at Twin Lakes could reach 661 at final build -out. The pupil yields for each grade level are also shown at the end of this section in Table 2. Average household incomes have been estimated for the proposed development by determining the minimum qualifying incomes for home purchases. At approximately $44,142, the average household income at Twin Lakes is projected to be 32.7% greater than the estimated 1990 County average, as shown in Table 3 at the end of this section. The income differential is significant since higher income households traditionally demand fewer County services relative to their tax contributions. Twin Lakes is also expected to create new employment opportunities. Planned to consist of 35,000 square feet at final build -out, the commercial portion of the community would employ approximately 88 persons based on the industry standard of one employee for every 400 square feet of retail space. The employment projections for the proposed development are displayed at the end of this section in Table 4. 21 T.w i n .. a k ea. • :.. I m.,: a>ca a; 0's �5►';t:.:m:e;:n a: 4.2 Capital Impacts ' Fiscal impacts of the proposed development have been measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity of public facilities. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) facility costs relative to the County population have been used to determine gross capital impacts on a per capita basis. The projected demographic profile of the proposed development has been used to determine the project's share of capital costs. Potential capital contributions provided by the development were subtracted to derive net capital impacts. The primary capital impacts of the proposed development are a result of an increased demand for capacity related to educational facilities. Given that state funds are borrowed for school construction projects, capital costs have been amoritized to a 20- year annual basis to determine the operational affects of debt service. As shown in the summary table below, the proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a potential annual net capital impact of $377 per unit, or $452,111 for the entire project, due to increased demand for school capacity. The net impact is a result of a potential $672,000 school site contribution provided by the Twin Lakes development. Summary P of Impacts Average Total Costs Cost Per D.U. Twin Lakes Gross Capital Impact $5,369,993 $4,475 Less Potential Twin Lakes School Site Contribution $ 672,000 $ 560 Equals Twin Lakes Net Capital Impact $4,697,993 $3,915 Twin Lakes Annual Capital Impact $ 452,M $ 377 Source: Fredrick County Department of Planning and Development; Frederick County School Board; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. 1 22 11, II Twin ..,L:akes:;.. ... as:s;::�a'cxa.e;m:e In addition to school capacity, the proposed development would generate additional demand for recreational facilities. Given that a number of recreational facilities would be located'as part of the elementary school site, the project would generate a one-time recreation impact of approximately $97 per person or $226 per dwelling unit. This translates to an annual amount of approximately $26,100 for the entire development or about $22 per dwelling unit. Fiscal impacts related to recreational and educational facilities are presented in further detail at the end of this section in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. 4.3 Revenue Projections The primary sources of local revenues in Frederick County are property taxes, particularly those for real and personal property. As such, this analysis primarily addresses local revenues derived from property levies that can be directly attributed to the Twin Lakes development. Based on an estimated market value of $95,000 per townhome and $145,000 per single-family detached unit and a real property tax rate of $0.66 per $100 of assessed value, the completed residential component of the Twin Lakes community is projected to contribute $990,000 per year to Frederick County in 1990 constant dollars, an average of $825 per unit. These annual contributions are detailed at the end of this section in Figure 8. At project build -out, it can be expected that Twin Lakes' residents will own a total of approximately 2000 motor vehicles with an average value of $8,750. Given the personal property tax rate of $4.25 per $100 of assessed value, the annual tax yield in 1990 dollars is projected to equal $743,750 for the entire development, or $620 per dwelling unit, as detailed in Table 9 at the end of this section. 1 23 111 Twin. .. a..k:as::: m: a;c t':, A is �:x:y-'s>�«: S:� t>e:rniir::t`. The proposed development is also projected to generate indirect revenues for Fairfax County. Studies conducted by the Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning found that households with annual incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 spend approximately 32% of their income on retail purchases. Thus, from the aggregate incomes shown in Table 3, the proposed project would annually contribute $16,950,374 to the local economy in retail sales and services upon final build -out (in 1990 dollars). Based on the current tax rate of 4.5%, the state would receive $762,767 each year from Twin Lakes expenditures. Given that Frederick County currently receives a 22.2% share of state sales taxes collected in the County, the proposed development would indirectly contribute $169,334 in annual revenues to the County. This translates to approximately $141 per dwelling unit. These figures are presented at the end of this section in Table 10. As shown in the following summary table, Twin Lakes is projected to generate more than $1.9 million in annual County revenues, or about $1,586 per household. Given that a limited number of revenue sources were addressed for purposes of this analysis, these figures should be considered conservative. Summary of Revenues Residential Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Retail Sales Tax Share Total Costs Revenues Per D.U. $ 990,000 $ 825 $ 672,000 $ 620 $ 169,336 $ 141 Total Twin Lakes Annual Revenues $1,903,086 $1,586 Source: Fredrick County Commissioner of Revenue; Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. 24 Twin. L a*..k ea>::.:.....:......:....::. Based on an analysis of County revenues derived from property taxes, the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual revenues approximately 35% greater than the County average on a per -unit basis. As shown in the summary table below, a typical household in the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual County revenues that are approximately $375 above the current average County household. This figure represents a $450,000 yearly contribution for the entire Twin Lakes development. Summary of Revenue Differential Aggregate County Average Twin Ickes Difference Difference Real Property $600* $825 $225 $270,000 Personal Property $470* $620 $150 $180,000 Total Property Revenues $1,070* $1,445 $375 $450,000 `Note: Average County revenues have been adjusted upward to assure integrity of the comparison. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer's Office; Twin Lakes Development Program; 1 DAw, Inc. It should be noted that the per -household average County revenues used to determine the revenue differential reflects a 50% increase to the actual figures reported in the 1989-90 County Fiscal Plan. The intent of this adjustment was to compensate for the discrepancy between property values based on older assessments and current market conditions. According to the Frederick County Treasurer's Office, the average County real property tax assessment is expected to increase 40- 50% as a result of the current re -assessment effort. 25 I � I � I � I I I 1 -1 I I 1 1 Assuming that Twin Lakes residents demand services at a level that approximates the County average, this revenue differential suggests that the Twin Lakes development may contribute up to $450,000 each year in potentially surplus County funds (in 1990 dollars). These excess funds could be made available for a wide variety of programs, including debt service. Should the entire amount of surplus funds be directed towards new school construction costs, it would essentially offset the share of debt service that was generated by the project resulting in a near net zero fiscal impact for Twin Lakes. 4.4 Capital Contributions In addition to annual revenues, the Twin Lakes community may offer significant capital contributions to Frederick County that would be of substantial benefit to the entire County. These contributions may include such items as regional transportation improvements and, possibly, a site for an elementary school. As shown in the summary table below, these potential, one-time capital contributions may be valued at more than $3.4 million. Summary of Potential Development Contributions Elementary School Site Senseny Rd - Route 7 Connector Rd ROW for Additional Connector Rd. Capacity ROW for Future By -Pass Route (Rte. 37) Total Capital Contributions Source: Twin Lakes Development Plan. 26 Value Total Value Per D.U. $ 677,000 $ 560 $2,000,000 $1,667 $ 308,540 $ 257 $ 443,526 $ 370 $3,424,066 $2,354 win ... a: k e a;>:.;:.:... ':; I: m :::ac.: t1::ri;:.;,;.: ... �` :::.:.... 4.5 Short -Term Impacts The proposed development is projected to generate significant positive impacts during the construction phase. According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, every million dollars in new construction expenditures generates 45.6 new jobs throughout Virginia. Thus, the $150 million, 6-year project would create 1,140 new jobs annually, primarily in the Frederick County area. Table 5 at the end of this section displays the construction phase employment projections for Twin Lakes. 27 Table 1 COMMUNITY POPULATION Households and Population at Final Build -Out # Units Pop/Unit \1 Population S ingle-Family 720 2.60 1872 Townhomes 480 1.90 912 Total 1200 2.32 2784 Table 2 STUDENT POPULATION Number of Students By Dwelling Type, at Final Build -Out # Units Ratio \2 Students Single -Family 720 0.661 476 Townhomes 480 0.385 185 Total 1200 0.551 661 Elementary Middle School High School Ratio Students Ratio Students Ratio Students Single -Family 0.308 222 0.15 108 0.203 146 Townhomes 0.210 101 0.08 38 0.095 46 Total 0.269 323 0.122 146 0.160 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Notes: 1/ Background Report: Residential Development Projections in Frederick County - 1989 2/ Background Report: Impacts of Development on Community Facilities Of: La. .k.e:s;:::. I m ::rx;c.;t::::;::::A;n::a:.:: >a:> .>::::: .. y;s:;,; .;.:;. Table 3 INCOME PROJECTIONS Average Household Incomes for Project and Countv in 1990 Dollars # Units Aver. Inc. Aggregate Inc. Single -Family 720 $51,356 $36,976,320 Townhomes 480 $33,320 $15,993,600 Total 1200 $44,142 $52,969,920 County Aver. $32,180 Differential +32.7% Source: Lord Fairfax Regional Planning Commission Table 4 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS On -Site Jobs Generated By Project, at Final Build -Out Gross S.F. Jobs Per S.F. # Jobs Commercial Space 35000 1/400 s.f. 88 Source: Urban Land Institute: Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers Table 5 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS Total Jobs Created by Project During Construction Phase Const. Expend. Job Multiplier # Jobs Per Year Annual Impacts 25 mill. - 45.6/mill. 1 140 Total Annual Jobs (6 Years) Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Regional Multipliers Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Park Facilities Gross CIP Cost $1,294,000 Average Capacity 13,300 Cost/Person \1 $97.28 Population/D.U. 2.32 2.60 1.90 Gross Impact Per Unit $270,828 $252.93 $184.83 (All Units) Annual Capital Impact $25,988 $21.66 (Aver.) $21.66 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) (All Units) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Note: 1/Background Report:impacts of Development on Community Facilities to rt <:::< .. I. Table 7 EDUCATION IMPACTS School Facility Costs Per Student, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 Capacity 650 Cost/Student $10,207.69 - - Students/D.U. 0.269 0.308 0.210 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 $3,143.97 $2,143.62 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 Capacity $1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 - _ Students/D.U. 0.160 0.203 0.095 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 $2,199.17 $1,029.17 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $5,369,993 $5,343 $3,173 (All Units, Aver.=$4,475) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 $560 $560 Net Impact Per Unit $4,697,993 $4,783 $2,613 (All Units, Aver.=$3,915) Annual Capital Impact $452,111 $376.76 (Aver.) $376.76 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development (720 DU's @ $145,000 per unit) (480 DU's @ $95,000 per unit) Tax Rate $0.66/100 $0.66/100 Tax Yield $990,000 $825 Table 9 PERSONAL PROPERTY REVENUES Annual Contributions to Frederick County Generated By Project Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Personal Property Value $17,500,000 $8,750 (2000 vehicles @ $8,750 each) Tax Rate $4.25/100 $4.25/100 Tax Yield $743,750 $620 Table 10 RETAIL SALES REVENUES Annual State Contributions to Frederick Countv From Twin Lakes' Retail Expenditures Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Total Retail Sales $16,950,374 $14,125 (32% of $52,969,920 aggregate income) State Tax Rate 4.5% 4.5% State Tax Yield $762,767 $636 County Share of Yield (22.2%, $169,336 $141 Source: Frederick County Department of Finance, Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning Addendum I H 1 � I Ul 7l L, ADDENDUM During the period of review for this Impact Analysis Statement, the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development returned comments to the applicant concerning the projected impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on County educational facilities, particularly in regard to secondary school facilities. This Addendum section has been prepared in response to those comments. A new high school facility is currently being planned for Frederick County in response to a County -wide demand for secondary school capacity. According to the County School Board, construction of a new high school would allow the James Wood High School -Amherst campus to be converted to a middle school. Thus, a new high school facility would provide the County with both new middle and high school capacity. In addressing the capacity of educational facilities in previous sections of this document (3.3.3 and 4.2), the approach was taken that new middle school capacity would be provided at no extra cost to the County as part of the cost of constructing a new high school. As a result, the impact of the proposed development on secondary school facilities was derived from the number of high school students only (see Table 7). However, since the proposed high school is under consideration due to a capacity shortage in both the middle and high school levels, and not just as a result of a high school capacity shortage, it is the interpretation of the Department of Planning and Development that each new middle school student in the County displaces a high school student thus requiring additional high school capacity. The Department has determined that the total number of both middle and high school students generated by a proposed development should be used to identify that development's impact of secondary school facilities. As a result, the Department requests that projections of Twin Lakes' share of the cost of the planned high school be derived from a total of 338 students, not 192 as used previously in this analysis. The additional 146 students represents the total middle school population of Twin Lakes at full build -out. The requested revisions are provided in Amended Table 7 on the following page. As presented in the table, the adjusted net annual impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on educational facilities would be approximately $504 per unit, or $605,000 overall, upon final build -out. 34 Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 Capacity 650 Cost/Student $10,207.69 Students/D.U. 0.269 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 Capacity 1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 Students/D.U. 0.160 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 Middle School /HS Gross CIP Cost (HS)* $13,000,000 Capacity (HS)* 1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 Students/D.U. 0.122 Gross Costs/D.U. $1,586,000 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $6,955,993 (All Units, Aver.=$5,797) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 Net Impact Per Unit $6,283,993 (All Units, Aver.=$5,237) Annual Capital Impact $604,739 (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) 0.308 $3,143.97 0.203 $2,199.17 0.150 $1,625.00 $6,968 $560 $6,408 0.210 $2,143.62 0.095 $1,029.17 0.080 $866.67 $4,039 $560 $3,479 $503.94 (Aver.) $503.94 (Aver.) * Note: Proposed Twin Lakes' middle school students are included as part of the high school capacity. Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development 1 r _ r Prepared For. Loggia Development, Corporation - r Prepared By EDAW . Iiic: r Lamdscape Architects and Land Planners ' " Gilbert W Clifford & Aeeocintee, Iqc' Civil Emgineera John Callow Aeeoctetee Transporatron"Planners. is i Impact Ana 1 y s i s Statement TWIN LAKES Frederic,( County, Virginia Final March 6, 1990 (Revised March 27, 1990) Prepared For Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners Table of Contents Page ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................1 1.0 Project Background.............................................................................................................3 1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................3 1.2 Location........................................................................................................................3 1.3 Zoning and Land Use................................................................................................4 1.4 Site Suitability ..............................................................................................................5 1.4.1 Landform........................................................................................................5 1.4.2 Vegetation.......................................................................................................5 1.4.3 Soils..................................................................................................................6 1.4.4 Views................................................................................................................6 1.4.5 Hydrology.......................................................................................................7 2.0 Development Plan................................................................................................................8 3.0 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................10 3.1 Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................10 3.1.1 Vegetation/Wildlife....................................................................................10 3.1.2 Soils/Geology...............................................................................................11 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality ..........................................................................11 3.1.4 Air Quality....................................................................................................12 3.1.5 Drainage........................................................................................................12 3.2 Utility Systems Impact.............................................................................................13 3.2.1 Sewage Conveyance....................................................................................13 3.2.2 Water Supply................................................................................................15 3.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal..................................................................................16 3.3 Community Facilities...............................................................................................17 3.3.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities.........................................17 3.3.2 Historic Sites................................................................................................17 3.3.3 Education Facilities....................................................................................IS 3.3.4 Libraries........................................................................................................19 3.3.5 Emergency Services..............................................................................:.....20 4.0 Fiscal Impact......................................................................................................................21 4.1 Demographic Estimates..........................................................................................21 4.2 Capital Impacts..........................................................................................................22 4.3 Revenue Projections.................................................................................................23 4.4 Capital Contributions...............................................................................................26 4.5 Short -Term Impacts.................................................................................................27 Addendum.........................................................................................................................34 Twin Lakes a Impact Analysis .Statement List of Figures Figure RegionalLocation Map.....................................................................................................................1.1 SurroundingProperties.....................................................................................................................1.2 SiteAnalysis.........................................................................................................................................1.3 SewerService Area.............................................................................................................................3.1 UtilitiesPlan.........................................................................................................................................3.2 CommunityFacilities.........................................................................................................................3.3 I Twin :Lakes Impact Analysis Statement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following Impact Analysis Statement has been prepared for the Twin Lakes development as required by Frederick County for the rezoning application of the property. The Development Plan includes a residential community proposed within the RP Residential Performance District and a small support retail center proposed within the B-2 Business General District zones. The program proposed for this development includes approximately 1200 residential units and 35,000 square feet of retail space. An open space system of approximately 115 acres provides passive and active recreational space to this community which is organized around the centrally located lakes. A major collector road serves both this new community and the surrounding areas, linking Senseny Road to Route 7. Located within the Frederick County Urban Development Area, this project is an important component of planned residential growth in the County. Assembling approximately 400 acres, the project provides an opportunity for the application of sound comprehensive planning principles and sets high standards for the future development of this area of Frederick County. This site is part of the growth area designated by Frederick County for a number of reasons, including the suitability of this land for development, current land use patterns and availability of utility services. Our analysis of environmental and physical components of this site indicates that there is great opportunity for development within a framework that respects and incorporates existing natural systems. The development of Twin Lakes provides numerous benefits to the greater Frederick County community. Some of these benefits are less easily quantified, such as the aesthetic contributions of well planned project that fits into the landscape and into the fabric of the residential community of the County. Other benefits are readily numerated. These include direct benefits in County revenue, employment and income. 1 Twin Lakes Impact Analysis Statement At the full build -out of Twin Lakes, County revenues are projected to total approximately $1.9 million, including: $990,000 per year in Residential Real Property taxes. $743,750 per year in Residential Personal Property taxes. $169,336 per year in Frederick County's portion of state sales taxes. These revenues are estimated to be approximately 35% above the County average on a per -household basis. The additional revenues and potential capital contributions offered by the project would offset the increased demand for schools and recreational facilities that can be attributed to the proposed development. The support retail area will provide 88 permanent on -site jobs and the capital expenditures will provide 1,140 annual jobs throughout the area during the construction phase. The proposed population, having an income projected to be approximately 33% higher than the County average, will contribute nearly $17 million to the local economy in retail sales and services annually. A proposed major collector road will provide a vital transportation link to the County at a cost to the developer of at least $2 million. This connection of Senseny Road to Route 7 will eliminate the current need for the County to improve Greenwood Road. The Twin Lakes plan takes full advantage of the existing natural features of the site, develops a community of neighborhoods that are visually and physically linked by an open space network and provides services to the residents and to the greater Frederick County area. The developers, planners and designers of this project confidently submit this Impact Analysis Statement for review and look forward to the opportunity to develop this site with the approval of Frederick County. 2 1 I Twin Lakes. Impact Analysis ,Sta:temen.t 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction The Twin Lakes project is approximately a 400-acre site located in eastern Frederick County, Virginia, and falls within the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. Loggia Development Corporation is proposing to develop this property as a residential neighborhood with a neighborhood center that includes support retail, a possible school site and a park for the residential community. The purpose of this document is to provide an assessment of the impacts and benefits to Frederick County which results from development of the Twin Lakes residential community. These impacts and benefits are discussed in accordance with the Impact Analysis Statement as required by Frederick County for a rezoning application. For purposes of this analysis, impacts have been assessed for a development of 1200 dwelling units. The property is currently zoned Rural. The rezoning application for this site will request rezoning approximately 394 acres to RP -Residential Performance District and 6 acres to B-2 Business General District. The Development Plan which illustrates the rezoning intent appears in Section 3.0 of this report. 1.2 Location and Access The 400-acre Twin Lakes property is located in eastern Frederick County. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek, to the south by Senseny Road, and to the north by Route 7. The City of Winchester is two miles west and can be accessed from the property by Senseny Road and Route 7. Interstate 81 runs north -south just to the east of the City of Winchester and can be accessed from Route 7 (see Figure 1.1). i� 3 T wi.n.. Lakes Inapact Analysis Statement , Location Map Figure 1.1 o� ci U U � .�i •U w TWIN LAKE S Frederick CountY, Virginia Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Ulbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' 750' 1750' V' � I � I � I IJ 1 LI Twin Lakes Imp- c.t .Analys:is' ,Statement 13 Zoning and Land Use Twin Lakes is located within the "Urban Development Area" as designated by Frederick County, which encompasses the City of Winchester and areas adjacent to the city to the north, south and east. This development area is intended for more intensive development based on current land use, suitability of land for development and existing and planned sewage facilities. Recently, several of the parcels within this area were rezoned for residential and commercial uses with several other parcels in the planning stages for development. The remaining parcels, including the Twin Lakes Property, are zoned Rural, but due to their inclusion in the Urban Development Area, it is anticipated these parcels will be rezoned for residential and commercial uses. The current status of the parcels surrounding Twin Lakes include two parcels to the south, Apple Ridge and Bedford Village which are being developed as residential subdivisions, and a third which has already been rezoned for residential development. The adjoining parcels directly east of the property are still zoned rural although some of the parcels along Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) have been rezoned and being developed as residential subdivisions. (See Figure 1.2) Adjoining the property directly to the north is a sewage treatment facility operated by the Frederick County Sewage Authority. This is a new facility and will service development occurring in this part of the County. Historically, the Twin Lakes property has been used for agriculture uses including pasture and cultivated crops. A large section through the center of the property has remained wooded due to steep slopes and poor farming soils. The remainder of the site includes a large central lake and several smaller ponds and streams running through the property. 4 l win 1,akes Trailer Park ace Planned esidential °r • Impact Analysis Stateinent ,,.. Sewage Treatmen Facility °. Rural , �Se, l I� i IrIMIa# >_ � �•~ram .F ■ :.t y..:. Or innrrrrtrrr r rrrt r err r ni ' Planned' V. TIA edford . village 5° TWIN LAKE S s 3 Frederick County, Virginia U T :-•��F Prepared For: Loggia Develo ment pP �$ P Corporation # Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects w « and Land Planners x� '�� ► � . •�� ` Gilbert W. Clifford & a Associates, Inc. Surrounding Properties Figure 1.2 Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 25o' 750' 1750' I I � I Twin Lakes Impact. Analysis_ Statement 1.4 Site Suitability 1 1.4.1 Landform Twin Lakes is located along the western edge of the Opequon Creek. This area is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills with steep slopes along the Opequon Creek and other waterways which feed into the Opequon. The site is characteristic of the varied topography found in this region. The southern and northern section of the property are generally flat to gently rolling with steeper slopes occurring along the Opequon in the northern section. The central section of the property is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills which define the central lake and waterways. Figure 1.3 provides a site analysis map which identifies steep slopes in two categories: slopes 15-25% and slopes 25% and greater. According to this analysis, approximately 10% of the site falls within the 15-25% category and approximately 7% of the site falls within 25% and greater category with the remainder of the property falling into 0-15% category which is highly suitable for development. The varying topography in effect, provides a naturally occurring parcelization of the site into appropriately scaled neighborhood units. 1.4.2 Vegetation The Twin Lakes property contains a number of stands of mature vegetation which contribute significantly to the positive visual environment of the site. 47% of the overall Twin Lakes property is covered by mature vegetation. Because of the past agricultural uses of the property, this mature vegetation is concentrated in the central section corresponding to steeper slopes and areas less suited for agricultural use. 5 Twin Lakes Impact Ana.l,ysls.. S.t.atement This correlation of steeper slopes and vegetation provide the opportunity to provide naturally occurring buffer areas between the proposed development parcels (see figure 1.3). 1.4.3 Soils The following soils analysis is based on the Frederick County, Virginia Soil Survey, issued during January 1987. Frederick County is underlain by sedimentary rock with eastern Frederick characterized by shale and fine-grained sandstone. The general soil map for Frederick County indicates the Twin Lakes property falls within the Weikert- Berks-Blairton soils classification which is characterized by gentle to moderate slopes, shallow to moderate depth, and well -drained to poorly drained areas. Within the Twin Lakes property, the soils are generally moderately deep and moderately drained silt loam. A majority of the site is well suited for development with limitations for community development within a small percentage of the property. These limitations might be due to steep slopes, a seasonally high water table, and depth to bedrock. 1.4.4 Views The visual environment of Twin Lakes is a major contributor to the site's character and attractiveness. Views into the site occur mainly along the northern and southern sections of the site. These views indicate a gently rolling site with masses of vegetation along the edges. The central portion of the site provides interior views which are characterized by steep, heavily vegetated hillsides which define a lake and creek bed. Views off the site also occur along the northern and southern sections of the property. The views from the northern section include views to the west of surrounding residential properties and views northeast to Clarke County. The sewage treatment facility is only partially visible during winter months.. The views from the southern section of the site include views of the surrounding residential properties to the south, east and west (see figure 1.3). 1 6 1 I Twin Lakes Impact Analysis: ,statement 1.4.5 Hydrology The property is located within two drainage areas of the Opequon Creek basin. The northwestern portion of the property drains into the Abrams Creek sub -basin and the southeastern portion drains into the Senseny area sub -basin. There is one stream which flows east to west on the property. It has been damed to form a 14 acre pond in the center of the site. Two other small ponds exist on the site along with several intermittent streams. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Federal Insurance Administration have mapped the 100-year floodplain associated with the Opequon Creek. The floodplain only effects 3% of the Twin Lakes property as illustrated in Figure 1.3. 7 1 Twin - •fakes . . Impact Analysis Statement.: L e g e n d Steep Slopes (15-25%) I Steep Slopes (>25%) IMature Vegetation Water Feature 1 F I o o d p I a i n View Point � t Site Analysis Figure 1.3 >< * Ls T Pe'14�i�t TrE!-7m614T FAcIL.pry TWIN LAKES Frederick Countv. Virvinia Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. + Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' 750' 1750' 'V' 1 � I I I I I I 11 I v 1 Twin Lakes •_ Impact An.a.ly.,s.i.s ,Statement 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Twin Lakes development proposes a new residential community in the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. This community is comprised of smaller residential neighborhoods which are defined by and follow the natural flow and form of the land. These residential neighborhoods are visually and physically linked by an open space system of lakes and greenways. A major collector road links the neighborhoods and provides connection from Senseny Road to Route 7. Attached at the back of this document is an illustration of the Development Plan and the intent of the design concept. A small Neighborhood Center is located along the major collector road within the northern quarter of the property. This area is characterized by an open landscape, flat topography and proximity to Route 7. The Neighborhood Center consists of a support retail component, residential areas, open space components and a potential school site, which collectively will provide a focus for the community. The park area within the neighborhood center provides a center green and also links into the overall open space network. The central section of the property contains several of the significant natural features of the property including the existing 14 acre pond, stands of mature hardwood trees, topographic variety and views of the pond and surrounding hillsides. The focus of residential neighborhoods in this portion of the development is the unique waterfront environment afforded by the expansion of the existing lake. Each neighborhood is sited to take advantage of views to the water bodies and the rolling topography. The southern section of the site, which is relatively level and open, will be developed into several residential neighborhoods. The open space network will link these parcels to the central amenity area. Entrances into the project and into each neighborhood will be identified as gateways by special landscape features, including walls or fences and more intensive planting. 1 Twin Lakes Impact, Analysis Statement The suitability of the site affords the opportunity for developing between 1,200 and 1,400 housing units. The Twin Lakes community is expected to include approximately 6017c single-family detached units and 40% townhomes, eventually reaching a population of approximately 2,800. A summary of the Land Account for the plan is presented along with the development plan attached at the back of this report. 9 3.0 Impact Analysis 1 1 1 Twin Lakes Impact Ana:l,ysjis Statement 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS This section evaluates the impacts of 'the proposed Twin Lakes community relative to environmental concerns, public utility and community facility issues, and fiscal impacts. These impacts have been assessed for a development consisting of 1200 dwelling units. Mitigation measures related to the project's impact on the site and surrounding environment have also been identified. 3.1 Environmental Impacts 3.1.1 Vegetation/Wildlife Impacts to vegetation will result from clearing required for road right-of-ways and construction of buildings. As required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, no more than 25% of the mature woodlands on the site will be disturbed. Vegetation on steep slopes and along waterways will be protected through sensitive site planning to help minimize erosion and impacts to water quality. (See Sections 3.1.2 Soil/Geology and 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality for more information). Selective clearing practices will also be used to help mitigate loss of vegetation on the site. Wildlife potentially can be affected by the development of a residential community in the following ways: • through the loss of or disturbance to a specific vegetative habitat; • through creation of a habitat; and • through the loss of aquatic species due to sedimentation or water pollution. As noted above, the proposed Twin Lakes development will result in clearing of vegetation for road right-of-way and buildings, and alteration of waterways through 10 � I Train Lakes Impact. A:nalysz:s Statement dams to create two new ponds and enlarge the existing one. Removal of the vegetation will cause relocation of wildlife until construction is complete. The impact will not be ' significant as long as the habitat of any sensitive or endangered species are not involved. No endangered species are presently known to exist in this portion of Frederick County. However, the disruption of existing habitat for aquatic species due to alteration of waterways is considered a slight impact for the development. L3.1.2 Soils/Geology IImpacts as a result of soil erosion will be minimized through proper construction specifications and right-of-way preparation techniques. Most notably, these include 1 the installation of soil erosion barriers prior to construction, prompt revegetation of the affected areas immediately after construction and protection of existing vegetation on steep slopes. Since these techniques will be employed during and after construction of the Twin Lakes Development, the potential for soil erosion should be minimized and any adverse impacts resulting from the project will be neither long-term nor significant. 1 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality The greatest potential for impacts to water quality would occur during the construction phases of Twin Lakes. Construction adjacent to the Opequon Creek and its tributaries will potentially increase turbidity levels (or levels of suspended particles) as eroded soil particles are carried into these water bodies by surface drainage. Specific erosion ' control measures during construction (e.g., sediment traps and fences, straw bales, be etc.) will required to minimize impacts to these streams. If these measures are used, and all cleared areas are revegetated with lawn, groundcover or landscape materials after construction, impacts to the Opequon Creek should be short-term construction - related effects only. 11 Twin Lakes Impact Analys.s.s::: Statement 3.1.4 Air Quality The ambient quality in eastern Frederick County is typical of rural areas in Virginia. There are no point sources of pollution in vicinity of the site and the ambient air quality is excellent. Construction activities, including construction of foundations, roadways, and erection of structures, could have slight effects on local air quality, especially in regard to particulate (dust) concentrations. Measures can be taken, such as sprinkling construction roads with water or reducing vehicular traveling speeds along these roads to reduce dust levels at or near construction sites. Vehicular exhaust pollutants will be increased due to increased traffic caused by the development, but this impact is considered negligible given the natural dispersion capabilities of local and regional air currents. 3.1.5 Drainage The drainage region of which the site is part involves an unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek and drains at its confluence with Opequon Creek approximately 900 acres of urban development area land. At present about 20% of this service area is developed. After the Twin Lakes project is built out approximately 65% of the drainage area would be developed if no other land is converted during that period of time. The drainage system is simplified by the fact that all property of the development is included in the storm water channel involved with the unnamed tributary. By discharging to the Opequon, a stream of much larger drainage area (approx. 57 sq. miles at this point), the effects on down stream flooding are minimal. Another factor reducing the impact of this development on hydrologic events in Frederick County involves the storage of peak discharge due to the major dam facility located on site. 12 � I LJ 1 3.2 Twin Lakes 4 Imp:a:ct Analys.i.s Statement During final design this structure will be augmented and improved as necessary to handle increase flow amounts and to provide for peak flow detention as required to properly mitigate downstream impacts. Another major use of this embankment is to capture discharge of sediment ladent runoff prior to reaching the Opequon. While this does not eliminate the need for good erosion control techniques in accordance with Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control manual, it does provide a "safety net" to handle major events and mitigate downstream problems due to stream sediment. The stormwater management plan for the Twin Lakes development will include detailed calculations regarding the detention capabilities of the existing ponds, design of new ponds and stormwater impacts on the Opequon downstream water shed. With the Twin Lakes project wholly within the urban development area specified by Frederick County Planning, it is understood that appropriate erosion control techniques can and will be used to mitigate environmental and quality of life issues due to impacts from this development. Utility Systems Impact 3.2.1 Sewage Collection and Treatment Certain sewage disposal services are offered to this site by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). The FCSA purchases wholesale sewage treatment services from the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) at their Opequon Regional Wastewater Treatment facility immediately north of the project site. The principal route of sewage collection in areas through and adjacent to this project is by pump to the west and north and entering the Service Authority trunk main in the vicinity of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Rte. 656) and Valley Mill Road (Rte. 659), Figure 3.1. Although this has been an adequate route for sewage delivery over 13 —r E�(1 QPEQUO " r ' REGIONkI JI`� �. <_. , '-- LIMITS OF 'GRAVITT' I,'>, � sfVICE AREA _ • •� �1 -r1t �wr� •••'�.•'�"� �- % lye i 1 a Ao - �s. _ 1.�.. / r• i EX. APP4 Rjj,DG_ •� LIFT S-iAT ION 7. s i EX. GWNWQOD. LIFT STATION R. • V 71 MN:r Z9FS Scale: j —2,000 • - -'� Figure 3.1 ' sswn SUViCs AssA gilbert w. Cliff ot assYciates, inc. {(T}R�� E77siae•ra -Land Mannersry TWIN L S 1.S CSU ®J' • CT Survwyora 50 Ca"C—Wwa Or" County . Vlrginis r re•atYt.s.rt I r 22491 -("31 "7 2177 1 Twin .Lakes ImPact Analysis :Statement ' the past 12 years, its capability to handle substantial increases in sewage delivery is small and can not be assumed to be the favored alternative for handling the long term sewage collection needs of the servicd area. ' The existing Apple Ridge pump station is projected to produce 100 gpd of sewage while the existing Greenwood sewage lift station can handle 250 gpm in addition to the ' discharge from Apple Ridge. Using a peak factor of 2.5 and a 12 hour max. cycle per day the capacity of the stations are 100,800 gpd for the Greenwood station and 28,800 ' gpd for the Apple Ridge Station. At present the sewage flows are 20 gpm at Apple Ridge and 40 gpm at Greenwood lift ' station. This flow is projected to become 40 at Apple Ridge and 260 at Greenwood due to already -zoned parcels of land being planned for development at this time. It is ' anticipated that the sewage lift stations involved will be taken off line systematicallyas the development of the Twin Lakes project proceeds. These facilities do, however, have certain ability and value in the initial phase of the development of Twin Lakes by handling the initial sewage flows as available within Health Department directives and guidelines. The proposed project has a mixed use sewage flow generation of: 1) Singe family use - 720 units at 200 gpd = 144,000 gpd. 2) Townhouse use - 480 units at 150 gpd = 72,000. 3) Commercial use - 35,000 sf. at 200 gpd/1000 sf. = 7,000. Total flow at project build -out = 223,000 gpd The sewage produced can be assumed to be normal strength domestic waste only, not ' requiring industrial pretreatment. Figure 3.2 shows a feasible alternative to sewering the Twin Lakes project. The system involves a series of collection mains ending in a major regional sewage wastewater pumping station which should deliver flow to another gravity main connecting with the main sewage lift station at the Opequon Regional Plant. A metering facility would be 14 Figure 3.2 UTILITIES PLAN TWIN ILAXIS PROJECT Frederick county Virginia gdberl v cUffor asaoclalea. inc 6"i— L-d 11.e 1 Srr veyore /rN.. w,a-. •,r+ll�Yl IH)�.M IIIf •rwrw ..y,r Wry 1�.�4/ lIN FUTURE CONNECTOR TO GREENWOOD TANK EX. GREENWOOD LIFT STATION- (TAKE OFF LINE) w- IV FUTURE CONNECTION TO RTE. 7 & VALLET MILL �r ROAD WATER. j cnrnoR CONNECTION PER (TAKE OFF LINE) Location Map Scale: 1 "-a00• _ REGIONAL LIFT STATION S � I � I U I L Twin Lakes 16 Impac-t Analysis .Statement provided in route to the Opequon plant. The total area in addition to Twin Lakes tflat would be served by this sewage pumping station is about 1200 acres, yielding an estimated total flow to the lift station of about 400,000 gpd at build -out. Plans for sewage collection and pumping must be approved by the Virginia Department of Health -Bureau of Sanitarian Engineering as well as the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Utilizing a peak factor of 2.5, a peak delivery rate of this lift station should be 700 gpm. Flows of this magnitude can be adequately handled by the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority main pump station which is sized for a 16,000 gpm delivery rate to the plant. Investigation of design sequencing of the pump station are necessary in order to optimize the variable speed pumping capabilities of the Opequon Regional plant. At present the County of Frederick has 900,000 gpd established for use at the regional facility by the County. Present flows leave approximately 4,500,000 gpd available for capacity. This project will not over stress the existing available capacity of the regional facility at 100% development and will provide a substantially improved sewage delivery system meeting the requirements of a regionalized solution to sewer throughout the service area involved. 3.2.2 Water Supply and Distribution System Water distribution to this area is provided through the FCSA who purchases water from the City of Winchester at master meters located throughout the service area. Principal water line facilities serving this area involve a eight inch distribution main along Senseny Road. Recent hydrant testing and hydrologic evaluations have indicated that this main has minimal service capability for fire fighting in the 15 Twin Lakes 4k Impact .: Ana.tysis:.S.tatement general vicinity of Twin Lakes. This line is fed from a elevated water storage tank at the Greenwood Fire Hall which stabilizes the water pressure during fire events in this general area. The addition of water mains adjacent to this site will offer the ability to loop major portions of the Twin Lakes project into the main distribution grid of FCSA. ' A hydrologic analysis attached as an appendix assumes an integrated Abrams Creek water system with loop established and shows that pressures in such a case are adequate for project use. The water mains required to serve the Twin Lakes project will provide the necessary looping assumed by this hydraulic analysis and will additionally serve the area of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Plant with fire flow meeting municipal requirements. Water demand for purposes of this analysis can be assumed to be equal to sewage flow. The sewage flow from previous analysis was 223,000 gpd. The present agreement between the City of Winchester and Frederick County provides for 2 million of water supply of which the County presently utilizes 750,000 gpd. The County will not experience a problem providing domestic water service and fire flow to this project under the conditions presented above. 3.23 Solid Waste Disposal Solid waste disposal for the area is provided by the Winchester -Frederick County Landfill which is located approximately 2 miles south of the project. The landfill originally consisted of approximately 50 acres. It has now been expanded through the acquisition of approximately 200 acres of adjacent land. The newer portion of the landfill is currently undergoing preparations to serve the future disposal needs of the County. According to the Landfill Superintendent, the current portion of the landfill is expected to remain usable for approximately two years and the expansion area is expected to provide 10-12 years of capacity. The proposed development is not expected to impact on solid waste disposal in the County. 16 fl Twin Lakes fmpa:,ct Analysis ,Statement 3.3 Community Facilities 33.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities Frederick County is currently developing two regional parks to serve unmet County- wide recreational needs. Clearbrook Park consists of 57 acres and serves the northern part of the County with active and passive recreation programs. Sherando Park is approximately 330 acres and serves the southern part of the County. In the central part of the County, many residents use the Winchester Recreation Park, which is maintained by the City. As a result, there is projected to be adequate County -wide recreation capacity available prior to development of the proposed project that would satisfy project -generated demand for regional recreation facilities.. In regards to local recreational needs, there are five neighborhood parks in the County which typically provide picnic areas, playground equipment and athletic fields for local recreational use. In response to a growing demand for recreation and parks, Countv zoning regulations require that open space and recreational facilities be provided in most new developments. According to County standards for local recreational activities, the projected population of Twin Lakes would generate a need for local recreational facilities. The majority of the necessary athletic fields and courts would be included as part of the proposed elementary school site. In addition, the proposed Twin Lakes development would provide a variety of recreational and leisure opportunities for community residents. As a result, the proposed development would have a near net zero -impact on County parks and recreation facilities. 33.2 Historic Sites The subject property does not contain any registered historic features. The Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society has undertaken an architectural survey 17 J TW* in Lakes Impa-x1 Ana1Yti:.s :: S.tatement r rof all structures at least 50 years old within the County. One such building was identified and surveyed on the property. Known as the Haggerty House (#34-398), rthis rural farmhouse is an example of the American 4-Square building style that was popular in the period between World War I and World War II (1920-1940). However, the house was not found to be eligible for national, state or local historic registers. The nearest structure of historic significance to the proposed development is Mill Bank, located approximately 1/2 mile from the northern edge of the property. However, the mill has lost its architectural integrity, according to representatives of the County Historical Society, due to disrepair and the theft of all its architectural details. According to members of the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Committee, the site does not contain any recognized historic concerns (battlefields fortifications, entrenchments, etc.) related to the Civil War. The majority of activity from that period occurred to the north of the property. Given that there are no recognized historic or archeological resources on the property, the proposed development would not have an impact on historic or archeologic resources in the County. 333 Educational Facilities There were 8,238 students enrolled in Frederick County schools in 1989. These students included 4,024 elementary, 1,833 middle and 2,381 high school pupils. In response to capacity needs, Frederick County is constructing an elementary school in Middletown for 650 students, with another elementary school committed for the western part of the County and a third elementary school under consideration for the eastern part of the County. In addition, the County has recognized a capacity shortage at its existing high school facilities. 18 'J I Train Lakes • . Impact. Analysjs.::.S'tatement Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a total of 661 new students upon final build -out as shown in the summary table below. These figures are based on County demographic figures and ratios for students per household according to dwelling unit types. Summary of Student Population Total ES MS HS Single Family 476 222 108 146 Townhouse 185 101 38 46 Total 661 323 146 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development; EDAW, Inc. The proposed project's impact on educational facilities represents approximately one- half of the capacity of an elementary school and about fifteen percent of a typical high school. 33.4 Libraries Library resources in Frederick County are currently provided by Handley Regional Library, which also serves the City of Winchester and Clark County. The total population of the serving area is estimated to be 71,000 persons. Virginia resource guidelines suggest that libraries should maintain two volumes for each persons in their serving area. Handley Library currently contains approximately 86,000 volumes, approximately 56,000 fewer volumes than recommended. At current funding levels, the library has been adding 6,000 volumes a year. However, there is not enough shelving space to accommodate an additional 60,000 volumes. According to the Library Director, approximately 20,000 square feet of building area is needed to provide the necessary expansion space, including shelving and staff offices. 19 it Twin sakes Impact Aprat' si.s Statement The proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to include 2,784 residents. Given State guidelines, the project would generate the need for approximately 5,570 volumes or 3,372 volumes based on the current County ratio. With an average book cost of $15, the 5,568 volumes translates to $83,520 and the 3,372 volumes translates to $50,580. In addition, the development would contribute to the existing demand for new library shelving space. However, no projections have been made by the County concerning new library space. 33.5 Emergency Services There are currently 10 volunteer fire companies (one of which has fire and rescue capabilities) and one rescue squad facility in Frederick County. There are approximately 200 voluntary fire company members capable of emergency response in the County, which translates to approximately 20 members per company. However, some rural companies are experiencing personnel shortages and have less than the average number. Ideally, the County would prefer to hire two career firefighters at each station to satisfy daytime staffing needs. Under the County's First Responder Program, the County is divided into 10 fire/rescue response districts so that each fire company has a designated First Due area. Twin Lakes lies within the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company First Response Area, which has a population of approximately 7,800. The fire station is located approximately 2 miles from the subject property on existing roadways. A central feature of the proposed development is its contribution to the local transportation system. By r improving the roadway network of the area, particularly by providing connections to existing roadways, the project would have a positive impact on the response time for emergency services in Frederick County. According to the Frederick County Department of Emergency Services, the projected population of Twin Lakes should not generate a need for new facilities or firefighting apparatus. However, additional firefighting personnel may be required at the Greenwood Fire Company as a result of development in the response area. These personnel are expected to be provided by new residents moving to the County. 20 Twin Lakes • James Wood Ridge High School (11-It • Impact Analysis Statement Ope9oat Regional_ WWTP • ;c nwod Voluntett Company Frede •k s(1 County Landfill Z ;ter rim al .l • Parkins Mill WWTP • • Sherando Park Robert Aylor Middle School Community Facilites Figure 3.3 TWIN LAKES Frederick County, Virginia Prepared For: Loggin Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilhert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' 50' 175Y V' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Twin .Lakes Imp.&ct knal.y:sis.*....St.at.e.m;ent ' 4.0 FISC.0 IMPACT 4.1 Demographic Estimates To determine population estimates and characteristics for the Twin Lakes community, this analysis utilized demographic projections and household data provided by the ' Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. The overall population of the community is a direct result of the proposed development program and expected average household sizes. It is assumed that the development will eventually iconsist of 1200 dwelling units for purposes of this analysis. Based on County figures, the proposed development could reach a population of 2,784 at final build -out, as shown at the end of this section in Table 1. To calculate the student population, estimated ratios of school -age children per dwelling unit obtained from the County were utilized. As shown in Table 2, the project is expected to generate 0.661 students per single-family household and 0.385 per townhome unit. As a result, the total number of students at Twin Lakes could reach 661 at final build -out. The pupil yields for each grade level are also shown at the end of this section in Table 2. ' Average household incomes have been estimated for the proposed development by determining the minimum qualifying incomes for home purchases. At approximately ' $44,142, the average household income at Twin Lakes is projected to be 32.7% greater than the estimated 1990 County average, as shown in Table 3 at the end of this section. The income differential is significant since higher income households traditionally ' demand fewer County services relative to their tax contributions. ' Twin Lakes is also expected to create new employment opportunities. Planned to consist of 35,000 square feet at final build -out, the commercial portion of the community would employ approximately 88 persons based on the industry standard of one employee for every 400 square feet of retail space. The employment projections for the proposed development are displayed at the end of this section in Table 4. 21 r � 1 Twin Lakes Capital Impacts • f m.p a.c.t A .n a:l:,y+;3:s s' .S.t:a t..e.m a nl Fiscal impacts of the proposed development have been measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity of public facilities. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) facility costs relative to the County population have been used to determine gross capital impacts on a per capita basis. The projected demographic profile of the proposed development has been used to determine the project's share of capital costs. Potential capital contributions provided by the development were subtracted to derive net capital impacts. The primary capital impacts of the proposed development are a result of an increased demand for capacity related to educational facilities. Given that state funds are borrowed for school construction projects, capital costs have been amoritized to a 20- year annual basis to determine the operational affects of debt service. As shown in the summary table below, the proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a potential annual net capital impact of $377 per unit, or $452,111 for the entire project, due to increased demand for school capacity. The net ' impact is a result of a potential $672,000 school site contribution provided by the Twin Lakes development. Summary of Impacts Average Total Costs Cost Per D.U. Twin Lakes Gross Capital Impact $5,369,993 $4,475 Less Potential Twin Lakes School Site Contribution $ 672,000 $ 560 Equals Twin Lakes Net Capital Impact $4,697,993 $3,915 Twin Lakes Annual Capital Impact $ 452,M $ 377 Source: Fredrick County Department of Planning and Development; Frederick County School Board; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. 22 Twin Lakes An:.a1_Vsi.:s:. Statement, In addition to school capacity, the proposed development would generate additional demand for recreational facilities. Given that a number of recreational facilities would be located as part of the elementary school site, the project would generate a one-time recreation impact of approximately $97 per person or $226 per dwelling unit. This translates to an annual amount of approximately $26,100 for the entire development or about $22 per dwelling unit. Fiscal impacts related to recreational and educational facilities are presented in further detail at the end of this section in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. ' 4.3 Revenue Projections The primary sources of local revenues in Frederick County are property taxes, particularly those for real and personal property. As such, this analysis primarily ' addresses local revenues derived from property levies that can be directly attributed to the Twin Lakes development. Based on an estimated market value of $95,000 per townhome and $145,000 per single-family detached unit and a real property tax rate of $0.66 per $100 of assessed value, the completed residential component of the Twin Lakes community is projected to contribute $990,000 per year to Frederick County in 1990 constant dollars, an average of $825 per unit. These annual contributions are detailed at the end of this section in Figure 8. At project build -out, it can be expected that Twin Lakes' residents will own a total of approximately 2000 motor vehicles with an average value of $8,750. Given the personal property tax rate of $4.25 per $100 of assessed value, the annual tax yield in 1990 dollars is projected to equal $743,750 for the entire development, or $620 per dwelling unit, as detailed in Table 9 at the end of this section. 1 23 I Twin Lakes Im�ra<ct_ Ancaly3>i.s>:::�S:�.ate.me.n:� The proposed development is also projected to generate indirect revenues for Fairfax County. Studies conducted by the Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning found that households with annual incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 spend approximately 32% of their income on retail purchases. Thus, from the aggregate incomes shown in Table 3, the proposed project would annually contribute $16,950,374 to the local economy in retail sales and services upon final build -out (in 1990 dollars). Based on the current tax rate of 4.5%, the state would receive $762,767 each year from Twin Lakes expenditures. Given that Frederick County currently receives a 22.2% share of state sales taxes collected in the County, the proposed development would indirectly contribute $169,334 in annual revenues to the Countv. This translates to approximately $141 per dwelling unit. These figures are presented at the end of this section in Table 10. As shown in the following summary table, Twin Lakes is projected to generate more than $1.9 million in annual County revenues, or about $1,586 per household. Given that a limited number of revenue sources were addressed for purposes of this analysis, these figures should be considered conservative. Summary of Revenues Total Costs Revenues Per D.U. Residential Real Estate Taxes $ 990,000 $ 825 Personal Property Taxes $ 672,000 $ 620 Retail Sales Tax Share $ 169,336 $ 141 Total Twin Lakes Annual Revenues $1,903,086 $1,586 Source: Fredrick County Commissioner of Revenue; Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. I 24 r I Twin..L:a.kes: Im.p:a:.c.t: A.n.a.fY-s.i.s.:: S.t.at.emen.t Based on an analysis of County revenues derived from property taxes, the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual revenues approximately 35% greater than the County average on a per -unit basis. As shown in the summary table below, a typical household in the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual County revenues that are approximately $375 above the current average County household. This figure represents a $450,000 yearly contribution for the entire Twin Lakes development. Summary of Revenue Differential Aggregate ' County Average Twin Lakes Difference Difference Real Property $600* $825 $225 $270,000 Personal Property $470* $620 $150 $180,000 Total Property Revenues $1,070* $1,445 $375 $450,000 ``tote: Average County revenues have been adjusted upward to assure integrity of the comparison. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer's Office; Twin Lakes Development Program; 1 DAW, Inc. ' It should be noted that the per -household average Countyrevenues used to determine the revenue differential reflects a 50% increase to the actual figures reported in the 1989-90 County Fiscal Plan. The intent of this adjustment was to compensate for the discrepancy between property values based on older assessments ' and current market conditions. According to the Frederick County Treasurer's Office, the average County real property tax assessment is expected to increase 40- ' 50% as a result of the current re -assessment effort. I 25 LJ Twin Lakes Assuming that Twin Lakes residents demand services at a level that approximates tllc County average, this revenue differential suggests that the Twin Lakes development may contribute up to $450,000 each year in potentially surplus County funds (in 1990 dollars). These excess funds could be made available for a wide variety of programs, including debt service. Should the entire amount of surplus funds be directed towards new school construction costs, it would essentially offset the share of debt service that was generated by the project resulting in a near net zero fiscal impact for Twin Lakes. -l.4 Capital Contributions In addition to annual revenues, the Twin Lakes community may offer significant capital contributions to Frederick County that would be of substantial benefit to the entire County. These contributions may include such items as regional transportation improvements and, possibly, a site for an elementary school. As shown in the summary table below, these potential, one-time capital contributions may be valued at more than $3.4 million. Summary of Potential Development Contributions Elementary School Site Senseny Rd - Route 7 Connector Rd ROW for Additional Connector Rd. Capacity ROW for Future By -Pass Route (Rte. 37) Total Capital Contributions Source: Twin Lakes Development Plan. 26 Value Total Value Per D.U. $ 677,000 $ 560 $2,000,000 $1,667 $ 308,540 $ 257 $ 443,526 $ 370 $3,424,066 $2,354 Twin Lakes ,.... Impizct::: A.S.tcttegin.ent 4.5 Short -Term Impacts The proposed development is projected to generate significant positive impacts during the construction phase. According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, every million dollars in new construction expenditures generates 45.6 new jobs throughout Virginia. Thus, the $150 million, 6-year project would create 1,140 new jobs annually, primarily in the Frederick County area. Table 5 at the end of this section displays the construction phase employment projections for Twin Lakes. 27 TW' in L&k0s .. m pac.t> A,na,� a: >'?` <a`�a. <mena: Table 1 COMMUNITY POPULATION Households and Population at Final Build -Out # Units Pop/Unit \1 Population Single -Family 720 2.60 1872 Townhomes 480 1.90 912 Total 1200 2.32 2784 Table 2 STUDENT POPULATION Number of Students By Dwelling Type, at Final Build -Out # Units Ratio \2 Students Single -Family 720 0.661 476 Townhomes 480 0.385 185 Total 1200 0.551 661 Elementary Middle School High School Ratio Students Ratio Students Ratio Students Single -Family 0.308 222 0.15 108 0.203 146 Townhomes 0.210 101 0.08 38 0.095 46 Total 0.269 323 0.122 146 0.160 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Notes: 1/ Background Report: Residential Development Projections in Frederick County - 1989 2/ Background Report: Impacts of Development on Community Facilities Twin Lakes I m p..aX:.t:: A:n Table 3 INCOME PROJECTIONS Average Household Incomes for Project and County in 1990 Dollars # Units Aver. Inc. Aggregate Inc. Single -Family 720 $51,356 $36,976,320 Townhomes 480 $33,320 $15,993,600 Total 1200 $44,142 $52,969,920 County Aver. $32,180 Differential +32.7% Source: Lord Fairfax Regional Planning Commission Table 4 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS On -Site .robs Generated By Project, at Final Build -Out Gross S.F. Jobs Per S.F. # Jobs Commercial Space 35000 1/400 s.f. 88 Source: Urban Land Institute: Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers .L.a:k 0:5 Table 5 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS Total Jobs Created by Project During Construction Phase Const. Expend. Job Multiplier # Jobs Per Year Annual Impacts 25 mill. 45.6/mill. 1140 Total Annual Jobs 1228 (6 Years) Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Regional Multipliers Twin Lakes Table 6 RECREATION IMPACTS Park Facility Costs Per Person, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Park Facilities Gross CIP Cost $1,294,000 Average Capacity 13,300 Cost/Person \1 $97.28 Population/D.U. 2.32 2.60 1.90 Gross Impact Per Unit $270,828 $252.93 $184.83 (All Units) Annual Capital Impact $25,988 $21.66 (Aver.) $21.66 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) (All Units) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Note: I/Background Report:Impacts of Development on Community Facilities T :W* s. n ..:. L a* a s:ar Table 7 EDUCATION [IMPACTS School Facility Costs Per Student, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 Capacity 650 Cost/Student $10,207.69 - - Students/D. U. 0.269 0.308 0.210 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 $3,143.97 $2,143.62 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 - - Capacity $1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 - - Students/D.U. 0.160 0.203 0.095 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 $2,199.17 $1,029.17 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $5,369,993 $5,343 $3,173 (All Units, Aver.=$4,475) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 $560 $560 Net Impact Per Unit $4,697,993 $4,783 $2,613 (All Units, Aver.=$3,915) Annual Capital Impact $452,111 $376.76 (Aver.) $376.76 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development T%d i.tv 6 4-k a s: Tahle 8 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY REVENUES Annual Contributions to Frederick County Generated By Project Real Property Value (720 DU's @ $145,000 per unit) (480 DU's @ $95,000 per unit) Tax Rate Tax Yield Aggregate Aver. Per Unit $150,000,000 $125,000 Table 9 $0.66/100 $0.66/100 $990,000 $825 PERSONAL PROPERTY REVENUES Annual Contributions to Frederick County Generated By Project Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Personal Property Value $17,500,000 $8,750 (2000 vehicles @ $8,750 each) Tax Rate $4.25/100 $4.25/100 Tax Yield $743,750 $620 Table 10 RETAIL SALES REVENUES Annual State Contributions to Frederick County From Twin Lakes' Retail Expenditures Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Total Retail Sales $16,950,374 $14,125 (32% of $52,969,920 aggregate income) State Tax Rate 4.5% 4.5% State Tax Yield $762,767 $636 County Share of Yield (22.2%, $169,336 $141 Source: Frederick County Department of Finance, Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning Addendum n ys� a1*4:m-.4.;nt ADDENDUM During the period of review for this Impact Analysis Statement, the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development returned comments to the applicant concerning the projected impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on County educational facilities, particularly in regard to secondary school facilities. This Addendum section has been prepared in response to those comments. A new high school facility is currently being planned for Frederick County in response to a County -wide demand for secondary school capacity. According to the County School Board, construction of a new high school would allow the James Wood High School -Amherst campus to be converted to a middle school. Thus, a new high school facility would provide the County with both new middle and high school capacity. In addressing the capacity of educational facilities in previous sections of this document (3.3.3 and 4.2), the approach was taken that new middle school capacity would be provided at no extra cost to the County as part of the cost of constructing a new high school. As a result, the impact of the proposed development on secondary school facilities was derived from the number of high school students only (see Table 7). However, since the proposed high school is under consideration due to a capacity shortage in both the middle and high school levels, and not just as a result of a high school capacity shortage, it is the interpretation of the Department of Planning and Development that each new middle school student in the County displaces a high school student thus requiring additional high school capacity. The Department has determined that the total number of both middle and high school students generated by a proposed development should be used to identify that development's impact of secondary school facilities. As a result, the Department requests that projections of Twin Lakes' share of the cost of the planned high school be derived from a total of 338 students, not 192 as used previously in this analysis. The additional 146 students represents the total middle school population of Twin Lakes at full build -out. The requested revisions are provided in Amended Table 7 on the following page. As presented in the table, the adjusted net annual impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on educational facilities would be approximately $504 per unit, or $605,000 overall, upon final build -out. 34 Amended Table 7 EDUCATION IMPACTS School Facility Costs Per Student, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 - - Capacity 650 - - Cost/Student $10,207.69 - - Students/D.U. 0.269 0.308 0.210 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 $3,143.97 $2,143.62 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 - - Capacity 1,200 - - Cost/Student $10,833.33 - - Students/D.U. 0.160 0.203 0.095 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 $2,199.17 $1,029.17 Middle School /HS Gross CIP Cost (HS)* $13,000,000 - - Capacity (HS)* 1,200 - - Cost/Student $10,833.33 - - Students/D.U. 0.122 0.150 0.080 Gross Costs/D.U. $1,586,000 $1,625.00 $866.67 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $6,955,993 $6,968 $4,039 (All Units, Aver.=$5,797) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 $560 $560 Net Impact Per Unit $6,283,993 $6,408 $3,479 (All Units, Aver.=$5,237) Annual Capital Impact $604,739 $503.94 (Aver.) $503.94 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) * Note: Proposed Twin Lakes' middle school students are included as part of the high school capacity. Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development ,, 3 ( ,• ,r a , S.. M ! * C 1. #y i'r F , ' , ) , d yJ a i 4 ev -, { " !r # { r \ 4 a" SR 4 b G A ' A 4 . 1 • h < � ) '# p t- 1 r t (.{ a � p 7A S( 1 ' , Y „b t . +, . e J { a t - r' ,, da P ", _ { S+T: ,� '" s h. r t r r w•'�•� sF T y . J k }1 b, ^8 3 ` y.' a _ +a, r: a"t..?!✓ { +`a .A .r' Z`j ! ,rr + '` r a - t Y r a a g r ♦ c W f ' ' ? °, - r * nF . .+,�+ fiV 1�i T �`-4 4�' t1 .�* yy�. , �" a r " { fir' ✓t Jt7►,+ j. 'Q''-• '+ 1 M �!�'�^ {R '. f.. 1 i : r " .r ♦ - - '7{ '44 t t . v ', + .. • x t F { y ti h 4 (q r �„y + . , ` +' A^ 4 t , A 1 ,T4 j, .. txbl.^- i,*.,". .1Q' ., L• s t r b S - v T<CY k( � ( ,' y ? w z i, .}F.S - r 7M t 1 n-' 1K i.J' ♦. k sF c•1 t, .� .�, F 'ri -" + .+`! rs f" Sa _� I y x ,• Wai a t,a a _ Y,� w .. »+ 1` .rtiti + c 4,y 1r '' "a e -- to h - t-s k ?, , a( v: .'r w G „ T 3" (` y s + i`, a y r ' 4 > # # .. N '.+,� 2 m y t *. *R 1�{ `:«s'r W- .*,f ?�,. t ia`ue"i i+-"'art` yx. "•s s {:{ .l rt . 4 :. ,�y� 1" i. - r r ' k a- Ls "' e 9 r -,? rq�t ram: °� ; ' •'" ! s. ° +^ .r{ 8. A Y`� } ,x +�a�.r �? '� '��1� `�.� y i +K 7 4 b � � ° ° .,,I r .,F... `• -� h`w! .Wfiii:a- - lt-�fr�{' .B'. 't �' °,-..� •r ) r.� •� t ,a r 3.R , I �tk ,, ys: 5� .s ,r sue. } .r ). a '�'. a K. (h q t' Y k, m i`" K i, ; t .YS• Y s6 - 5Y (.. }x", .64# i• y... s (1'_ f x T - -r a �r _ - I.'. `4 . y k f{ y x .,i r fth ti,ra �.' ':.-, r4 { fl'! ,r ` 'µ +;' ` _+, .`s +h' 1 t' - �„ s ( < Y' - ��". .,� n s z . ro,t •, l d 1 .' } K., t Y E i �,, ,. x . -4 { k4 . A sty i :a y C " .. ` R ,vim k v .ti ; !* , a{ v s� _K .r " < 4 4r a '`��''r�T'„ f y jf'.• ,_ "�,a c - 7 f k ! .7 F°e xy 4.j f k �.. _ n - - ," as r . r I ,r ''w xs r'ar,,> :L-' , h ,t• ♦ �{ - - r `t .s F Y L. .+ ....,*� „ . E a Y`,J S s-' 4 ,e. i i V 'M 34 aiy t a�,l 4 b -^e: i f ; t t i^ L ( } a r '� ;'r e r xw t5? . " a•f T . } _ s+',},." _ (yr r-�"` tiR r a, e.r KF .,r - . ; .t � t .wsf x i2 L: d -1< + y' ? { a ♦ �'7 a '!• a A r 4 .� +. .Y .t .�->Y, : , •L'l f c q , y { �Ji,. '>a y `.�'- 7"r ...c - I ; " ' h ;..� r - j h "k. t h' +4 �.?�; � t, _ M y K .i�' i '�' 'i' / 1 !' .a...4 n; t .� a yr .t M ♦.; # t. �q ..i ♦ *"tra_�' .r f c .;,$„ ' w a, . f r'. a ...x s - M x l ✓ J "# �) + �ro r `�a ':_ s i>f r w• -' i • Yr A •< • k * ♦ '� - �F tfx _ i #a: i . t t < s - - t 4 ,+� +4 Ew v ' ` !- Z �, t. °t ~ , _3 t 3. V. ^r 'k.� ..ti : c2 A + b h'S h . -.. ` r t } l ". ,r t -1 t C t z t o : - ♦ s max-• ; a r la ", + a c ' 3 a 1F S `� r„ Z - •F 4 S aia cr it ( 4 },$' at ( { ♦ r +F TF s ..e. a a „� ^ �. z 2. a '"s*�r '�.{ ) wr t 3 rz t } ,xF's•h r a ' � }_j -r`^ Z :.»; + t ," : �) - ice: • vr� M.. a r , > , (e -'- .< i T.',1 J,v r`"'-_ . : . '°"r<' s ,s r,j. i. -, - e•+a i a ..`� a ,y,; .r_ ",!tP tG .k y wp ( Y's' r 4. ..a f A y T f v > K, IT 'L. a .o ,�» f ; "r c a rod -�' - 1., h ° fi, . = w � , 'y , r. a ' f •r .ja t >.fi x `' "v�1 4 a.Y s- p. ,x}'t - a .cr » r r' >• +r c a -T-s- 1 .r;4••, s ;k ' � `�? ,'fie �} 3�{ X �'� 6. #. }A- o �" 4 ,a ,1! �,, ," 4, ',. Z ».o ! s -�.! �. �Y S _ )r -. ,' — = -� i 'at�11 1i �S.(�'sA ---,, s N _ r y � ,. a, f � x. `. h �.. �',r w' t, ca 3' 'L r `',�y7, ,` r r7c'• - 3 ri. ro ,c - 3 r �'a i >M^"'>, a„ r¢4 a, 3, F �, A ''r .'•3 4 <. i� • Y ,�- i 1• . ,� a _ Y "` z - +'. a - z y^ s Y a d r h � x.., r '.. W� r a . a ' � • v 7� - .cr - x ♦ .•c,t .. x '`,d+ _ ''3 '. �' m . ' t r7 y s F r - A �.z" c i,. !) t wa,,:,,r ,, y, n+ F sc a , S ��,i (. »14 r + , s a, { a t. t t£ 3} q s _, J{.• 1 T y d . -;_ +2 f a a L .�, '� _ x; -"` + a 'a f •�'! �' Yp, � sa S fi- •A I, �r rc 'r t� t } rL ~' - a `tom L';-a `'< ;+c K-# �•a r y` q•i: >4}`3 c , s( & '` 1, : u. K' 'P' :.. ,a t,._e �' � .. v{ ,.<. a k. 6 - t ,t >d _.¢w' ! 3"'Y1A'. 'F .4`.+r >Y ,f+• \It' # %Lf"'9L tv `VF C. > r+.� Y e ..,,� .',. f � . � , § o f its( n .� 1nr4 a Trly r 't-+ ,Y t. ay 3 �g i. i - � ` ,,, ' N +,' 4-�, , rZ �, ry -FJ r,;3', r;.a ..4 ,,,5 f ♦ x, .. F' -f . t y, y, d s, � -y. .t ' d •r v t+'''1' r � 1,,, d (,� `.�. F .;+2µ a a, . } " + ! Y �, .ry y i ..� t �a (. ' ti. i) + g� r-Y f. �{ _ x b- -` -.^ [ '`,`..5..� ` 3" �5k t' = : :su%'". { t ,�,•..y ds fi £''k � '.' 'f _R t y,,.,+. y ># ''H' Na '�" ' { ,. s't "+- MS .�, b ,. - a3 . htdw 4 r xA .. '- m "^.., ,k, 1{ F.d ! a' -y#J .,p .kr `t• fl �'.t- a Fi tk � J. r s \. 4J' •,, h +.�,� C 1 �' r s,r•-x 1A.- 4' r %>: a5.t d r or .t rk\ !fit �� 4 r 1 s " b� F4 {�, { } g f a v" .. y , . { t ,,, -a'.c>., 'r: a �!i . i e ,. - . .� e t -. f r "R y • , .a x •� � tx r -< 4,.,., , a. a t 3 f ' ✓ ;ac. t; kry — ^a 'rd 's` , f 4 ti ,+i,+ 'S f ,,.� hl .1 a q r ' ♦y s 3.4+.Fsix - ri . T, k, r 7•'' t+ v - T "P t r a , -.; i '+ t .� . F f� t'h av" 2 ,a'y, .,y ! 2 �' _ `°. '" a.e, `'. -.- " K r 1 Y t M1 c,} ;.! i..# r �: ti::, i 1N xt-' .'l,.rt wx'I P',lA .t ♦ ) F * '' dx- 1 !21 rS tiaM ti3 ! 1. eu' t. a 2Ja ± t a w a r 'i Y �, �.,p [♦^hJA '' v S L'r? a F+ r '' ! S Sv. -s• +h •n i` a {k fi -"t' f 5b .Ka3s • > F S t ri A,; 4' r ,3 r^, y , . ..�lq ,z, 'ka 1st ',. , ^ `� w*. (-( a ^. 4t..c,r. t >ac a` 'iA F, x Y� �'r{ 3 a ( S n"tys r, ,�Yi .i+ f s. ,, '„�.' ! a'C• x; b • .• .yr 'fr, ;(,�• ;Ot, ''V •i # ? r :ir f ,rfit n"' ` <"H M, �3 'r A,5 _r , _ 1 S 3 4� t �'. 1, 4 i �r st .,b+%�Y ♦ a�- .aw �. F+:B � sj ''- .; `ra -fv R t '� � i -_ 15r"','4 ' 1 # w• a x r'a "Z. #' + t hd fi 4� r - £ } " $ f des m e - .s . t a c;.,, as c> � 4i c c , fi j V { .ra'^y '. X ,�, ; ,� w3 x; r ,� t' 1 .fit ',<, ri°JF r' , w ',J^ 'E h yyt e� A ' ,C i" L {J'1` 9C7#' Kt J yy7 1` y S'.1G 2 t # r -. '.,a a 9, r s 1 - �,V4n..b k A v ... •+. e - i g Jiy u'� k� i' S o ! i^t v `' �' r s "1, H, -'e ..y a 4 i. T S r -. bS r x ' ,� - '� ,L r at rk ; 1 s ' �; a. „;"" �� , r .� t� 3`) , # °t '� " ^ k y Tx ^�.. :r `„',x{ t. . b .t} x ro`s ,fir - , s' +y'.,r'•x O" r: �`{ {.' + , e )_ a 1 N �. 4 - 1 . N ! iw.f �`f, 1 .t.e L 6 ryg9 y 1 �5 •t A- P' C P. 1 •+ly ±F t ':4 iti ,g Y v 4 '�F #' v" ^. m•iM1 '.' r x t t t{k air. .s }r .rb ,q, >.. yi x` qt t'� �'` t �- t- 'a{,L .+.. i ,{ 1' ) ' K ! tit "` 1 '¢ "4 .% y. �E�` < ,, , srr�ty +}..... * �; 1- M.� .q :•Sr i, � =t+ ,S' -'qr y t ,.,* w`9; t s, F , ,r+ ' xE % ;, fi C^' � i g' f y S ( J y , H Imp act Analysis Statement Final March 6, 1990 (Revised March 27, 1990) Prepared For Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By MAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners e:.:::;»::>::::>::::>::>::>:...:.:..................................Lna.:..cz.�.:,;:.;;:1.:n.:r�a>:.n:.:... Table of Contents Page ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................I 1.0 Project Background.............................................................................................................3 1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................3 1.2 Location........................................................................................................................3 1.3 Zoning and Land Use................................................................................................4 1.4 Site Suitability ..............................................................................................................5 1.4.1 Landform........................................................................................................5 1.4.2 Vegetation.......................................................................................................5 1.4.3 Soils..................................................................................................................6 1.4.4 Views................................................................................................................6 1.4.5 Hydrology.......................................................................................................7 2.0 Development Plan................................................................................................................8 3.0 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................10 3.1 Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................10 3.1.1 Vegetation/Wildlife....................................................................................10 3.1.2 Soils/Geology...............................................................................................11 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality..........................................................................11 3.1.4 Air Quality....................................................................................................12 3.1.5 Drainage........................................................................................................12 3.2 Utility Systems Impact.............................................................................................13 3.2.1 Sewage Conveyance .....................................................................................13 3.2.2 Water Supply....... 15 3.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal..................................................................................16 ' 3.3 Community Facilities...............................................................................................17 3.3.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities.........................................17 3.3.2 Historic Sites................................................................................................17 3.3.3 Education Facilities....................................................................................18 ' 3.3.4 Libraries........................................................................................................19 3.3.5 Emergency Services..............................................................................:.....20 t4.0 Fiscal Impact......................................................................................................................21 ' 4.1 4.2 Demographic Estimates..........................................................................................21 Capital Impacts..........................................................................................................22 4.3 Revenue Projections.................................................................................................23 4.4 Capital Contributions...............................................................................................26 ' 4.5 Short -Term Impacts.................................................................................................27 Addendum.........................................................................................................................34 1 Twin Lakes �.m a:c'�: ;:`A::n>�za: s�`s.>;.>''�a;'aa n t.... List of Figures Figure RegionalLocation Map.....................................................................................................................1.1 SurroundingProperties.....................................................................................................................1.2 SiteAnalysis.........................................................................................................................................1.3 SewerService Area.............................................................................................................................3.1 UtilitiesPlan.........................................................................................................................................3.2 CommunityFacilities.........................................................................................................................13 ' Executive Summary i 1 Twin L a.k. e s M .n:t:: . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following Impact Analysis Statement has been prepared for the Twin Lakes development as required by Frederick County for the rezoning application of the property. The Development Plan includes a residential community proposed within the RP Residential Performance District and a small support retail center proposed within the B-2 Business General District zones. The program proposed for this development includes approximately 1200 residential units and 35,000 square feet of retail space. An open space system of approximately 115 acres provides passive and active recreational space to this community which is organized around the centrally located lakes. A major collector road serves both this new community and the surrounding areas, linking Senseny Road to Route 7. Located within the Frederick County Urban Development Area, this project is an important component of planned residential growth in the County. Assembling approximately 400 acres, the project provides an opportunity for the application of sound comprehensive planning principles and sets high standards for the future development of this area of Frederick County. This site is part of the growth area designated by Frederick County for a number of reasons, including the suitability of this land for development, current land use patterns and availability of utility services. Our analysis of environmental and physical components of this site indicates that there is great opportunity for development within a framework that respects and incorporates existing natural systems. The development of Twin Lakes provides numerous benefits to the greater Frederick County community. Some of these benefits are less easily quantified, such as the aesthetic contributions of well planned project that fits into the landscape and into the fabric of the residential community of the County. Other benefits are readily numerated. These include direct benefits in County revenue, employment and income. 1 Twi.n.. Ld*as:: `:.:.: .:.. 1.M.P.W. `c't;:;::An:iz'1..::;s:i::s;:>`S`:�;;t.tvth.:en.t ' .:..:... ;.. At the full build -out of Twin Lakes, County revenues are projected to total approximately $1.9 million, including: $990,000 per year in Residential Real Property taxes. $743,750 per year in Residential Personal Property taxes. $169,336 per year in Frederick County's portion of state sales taxes. These revenues are estimated to be approximately 35% above the County average on a per -household basis. The additional revenues and potential capital contributions offered by the project would offset the increased demand for schools and recreational facilities that can be attributed to the proposed development. The support retail area will provide 88 permanent on -site jobs and the capital expenditures will provide 1,140 annual jobs throughout the area during the construction phase. The proposed population, having an income projected to be approximately 33% higher than the County average, will contribute nearly $17 million to the local economy in retail sales and services annually. A proposed major collector road will provide a vital transportation link to the County at a cost to the developer of at least $2 million. This connection of Senseny Road to Route 7 will eliminate the current need for the County to improve Greenwood Road. The Twin Lakes plan takes full advantage of the existing natural features of the site, develops a community of neighborhoods that are visually and physically linked by an open space network and provides services to the residents and to the greater Frederick County area. The developers, planners and designers of this project confidently submit this Impact Analysis Statement for review and look forward to the opportunity to develop this site with the approval of Frederick County. 2 �I j ri U � I U � I 11 11 U P L 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction The Twin Lakes project is approximately a 400-acre site located in eastern Frederick County, Virginia, and falls within the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. Loggia Development Corporation is proposing to develop this property as a residential neighborhood with a neighborhood center that includes support retail, a possible school site and a park for the residential community. The purpose of this document is to provide an assessment of the impacts and benefits to Frederick County which results from development of the Twin Lakes residential community. These impacts and benefits are discussed in accordance with the Impact Analysis Statement as required by Frederick County for a rezoning application. For purposes of this analysis, impacts have been assessed for a development of 1200 dwelling units. The property is currently zoned Rural. The rezoning application for this site will request rezoning approximately 394 acres to RP -Residential Performance District and 6 acres to B-2 Business General District. The Development Plan which illustrates the rezoning intent appears in Section 3.0 of this report. 1.2 Location and Access The 400-acre Twin Lakes property is located in eastern Frederick County. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek, to the south by Senseny Road, and to the north by Route 7. The City of Winchester is two miles west and can be accessed from the property by Senseny Road and Route 7. Interstate 81 runs north -south just to the east of the City of Winchester and can be accessed from Route 7 (see Figure 1.1). 3 Twin Lakes Location Map Figure 1.1 • Impact Analysis Statement TWIN LAKE S Frederick Count'i, Vir,Z1111(1 Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 2 50' 7 1750'0 � I � I � I � I I I I I I I I I . ; ..:... win L ke: ;:;.; a.... ... f:m. i a c ; . A a::::::. a.:: aS4:a t:e:ot a n:t .: 1.3 Zoning and Land Use Twin Lakes is located within the "Urban Development Area" as designated by Frederick County, which encompasses the City of Winchester and areas adjacent to the city to the north, south and east. This development area is intended for more intensive development based on current land use, suitability of land for development and existing and planned sewage facilities. Recently, several of the parcels within this area were rezoned for residential and commercial uses with several other parcels in the planning stages for development. The remaining parcels, including the Twin Lakes Property, are zoned Rural, but due to their inclusion in the Urban Development Area, it is anticipated these parcels will be rezoned for residential and commercial uses. The current status of the parcels surrounding Twin Lakes include two parcels to the south, Apple Ridge and Bedford Village which are being developed as residential subdivisions, and a third which has already been rezoned for residential development. The adjoining parcels directly east of the property are still zoned rural although some of the parcels along Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) have been rezoned and being developed as residential subdivisions. (See Figure 1.2) Adjoining the property directly to the north is a sewage treatment facility operated by the Frederick County Sewage Authority. This is a new facility and will service development occurring in this part of the County. Historically, the Twin Lakes property has been used for agriculture uses including pasture and cultivated crops. A large section through the center of the property has remained wooded due to steep slopes and poor farming soils. The remainder of the site includes a large central lake and several smaller ponds and streams running through the property. 4 I Twin Lakes 0 Impact Analysis Statement slow Sewage � Treatmen` F � n Facility raiser lark Rural17, a° Mill tacg :, .°a. *, io i a r _44,4 �► rfanned esidential was 0 AM N.,2 ll V r4traNMMMrWea�� Planned#"., R Rles,enti1 .� • �A ple Ri,dg � - y . . �" . - .. ,_.Bedford y'e ' Village_, x 7 Ike _;0 s y«P Y Gic: ° rt TWIN LAKES Frederick Countl, 1'irerarn �.0 B u r� " j� Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners k Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners Surrounding Properties 0' 250' 750' 1750' Figure 1.2 w t n: a ; e s:.....:..:. ni:. ::: A'`n:z:>1.: as:a:::::: �5: a t: e: m: n .t ...::.....::::..:::.:.:.:.;:..; , .. 1.4 Site Suitability 1.4.1 Landform Twin Lakes is located along the western edge of the Opequon Creek. This area is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills with steep slopes along the Opequon Creek and other waterways which feed into the Opequon. The site is characteristic of the varied topography found in this region. The southern and northern section of the property are generally flat to gently rolling with steeper slopes occurring along the Opequon in the northern section. The central section of the property is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills which define the central lake and waterways. Figure 1.3 provides a site analysis map which identifies steep slopes in two categories: slopes 15-25% and slopes 25% and greater. According to this analysis, approximately 10% of the site falls within the 15-25% category and approximately 7% of the site falls within 25% and greater category with the remainder of the property falling into 0-15% category which is highly suitable for development. The varying topography in effect, provides a naturally occurring parcelization of the site into appropriately scaled neighborhood units. 1.4.2 Vegetation The Twin Lakes property contains a number of stands of mature vegetation which contribute significantly to the positive visual environment of the site. 47% of the overall Twin Lakes property is covered by mature vegetation. Because of the past agricultural uses of the property, this mature vegetation is concentrated in the central section corresponding to steeper slopes and areas less suited for agricultural use. 5 I d W* t n Lr ct k. es;:::::.' a::: �a<z:: This correlation of steeper slopes and vegetation provide the opportunity to provide naturally occurring buffer areas between the proposed development parcels (see figure 1.3). 1.4.3 Soils The following soils analysis is based on the Frederick County, Virginia Soil Survey, issued during January 1987. Frederick County is underlain by sedimentary rock with eastern Frederick characterized by shale and fine-grained sandstone. The general soil map for Frederick County indicates the Twin Lakes property falls within the Weikert- Berks-Blairton soils classification which is characterized by gentle to moderate slopes, shallow to moderate depth, and well -drained to poorly drained areas. Within the Twin Lakes property, the soils are generally moderately deep and moderately drained silt loam. A majority of the site is well suited for development with limitations for community development within a small percentage of the property. These limitations might be due to steep slopes, a seasonally high water table, and depth to bedrock. 1.4.4 Views The visual environment of Twin Lakes is a major contributor to the site's character and attractiveness. Views into the site occur mainly along the northern and southern sections of the site. These views indicate a gently rolling site with masses of vegetation along the edges. The central portion of the site provides interior views which are characterized by steep, heavily vegetated hillsides which define a lake and creek bed. Views off the site also occur along the northern and southern sections of the property. The views from the northern section include views to the west of surrounding residential properties and views northeast to Clarke County. The sewage treatment facility is only partially visible during winter months.. The views from the southern section of the site include views of the surrounding residential properties to the south, east and west (see figure 1.3). 6 H Tu;.in: Lq.kes I::.:P:dc't:: 1.4.5 Hydrology The property is located within two drainage areas of the Opequon Creek basin. The northwestern portion of the property drains into the Abrams Creek sub -basin and the southeastern portion drains into the Senseny area sub -basin. There is one stream which flows east to west on the property. It has been damed to form a 14 acre pond in the center of the site. Two other small ponds exist on the site along with several intermittent streams. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Federal Insurance Administration have mapped the 100-year floodplain associated with the Opequon Creek. The floodplain only effects 3% of the Twin Lakes property as illustrated in Figure 1.3. 7 Twin Lakes a Impact Analysis Statement L e g e n d \\ Steep Slopes (15-:5%) Steep Slopes (>25nr) Mature Vegetation _. Water Feature Ip�l F I o o d p I a i n View Point Site Analysis Figure 1.3 t< o u T 6 7 N lLl- 00 O •j 4 /e.v� 1 o L c•*/foes ?PZXT GwT feT 6 %4TtAL to}L,t•�O�tL �r TWIN LAKES Frederick Couniv. Virvixi 7 • =-Fu=-u a..uggIa "cvciupmcnt Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architech and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford Aeeoeiatee, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Aeeociates Transporation Plannery o' 250' 750' 17;,VO 7 d � I � I F 11 II J 7 W i n::..a..k::e:s:.:..::>:....: ::::....:.:.::.: ; :. I rix a':t:;::<A`aT. :rl:: :a:a :.:..: e.m:en.t... 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Twin Lakes development proposes a new residential community in the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. This community is comprised of smaller residential neighborhoods which are defined by and follow the natural flow and form of the land. These residential neighborhoods are visually and physically linked by an open space system of lakes and greenways. A major collector road links the neighborhoods and provides connection from Senseny Road to Route 7. Attached at the back of this document is an illustration of the Development Plan and the intent of the design concept. A small Neighborhood Center is located along the major collector road within the northern quarter of the property. This area is characterized by an open landscape, flat topography and proximity to Route 7. The Neighborhood Center consists of a support retail component, residential areas, open space components and a potential school site, which collectively will provide a focus for the community. The park area within the neighborhood center provides a center green and also links into the overall open space network. The central section of the property contains several of the significant natural features of the property including the existing 14 acre pond, stands of mature hardwood trees, topographic variety and views of the pond and surrounding hillsides. The focus of residential neighborhoods in this portion of the development is the unique waterfront environment afforded by the expansion of the existing lake. Each neighborhood is sited to take advantage of views to the water bodies and the rolling topography. The southern section of the site, which is relatively level and open, will be developed into several residential neighborhoods. The open space network will link these parcels to the central amenity area. Entrances into the project and into each neighborhood will be identified as gateways by special landscape features, including walls or fences and more intensive planting. The suitability of the site affords the opportunity for developing between 1,200 and 1,400 housing units. The Twin Lakes community is expected to include approximately 60% single-family detached units and 40% townhomes, eventually reaching a population of approximately 2,800. A summary of the Land Account for the plan is presented along with the development plan attached at the back of this report. 9 3.0 Impact Analysis T w s ,n L. - k e a::: < :::::::.. l m::: a::c.< t :::: A 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed Twin Lakes community relative to environmental concerns, public utility and community facility issues, and fiscal impacts. These impacts have been assessed for a development consisting of 1200 dwelling units. Mitigation measures related to the project's impact on the site and surrounding environment have also been identified. 3.1 Environmental Impacts 3.1.1 Vegetation/Wildlife Impacts to vegetation will result from clearing required for road right-of-ways and construction of buildings. As required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, no more than 25% of the mature woodlands on the site will be disturbed. Vegetation on steep slopes and along waterways will be protected through sensitive site planning to help minimize erosion and impacts to water quality. (See Sections 3.1.2 Soil/Geology and 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality for more information). ' Selective clearing practices will also be used to help mitigate loss of vegetation on the site. Wildlife potentially can be affected by the development of a residential community in the following ways: through the loss of or disturbance to a specific vegetative habitat; through creation of a habitat; and through the loss of aquatic species due to sedimentation or water pollution. As noted above, the proposed Twin Lakes development will result in clearing of vegetation for road right-of-way and buildings, and alteration of waterways through 1 10 ze; ;::::;:::.;::.....:.....:::>>::f::m:; .......a..t dams to create two new ponds and enlarge the existing one. Removal of the vegetation will cause relocation of wildlife until construction is complete. The impact will not be significant as long as the habitat of any sensitive or endangered species are not involved. No endangered species are presently known to exist in this portion of Frederick County. However, the disruption of existing habitat for aquatic species due to alteration of waterways is considered a slight impact for the development. 3.1.2 Soils/Geology Impacts as a result of soil erosion will be minimized through proper construction specifications and right-of-way preparation techniques. Most notably, these include the installation of soil erosion barriers prior to construction, prompt revegetation of the affected areas immediately after construction and protection of existing vegetation on steep slopes. Since these techniques will be employed during and after construction of the Twin Lakes Development, the potential for soil erosion should be minimized and any adverse impacts resulting from the project will be neither long-term nor significant. 3.13 Hydrology/Water Quality The greatest potential for impacts to water quality would occur during the construction phases of Twin Lakes. Construction adjacent to the Opequon Creek and its tributaries will potentially increase turbidity levels (or levels of suspended particles) as eroded soil particles are carried into these water bodies by surface drainage. Specific erosion control measures during construction (e.g., sediment traps and fences, straw bales, etc.) will be required to minimize impacts to these streams. If these measures are used, and all cleared areas are revegetated with lawn, groundcover or landscape materials after construction, impacts to the Opequon Creek should be short-term construction - related effects only. 11 T w i .n : a k:. a s: 3.1.4 Air Quality The ambient quality in eastern Frederick County is typical of rural areas in Virginia. There are no point sources of pollution in vicinity of the site and the ambient air quality is excellent. Construction activities, including construction of foundations, roadways, and erection of structures, could have slight effects on local air quality, especially in regard to particulate (dust) concentrations. Measures can be taken, such as sprinkling construction roads with water or reducing vehicular traveling speeds along these roads to reduce dust levels at or near construction sites. Vehicular exhaust pollutants will be increased due to increased traffic caused by the development, but this impact is considered negligible given the natural dispersion capabilities of local and regional air currents. 3.1.5 Drainage The drainage region of which the site is part involves an unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek and drains at its confluence with Opequon Creek approximately 900 acres of urban development area land. At present about 20% of this service area is developed. After the Twin Lakes project is built out approximately 65% of the drainage area would be developed if no other land is converted during that period of time. The drainage system is simplified by the fact that all property of the development is included in the storm water channel involved with the unnamed tributary. By discharging to the Opequon, a stream of much larger drainage area (approx. 57 sq. miles at this point), the effects on down stream flooding are minimal. Another factor reducing the impact of this development on hydrologic events in Frederick County involves the storage of peak discharge due to the major dam facility located on site. 12 J i L' .:..::.:........:.: T'w: n. t ak.e.s:::.-:* :;•::;<:::_:..:::<>`:: `nt .a;c E:::A.::n.. z::l;:.,..:.:: 3.2 During final design this structure will be augmented and improved as necessary to handle increase flow amounts and to provide for peak flow detention as required to properly mitigatd downstream impacts. Another major use of this embankment is to capture discharge of sediment ladent runoff prior to reaching the Opequon. While this does not eliminate the need for good erosion control techniques in accordance with Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control manual, it does provide a "safety net" to handle major events and mitigate downstream problems due to stream sediment. The stormwater management plan for the Twin Lakes development will include detailed calculations regarding the detention capabilities of the existing ponds, design of new ponds and stormwater impacts on the Opequon downstream water shed. With the Twin Lakes project wholly within the urban development area specified by Frederick County Planning, it is understood that appropriate erosion control techniques can and will be used to mitigate environmental and quality of life issues due to impacts from this development. Utility Systems Impact 3.2.1 Sewage Collection and Treatment Certain sewage disposal services are offered to this site by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). The FCSA purchases wholesale sewage treatment services from the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) at their Opequon Regional Wastewater Treatment facility immediately north of the project site. The principal route of sewage collection in areas through and adjacent to this project is by pump to the west and north and entering the Service Authority trunk main in the vicinity of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Rte. 656) and Valley Mill Road (Rte. 659), Figure 3.1. Although this has been an adequate route for sewage delivery over 13 , r Ei� OPEQUO " 4 jt yc=,UJM?TS OF, "GRAVITY ERVICE) AREA _ � °•- -Yaa,��`t ,fib � •••; " \,. ' 1 � .: �, � j > ' > \ d. Vil ✓ UAf Y 4 EX. APP4 ROG*- ` AT I ON ad at EX. 6I�N' ' t OOD. S . �. a 7 1 � 1t,IF1`�STATiON s — �l IT M .•t.-7 n �_. _ 7N E-L LI31S3t'+.7rv/M r, - elf ' ,` Y2131S3HJNIMI —. 1��2�0�01 A MN:�L9Ft n Figure 3.1 ' SBVBI SMaYICI AREA gilbert w. cliffor%?I� assgciates, inc. �OD�7Q Engineers - Land Planners - TWIN L S G.S R OO L1 ' Surveyors Sc cOW tY 7"urt•. s22601 ("3)6. s.�. �e�d�s�lolt Coe�at� �%��lala f rcGwUknUun v— xx4Ai pelf "1 2115 srlrf"ww, rMfYY uem =rots say n7s Twin..:..:L:'akes::... I...► Anrxlysis the past 12 years, its capability to handle substantial increases in sewage delivery is small and can not be assumed to be the favored alternative for handling the long term sewage collection needs of the service area. The existing Apple Ridge pump station is projected to produce 100 gpd of sewage while the existing Greenwood sewage lift station can handle 250 gpm in addition to the discharge from Apple Ridge. Using a peak factor of 2.5 and a 12 hour max. cycle per day the capacity of the stations are 100,800 gpd for the Greenwood station and 28,800 gpd for the Apple Ridge Station. At present the sewage flows are 20 gpm at Apple Ridge and 40 gpm at Greenwood lift station. This flow is projected to become 40 at Apple Ridge and 260 at Greenwood due to already -zoned parcels of land being planned for development at this time. It is anticipated that the sewage lift stations involved will be taken off line systematicallyas the development of the Twin Lakes project proceeds. These facilities do, however, have certain ability and value in the initial phase of the development of Twin Lakes by handling the initial sewage flows as available within Health Department directives and guidelines. The proposed project has a mixed use sewage flow generation of: 1) Singe family use - 720 units at 200 gpd = 144,000 gpd. 2) Townhouse use - 480 units at 150 gpd = 72,000. 3) Commercial use - 35,000 sf. at 200 gpd/1000 sf. = 7,000. Total flow at project build -out = 223,000 gpd The sewage produced can be assumed to be normal strength domestic waste only, not requiring industrial pretreatment. Figure 3.2 shows a feasible alternative to sewering the Twin Lakes project. The system involves a series of collection mains ending in a major regional sewage wastewater pumping station which should deliver flow to another gravity main connecting with the main sewage lift station at the Opequon Regional Plant. A metering facility would be 14 m m m m m m m m m m s m m m m m m m t• Figure 3.2 &ILITIIS PLAN TVIN IN LAERS PROJECT Frederick C�oun�ty Virginia gdberl W. chff0raassociates. inc Emsi. r• Lmd For 1 SrrveY�• � w � u.� i.«...• ur. tw ..� ur+ •r.r r•e.. �.•rr uwi ini�•w �i �• •..s.wa .,r•r uri �rr�aM �iw FUTURE CONNECTOR TO GREENWOOD TANK EX. GREENWOOD LIFT STATIgN� (TAKE OFF LINE) 14� FUTURE CONNECTION TO RTE. 7 k VALLEY MILL —1 ROAD WATER. oivrimp.. CONNECTION PER (TAKE OFF LINE) Location Ma* Scale: 1 "-800, _ REGIONAL LIFT STATION provided in route to the Opequon plant. The total area in addition to Twin Lakes that would be served by this sewage pumping station is about 1200 acres, yielding an estimated total flow to the lift station of about 400,000 gpd at build -out. Plans for sewage collection and pumping must be approved by the Virginia Department of Health -Bureau of Sanitarian Engineering as well as the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Utilizing a peak factor of 2.5, a peak delivery rate of this lift station should be 700 gpm. Flows of this magnitude can be adequately handled by the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority main pump station which is sized for a 16,000 gpm delivery rate to the plant. Investigation of design sequencing of the pump station are necessary in order to optimize the variable speed pumping capabilities of the Opequon Regional plant. At present the County of Frederick has 900,000 gpd established for use at the regional facility by the County. Present flows leave approximately 4,500,000 gpd available for capacity. This project will not over stress the existing available capacity of the regional facility at 100% development and will provide a substantially improved sewage delivery system meeting the requirements of a regionalized solution to sewer throughout the service area involved. 3.2.2 Water Supply and Distribution System Water distribution to this area is provided through the FCSA who purchases water from the City of Winchester at master meters located throughout the service area. Principal water line facilities serving this area involve a eight inch distribution main along Senseny Road. Recent hydrant testing and hydrologic evaluations have indicated that this main has minimal service capability for fire fighting in the 15 W. s n Lakes ,I:arz ::a : t:.: ` #;ii< 1 sss< ` S' a t`e:an e n .t . general vicinity of Twin Lakes. This line is fed from a elevated water storage tank at the Greenwood Fire Hall which stabilizes the water pressure during fire events in this general area. The addition of water mains adjacent to this site will offer the ability to loop major portions of the Twin Lakes project into the main distribution grid of FCSA. A hydrologic analysis attached as an appendix assumes an integrated Abrams Creek water system with loop established and shows that pressures in such a case are adequate for project use. The water mains required to serve the Twin Lakes project will provide the necessary looping assumed by this hydraulic analysis and will additionally serve the area of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Plant with fire flow meeting municipal requirements. Water demand for purposes of this analysis can be assumed to be equal to sewage flow. The sewage flow from previous analysis was 223,000 gpd. The present agreement between the City of Winchester and Frederick County provides for 2 million of water supply of which the County presently utilizes 750,000 gpd. The County will not experience a problem providing domestic water service and fire flow to this project under the conditions presented above. 3.23 Solid Waste Disposal Solid waste disposal for the area is provided by the Winchester -Frederick County Landfill which is located approximately 2 miles south of the project. The landfill originally consisted of approximately 50 acres. It has now been expanded through the acquisition of approximately 200 acres of adjacent land. The newer portion of the landfill is currently undergoing preparations to serve the future disposal needs of the County. According to the Landfill Superintendent, the current portion of the landfill is expected to remain usable for approximately two years and the expansion area is expected to provide 10-12 years of capacity. The proposed development is not expected to impact on solid waste disposal in the County. 16 Twin. L:iak:: :::•:: ' 3.3 Community Facilities 33.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities ' Frederick County is currently developing two regional parks to serve unmet County- wide recreational needs. Clearbrook Park consists of 57 acres and serves the northern ' part of the County with active and passive recreation programs. Sherando Park is approximately 330 acres and serves the southern part of the County. In the central part of the County, many residents use the Winchester Recreation Park, which is maintained by the City. As a result, there is projected to be adequate County -wide recreation capacity available prior to development of the proposed project that would satisfy project -generated demand for regional recreation facilities.. In regards to local recreational needs, there are five neighborhood parks in the County which typically provide picnic areas, playground equipment and athletic fields for local recreational use. In response to a growing demand for recreation and parks, County zoning regulations require that open space and recreational facilities be provided in most new developments. According to County standards for local recreational activities, the projected population of Twin Lakes would generate a need for local recreational facilities. The majority of the necessary athletic fields and courts would be included as part of the proposed elementary school site. In addition, the proposed Twin Lakes development would provide a variety of recreational and leisure opportunities for community residents. As a result, the proposed development would have a near net zero -impact on County parks and recreation facilities. 33.2 Historic Sites The subject property does not contain any registered historic features. The Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society has undertaken an architectural survey 17 .L a k ' of all structures at least 50 old ears within the y i h County. One such building was identified and surveyed on the property. Known as the Haggerty House (#34-398), this rural farmhouse is an example of the American 4-Square building style that was ' popular in the period between World War I and World War II (1920-1940). However, the house was not found to be eligible for national, state or local historic registers. ' The nearest structure of historic significance to the proposed development is Mill Bank, located approximately 1/2 mile from the northern edge of the property. ' However, the mill has lost its architectural integrity, according to representatives of the County Historical Society, due to disrepair and the theft of all its architectural details. According to members of the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Committee, the site does not contain any recognized historic concerns (battlefields fortifications, entrenchments, etc.) related to the Civil War. The majority of activity from that period occurred to the north of the property. Given that there are no recognized historic or archeological resources on the property, the proposed development would not have an impact on historic or archeologic resources in the County. ' 333 Educational Facilities ' There were 8,238 students enrolled in Frederick County schools in 1989. These students included 4,024 elementary, 1,833 middle and 2,381 high school pupils. In response to capacity needs, Frederick County is constructing an elementary school ' in Middletown for 650 students, with another elementary school committed for the western part of the County and a third elementary school under consideration for the eastern part of the County. In addition, the County has recognized a capacity shortage at its existing high school facilities. 18 �- ..:......:.; w.s. �t.;:::: .a: k:e: s . f:m: .a.;c, :;:::::. :. : :: �<scz t; a in n t Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a total of 661 new students upon final build -out as shown in the summary table below. These figures are based on County demographic figures and ratios for students per household according to dwelling unit types. Summary of Student Population Total ES MS HS Single Family 476 222 108 146 Townhouse 185 101 38 46 Total 661 323 146 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development; EDAW, Inc. The proposed project's impact on educational facilities represents approximately one- half of the capacity of an elementary school and about fifteen percent of a typical high school. 33.4 Libraries Library resources in Frederick County are currently provided by Handley Regional Library, which also serves the City of Winchester and Clark County. The total population of the serving area is estimated to be 71,000 persons. Virginia resource guidelines suggest that libraries should maintain two volumes for each persons in their serving area. Handley Library currently contains approximately 86,000 volumes, approximately 56,000 fewer volumes than recommended. At current funding levels, the library has been adding 6,000 volumes a year. However, there is not enough shelving space to accommodate an additional 60,000 volumes. According to the Library Director, approximately 20,000 square feet of building area is needed to provide the necessary expansion space, including shelving and staff offices. 19 F, L 7 7 Twin L ci k e s:...:....: :.:;. f:m a c �' �n �t�;4.s:>�:: e:n: t The proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to include 2,784 residents. Given State guidelines, the project would generate the need for approximately 5,570 volumes or 3,372 volumes based on the current County ratio. With an average book cost of $15, the 5,568 volumes translates to $83,520 and the 3,372 volumes translates to $50,580. In addition, the development would contribute to the existing demand for new library shelving space. However, no projections have been made by the County concerning new library space. 33.5 Emergency Services There are currently 10 volunteer fire companies (one of which has fire and rescue capabilities) and one rescue squad facility in Frederick County. There are approximately 200 voluntary fire company members capable of emergency response in the County, which translates to approximately 20 members per company. However, some rural companies are experiencing personnel shortages and have less than the average number. Ideally, the County would prefer to hire two career firefighters at each station to satisfy daytime staffing needs. Under the County's First Responder Program, the County is divided into 10 fire/rescue response districts so that each fire company has a designated First Due area. Twin Lakes lies within the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company First Response Area, which has a population of approximately 7,800. The fire station is located approximately 2 miles from the subject property on existing roadways. A central feature of the proposed development is its contribution to the local transportation system. By improving the roadway network of the area, particularly by providing connections to existing roadways, the project would have a positive impact on the response time for emergency services in Frederick County. According to the Frederick County Department of Emergency Services, the projected population of Twin Lakes should not generate a need for new facilities or firefighting apparatus. However, additional firefighting personnel may be required at the Greenwood Fire Company as a result of development in the response area. These personnel are expected to be provided by new residents moving to the County. 1 20 I Twin Lakes 0 'Impact Analysis Statement �tJ Opequa1 Regional..— i "1 WWZ-p c- James Wood _ 4Z`��_ Greenwod Volunte� Ridge High ` : re Company School(11-12 so aft1 some atG • Handley — Frederick County • Regional . Y Middle School Library Roa .z1NN; City of Winchester• . Senseny Road . • ' Elementary Winchester Recreation Park School cute 1Own • • • Fredericks ; :. County = 1 Landfill - Winchester Ti> Municipal .� Airport �A c� x • Parkins Mill WWTP TWINLAKES Frederick County, Virginia • • Sherando Park Robert Aylor Middle School Community Facilites Figure 3.3 Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transperation Planners 0' 250' 750' 1750' v' 4.0 Fiscal Impact 1 :es ak, ct A.n�zlysss .Sta�t0men.t .: ' 4.0 FISCAL IMPACT t4.1 Demographic Estimates ' To determine population estimates and characteristics for the Twin Lakes community, this analysis utilized demographic projections and household data provided by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. The overall population of the community is a direct result of the proposed development program and ' expected average household sizes. It is assumed that the development will eventually consist of 1200 dwelling units for purposes of this analysis. Based on County figures, the proposed development could reach a population of 2,784 at final build -out, as 1 shown at the end of this section in Table 1. To calculate the student population, estimated ratios of school -age children per dwelling unit obtained from the County were utilized. As shown in Table 2, the project 1 is expected to generate 0.661 students per single-family household and 0.385 per townhome unit. As a result, the total number of students at Twin Lakes could reach 661 at final build -out. The pupil yields for each grade level are also shown at the end of this section in Table 2. Average household incomes have been estimated for the proposed development by determining the minimum qualifying incomes for home purchases. At approximately ' $44,142, the average household income at Twin Lakes is projected to be 32.7% greater than the estimated 1990 County average, as shown in Table 3 at the end of this section. ' The income differential is significant since higher income households traditionally demand fewer County services relative to their tax contributions. Twin Lakes is also expected to create new employment opportunities. Planned to consist of 35,000 square feet at final build -out, the commercial portion of the ' community would employ approximately 88 persons based on the industry standard of one employee for every 400 square feet of retail space. The employment projections ' for the proposed development are displayed at the end of this section in Table 4. 21 t¢..at ., L: k e>s: •:::: Z:;m. r:a::.::; 4 2 Capital Impacts Fiscal impacts of the proposed development have been measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity of public facilities. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) facility costs relative to the County population have been used to determine gross capital impacts on a per capita basis. The projected demographic profile of the proposed development has been used to determine the project's share of capital costs. Potential capital contributions provided by the development were subtracted to derive net capital impacts. The primary capital impacts of the proposed development are a result of an increased demand for capacity related to educational facilities. Given that state funds are borrowed for school construction projects, capital costs have been amoritized to a 20- year annual basis to determine the operational affects of debt service. As shown in the summary table below, the proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a potential annual net capital impact of $377 per unit, or $452,111 for the entire project, due to increased demand for school capacity. The net impact is a result of a potential $672,000 school site contribution provided by the Twin Lakes development. Summary of Impacts Average Total Costs Cost Per D.U. Twin Lakes Gross Capital Impact $5,369,993 $4,475 Less Potential Twin Lakes School Site Contribution $ 672,000 $ 560 Equals Twin Lakes Net Capital Impact $4,697,993 $3,915 Twin Lakes Annual Capital Impact $ 452,1ll $ 377 Source: Fredrick County Department of Planning and Development; Frederick County School Board; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. 22 ' 4.3 F� u In addition to school capacity, the proposed development would generate additional demand for recreational facilities. Given that a number of recreational facilities would be located'as part of the elementary school site, the project would generate a one-time recreation impact of approximately $97 per person or $226 per dwelling unit. This translates to an annual amount of approximately $26,100 for the entire development or about $22 per dwelling unit. Fiscal impacts related to recreational and educational facilities are presented in further detail at the end of this section in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Revenue Projections The primary sources of local revenues in Frederick County are property taxes, particularly those for real and personal property. As such, this analysis primarily addresses local revenues derived from property levies that can be directly attributed to the Twin Lakes development. Based on an estimated market value of $95,000 per townhome and $145,000 per single-family detached unit and a real property tax rate of $0.66 per $100 of assessed value, the completed residential component of the Twin Lakes community is projected to contribute $990,000 per year to Frederick County in 1990 constant dollars, an average of $825 per unit. These annual contributions are detailed at the end of this section in Figure 8. At project build -out, it can be expected that Twin Lakes' residents will own a total of approximately 2000 motor vehicles with an average value of $8,750. Given the personal property tax rate of $4.25 per $100 of assessed value, the annual tax yield in 1990 dollars is projected to equal $743,750 for the entire development, or $620 per dwelling unit, as detailed in Table 9 at the end of this section. 23 I W t .n ::.L, a: k e s:::::< : The proposed development is also projected to generate indirect revenues for Fairfax County. Studies conducted by the Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning found that households with annual incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 spend approximately 32% of their income on retail purchases. Thus, from the aggregate incomes shown in Table 3, the proposed project would annually contribute $16,950,374 to the local economy in retail sales and services upon final build -out (in 1990 dollars). Based on the current tax rate of 4.5%, the state would receive $762,767 each year from Twin Lakes expenditures. Given that Frederick County currently receives a 22.2% share of state sales taxes collected in the County, the proposed development would indirectly contribute $169,334 in annual revenues to the County. This translates to approximately $141 per dwelling unit. These figures are presented at the end of this section in Table 10. As shown in the following summary table, Twin Lakes is projected to generate more than $1.9 million in annual County revenues, or about $1,586 per household. Given that a limited number of revenue sources were addressed for purposes of this analysis, these figures should be considered conservative. Summary of Revenues Residential Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Retail Sales Tax Share Total Twin Lakes Annual Revenues Total Costs Revenues Per D.U. $ 990,000 $ 825 $ 672,000 $ 620 $ 169,336 $ 141 $1,903,086 $1,586 Source: Fredrick County Commissioner of Revenue; Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. 24 rs.n:.rz;k:a::.:< .> »«`;:::m.�► Based on an analysis of County revenues derived from property taxes, the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual revenues approximately 35% greater than the County average on a per -unit basis. As shown in the summary table below, a typic it household in the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual County revenues that are approximately $375 above the current average County household. This figure represents a $450,000 yearly contribution for the entire Twin Lakes development. Summary of Revenue Differential Aggregate County Average Twin Lakes Difference Difference Real Property $600* $825 $225 $270,000 ' Personal Property $470* $620 $150 $180,000 Total Property Revenues $1,070* $1,445 $375 $450,000 ' *Note: Average County revenues have been adjusted upward to assure integrity of the comparison. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer's Office; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAw, Inc. It should be noted that the per -household average County revenues used to ' determine the revenue differential reflects a 50% increase to the actual figures reported in the 1989-90 County Fiscal Plan. The intent of this adjustment was to ' compensate for the discrepancy between property values based on older assessments and current market conditions. According to the Frederick County Treasurer's ' Office, the average County real property tax assessment is expected to increase 40- 50% as a result of the current re -assessment effort. 25 � I � I � I I I I I I I I I L w;:. n;.. ca k ;:s ► a c .t> ::1 n tr t ;s i s .:: Assuming that Twin Lakes residents demand services at a level that approximates the County average, this revenue differential suggests that the Twin Lakes development may contribute up to $450,000 each year in potentially surplus County funds (in 1990 dollars). These excess funds could be made available for a wide variety of programs, including debt service. Should the entire amount of surplus funds be directed towards new school construction costs, it would essentially offset the share of debt service that was generated by the project resulting in a near net zero fiscal impact for Twin Lakes. 4.4 Capital Contributions In addition to annual revenues, the Twin Lakes community may offer significant capital contributions to Frederick County that would be of substantial benefit to the entire County. These contributions may include such items as regional transportation improvements and, possibly, a site for an elementary school. As shown in the summary table below, these potential, one-time capital contributions may be valued at more than $3.4 million. Summary of Potential Development Contributions Elementary School Site Senseny Rd - Route 7 Connector Rd ROW for Additional Connector Rd. Capacity ROW for Future By -Pass Route (Rte. 37) Total Capital Contributions Source: Twin Lakes Development Plan. Value Total Value Per D.U. $ 677,000 $ 560 $2,000,000 $1,667 $ 308,540 $ 257 $ 443,526 $ 370 $3,424,066 $2,354 26 ' 4.5 Sliort-Term Impacts The proposed development is projected to generate significant positive impacts during the construction phase. According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, every million dollars in new construction expenditures generates 45.6 new jobs throughout Virginia. Thus, the $150 million, 6-year project would create 1,140 new jobs annually, primarily in the Frederick County area. Table 5 at the end of this section displays the construction phase employment projections for Twin Lakes. 27 Table 1 COMMUNITY POPULATION Households and Population at Final Build -Out # Units Pop/Unit \1 Population Single -Family 720 2.60 1872 Townhomes 480 1.90 912 Total 1200 2.32 2784 Table 2 STUDENT POPULATION Number of Students By Dwelling Type, at Final Build -Out # Units Ratio \2 Students Single -Family 720 0.661 476 Townhomes 480 0.385 185 Total 1200 0.551 661 Elementary Middle School High School Ratio Students Ratio Students Ratio Students Single -Family 0.308 222 0.15 108 0.203 146 Townhomes 0.210 101 0.08 38 0.095 46 Total 0.269 323 0.122 146 0.160 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Notes: 1/ Background Report: Residential Development Projections in Frederick County - 1989 2/ Background Report: Impacts of Development on Community Facilities ............................. Table 3 INCOME PROJECTIONS Average Household Incomes for Project and County in 1990 Dollars # Units Aver. Inc. Aggregate Inc. Single -Family 720 $51,356 $36,976,320 Townhomes 480 $33,320 $15,993,600 Total 1200 $44,142 $52,969,920 County Aver. $32,180 Differential +32.7% Source: Lord Fairfax Regional Planning Commission Table 4 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS On -Site Jobs Generated By Project, at Final Build -Out Gross S.F. Jobs Per S.F. # Jobs Commercial Space 35000 1/400 s.f. 88 Source: Urban Land Institute: Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers ............... ............... .. .... ..... ....... . . . . . ... ............. . A Table 5 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS Total Jobs Created by Project During Construction Phase Const. Expend. Job Multiplier # Jobs Per Year Annual Impacts 25 mill. 45.6/mill. 1140 Total Annual Jobs 1228 (6 Years) Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Regional Multipliers Table 6 RECREATION IMPACTS Park Facility Costs Per Person, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Park Facilities Gross CIP Cost $1,294,000 Average Capacity 13,300 Cost/Person M $97.28 Population/D.U. 2.32 2.60 1.90 Gross Impact Per Unit $270,828 $252.93 $184.83 (All Units) Annual Capital Impact $25,988 $21.66 (Aver.) $21.66 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) (All Units) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Note: l/Background Report:lmpacts of Development on Community Facilities w:: ::: .i k s::::;. '::>°........:..:.:::.;:.;;:;:::;.:..;.:;;;::<...::::.. a..c.t:::::.A:n: l...ss.: r..::: ..t.�. Table 7 EDUCATION IMPACTS School Facility Costs Per Student, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 Capacity 650 Cost/Student $10,207.69 - - Students/D. U. 0.269 0.308 0.210 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 $3,143.97 $2,143.62 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 Capacity $1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 - _ Students/D.U. 0.16.0 0.203 0.095 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 $2,199.17 $1,029.17 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $5,369,993 $5,343 $3,173 (All Units, Aver.=$4,475) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 $560 $560 Net Impact Per Unit $4,697,993 $4,783 $2,613 (All Units, Aver.=$3,915) Annual Capital Impact $452,111 $376.76 (Aver.) $376.76 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Real Property Value (720 DU's @ $145,000 per unit) (480 DU's @ $95,000 per unit) Tax Rate Tax Yield Aggregate Aver. Per Unit $150,000,000 $125,000 Table 9 $0.66/100 $0.66/100 $990,000 $825 PERSONAL PROPERTY REVENUES Annual Contributions to Frederick County Generated By Project Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Personal Property Value $17,500,000 $8,750 (2000 vehicles @ $8,750 each) Tax Rate $4.25/100 $4.25/100 Tax Yield $743,750 $620 Table 10 RETAIL SALES REVENUES Annual State Contributions to Frederick County From Twin Lakes' Retail Expenditures Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Total Retail Sales $16,950,374 $14,125 (32% of $52,969,920 aggregate income) State Tax Rate 4.5% 4.5% State Tax Yield $762,767 $636 County Share of Yield (22.2%, $169,336 $141 Source: Frederick County Department of Finance, Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning I Addendum L 1 I ' During the period of review for this Impact Analysis Statement, the Frederick County ' Department of Planning and Development returned comments to the applicant concerning the projected impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on County educational facilities, particularly in regard to secondary school facilities. This ' Addendum section has been prepared in response to those comments. ' A new high school facility is currently being planned for Frederick County in response to a County -wide demand for secondary school capacity. According to the County School Board, construction of a new high school would allow the James Wood High School -Amherst campus to be converted to a middle school. Thus, a new high school facility would provide the County with both new middle and high school capacity. In addressing the capacity of educational facilities in previous sections of this ' document (3.3.3 and 4.2), the approach was taken that new middle school capacity would be provided at no extra cost to the County as part of the cost of constructing a ' new high school. As a result, the impact of the proposed development on secondary school facilities was derived from the number of high school students only (see Table However, since the proposed high school is under consideration due to a capacity ' shortage in both the middle and high school levels, and not just as a result of a high school capacity shortage, it is the interpretation of the Department of Planning and ' Development that each new middle school student in the County displaces a high school student thus requiring additional high school capacity. The Department has t determined that the total number of both middle and high school students generated by a proposed development should be used to identify that development's impact of t secondary school facilities. As a result, the Department requests that projections of Twin Lakes' share of the cost of the planned high school be derived from a total of 338 students, not 192 as used previously in this analysis. The additional 146 students ' represents the total middle school population of Twin Lakes at full build -out. The requested revisions are provided in Amended Table 7 on the following page. As ' presented in the table, the adjusted net annual impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on educational facilities would be approximately $504 per unit, or ' $605,000 overall, upon final build -out. 34 Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 - - Capacity 650 Cost/Student $10,207.69 - - Students/D.U. 0.269 0.308 0.210 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 $3,143.97 $2,143.62 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 - - Capacity 1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 - - Students/D.U. 0.160 0.203 0.095 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 $2,199.17 $1,029.17 Middle School /HS Gross CIP Cost (HS)* $13,000,000 - - Capacity (HS)* 1,200 - - Cost/Student $10,833.33 - - Students/D.U. 0.122 0.150 0.080 Gross Costs/D.U. $1,586,000 $1,625.00 $866.67 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $6,955,993 $6,968 $4,039 (All Units, Aver.=$5,797) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 $560 $560 Net Impact Per Unit $6,283,993 $6,408 $3,479 (All Units, Aver.=$5,237) Annual Capital Impact $604,739 $503.94 (Aver.) $503.94 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) * Note: Proposed Twin Lakes' middle school students are included as part of the high school capacity. Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development �� -,�.:.,:-;,.�,- "."- .4�'.,,,�,-,� ',I�, ;�,j' :,1.,,, ��-"z.%I �.w�,, -';I'_'w �,�..,,.I� 1_z, .,,,-%,...1I--.-.�,,, -';, .�, - ',� ,�,, ,I Z-.1� ,,, ��.,r_,'_ , ,t� 1" _,-""_-- I,,e%�.l, ,�,-,,1,I�I"," t,"',%,I -.,:. YI,T,l. , -t, '.. .- ,-.P, '. .; �.I�..,,1 ,, ,n4"-.. w�__,-- ,". ,,- ,_, . *iI�.: I � -',,_.-1- �_ " " ,. .� -. �, ..i�..�I ..-II,, _I� I� �"7�% w, L- a y w.�,3I3., ,1,. ,, �.T.l�. * ,,l,� I� ., -�--�,, :- ,, .I .-:,,`" ,_, ; ,--L.- , -I .,:l ,, -�, ,� , - ,,-�"" ,".,. , , ,� Z.- , ,.�1�. _._ "�3�,;,.+:�_.-,-- , "�--,,�nl,,,,-.,''-�,�- ,,. I ,�.� _." A1,.�;..- ','_�..! ,,.. ".��I.% �,l., .,,:�"�-, 5.i,� ,-- ,. �'., .',�.,. -' UII ",,f ' .., �, "�,"�, .1�.I�1'-.�-,l" ,1,,,-I" �, ., .l1, ,�" i_",-I" ,., :'l,l, ,'" , I,,,_-,, ,� ,:,��,�v, , _;�-�'- ',, ,�-� *.,�-,,�',, ,I , ",-!, e- ,,-;�'_",,,,;.�'�.�,It�,..�;, . ,, -,� ,- -V.,�. l"-__ V'Z-� - 7.---,�` ,._.!1.,-� 1-,* - -�, -��.l.�-""I,. i a`..,y xI.�,�-l'_.:-�.I-,I .!,., - ,.,,-_,,i,,,-I ), ., �.,.,�-, �_� ,,�,,'1�.I,�",:-1,.--,",-�,��: ,. -, '- .-'.-" -?:I,.; , . "1 ''t ;'4 r. -j k. P. y`., t '.' -,;. ; � . .--�, --- :�. 1 . ` r, 1 , -.. ,--�-l .`,,, . I,,; � . , " -. 1 -,*, ,�l,,, .. f . ,'- �:,..- -. ,-�*� . � I-,� --:�*,,.��"_,., ;- �,"� ,_,,,., I ,''._1", -�I" ":,,'�,-,jI--'A I1 - 1; ,,�-., -:- -, �1- ".,. ,,,f'.l.�,�: " _l � ,�",, -", .�,, ,',, 7�.�';�I�x '�- .l---,. ,,,�"._ .--.,,-f1 'e-4,1.,,.,,-" 1,I, ,,-,-',-, .,- -.,11"-�,��"."� �.,�,,,,,,.-,.,",,"--�.�,"t--_. � �" ,,, 1',.,-..,-,-,,,1�"--._�� ,-�.I ""1 :��-,��,-�'-'�:%��.�-� 'I -I ,�.',�-. , - ,Ao�. �1��. ,-�,I.�-. ', ,_"",I'_'�XMI-,_. I ,��- �0 -,.i.-. . i. , , ,,-1� �.%.!,�: ,,, ,,t -. Ii1., -,`. -I , ,."��S ,.,-_ , �,"I.,",, �-�;�.�I-, ��-�,,,� ,-,,�,_',-,..�: -,, ,,�_� . ,'" ', ,.l , ,*.,, . '�,'-, :.:,_��I "� _1"k" , - - , 7,1z1, ,,,,",�� .,.,V. , . -��,_� ��'� ,,'.1, I . ," - _ .." �. ,--"� 4 e F 3 ,Sy' C ,. w +. San y�'.. -i, "- _q.�1-"'-"�_��-,_� -I,-I �.-,"-,., 7 ;". ,-, '. ,I ., s4ei •. n : 7 , 1.,, ♦ .y 4 {, i,yR. ., �'�'�.- � jh. .�",-;I. , , 1I. ." ,'": - � -,_,. ,-�_,.',�. .`,, ._- ,l "'� .; ,�:..,�I-" ., ... '-�.'-�,..i%-� �.�'l-V, ,:,, ,r,"- ..- ,�, 1�,',, l -. , J�-:,,. ��,--, ,. ",. �I:, ,,._,,,,,. r; ,I�'.'. .,,_1��.A�__�;l1. - -, ; I-, Z- � �-.� ,�- �;`. :,�,.,�.11 I1-III,t_- I.,� �l _4,7 ., -�, .� .." _-I,.4",I�-., .-�"'", :.1" �1, ,*�- ,.I , .- �I� : -�..`� ,.��: ,� -�"_ �"_'" ".-":1�--.-1�-,-,�.1-�,- �I , _,'�-- 1" ,"_�, , - 1,.,";.- ,,, �,, -�,��,�" -,,��, ,"*,. -.-,,� .-,�.:!- ,_ �% 1;�.4,,-.",,,, ,,-,-z�,-.,* " - $,. ,--. ,�,, ,--,- , , ,"�..,--:',�� ,-I,�'.,,7.,,,'_ ,-i. . - , ', :_ .,* ,;�. " I �� -, -- -_-- , . .", : .. _.,'�- . -� , - jv": ,. �,j�,-,l_, wI" �r, , I, �, ,, --;", .,t',- _�.,�� ',-. .: _," ,",.- I .---�- , ,-�,,I"'�,_ , ,- ,,,-,-,"",�-,., ,-, --..-..� _ -_I ,�_-�;. ,A--'I� ��w,,I ,_J;:�I,, , -'" �l�.,�"--�1� ��: ,-"",e _�-_ ;- ,,_�.1_,-�, ' ;,,� ,1,;&r� -I -. -_ - - ,"-, t ; �,�",_� :., i,---,.- �,--, ,'i� , ,,,, 1 .�" `.- .I, -- ; I,��- '�-�,.�"- : ,',� .�,., ..T',�1:_- I,'�., , ,.',..":.-,__ ,,; 1�-.".,.'., :�-W, , ",- .,*�. ' " I- ,,, _�-" �"'�, �.,��I .-,.-'1" .-.le'�-' ,., , ,- � �,,._�. -,.v- ,:-..,��"_1_,."1,,�, l--,. , .,�.. ,,,-1-- i �: -:�,. ,� A.,..., ,,��,1_ ,,, ;"- .'`� ,, :!�� -,'. w.,,-,",, I, ." :,,",,, �;-". .,'; _,.,�� ,�I -,-. 4II',;-, I ��-�, � , �--L-,. ,', .`�,%,.��,.� ", ',-*".,1,I��-,",,�,�. '"- .,-,-,,� , , 1,-�. ,,. ,�,� -,.I_,'�,��, ",,., .�,4;._:,, - .,,'1,—",",,�-� -,��;, ,1 ,�,O. ," ,,'.�,.-,�� ,, .'- ,-._:,., �l-�--, � : '. . j Ir ".,", 1:,,I'- - _:., :`," ," � ,_-�,'1,J,. ,., �.-,e ,,., ",,,-,,,1',_ .'�,1 � ,'_-'—�. .* ,1V--''z,1� —�,'.-_I _- . 1,-�.j.I","-`"-, I1;.";.,�'* 7--,�.-.-'l� -�. .- '4.�.�, �-�� ,,' 1, .I� 1,., ,l" "- -. "!-''�,� .,�,�--.,, ,;�" 1-i,I,.,��',�,,.'.�, ��l �- , 'I�2,-� .,,--�"-," � ,l�,� ��l;-- "�..�.I,-�jI,,.�,�*1,.�I.� �1.,,�q.;,'_:'. ��.�I - ,1 � ,''",,��,"-.I1 '�,��- ,'-E 1, -",�� 1� " , -., ,r ,',t1� ,") ..,�.,� -,,�"._,;I-l �I_. _'_,-,, ,I I�,,,,-l.,',_,1.- �� —-`',,.��kt ";.,"_�"�',,-,�,1! ��,`-;, ," l�I;z_,f-- .�'-" ;.. _.�, ,-P:.- ,11 4ix r1`'� , . ; :��7,* , . _� '- ,'�I ._ %: ,I" ,"� - -.i, ,,".��- ;� l .."�,�.-�t-'*"-�.-.. ,�.',�,,� I .v�."t'. )41--'_�I,.��,� - -�"!'-t�f,,, 1,",��, ,. " -._ '.:,,. .�-�,1,,,- -!I%�,z"�_, ,,�.,".t -., -� '.I.-'..I1"1,,;� ,. ",�" 1 .�" -:: ,A7-_�.. �. , I�1,�1 "L -�-,-,1l-�.j� �—,"; , ,-.,.::- "-�'-"." o , .--�-.,,��, 1"� ,_,� ,'�-_.-,I .�-z'1' . �-, �,� ,I;'. -,,' ,�.';.- ��, I�, .�., �,'1�.,.,"�', ;.�_,-.,)�-, � _�1I`� ,.��I_ . . 1'.I .1t,_'- 1.�'-'�.'_-v .7?�I --�, ,,�:,..- ' . �,, -'�.t,*.1.,, _:."1-_,,,-�w'*-" :,. I�-. '.,'C . ��: .,, , ..I ,, .., ,,, -,"",IT' ,�. _,."— � : -:.Z. . ,��;--;"f�t.,. 4,, �� ,,_-,,k,�, '_-��:" � iv,_,�_-,_1.,_,A--�"�. . ,"'�5,;".,_�_''.� .- �, .` o�I�,,�,,.:: -I,l1,.�.�,,1*., ��"",� I�,,,��"'.`.-,�I-�-,_�4,r,, , --.� � 1��,�'..I:.1 ,,.i. �,_ - 4 _',�, , " .7_.�. , -r, 1��;. � I�'� , ,!,',,. ��,-��,1-�,",-%-_., ,,,�,% ,_I _,�'.%.,. ,--,. "' I4I_.�I, 's,,;,." ,,l�, -� -1,-�?.*1�'.,,N,��;),,,".�.,',,i� -v'�_..zt,' -�,'1��, .,i,.'_,..,_I��, , , .�.. I:,,,�I .-�l_I ,- ,',,-,�,1:;,-��,Itl.I-.,'��I.��z�"._,_,1,.,'.:��,�-,!-t�"",',� : .-�--l�," _,� �e�.�;�'-�,.*-.�-"t,-,.� I:�:� ,,l.-1,, ;- .,.-.-I-:K,,-:*,,y. 11_,,-J"..��,�.,�, .'-,-_�..-_"�.� �_ _ . �',�-,-,, _� ,*. , -'',� .;7`�,,. �,��,,l� .'.-. -,�,.I.- 7��-��.,�",�,;,,..I",%��,�' "� � ':, , ,Z.- , -_,�,:I��.,,, 4'�_.",i.Ii-.V �� ,-" , :'.. .�,�",- '�Z��1-.�_� �.d-7�L�" ,,"- ��'I �,�-1..I�.� . .,.�1,.-.;7. . . � 1`--.1,,`_�-."-�, �- .c: ,,I,.�--_,�I ,.. ,'i �_.p�- � : � ; .�. ;�'7 � _ 7, . Z,-,-..-. ,V_�.., � ,. !__ -�,,,?.,"',1. � -I,�-;, ?'_,��.I,�`.A,,- -,��-. -".�_�-`j,)_-. I-, ,��-14". `.'�.,1� �5- �-,.'�- ,�,�..,-e" �,,_ �'Iz:, ;-,.�z_7.- g ,`.;,:-1I I� ., �. �'.,-,��,. I,-�� ,1�,,, ,�, ",,- 91,.��., ,t.,,�,,,,,,��. ,"4�.-. ft-_�t,�Il",�<k,,-l ,`_"1"�,,�I-1,.-r�,-,- i,.,4 � *,,-,I,l,_" -''"" '.�,�IZ.. _,- ',.��,�,.,1 ,�_-,.,,1.I.! �-I,�, �. �� "��,"i �, �_ L-'�,1,, ,I �_ -,- , Y.1 ,�, � . �1i-�., _,-�- :,�,.I,j��-. _� �_,,� .,- - ` 1., ,- _:r ,-� ��..-,�',�,,,��-',, 1�' �v-,.,��,'!, .,,-�%I ,,, __,---�"" ,�.,-�I'�: " ,,� ",e � 1�;,. - �,,::- ;!!4,,:-. ,-"-i1-", ,, �,..",,- 1 _ '-., �� ".-,,I:,..",-,-.�� - -��,,14,-, ��-;,.'- �..,,,,_ .I"-Y.�. �,., -" "�,,,�.,, , 0'�, ., .,"�- - ., � ,...,'I. 1-,, -, , '.--1,t,," �'.,_ * , -N � �-.-.. I -`,1, I., _-, . � ��1�. _ �,l; - �-.',, . , "I, ,� �,.. ,_�.�-"',_""- ,I�., ,, ,'-. 4: .y,,, . - , .,"t �.i " �".��., _-,-1, .,,-. �.. _. .�.I.,,".,-,I'A -,--,--,:., _�.-�1�' �, - � 1, `l_" :..- ,', l.. ,, .,,;J�r',,,�.,�1k�,�. '- � :_ -,,A, ', , .,,",�� l",-',,_,,"� __';'*..�_-",-.4,.,_, -, , ,,.i�- 1I :'-..,,1-".�-,%o ,2'Z_ -_,_ ,,�t.��',I , .,k-, �, , ,_ ,'I;%',,i-:-- -,,-� 1., *w � ., :-.4I�, ,,� �' �, I,J, "-.� ,,,-'-,I7� ,,,- �,I ,t.F."',, ,',-,��4"I _-W.. �� ",'7- , , , , 1,-�-,� _�,��,,�� I;-.Z-:" " .i',??...; ".: - , 0�.4 �,�,_� ., ,�,�-I-_ 1 �I', .�I ,�-�,,��- ,_ ., I-',"�.�I _....l,�-. .,, , :, . -",:I , : ., - �� , , �1,�.Ar��, �'- ,z ,�., -�,"-;,. ,:,,`_., " I ;�, ,, .�".`, -,, � ,�L� - �1 .,-. _ - -, -�._,�'.�.-,.� �_,'---I,..,,. .:, � �,.- �..,�-.� ,. ."._-,.'., ::, -,,..-!, .,�.' ,"�!, ,. � �.�.,. �,�I-� -"- .--3 ,,. _ 7" ,_�','-" . -. � � '.-, .","�� , - ,I � ,, ,,"'e, ., ,%_,;�, - -;,.�,,, , . -..1,� - �, � % '�" ,. .,�" , ' .. :,. �? �� " .�,,,.,;.1--I ,,�,,.,," , .,,�"4 ,_ , I'� �,- ,-,% -�,..,- '��" % 1��-1. - �.., ,,.'',,_ ,..i � .� �I,;-.-,_, ,.I_ -�,.,,1:. ,. �:. !.�,,., --.�,� ., , I�"��_- `- : - .�, -� , � , "_, ,, � '-,-".':".-..,1,., , oI ";�.",, -1-�: � I. ,-. " '..%"A� , _',", '1, ,,'-�r-. �,,- _;,,",, f'i� , , , ..f�.�,- . " -�,. �.., -,,-;, - ,, ,V,I. -. :_ � ,�',� � ,".,� __" L-,�,-- , ,I--" _.-.I�� - I." . '"�. j� .-" %-;" ',_ ,, - �,� � A"�1- ,.'. ',� I- , _*_,'.,��"4�. :"-�l �, ,-:,� ;- " �,-., I :�, .E, ,, .-",." , _;, I -:-1.,-. ., - ,,.,, , ,.1.- ,.,..�",--. ,._ ,I, . . — ._ , -I -, � ,, - - .:.-Ii, li4 .:--,-- � " .,,� '- e ,l-- "-fl-� ." .',, �:', .",�" , �,.;.- _-, �, .�,7, --� ,,.� � ,-I', 'I'��-, ",1 � - -" , �, :, J..',,� _ ;, ,,�%. � .� -_�.,- .*� -. I, . ��-,�,.�. -- , , -',,,.�� , . , , , 7,,�,".�,, I- � � ��-I.,f - I ,__,. �� -,I-. , :1� ,, ` I,.`. . ":",�I - .- . - �.--.,I.,:,. ," ',., _� . ..- -I- ,,, I �,,"-I -, I ,I::�- : ,e- ? �_. � . I�. . ,� ,-1 .�..,'_ , ._ -I.- �. I -" � -,� -�- ., !' _'o�,�,;, .,1- '.�,,_1,-_�.,-�,'. � ",�-I,- ,�"�,, �t.I � .,-: -,_;� ,�-�_-,,1, ....Z., ".,!. -t:�, �-..,�.- ;_I , 1" �",I,. I.I�., I - I.��.,�,,� � .,�.�, - �I 'II, , I �,. . , .I �. ,.� _.,."1.-��,."-I �,' . , " -- ..'. � . _�: �,� , ,.� �- .�. - I1�,.w ,: - 1 I,-. _ : , ,- �,1: ,.,, I — ,. - I. �,-- . -I�I"II, ,�,'�- I ',� " � .- ",-*.,* I�,Z. _I-I . _ , �I *..I�. "-, ,-_,'�. - �, _".., -A " � ', .� _ ., "�'I ,.;. - ��. ,.".�- ,: ,7- , . 1�.,,,- �-. 1.: a.. -.- ,:,.., . I.�,�� '., I. , ..." - ,I�,'� u s t s , ti. J t* ,. a an, ,,,," f x -4. .r r ' x ¢ 7, r rt y ' '' •a w 15. i t s, Nr `•� .a 7 f ties .x "j)N, s x 4 `. � fTp* . 11 ,r 'L t;. •.. x. . • t., d./ d 1 �'y •`, . , > i R :. ' ty: S ,y,r yw.-�x. yya } �r _ t _% r. r •t �q t f & ,` fi '_.+W�i+4+� ,+. ;-5 t y. '}Fj` !#�}' sr�'• , - • ■7e -4 , ,..,1 , . ,s . 4 .. � .I .1.� -. :� I�,�*. ,,:� ' - ,_' ,II � � v.I _� I,,: - .,-. ;,-�-., . � -, ,!" � ,I �. _ I. ,- --,I 1� 'va k Y M S i '� 5 1 ♦ . i f S ,I-, 4 f. v/+r "r,r'k: >�_? ..e, tia t, y ..,, tl u� y. ae F; ., A r' , r r �"� .� F 'K : a. .� x ry'r +' :' x? < H i s �' t .�.�, ""-� ",�.�-- ", ,."- , ", .,'-�, ",., v_" , ':.S 1x, .� t .f a }Y tit' ,1 �. y 'tin •` ^e' u y„" 4 - R s s a r r ,,3 x , 3v. :t.. �,-• %.. •.h y It I.I��I.I�.-.�.:�_-"��..,�o7..�.�-II,I�:I�:.- . �,1 ��_�,1,�", .l. .� i.� ;-*.j ,- x-;1,'4�,- :".�I ,��,-,,..:.1- � "t�I,,�. I_,I ,��_I. "I...� -1NT"._. 1,� ".I�," ,�� e� ,.�,I�,09, .�,I,�_� ., 3 r d �•" • e .`}ro',t oa•F '' '' �,', .r �y6 +•' .( <;r ' t . < kS o ,r _ t t '' s..i > pt , .� 1 G �: R- t. _ *+C .w.>... y�- } j a �o- SH. r Il.. ' II '.�,Wa�,. ,(.�::,. _1I .." �,. ,-,.,. �� Ii I. t:N ',-.; '- �.�II1i1.I;-,1'.II -. , 1.�",_ ,.I " ,. �- ,AI I�u - ..-f - ';..:� . l: 1 .I 1. ,,-, .,.. � , - --, . '- , I .-�-.I��I-1I ,I �.-� :. I-�, �1".'I.. ,I. a p ,, t r, ,aa +4f i ii r r f. .� ';,Y. ...:o?'�11 .4.s "k rry,C` = wr t t ! ,-.�. I' YC� ., ..,� _ .'4, t � 1J t~ k N - r .-.,'ws 1 _-- >•t '` •x ✓'- !: .. , ,. i k: P �'! K :.•r i. .i, x. ,.,, S• r ... �,} �r C- •R }.?` `y.. " 'e-'i r +• j,.. a `7 �`. .e n -t t I-' ' - ^.. i a,, .a e a ' .'�'' 1^' a h'v. y y4 i r^ y, ,+a. t, rvi' .a,. �.. tg ,x 3,;,., .k . r, '" `' - tf x s r - .0 ,"" yf. i.,� .t �-4 + y. w } ` r •F r �s L. ;n a .. ' ':, ,--�'- �,.,v.: ,. I ,I�:"_ -l.-,"_:I1eI , .�"�I",", - , _-"' , _�t,, :,� ..IC -.l"-..;.-" i.,.- II.� -� ,,I;�,.�-t,": .I -I �-,,-:� .�.�,_, ,-"", .� ",I --: :.�,--� ��.�. , % I, , -" . I_ -. ��;- I-- , ,�., .! -,- :� ,., �.,�.-��7� ,�_.;�,�',," ,,�.� , 1' f r t .H x. t -jr` w- a z v .,3 x .ar r? `{ r '' - Y r t , r f i t". "+,� h Y x e AI } y .. 4�..3s4 F . ti+i ti. 4. *k• r y T s. } # s ,ens' . $ =� d -:S r s ev' N a. -n r sw-� .. M tit g Y '� \ , ,' .. a S ' r. •i 1 .y. #' F.. h "-y,., `P^ , .' `4 t ,i', { ,J Z� 1 1 ..;, 1 . ` '+ + �r .` 47 1 I. A A �.r f l n . w d' } y> ! t �' Ty `S. r, ary 4 Y .•.7 r '.. J - 4 .. y ' 1:. 4' .1 jr' T. y 2 x^y to .t. ¢ A . ;r t w. '4!` Y.. a1-..: ,�.n d 3 }. ',. y' c <k.�+{"f Gr y�'1 +., .r '- 1 i ,r . .r L �g t y Y <t _ x • a t. � ✓ ^�, rr � 1. - , "a. a „3v, p *a 1..ny ` 4 *S, f P ri,e y r Y T w -{ 4 - tom,+ ., ti. t .I_''"*,,�:� I,''�-..�,,�;- -..,� -I4 ,. ,, '"-�-11 '".1, -,,...--Il ��,_ 7:I., �.�,,,t__,' -,.,.'7 _" ",�,1I- '�� -,�__"I1�-� �',.. , _'� �,. �_��,, �'_ .. ",�-� ,,_4 " � ,- -,.�� ,-,- ".1;�_1,,,-, ,', _,'�" _."1� ,l-,",_,,� -:1--,,.-., -.� l 1_','I `,-, .,4,,"-". ",,,4 ,,- � � �--� " _ ,,-- �-1", �,,*-,"'-_�,'�"� - �%,, 1�,�',:- �-, :.: ,I " ,, .-- �",,.,,.�," 7 , "t," , .�.YI �'_. 1 *--.� ,V.,:,I_.,.-.. �, 1. -,4.', ..,-"�_l-��1� .11 ," .; -,�,I -`. ._� " " " .'-,_11,� -, ;.I�_�,, -�-.,�I,,.'z `-,,, ,.� 1:,i"-,!'".,- --, ,',.,1 �-;-, I,�'�-% --�A -"�,,V'I -�-.t,',,-,,O,. _1_1I -I,`-� -- ,�,��'"j,-�:-- ,, I ,4..� � -.�..�"- ',,,z�'"-�-��.,; �,,,-L�,,�,,,,,-,1�Z:.,.'. - ,z, �*I ,", . .I�i-,,,l:;-',. -1� I, . , ,��;',..---� -,., -'".'%I11:1I, �,,If,, -,,`� .I. ,.`-,.,',_,-�. , ".� I �..- I �,�"'',.�, ,�,,,,`r1 V, , I,1..,, I ,..�- !�',4,;. -,.I,-, I 1:�.-,t� Z ,,-, ,�1_-, ',I1-�� "*, . �,--j,,:.�.-5,., " r ..., � ,��I�,;,:,,.1,,.�� .,"-,.-l�"- ", I_1— .,%*,�� '-,�., 1-�.. 1I. -.. .* :'. t .f ,1 .x+�$�-� v _� x Lw a } o' `'t s -r, vc } a ' - Y x• uf$ 4 r <1.I ."'w " -n ,t ir .!se <x,•.', a { 3 e }'� '~j S.• ? t-`r. 3 . j< t - �_ i rt'r- _ n >y< `,-� ',, e , y r� t -4 eY :} <• .a R �,,b, .x„,- _ 3 , n`$ A Y n i . t J[ .� { ,� 3 4 l ^,<_ f , y 'f l y- `} - L s ice, s. .. ." - ♦ . .; . r '} { Y ...w 'k Y ) 9� _' F i` . ry .x _A t -r 4t ,}. " . ' 6i S, 'n -,11 k 6 l yF •,E 1 j m v 1, y- ,' )A r r Y$'r w_ . •. i, t -r t r i v4-, 1 i r -y 4{ J { ar }. r P r' , a w . y y 4 r j r c, ` .f' a '• - .h• ^t �' � - x t 4 V 3 ✓ .Y... .."w, a r s i•. ,�, :.:, r, a'f •+_ t L tea- T+' i q �,. 4t f ..r t c. k + 4 . < 1 T y$ .3 n r i �k- wi h _ � I 1, ..,,I- ✓. a x¢ j y} i M1 4 " 1 'r. S} r`- �4 q, ,a d €'..-, t Kx ♦ < � t e k � s rh .y, ` =^ h g .,,r-.c y t ,, ^' +s ,j ; §}, rr ^14. , fi ^� i; ` r+K.`4'e 43xP^i+ 'i § u1��44C4 r` rC t y .*•�. M `I r - �k. 3 � 'i. .�H 'se. 4 L . .a " k is - -3 ' 4 } 1,,",,-, .— , �� '.-� �_-�-��'.",.*-.,, 1�-.. u�,'—,4�-�, �. _`,.%,,-� ,_,�, , .�. ,-:I.� -.'. � .-,, �--- ,:'. _.'.� t. " , � .,_,"-- �-." '. .�..-'" , ,, �l ,, '-,-�-,,_,.� --"- " �.. � "-, '",, ��4, - I".._, :,..�"i��-- -, �., �1�".,,1 .. :" "',".",','." `-;,-,l �, , .�",1',"`.,.,._: ! .', I--, , �,-.�I ,, .'�".,..' ..� I ;�-�,-- �� -.- . ;�'_,,,�, _ _-.�7, _1,�. , ,, - !- � , --,�I�.�..tI-,, _-'-.,�-_.,I ,�,', -I ,:.�_,,:,. -L�.,,'�,_- ",I,l� ..1 t• > r ,, i t` K �. rt .J� % Y" 3 'S ,'" 1 y4 4 iv D ... ;s,..� , - ', i. �`sr-_,� L• b A- ,�� p„ ,r a < <*, : 9�^�r' ,'„ .: :..y k '. •;' ,ta, e. -�' n �,,, F a -^ L : " "�. i t . Si `-•� k ` , .s -C.r , .. µyry, a x -I r -,,,� -.,, --. j;.._-�I,._-.., I . ._�Z�, I -;�,�,, '�, ,,',�'-�I '', .: ,, , � .. -g,1�,,, "�,", - Z'.�'-_?��_, ",,��,,_...,.: 7.,- : �, 1 ,*� -_I,� � ,,. ,, .:�t�, ,�*j� rS �. abx' t .p. k r s «r r r, C A `y .,z = x % . T . ,,-, -•,�. a . ?., F 1 '�„ 4 ' .,, `��-.-''. (�:- " ,�-;., "",,,",,_-,, �,,, `,",, t-.- �,,.,� :A-,.-..�%-,,- '0,;Jt,- , �-.�' ,-'.',"'-.,,., ,.,, , -k��" , I�,"� !" �- 1` ,1�,,. �� 1 ,�.L 4 xj, t.# xf'q ♦ "� 4 b" 4 "L. •r. t . < ..spy +d• P r - 1 _ r y �..r r 1 4 �> e c• Ata, f'� ^i*J •+C R a r �Is1M1-��, k i..'�1'y s W r.S v i }Z w �, a t h .y : .}ry .a, - + + r '. t A' N , a4 / .� `._, • 6 ;fit p } y: e .s; a t x4 ' 'N' , '4' } n , .,,, ._., _,.,�..,t , % �, ,,"!,,. �-_r,�.-�., ,I ",�.-. -�.-�.-"_ -, '� ,' -_,_I��,',-_1:',,..t-, L-�,.. '-'- *I I ,' ,,. ,';,_1 .,,,, _, z, I �. ..1.��:,,,_.. -.4 I-*��,;,-, I._-,,�: _.�, ,.-4,,-. I-. , , _, �, �- 1, ,!l,4�, , -I.I- �I. .� '' ,�".;, 1"� , �'"�', ,:-�-_.,"��'��,.:_.. .- ' , , . I..-- �, :i�-:,.1,-,,-.,'-.,,-1,-_,; -,,, �,l �,_:. . �.� ',_,"'� -,_"',-�"�.. l ,.", . ':�4,"'-.: � '.,!'.�":1� ',I, . - �":,-�_ �1_1_�"--,� ,J-- -.��: ,�.1,N: ,'�, 'e1",' --".. `'-��'l __ I ._, -, ,,-'" ',1',. ""- -, -,. ,_I, ,t1 ' .- _.. �-". . ,,.�-I ,' I--" '_` 1," .,, , ',:,�,1"I ,,', � ',v ��. k", , 4- "-�, %j�.I,%'I,, x ✓ " t`` 1 t . ' .,sty ) -'"n ,ti, s+J }r- r 's # . •k r i ✓- 4 T a✓ I,- ; M. ^, - } �.•n S +i "✓•,ty t;,-,. �r _-` ue '�4 ? y #k yr' -�i"-' w. ,� w e� } x 1 4 i . .,< ''. i ,,, . x i t 'rt a,.ez� . s _ 4Ft AN�',r,. � rS � ^o- v 'A i, �9 .t '�' asl Y 4. '�' 1 's�,,F ,.� .�,�, .?• r+f i,+A�' < .l ., e f A , 'r r .; 5 .lA k if Xy.. } t7h,, Y ram. x~ •. y ./� C :3r } ` Lt - t le 'n v S- F, , v -�4a : hl' S-.y Y� s`4. Y r.rf r e , +., �,t - t . A v ;, v< _y„'L i .�4 < ,' G- v t -> :S y tir t.r C•.• { .S'' f t .a ..e . i+ _ e , F 5 . s 4„t s 1 n i y ��. }. e -.� R y. b rr, ti- 44 :YS 'iE ',. R a to 4.,e. .,,1 #` y Y ^L t - 1k' r e . fL f ,. - - �`, , y Yam, ^,4 J. et'` r t, . x a- - tS t ', l > , T. ' e r4^ .x., ix .� • �¢p Hx .y, I Y• k4-`¢ ti Y, 1y,R��i't '� .1## by,*��' `y; 's k,n„a,��4. ' j S;-yr ' 90>.} .# 'a� 5�..,'' „a .3 t. ,� .a ii w . e Y R 7''4 < 1 y"`•`,; 7,>3'^ , } T t y�C 5_ . b y s C . . Y . � ` * _ + i a! o- ,.^ t Y }.a a ;a`Lt .t j,ey .l's� t.6 '`` } 4�t ti ' 7 Y�,X . *, �?4 e a :'a y',c-'¢y. _ �. a, f I Yn ,&, air iR" f''Y -r to $ r t t tit a . e R `x .ys > Fr . + .4 t }. s S ? ,, ' i i,b r.,. �' •'i" +• < * , ,t r , r #^ t, 't 4 ;, s{'�f . r i .. t f .;i- 't �. ,,,. �n ¢' •yr i�♦' F •c S !Y�.:t 3 k r i 3 } ! 4 i Imp act Analysis S t a t e m e n t 1 1 TWIN LAKES Frederick County, Virginia 1 Final March 6, 1990 (Revised March 27, 1990) 1 Prepared For Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By ' EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Laud Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers Joluii Callow Associntes Trausporation Planners ?::: :i :: 22Y:: '::::::::i::::::r: 3:: `:; : ;::•:: ii± ::i::::i:::::i:... ?:::::::;::....: . ':::'):::::.::;':;:::i;::;:::::::.i::i::;::: '::i:::i<::<:i:: ::::::::;;::;::;ii::' ''2>': i' ;ii:::.;<: .... :' :: .<. :. ..::: :.,..... :y...... ...... k.::s:.:;:;:.::::::::::..::::<::>:::::>::>::>>:::::.:: ;;:«;::>:;:>::::;.l:�xx:;:.. ct:::c<:1 nz s z ,� t e era �:�t.;:::>::» ........:::::::.::::.::::::::::.:::::::::::::::::.:::.:::.....:.....................................::...:::::::....X..:::.:..:.::::::.:.::.:.:::::::::::::::::...:....::::::.::::: .............................................................................. Table of Contents Page ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................1 1.0 Project Background.............................................................................................................3 1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................3 1.2 Location........................................................................................................................3 1.3 Zoning and Land Use................................................................................................4 1.4 Site Suitability ..............................................................................................................5 1.4.1 Landform........................................................................................................5 1.4.2 Vegetation.......................................................................................................5 1.4.3 Soils..................................................................................................................6 1.4.4 Views................................................................................................................6 1.4.5 Hydrology.......................................................................................................7 2.0 Development Plan................................................................................................................8 3.0 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................10 3.1 Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................10 3.1.1 Vegetation/Wildlife....................................................................................10 3.1.2 Soils/Geology...............................................................................................11 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality..........................................................................11 3.1.4 Air Quality....................................................................................................12 3.1.5 Drainage........................................................................................................12 3.2 Utility Systems Impact.............................................................................................13 ' 3.2.1 Sewage Conveyance....................................................................................13 3.2.2 Water Supply................................................................................................15 3.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal..................................................................................16 3.3 Community Facilities...............................................................................................17 3.3.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities .........................................17 3.3.2 Historic Sites................................................................................................17 3.3.3 Education Facilities....................................................................................18 t 3.3.4 Libraries........................................................................................................19 3.3.5 Emergency Services..............................................................................:.....20 ' 4.0 Fiscal Impact......................................................................................................................21 4.1 4.2 Demographic Estimates..........................................................................................21 Capital Impacts..........................................................................................................22 4.3 Revenue Projections.................................................................................................23 4.4 Capital Contributions...............................................................................................26 ' 4.5 Short -Term Impacts.................................................................................................27 Addendum.........................................................................................................................34 Twin .Lcz.k.as. a.ci.. 11ri:aly,s`ss:':':.;5t:ai't:em;�n.t: List of Figures Figu re RegionalLocation Map.....................................................................................................................1.1 SurroundingProperties.....................................................................................................................1.2 SiteAnalysis.........................................................................................................................................1.3 SewerService Area.............................................................................................................................3.1 UtilitiesPlan.........................................................................................................................................3.2 CommunityFacilities.........................................................................................................................3.3 r ' Executive Summary 11 C U 7 J P 1 , :a; ,.� :a., a n: e. n. tTwin Lakes nalya. EXECUTIVE SUMNL RY The following Impact Analysis Statement has been prepared for the Twin Lakes development as required by Frederick County for the rezoning application of the property. The Development Plan includes a residential community proposed within the RP Residential Performance District and a small support retail center proposed within the B-2 Business General District zones. The program proposed for this development includes approximately 1200 residential units and 35,000 square feet of retail space. An open space system of approximately 115 acres provides passive and active recreational space to this community which is organized around the centrally located lakes. A major collector road serves both this new community and the surrounding areas, linking Senseny Road to Route 7. Located within the Frederick County Urban Development Area, this project is an important component of planned residential growth in the County. Assembling approximately 400 acres, the project provides an opportunity for the application of sound comprehensive planning principles and sets high standards for the future development of this area of Frederick County. This site is part of the growth area designated by Frederick County for a number of reasons, including the suitability of this land for development, current land use patterns and availability of utility services. Our analysis of environmental and physical components of this site indicates that there is great opportunity for development within a framework that respects and incorporates existing natural systems. The development of Twin Lakes provides numerous benefits to the greater Frederick County community. Some of these benefits are less easily quantified, such as the aesthetic contributions of well planned project that fits into the landscape and into the fabric of the residential community of the County. Other benefits are readily numerated. These include direct benefits in County revenue, employment and income. 1 Tzeein .La:kes' aa.e:�nen:h At the full build -out of Twin Lakes, County revenues are projected to total approximately $1.9 million, including: $990,000 per year in Residential Real Property taxes. $743,750 per year in Residential Personal Property taxes. $169,336 per year in Frederick County's portion of state sales taxes. These revenues are estimated to be approximately 35% above the County average on a per -household basis. The additional revenues and potential capital contributions offered by the project would offset the increased demand for schools and recreational facilities that can be attributed to the proposed development. The support retail area will provide 88 permanent on -site jobs and the capital expenditures will provide 1,140 annual jobs throughout the area during the construction phase. The proposed population, having an income projected to be approximately 33% higher than the County average, will contribute nearly $17 million to the local economy in retail sales and services annually. A proposed major collector road will provide a vital transportation link to the County at a cost to the developer of at least $2 million. This connection of Senseny Road to Route 7 will eliminate the current need for the County to improve Greenwood Road. The Twin Lakes plan takes full advantage of the existing natural features of the site, develops a community of neighborhoods that are visually and physically linked by an open space network and provides services to the residents and to the greater Frederick County area. The developers, planners and designers of this project confidently submit this Impact Analysis Statement for review and look forward to the opportunity to develop this site with the approval of Frederick County. 2 L I C Z"ze3 i n ..L'ci k e.s. .. 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction The Twin Lakes project is approximately a 400-acre site located in eastern Frederick County, Virginia, and falls within the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. Loggia Development Corporation is proposing to develop this property as a residential neighborhood with a neighborhood center that includes support retail, a possible school site and a park for the residential community. The purpose of this document is to provide an assessment of the impacts and benefits to Frederick County which results from development of the Twin Lakes residential community. These impacts and benefits are discussed in accordance with the Impact Analysis Statement as required by Frederick County for a rezoning application. For purposes of this analysis, impacts have been assessed for a development of 1200 dwelling units. The property is currently zoned Rural. The rezoning application for this site will request rezoning approximately 394 acres to RP -Residential Performance District and 6 acres to B-2 Business General District. The Development Plan which illustrates the rezoning intent appears in Section 3.0 of this report. 1.2 Location and Access The 400-acre Twin Lakes property is located in eastern Frederick County. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek, to the south by Senseny Road, and to the north by Route 7. The City of Winchester is two miles west and can be accessed from the property by Senseny Road and Route 7. Interstate 81 runs north -south just to the east of the City of Winchester and can be accessed from Route 7 (see Figure 1.1). 3 Twin Lakes Location Map Figure 1.1 • Impact Analysis Statement 0 v o, :J L % 1-N L .L w VO 1 TWIN LAKE S Frederick Count . Virginid Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250, 750' 1750' O it � I � I Anzlyss.;:5. at>e.men.a.. 1.3 Zoning and Land Use Twin Lakes is located within the "Urban Development Area" as designated by Frederick County, which encompasses the City of Winchester and areas adjacent to the city to the north, south and east. This development area is intended for more intensive development based on current land use, suitability of land for development and existing and planned sewage facilities. Recently, several of the parcels within this area were rezoned for residential and commercial uses with several other parcels in the planning stages for development. The remaining parcels, including the Twin Lakes Property, are zoned Rural, but due to their inclusion in the Urban Development Area, it is anticipated these parcels will be rezoned for residential and commercial uses. The current status of the parcels surrounding Twin Lakes include two parcels to the south, Apple Ridge and Bedford Village which are being developed as residential subdivisions, and a third which has already been rezoned for residential development. The adjoining parcels directly east of the property are still zoned rural although some of the parcels along Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) have been rezoned and being developed as residential subdivisions. (See Figure 1.2) Adjoining the property directly to the north is a sewage treatment facility operated by the Frederick County Sewage Authority. This is a new facility and will service development occurring in this part of the County. Historically, the Twin Lakes property has been used for agriculture uses including pasture and cultivated crops. A large section through the center of the property has remained wooded due to steep slopes and poor farming soils. The remainder of the site includes a large central lake and several smaller ponds and streams running through the property. 4 Twin Lakes Is l; a 4% 0 mill kn\ A /�P Al Planned 'residential ,.,L t s_ Impact Analysis Statement * e. Sewage F Treatmen ._A, Facility ai • a R �janne RV dA 4 ple R get Village_ R".rob �� •t � �('st�b .,n r b Surrounding Properties Figure 1.2 TWIN LAKES Frederick Count}', i'ir,einin Prepared V'or: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' 750' 1750' .Twin Lakes i' act :..:...n.cz:l s:s ,S�aternent:.: 1.4 Site Suitability 1.4.1 Landform ' Twin Lakes is located along the western edge of the Opequon Creek. This area is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills with steep slopes along the Opequon ' Creek and other waterways which feed into the Opequon. The site is characteristic of the varied topography found in this region. The southern and northern section of the property are generally flat to gently rolling with steeper 1 slopes occurring along the Opequon in the northern section. The central section of the property is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills which define the central lake and waterways. Figure 1.3 provides a site analysis map which identifies steep slopes in two categories: slopes 15-25% and slopes 25% and greater. According to this analysis, approximately 10% of the site falls within the 15-25% category and approximately 7% of the site falls within 25% and greater category with the remainder of the property falling into 0-15% category which is highly suitable for development. The varying topography in effect, i provides a naturally occurring parcelization of the site into appropriately scaled neighborhood units. 1 1.4.2 Vegetation The Twin Lakes property contains a number of stands of mature vegetation which contribute significantly to the positive visual environment of the site. 47% of the ' overall Twin Lakes property is covered by mature vegetation. Because of the past agricultural uses of the property, this mature vegetation is concentrated in the central section corresponding to steeper slopes and areas less suited for agricultural use. :!" w:.i n . a k. e s:::a t:::e .e:.n. t .. t::.;. m This correlation of steeper slopes and vegetation provide the opportunity to provide naturally occurring buffer areas between the proposed development parcels (see figure 1.3). 1.4.3 Soils The following soils analysis is based on the Frederick County, Virginia Soil Survey, issued during January 1987. Frederick County is underlain by sedimentary rock with eastern Frederick characterized by shale and fine-grained sandstone. The general soil map for Frederick County indicates the Twin Lakes property falls within the Weikert- Berks-Blairton soils classification which is characterized by gentle to moderate slopes, shallow to moderate depth, and well -drained to poorly drained areas. Within the Twin Lakes property, the soils are generally moderately deep and moderately drained silt loam. A majority of the site is well suited for development with limitations for community development within a small percentage of the property. These limitations might be due to steep slopes, a seasonally high water table, and depth to bedrock. 1.4.4 Views The visual environment of Twin Lakes is a major contributor to the site's character and attractiveness. Views into the site occur mainly along the northern and southern sections of the site. These views indicate a gently rolling site with masses of vegetation along the edges. The central portion of the site provides interior views which are characterized by steep, heavily vegetated hillsides which define a lake and creek bed. Views off the site also occur along the northern and southern sections of the property. The views from the northern section include views to the west of surrounding residential properties and views northeast to Clarke County. The sewage treatment facility is only partially visible during winter months.. The views from the southern section of the site include views of the surrounding residential properties to the south, east and west (see figure 1.3). 6 ll m.. i a;::G t;.: A.ti:::S t a t e:m-e n t 1.4.5 Hydrology The property is located within two drainage areas of the Opequon Creek basin. The northwestern portion of the property drains into the Abrams Creek sub -basin and the southeastern portion drains into the Senseny area sub -basin. There is one stream which flows east to west on the property. It has been damed to form a 14 acre pond in the center of the site. Two other small ponds exist on the site along with several intermittent streams. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Federal Insurance Administration have mapped the 100-year floodplain associated with the Opequon Creek. The floodplain only effects 3% of the Twin Lakes property as illustrated in Figure 1.3. F1 ' Twin Lakes ' L e g e n d .Steep Slopes (15-25%) 1 I Steep Slopes (>25%) Rlature Vegetation W atcr Feature FIooJplain 1 View Point • Impact Analysis Statement "W" + .. .1 Ail ( .y 1 Site Analysis ' Figure 1.3 P- C V T T POW r� re a T 6 W A L .1 a.eaT L S% I 1 c o P, IL rt y / / Y TWIN LAKES Frederick County. Virginia Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' i 50' 17 -5 0' V' 2.0 Development Plan Twin Lakes Impact Analysis Statement 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Twin Lakes development proposes a new residential community in the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. This community is comprised of smaller residential neighborhoods which are defined by and follow the natural flow and form of the land. These residential neighborhoods are visually and physically linked by an open space system of lakes and greenways. A major collector road links the neighborhoods and provides connection from Senseny Road to Route 7. Attached at the back of this document is an illustration of the Development Plan and the intent of the design concept. A small Neighborhood Center is located along the major collector road within the northern quarter of the property. This area is characterized by an open landscape, flat topography and proximity to Route 7. The Neighborhood Center consists of a support retail component, residential areas, open space components and a potential school site, which collectively will provide a focus for the community. The park area within the neighborhood center provides a center green and also links into the overall open space network. The central section of the property contains several of the significant natural features of the property including the existing 14 acre pond, stands of mature hardwood trees, topographic variety and views of the pond and surrounding hillsides. The focus of residential neighborhoods in this portion of the development is the unique waterfront environment afforded by the expansion of the existing lake. Each neighborhood is sited to take advantage of views to the water bodies and the rolling topography. The southern section of the site, which is relatively level and open, will be developed into several residential neighborhoods. The open space network will link these parcels to the central amenity area. Entrances into the project and into each neighborhood will be identified as gateways by special landscape features, including walls or fences and more intensive planting. Train Lakes 0 Impact Analysis Statement The suitability of the site affords the opportunity for developing between 1,200 and 1,400 housing units. The Twin Lakes community is expected to include approximately 60% single-family detached units and 40% townhomes, eventually reaching a population of approximately 2,800. A summary of the Land Account for the plan is presented along with the development plan attached at the back of this report. 9 1 i 3.0 Impact Analysis �I h ' Twin Lakes Impact Analysis Statement 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ' This section evaluates the impacts of the proposed Twin Lakes community relative to ' environmental concerns, public utility and community facility issues, and fiscal impacts. These impacts have been assessed for a development consisting of 1200 dwelling units. Mitigation measures related to the project's impact on the site and surrounding environment have also been identified. 1 3.1 Environmental Impacts ' 3.1.1 Vegetation/NVildlife Impacts to vegetation will result from clearing required for road right-of-ways and ' construction of buildings. As required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, no more than 25% of the mature woodlands on the site will be disturbed. Vegetation on steep slopes and along waterways will be protected through sensitive ' site planning to help minimize erosion and impacts to water quality. (See Sections 3.1.2 Soil/Geology and 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality for more information). ' Selective clearing practices will also be used to help mitigate loss of vegetation on the site. ' Wildlife potentially can be affected by the development of a residential community in the following ways: '0 through the loss of or disturbance to a specific vegetative habitat; g Pe g ' . through creation of a habitat; and through the loss of aquatic species due to sedimentation or water pollution. As noted above, the proposed Twin Lakes development will result in clearing of vegetation for road right-of-way and buildings, and alteration of waterways through 10 t ' Twin Lakes 6 Impact Analysis Statement ' dams to create two new ponds and enlarge the existing one. Removal of the vc etation Po g g g will cause relocation of wildlife until construction is complete. The impact will not be significant as long as the habitat of any sensitive or endangered species are not involved. No endangered species are presently known to exist in this portion of Frederick County. However, the disruption of existing habitat for aquatic species due to alteration of waterways is considered a slight impact for the development. 3.1.2 Soils/Geology Impacts as a result of soil erosion will be minimized through proper construction specifications and right-of-way preparation techniques. Most notably, these include the installation of soil erosion barriers prior to construction, prompt revegetation of the affected areas immediately after construction and protection of existing vegetation on steep slopes. Since these techniques will be employed during and after construction of the Twin Ickes Development, the potential for soil erosion should be minimized and any adverse impacts resulting from the project will be neither long-term nor significant. 3.13 Hydrology/Water Quality The greatest potential for impacts to water quality would occur during the construction phases of Twin Lakes. Construction adjacent to the Opequon Creek and its tributaries will potentially increase turbidity levels (or levels of suspended particles) as eroded soil particles are carried into these water bodies by surface drainage. Specific erosion control measures during construction (e.g., sediment traps and fences, straw bales, etc.) will be required to minimize impacts to these streams. If these measures are used, and all cleared areas are revegetated with lawn, groundcover or landscape materials after construction, impacts to the Opequon Creek should be short-term construction - related effects only. Train Lakes Impact Analysis Statement 3.1.4 Air Quality The ambient quality in eastern Frederick County is typical of rural areas in Virginia. There are no point sources of pollution in vicinity of the site and the ambient air quality is excellent. Construction activities, including construction of foundations, roadways, and erection of structures, could have slight effects on local air quality, especially in regard to particulate (dust) concentrations. Measures can be taken, such as sprinkling construction roads with water or reducing vehicular traveling speeds along these roads to reduce dust levels at or near construction sites. Vehicular exhaust pollutants will be increased due to increased traffic caused by the development, but this impact is considered negligible given the natural dispersion capabilities of local and regional air currents. 3.1.5 Drainage The drainage region of which the site is part involves an unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek and drains at its confluence with Opequon Creek approximately 900 acres of urban development area land. At present about 20% of this service area is developed. After the Twin Lakes project is built out approximately 65% of the drainage area would be developed if no other land is converted during that period of time. The drainage system is simplified by the fact that all property of the development is included in the storm water channel involved with the unnamed tributary. By discharging to the Opequon, a stream of much larger drainage area (approx. 57 sq. miles at this point), the effects on down stream flooding are minimal. Another factor reducing the impact of this development on hydrologic events in Frederick County involves the storage of peak discharge due to the major dam facility located on site. 12 I � I Twin Lakes 0 Impact Analysis Statement 1 3.2 During final design this structure will be augmented and improved as necessary to handle increase flow amounts and to provide for peak flow detention as required to properly mitigate downstream impacts. Another major use of this embankment is to capture discharge of sediment ladent runoff prior to reaching the Opequon. While this does not eliminate the need for good erosion control techniques in accordance with Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control manual, it does provide a "safety net" to handle major events and mitigate downstream problems due to stream sediment. The stormwater management plan for the Twin Lakes development will include detailed calculations regarding the detention capabilities of the existing ponds, design of new ponds and stormwater impacts on the Opequon downstream water shed. With the Twin Lakes project wholly within the urban development area specified by Frederick County Planning, it is understood that appropriate erosion control techniques can and will be used to mitigate environmental and quality of life issues due to impacts from this development. Utility Systems Impact 3.2.1 Sewage Collection and Treatment Certain sewage disposal services are offered to this site by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). The FCSA purchases wholesale sewage treatment services from the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) at their Opequon Regional Wastewater Treatment facility immediately north of the project site. The principal route of sewage collection in areas through and adjacent to this project is by pump to the west and north and entering the Service Authority trunk main in the vicinity of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Rte. 656) and Valley Mill Road (Rte. 659), Figure 3.1. Although this has been an adequate route for sewage delivery over 13 41 Bi) k- OPEQUOft ?�Rtd I ON� MAT. J.r! LIMITS d# ;"GRAVITY -ICEAR kV. . . . . . . . . . . oor x g -N w A M M. APPL LIFT S AT ION <1 3, EX. GR Ft Al NWOOU. ioi4. "J4 `0 4 L ....... . ...... MN I! Z9C.9 ScAllp: V-2,000" Figure 3.1 SEVER1 SUTICZ ARRA gilbert cliffo ass?ciates, inc. 7 IF I Af L A"S JDAR 0jjjc T Engineers - Land Planners Surveyors 30 C 01detc (kWift 1kift 3 "Z1 3") 1 VI 2M 'redokk3bucK, VLfxinis 22461'(793) 8 wMdw. TM%" ("3) 667 Virginia � I � I � I I I I I 'z¢�i:n:. L:aksAnna s:?s::.a;a::e:rra::e.nt the past 12 years, its capability to handle substantial increases in sewage delivery is small and can not be assumed to be the favored alternative for handling the long term sewage collection needs of the service area. The existing Apple Ridge pump station is projected to produce 100 gpd of sewage while the existing Greenwood sewage lift station can handle 250 gpm in addition to the discharge from Apple Ridge. Using a peak factor of 2.5 and a 12 hour max. cycle per day the capacity of the stations are 100,800 gpd for the Greenwood station and 28,800 gpd for the Apple Ridge Station. At present the sewage flows are 20 gpm at Apple Ridge and 40 gpm at Greenwood lift station. This flow is projected to become 40 at Apple Ridge and 260 at Greenwood due to already -zoned parcels of land being planned for development at this time. It is anticipated that the sewage lift stations involved will be taken off line systematicallyas the development of the Twin Lakes project proceeds. These facilities do, however, ' have certain ability and value in the initial phase of the development of Twin Lakes by handling the initial sewage flows as available within Health Department directives and guidelines. ' The proposed project has a mixed use sewage flow generation of: 1) Singe family use - 720 units at 200 gpd = 144,000 gpd. ' 2) Townhouse use - 480 units at 150 gpd = 72,000. 3) Commercial use - 35,000 sf. at 200 gpd/1000 sf. = 7,000. ' Total flow at project build -out = 223,000 gpd The sewage produced can be assumed to be normal strength domestic waste only, not requiring industrial pretreatment. ' Figure 3.2 shows a feasible alternative to sewering the Twin Lakes project. The system involves a series of collection mains ending in a major regional sewage wastewater t pumping station which should deliver flow to another gravity main connecting with the main sewage lift station at the Opequon Regional Plant. A metering facility would be 14 I' i0ure 3.2 dTILIMS PLAN TWIN LAXIS PROJECT Frederick County Virginia Silbert v cliff01 associates. inc lgLwr. Lead Ply ' Sw+eYa. .r�.,�w.w-v`•rvw� t1Ml 1)•)11M III) �YO�v+ vty�u .1M1 I�iI M. IIN FUTURE CONNECTOR TO GREENWOOD TANK , EX. GREENWOOD LIFT STATION (TAKE OFF LINE) ss�1114 1 (` 4v FUTURE CONNEtT10N TO RTE. 7 & VALLET MILL ROAD WATER. e.)TIIQR CONNECTION PER (TAKE OFF LINE) Location Idlag Scale: I "-800' REGIONAL _ LIFT STATION `�1 � 1 T.zv'i,.n : L a: k es I m`P :a;;;c:>t'::::a.a:'e.. . ' provided in route to the Opequon plant. The total area in addition to Twin Lakes that ' would be served by this sewage pumping station is about 1200 acres, yielding an estimated total flow to the lift station of about 400,000 gpd at build -out. Plans for sewage collection and pumping must be approved by the Virginia Department of ' Health -Bureau of Sanitarian Engineering as well as the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. ' Utilizinga peak factor of 2.5 a peak delivery rate of this lift station should be 700 m. Pe , pe ry gP ' Flows of this magnitude can be adequately handled by the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority main pump station which is sized for a 16,000 gpm delivery rate to the plant. Investigation of design sequencing of the pump station are necessary in to the Opequon Regional order optimize variable speed pumping capabilities of the plant. At present the County of Frederick has 900,000 gpd established for use at the regional ' facility by the County. Present flows leave approximately 4,500,000 gpd available for capacity. This project will not over stress the existing available capacity of the regional ' facility at 100% development and will provide a substantially improved sewage delivery system meeting the requirements of a regionalized solution to sewer throughout the service area involved. 3.2.2 Water Supply and Distribution System Water distribution to this area is provided through the FCSA who purchases water ' from the City of Winchester at master meters located throughout the service area. Principal water line facilities serving this area involve a eight inch distribution main ' along Senseny Road. Recent hydrant testing and hydrologic evaluations have indicated that this main has minimal service capability for fire fighting in the H 15 T W I n general vicinity of Twin Lakes. This line is fed from a elevated water storage tank at ' the Greenwood Fire Hall which stabilizes the water pressure during fire events in this The general area. addition of water mains adjacent to this site will offer the ability to loop major portions of the Twin Lakes project into the main distribution grid of FCSA. ' A hydrologic analysis attached as an appendix assumes an integrated Abrams Creek water system with loop established and shows that pressures in such a case are ' adequate for project use. ' The water mains required to serve the Twin Lakes project will provide the necessary looping assumed by this hydraulic analysis and will additionally serve the area of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Plant with fire flow meeting municipal requirements. Water demand for be be to flow. purposes of this analysis can assumed to equal sewage The sewage flow from previous analysis was 223,000 gpd. The present agreement ' between the City of Winchester and Frederick County provides for 2 million of water supply of which the County presently utilizes 750,000 gpd. The County will not ' experience a problem providing domestic water service and fire flow to this project under the conditions presented above. 3.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal ' Solid waste disposal for the area is provided by the Winchester -Frederick County Landfill which is located approximately 2 miles south of the project. The landfill ' originally consisted of approximately 50 acres. It has now been expanded through the acquisition of approximately 200 acres of adjacent land. ' The newer portion of the landfill is currently undergoing preparations to serve the ' future disposal needs of the County. According to the Landfill Superintendent, the current portion of the landfill is expected to remain usable for approximately two years and the expansion area is expected to provide 10-12 years of capacity. The proposed ' development is not expected to impact on solid waste disposal in the County. 16 � I � I H P 1 W. z n: La k e. S s> :':S ::a:a:e'rit a n: t ........... .......... :..... ..: 3.3 Community Facilities 33.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities Frederick County is currently developing two regional parks to serve unmet County- wide recreational needs. Clearbrook Park consists of 57 acres and serves the northern part of the County with active and passive recreation programs. Sherando Park is approximately 330 acres and serves the southern part of the County. In the central part of the County, many residents use the Winchester Recreation Park, which is maintained by the City. As a result, there is projected to be adequate County -wide recreation capacity available prior to development of the proposed project that would satisfy project -generated demand for regional recreation facilities.. In regards to local recreational needs, there are five neighborhood parks in the County which typically provide picnic areas, playground equipment and athletic fields for local recreational use. In response to a growing demand for recreation and parks, County zoning regulations require that open space and recreational facilities be provided in most new developments. According to County standards for local recreational activities, the projected population of Twin Lakes would generate a need for local recreational facilities. The majority of the necessary athletic fields and courts would be included as part of the proposed elementary school site. In addition, the proposed Twin Lakes development would provide a variety of recreational and leisure opportunities for community residents. As a result, the proposed development would have a near net zero -impact on County parks and recreation facilities. 33.2 Historic Sites The subject property does not contain any registered historic features. The Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society has undertaken an architectural survey 17 � I � I r 11 'W. s. w L ak � s :' . • :>:::::; ::;: I`m.�i a::ca;...A:::n �za: a:'�.:a<>::> 5:�::a<t::e:an e:n.t::. of all structures at least 50 years old within the County. One such building was identified and surveyed on the property. Known as the Haggerty House (#34-398), this rural farmhouse is an example of the American 4-Square building style that was popular in the period between World War I and World War II (1920-1940). However, the house was not found to be eligible for national, state or local historic registers. The nearest structure of historic significance to the proposed development is Mill Bank, located approximately 1/2 mile from the northern edge of the property. However, the mill has lost its architectural integrity, according to representatives of the County Historical Society, due to disrepair and the theft of all its architectural details. According to members of the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Committee, the site does not contain any recognized historic concerns (battlefields fortifications, entrenchments, etc.) related to the Civil War. The majority of activity from that period occurred to the north of the property. Given that there are no recognized historic or archeological resources on the property, the proposed development would not have an impact on historic or archeologic resources in the County. 3.33 Educational Facilities There were 8,238 students enrolled in Frederick County schools in 1989. These students included 4,024 elementary, 1,833 middle and 2,381 high school pupils. In response to capacity needs, Frederick County is constructing an elementary school in Middletown for 650 students, with another elementary school committed for the western part of the County and a third elementary school under consideration for the eastern part of the County. In addition, the County has recognized a capacity shortage at its existing high school facilities. in 1 c: T w ;n L.a k.e s ' Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a total of 661 new students upon P P J g Po ' final build -out as shown in the summary table below. These figures are based on County demographic figures and ratios for students per household according to dwelling unit types. Summary of Student Population Total ES MS HS ' Single Family 476 222 108 146 Townhouse 185 101 38 46 Total 661 323 146 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development; EDAW, Inc. i The proposed project's impact on educational facilities represents approximately one- half of the capacity of an elementary school and about fifteen percent of a typical high school. 33.4 Libraries Library resources in Frederick County are currently provided by Handley Regional Library, which also serves the City of Winchester and Clark County. The total population of the serving area is estimated to be 71,000 persons. Virginia resource guidelines suggest that libraries should maintain two volumes for each persons in their serving area. Handley Library currently contains approximately 86,000 volumes, approximately 56,000 fewer volumes than recommended. At current funding levels, the library has been adding 6,000 volumes a year. However, ' there is not enough shelving space to accommodate an additional 60,000 volumes. According to the Library Director, approximately 20,000 square feet of building area is needed to provide the necessary expansion space, including shelving and staff offices. 19 I 11 U E 11 u n ..Lakea. A:n<a ly:<s<z s:;:;:,S:x t'e::�n �':n: t .; The proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to include 2,784 residents. Given State guidelines, the project would generate the need for approximately 5,570 volumes or 3,372 volumes based on the current County ratio. With an average book cost of $15, the 5,568 volumes translates to $83,520 and the 3,372 volumes translates to $50,580. In addition, the development would contribute to the existing demand for new library shelving space. However, no projections have been made by the County concerning new library space. 33.5 Emergency Services There are currently 10 volunteer fire companies (one of which has fire and rescue capabilities) and one rescue squad facility in Frederick County. There are approximately 200 voluntary fire company members capable of emergency response in the County, which translates to approximately 20 members per company. However, some rural companies are experiencing personnel shortages and have less than the average number. Ideally, the County would prefer to hire two career firefighters at each station to satisfy daytime staffing needs. Under the County's First Responder Program, the County is divided into 10 fire/rescue response districts so that each fire company has a designated First Due area. Twin Lakes lies within the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company First Response Area, which has a population of approximately 7,800. The fire station is located approximately 2 miles from the subject property on existing roadways. A central feature of the proposed development is its contribution to the local transportation system. By improving the roadway network of the area, particularly by providing connections to existing roadways, the project would have a positive impact on the response time for emergency services in Frederick County. ' According to the Frederick County Department of Emergency Services, the projected Twin Lakes for facilities firefighting population of should not generate a need new or apparatus. However, additional firefighting personnel may be required at the ' Greenwood Fire Company as a result of development in the response area. These personnel are expected to be provided by new residents moving to the County. 20 � I Twin Lakes • Impact Analysis Statement Opequo0 �f Regional c_ James Wood _ �`^ IGreenwod Volunte� v Ridge High '%' Fire Company `a School (11-12 a so we a some It 4ft ley Frederick County Regional • Middle School Lib ' , Set�,e1�� R •� City of Winchesters. senseny Road .� ' Winchester School Elementary Recreation Park Rov 1 • • • Frederick 1 County Landfill td _ 1 Winchester ri) Municipal �o Airport c� �C • Parkins Mill - ` WTP TWIN LAKES Frederick County, Virginia Robert Aylor Middle School Community Facilites Figure 3.3 Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Sherando Park Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transperation Planners 0' 250' 750, 17500 F � I � I I I U L rr�:.i:n ::.L a.k e s I:»t a;:c>:'>'':n?;; s.:'s :,5'aa..rn 4.0 FISCAL IMPACT 4.1 Demographic Estimates To determine population estimates and characteristics for the Twin Lakes community, this analysis utilized demographic projections and household data provided by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. The overall population of the community is a direct result of the proposed development program and expected average household sizes. It is assumed that the development will eventually consist of 1200 dwelling units for purposes of this analysis. Based on County figures, the proposed development could reach a population of 2,784 at final build -out, as shown at the end of this section in Table 1. To calculate the student population, estimated ratios of school -age children per dwelling unit obtained from the County were utilized. As shown in Table 2, the project is expected to generate 0.661 students per single-family household and 0.385 per townhome unit. As a result, the total number of students at Twin Lakes could reach 661 at final build -out. The pupil yields for each grade level are also shown at the end of this section in Table 2. Average household incomes have been estimated for the proposed development by determining the minimum qualifying incomes for home purchases. At approximately $44,142, the average household income at Twin Lakes is projected to be 32.7% greater than the estimated 1990 County average, as shown in Table 3 at the end of this section. The income differential is significant since higher income households traditionally demand fewer County services relative to their tax contributions. Twin Lakes is also expected to create new employment opportunities. Planned to consist of 35,000 square feet at final build -out, the commercial portion of the community would employ approximately 88 persons based on the industry standard of one employee for every 400 square feet of retail space. The employment projections for the proposed development are displayed at the end of this section in Table 4. 21 I it � I I I I I Lm a c:>t.:;;::'A:'.ni a: :a::e;:►n::::n:' 4.2 Capital Impacts Fiscal impacts of the proposed development have been measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity of public facilities. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) facility costs relative to the County population have been used to determine gross capital impacts on a per capita basis. ' The projected demographic profile of the proposed development has been used to determine the project's share of capital costs. Potential capital contributions provided ' by the development were subtracted to derive net capital impacts. The primary capital impacts of the proposed development are a result of an increased demand for capacity related to educational facilities. Given that state funds are borrowed for school construction projects, capital costs have been amoritized to a 20- ' year annual basis to determine the operational affects of debt service. ' As shown in the summary table below, the proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a potential annual net capital impact of $377 per unit, or $452,111 for the entire project, due to increased demand for school capacity. The net impact is a result of a potential $672,000 school site contribution provided by the Twin Lakes development. Summary of Impacts Average Total Costs Cost Per D.U. ' Twin Lakes Gross Capital Impact $5,369,993 $4,475 Less Potential Twin Lakes School Site Contribution $ 672,000 $ 560 Equals Twin Lakes Net Capital Impact $4,697,993 $3,915 Twin Lakes Annual Capital Impact $ 452,1U $ 377 ' Source: Fredrick County Department of Planning and Development; Frederick County School Board; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. 22 n 11 ' 4.3 L 17, 1 "Win::A:n: . e: n In addition to school capacity, the proposed development would generate additional demand for recreational facilities. Given that a number of recreational facilities would be located'as part of the elementary school site, the project would generate a one-time recreation impact of approximately $97 per person or $226 per dwelling unit. This translates to an annual amount of approximately $26,100 for the entire development or about $22 per dwelling unit. Fiscal impacts related to recreational and educational facilities are presented in further detail at the end of this section in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. Revenue Projections The primary sources of local revenues in Frederick County are property taxes, particularly those for real and personal property. As such, this analysis primarily addresses local revenues derived from property levies that can be directly attributed to the Twin Lakes development. Based on an estimated market value of $95,000 per townhome and $145,000 per single-family detached unit and a real property tax rate of $0.66 per $100 of assessed value, the completed residential component of the Twin Lakes community is projected to contribute $990,000 per year to Frederick County in 1990 constant dollars, an average of $825 per unit. These annual contributions are detailed at the end of this section in Figure 8. At project build -out, it can be expected that Twin Lakes' residents will own a total of approximately 2000 motor vehicles with an average value of $8,750. Given the personal property tax rate of $4.25 per $100 of assessed value, the annual tax yield in 1990 dollars is projected to equal $743,750 for the entire development, or $620 per dwelling unit, as detailed in Table 9 at the end of this section. 23 s:.:...:...:.:: : ......::.:.::::...:::::::::::.::.:.. The proposed development is also projected to generate indirect revenues for Fairfax County. Studies conducted by the Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning found that households with annual incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 spend approximately 32% of their income on retail purchases. Thus, from the aggregate incomes shown in Table 3, the proposed project would annually contribute $16,950,374 to the local economy in retail sales and services upon final build -out (in 1990 dollars). Based on the current tax rate of 4.5%, the state would receive $762,767 each year from Twin Lakes expenditures. Given that Frederick County currently receives a 22.2% share of state sales taxes collected in the County, the proposed development would indirectly contribute $169,334 in annual revenues to the Countv. This translates to approximately $141 per dwelling unit. These figures are presented at the end of this section in Table 10. As shown in the following summary table, Twin Lakes is projected to generate more than $1.9 million in annual County revenues, or about $1,586 per household. Given that a limited number of revenue sources were addressed for purposes of this analysis, these figures should be considered conservative. Summary of Revenues Residential Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Retail Sales Tax Share Total Twin Lakes Annual Revenues Total Costs Revenues Per D.U. $ 990,000 $ 825 $ 672,000 $ 620 $ 169,336 $ 141 $1,903,086 $1,586 Source: Fredrick County Commissioner of Revenue; Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. 24 .n :.::.L� : k. e.. s . ; ::::.:: f;m. <.a::: ;a:::::;>::, ::n: :: t.l. sssat�tn�n.t Based on an analysis of County revenues derived from property taxes, the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual revenues approximately 35% greater than the County average on a per -unit basis. As shown in the summary table below, a typic it household in the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual County revenues that are approximately $375 above the current average County household. This figure represents a $450,000 yearly contribution for the entire Twin Lakes development. Summary of Revenue Differential Aggregate County Average Twin Lakes Difference Difference Real Property $600* $825 $225 $270,000 Personal Property $470* $620 $150 $180,000 Total Property Revenues $1,070* $1,445 $375 $450,000 *Note: Average County revenues have been adjusted upward to assure integrity of the comparison. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer's Office; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. It should be noted that the per -household average County revenues used to determine the revenue differential reflects a 50% increase to the actual figures reported in the 1989-90 County Fiscal Plan. The intent of this adjustment was to compensate for the discrepancy between property values based on older assessments and current market conditions. According to the Frederick County Treasurer's Office, the average County real property tax assessment is expected to increase 40- 50% as a result of the current re -assessment effort. 25 k:X.a::;>: Assuming that Twin Lakes residents demand services at a level that approximates the County average, this revenue differential suggests that the Twin Lakes development may contribute up to $450,000 each year in potentially surplus County funds (in 1990 dollars). These excess funds could be made available for a wide variety of programs, including debt service. Should the entire amount of surplus funds be directed towards new school construction costs, it would essentially offset the share of debt service that was generated by the project resulting in a near net zero fiscal impact for Twin Lakes. Capital Contributions In addition to annual revenues, the Twin Lakes community may offer significant capital contributions to Frederick County that would be of substantial benefit to the entire County. These contributions may include such items as regional transportation improvements and, possibly, a site for an elementary school. As shown in the summary table below, these potential, one-time capital contributions may be valued at more than $3.4 million. Summary of Potential Development Contributions Elementary School Site Senseny Rd - Route 7 Connector Rd ROW for Additional Connector Rd. Capacity ROW for Future By -Pass Route (Rte. 37) Total Capital Contributions Source: Twin Lakes Development Plan. Value Total Value Per D.U. $ 677,000 $ 560 $2,000,000 $1,667 $ 308,540 $ 257 $ 443,526 $ 370 $3,424,066 $2,354 26 I : .. ...:..:..:: ' 4.5 Short -Term Impacts The proposed development is projected to generate significant positive impacts during the construction phase. According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, every ' million dollars in new construction expenditures generates 45.6 new jobs throughout Virginia. Thus, the $150 million, 6-year project would create 1,140 new jobs annually, ' primarily in the Frederick County area. Table 5 at the end of this section displays the construction phase employment projections for Twin Lakes. 1 1 27 Table 1 COMMUNITY POPULATION Households and Population at Final Build -Out # Units Pop/Unit \1 Population Single -Family 720 2.60 1872 Townhomes 480 1.90 912 Total 1200 2.32 2784 Table 2 STUDENT POPULATION Number of Students By Dwelling Type, at Final Build -Out # Units Ratio \2 Students Single -Family 720 0.661 476 Townhomes 480 0.385 185 Total 1200 0.551 661 Elementary Middle School High School Ratio Students Ratio Students Ratio Students Single -Family 0.308 222 0.15 108 0.203 146 Townhomes 0.210 101 0.08 38 0.095 46 Total 0.269 323 0.122 146 0.160 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Notes: 1/ Background Report: Residential Development Projections in Frederick County - 1989 2/ Background Report: Impacts of Development on Community Facilities Table 3 INCOME PROJECTIONS Average Household Incomes for Project and County in 1990 Dollars # Units Aver. Inc. Aggregate Inc. Single -Family 720 $51,356 $36,976,320 Townhomes 480 $33,320 $15,993,600 Total 1200 $44,142 $52,969,920 County Aver. $32,180 Differential +32.7% Source: Lord Fairfax Regional Planning Commission Table 4 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS On -Site Jobs Generated By Project, at Final Build -Out Gross S.F. Jobs Per S.F. # Jobs Commercial Space 35000 1/400 s.f. 88 Source: Urban Land Institute: Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers .... . . . ..... . ..... ............. .. ..... . . ......... .. ..... ..... ... ... ...... Table 5 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS Total Jobs Created by Project During Construction Phase Const. Expend. Job Multiplier # Jobs Per Year Annual Impacts 25 mill. 45.6/mill. 1140 Total Annual Jobs 1228 (6 Years) Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Regional Multipliers ... . .. ....... . ... .. - Table 6 RECREATION IMPACTS Park Facility Costs Per Person, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Park Facilities Gross CIP Cost $1,294,000 Average Capacity 13,300 Cost/Person \1 $97.28 Population/D.U. 2.32 2.60 1.90 Gross Impact Per Unit $270,828 $252.93 $184.83 (All Units) Annual Capital Impact $25,988 $21.66 (Aver.) $21.66 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) (All Units) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Note: 1/Background Report:lmpacts of Development on Community Facilities Table 7 EDUCATION IMPACTS School Facility Costs Per Student, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 - - Capacity 650 - - Cost/Student $10,207.69 - - Students/D.U. 0.269 0.308 0.210 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 $3,143.97 $2,143.62 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 - Capacity $1,200 - - Cost/Student $10,833.33 - - Students/D.U. 0.160 0.203 0.095 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 $2,199.17 $1,029.17 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $5,369,993 $5,343 $3,173 (All Units, Aver.=$4,475) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 $560 $560 Net Impact Per Unit $4,697,993 $4,783 $2,613 (All Units, Aver.=$3,915) Annual Capital Impact $452,111 $376.76 (Aver.) $376.76 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Table 8 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY REVENUES Annual Contributions to Frederick County Generated By Project Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Real Property Value $150,000,000 $125,000 (720 DU's @ $145,000 per unit) (480 DU's @ $95,000 per unit) Tax Rate $0.66/100 $0.66/100 Tax Yield $990,000 $825 Table 9 PERSONAL PROPERTY REVENUES Annual Contributions to Frederick County Generated By Project Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Personal Property Value $17,500,000 $8,750 (2000 vehicles @ $8,750 each) Tax Rate $4.25/100 $4.25/100 Tax Yield $743,750 $620 Table 10 RETAIL SALES REVENUES Annual State Contributions to Frederick County From Twin Lakes' Retail Expenditures Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Total Retail Sales $16,950,374 $14,125 (32% of $52,969,920 aggregate income) State Tax Rate 4.5% 4.5% State Tax Yield $762,767 $636 County Share of Yield (22.2%, $169,336 $141 Source: Frederick County Department of Finance, Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning Addendum I 11 ll ::';:;i:;.:r;', �:.;:`':;':;:::;.;�:;:�';:::;:::i;::::,�::.;:::::.:..;:.:::::'::s:�.i::::::::::::::i::::::.;:<::±:::::?:::::::::::::<::i::�";:�t::.:i'�:isi:::::<::k:i�:5`;::::>'::i::::i:::t:;'::#>::�:::;•r'::::i:::::::::s�::.:i:;:::::::>:.::;':.::::<::::i::::i..':.'::;::::.:. . :;. ;: ::;»Yl.. .:: .i:.>:: :.::;>:::;::r::;:::;•:.>:'c:::.:::.:: a: JJ.:: ,. .:: .:' ii r.:b<>:. :::� .,,: ..:: ::: ..,.;;.•.^ i ':a:i:o-. '.i: »� s:.:: �:. > s' :<s: s:::::::::.'::':•::>;:::::::.:::::::<�:.�'s.:.:.;a:: 1i:::Yi :sr:i:: s: v ::•:r.:: .> s: .......,, ti :ii:: .::k.::s::::::::..:.:...:...::.::.:::::::::::...:::::.::::..::::» ::::::::..:..........�: n:....... ADDENDUM During the period of review for this Impact Analysis Statement, the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development returned comments to the applicant concerning the projected impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on County educational facilities, particularly in regard to secondary school facilities. This Addendum section has been prepared in response to those comments. A new high school facility is currently being planned for Frederick County in response to a County -wide demand for secondary school capacity. According to the County School Board, construction of a new high school would allow the James Wood High School -Amherst campus to be converted to a middle school. Thus, a new high school facility would provide the County with both new middle and high school capacity. In addressing the capacity of educational facilities in previous sections of this document (3.3.3 and 4.2), the approach was taken that new middle school capacity would be provided at no extra cost to the County as part of the cost of constructing a new high school. As a result, the impact of the proposed development on secondary school facilities was derived from the number of high school students only (see Table 7). However, since the proposed high school is under consideration due to a capacity shortage in both the middle and high school levels, and not just as a result of a high school capacity shortage, it is the interpretation of the Department of Planning and Development that each new middle school student in the County displaces a high school student thus requiring additional high school capacity. The Department has determined that the total number of both middle and high school students generated by a proposed development should be used to identify that development's impact of secondary school facilities. As a result, the Department requests that projections of Twin Lakes' share of the cost of the planned high school be derived from a total of 338 students, not 192 as used previously in this analysis. The additional 146 students represents the total middle school population of Twin Lakes at full build -out. The requested revisions are provided in Amended Table 7 on the following page. As presented in the table, the adjusted net annual impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on educational facilities would be approximately $504 per unit, or $605,000 overall, upon final build -out. 34 >.......;tn:..:.c..e Amended Table 7 EDUCATION IMPACTS School Facility Costs Per Student, By Dwelling Units Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 - - Capacity 650 - - Cost/Student $10,207.69 - - Students/D.U. 0.269 0.308 0.210 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 $3,143.97 $2,143.62 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 - - Capacity 1,200 - - Cost/Student $10,833.33 - - Students/D.U. 0.160 0.203 0.095 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 $2,199.17 $1,029.17 Middle School /HS Gross CIP Cost (HS)* $13,000,000 - - Capacity (HS)* 1,200 - - Cost/Student $10,833.33 - - Students/D.U. 0.122 0.150 0.080 Gross Costs/D.U. $1,586,000 $1,625.00 $866.67 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $6,955,993 $6,968 $4,039 (All Units, Aver.=$5,797) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 $560 $560 Net Impact Per Unit $6,283,993 $6,408 $3,479 (All Units, Aver.=$5,237) Annual Capital Impact $604,739 $503.94 (Aver.) $503.94 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) * Note: Proposed Twin Lakes' middle school students are included as part of the high school capacity. Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development A Traffic Impact Analysis of TWIN LAKES A Proposed Residential Development In Fredrick County, Virginia Prepared for: Loggia Development Company Callow Associates, Inc. Transportation Planning & Design Consultants FINAL r TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LAKES prepared for LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1700 Diagonal Road Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 prepared by CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 160 Reston, Virginia r 22091 r March 6, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. LIST OF TABLES ............................................. iv INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................... 2 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ................................... 5 EXISTING ZONING SCENARIO ................................... 8 Trip Generation ... ....................................... 8 Trip Distribution .............. ........................... 8 Trip Assignment .......................................... 8 Traffic Impacts ............................................ 11 PROPOSED ZONING SCENARIO ................................. 13 Trip Generation ........................................... 13 Trip Distribution .......................................... 14 Trip Assignment .......................................... 14 Traffic Impacts ........................................... 14 CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 17 APPENDIX..................................................... 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page No. 1. Site Map 3 2. Existing Conditions 4 3. Background 1997 Conditions 7 4. Trip Distribution 9 5. Build 1997 Volumes - Existing Zoning 10 6. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Existing Zoning 12 7. Build 1997 Volumes - Proposed Zoning 15 8. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Proposed Zoning 16 in Table No. 1 2 LIST OF TABLES Twin Lakes Trip Generation - Existing Zoning Twin Lakes Trip Generation - Proposed Zoning iv Page No. �V 13 INTRODUCTION The Twin Lakes development is located on approximately 400 acres in Frederick County, Virginia. The site is located south of Route 7 in the eastern part of the county. The site ' is adjacent to Senseny Road to the south and Openquon Creek to the east. The Twin Lakes development plan calls for rezoning of the site to allow for increased residential dwelling units, an elementary school site and small commercial retail site. ' The analysis of traffic impacts, performed by Callow Associates, utilizes projections of traffic volumes for the year 1997. The traffic impacts of the development on the ' surrounding roadways are measured through the following sequence of activities. 1. Establishing the existing base condition traffic volumes through field count surveys. 2. Forecasting future traffic volumes by applying growth factors to the base conditions and adding the expected traffic volumes associated with the Twin ' Lakes development, under the existing and proposed zoning. 3. Analyzing the future conditions with standard capacity analysis methods and recommending mitigation measures, if any, to accommodate Twin Lakes development traffic. ' The purpose of this report is to document these analytical steps and to present conclusions and recommendations. I 1 IEXISTING CONDITIONS ' The site is currently isolated from any major collector roadway. Route 7 is located approximately 1,400 feet to the north. Route 657 (Senseny Road) is adjacent to the southern portion of the site. Route 7 is the major east -west link between the Winchester area and Leesburg. Route 7 also provides direct access to I-81. Route 657 is currently a local collector serving as a parallel route for the local area between Route 7 and Rotite 50 in the eastern part of the county. The existing road network is also shown on Figure ' Peak hour traffic counts were taken during February 1990 at the following locations: o Route 657 (Senseny Road) and Morning Glory Drive (Road C) o Route 7, east of Route 659 ' These traffic volumes for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours reflecting existing conditions are shown on Figure 2. Peak hour as well as ADT volumes are shown. ADT was produced from counts conducted by VDOT for Route 7 and Frederick County for Sensemy Road. I The appendix contains the traffic count summary sheets for the existing conditions. Traffic operations for existing conditions at the intersection of Route 657 and Morning Glory Drive were analyzed, based upon existing counts, traffic control devices and roadway ' geometries. The result of this analysis provided level of service (LOS). Briefly, level of services ranges from 'A' - free flow condition to 'F' - forced flow conditions. The appendix contains detailed descriptions of these levels taken from the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analysis was performed at the intersection for A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Figure 2 also shows the lane geometry and level of service results for the A.M. ' and P.M. peak hours. 3 n LEGEND: Route 7 (15,326) -- - Site (4S6)�27 37y(g�s) - Road - River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes L l� 17 1 (3,813) 11 /! CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. (4)12 .� (78)55 --� Figure 2. Existing Conditions Senseny Road RTF-. 657 1 IThe following is a summary of the existing capacity analysis results: The intersection of Route 657 and Morning Glory Drive is currently unsignalized. The intersection operates at level of service 'A' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The relatively light traffic ' on Route 657 is due to the rural nature of the area. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Due to the fact that the build -out date for the Twin Lakes development is not far into the future, the local road network will mainly remain unchanged from the existing network. The Frederick County six -year road improvement plan calls for improvements of Route ' 657 from the Winchester city line to Clark County. The county is also proposing an eastern bypass loop (Route 37) through this area of the county. There is no specific time frame or corridor established for this roadway and it was not assumed for - this study. Route 37 is proposed as a four lane divided roadway, connecting the existing Route 37 at I-81 north and south of the city of Winchester. IAccess for the Twin Lakes development is being proposed via three intersections. The ' first access roadway would be proposed from the site northward to Route 7. A proposed at -grade intersection is proposed at Route 7. It is not known at this time however, how this roadway will function at the time Route 37 is built. The second and third access points are located at the south end of the property. Access is being proposed directly onto Route 657 (Senseny Road), one from the Twin Lakes development and the other through inter -parcel access from the AppleRidge development. The AppleRidge development is located adjacent to the Twin Lakes development to the east. ' The existing counts were increased at a rate of 6.0 percent per year. This percent growth was established from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) counts conducted between 1986 and 1988 along Route 7 in the vicinity of the site. These background volumes represent conditions in 1997, without the development of the Twin Lakes site. r Fig -Lire 3 shows the expected background traffic for stud year 1997 on the access P g � YY locations as shown in the existing conditions analysis. Peak hour and ADT volumes are shown. Capacity analysis was performed at the intersection for A.M. and P.M. peak hour iconditions. Figure 3 also shows the lane geometry and level of service results for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The following is a summary of the background only capacity analysis results: The ' intersection of Route 657 and Morning Glory Drive would operate at level of service 'A' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. D 1 IN l u i 1 1 1 LEGEND: Route 7 Site (686)1 �93 �' S7p(1,240) - Road - River AM(PM) - peak Hour Volumes (XXXX) - ADT ` I' 1 I / 1 � 1 � 1 I. 1 / / ` / 1 / / 1 1 r: / 1 0 IU A(A) Unsignalized 1 20(15) 48(86) Senseny Road (5,720) (6)18 . RTE• 657 (117)83 i i CALLOW Figure 3. Background 1997 Conditions ASSOCIATES INC. J J 1, EXISTING ZONING SCENARIO Trip Generation According to the existing zoning, the Twin Lakes development is permitted to construct up to 80 residential dwelling units. The traffic generated by the development was estimated by using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition (1987). Table 1 gives the resulting trips generated by the Twin Lakes development for the A.M. and P.M. peak periods, under the existing zoning. Table 1 TWIN LAKES TRIP GENERATION (Existing Zoning) Peak Hour Vehicle Trips A.M. P.M. Land Use Amount In Out In Out ADT Single Family Detached 80 DU 18 48 56 33 800 Trip Distribution The distribution of trips from the Twin Lakes property is shown on Figure 4. The percentages are based upon a logical split, considering the existing pattern of traffic flow and the regional highway system. Specifically, a greater percentage of traffic will be destined to Route 7 verses the access points onto Route 657. Trip Assignment The existing zoning generated traffic from the Twin Lakes development was then assigned to the proposed road network along with the total background traffic discussed earlier. This assignment has been conducted as a base comparison of the existing land use to the proposed land use. Therefore the proposed road network has been assumed for this scenario. This total, comprises the "Existing Zoning" scenario assignment, as shown on Figure 5. Peak hour as well as ADT are shown. �3 1 LEGEND: ulc 7 2, 0 36 % Site=' - Road —.— - River ♦ 1 1 � 1 /I1 / / 00 1 �% I �♦ 1 / / 1 / 1 / 1 I 1 I I / 1 1 I Q 1 / b / U 1 a G ' Senseny Road RTE. 657 _22 % l8% N '\ Figure 4. Trip Distribution 1 CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. I� 1 r 1.F(;END : Ro"te 7 723 236) �-� S7�( Si1c 1.240 - (686)1,093 6(20) ) 7 ■� - Road (13)4 T (23,332) River N AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (XXXX) - ADT 1 o +� 0 r. * - Development Only 1 ♦ `. I ` 1 I 1 � . 1 /I1 � 1 1 �00 1 I / / / / I I / Q � b 1 .c (5,896) (10)3 (126)101 LN CALLOW ' ASSOCIATES INC. 1 P 1 1 0 00 1 � � � O ^ �21(21) o1(4) % �_ 50(90) Senseny Road 0-00 �-67(101) Y (5,816) (8)19.,Y (5,864) RTE. 657 (120)87 Figure 5. Build 1997 Volumes - Existing Zoning Traffic Impacts ' Callow Associates performed capacity analysis the three site access locations as follows: o Route 7 and Road A ' o Route 657 and Road C o Route 657 and Road D The analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition of existing zoning plus background traffic for the year 1997. The resulting level of service and lane geometry are shown on Figure 6. r The following narrative describes level of service conditions that would be observed for this analysis and assuming the lane geometry shown in Figure 6 at each intersection The lane geometry reflects minimum lane requirements for acceptable conditions. o Route 7 and Road A will operate at level of service `D'or better in both the A.M. P.M. peak hours, unsignlaized. Level of service `D' is , unacce tableaccording to VDOT standards P g for Frederick County. It is however acceptable according to the Federal Transportation Research Board's 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). o Route 657 and Road C will operate at level of service W. for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. o Route 657 and Road D will operate at level of service `A' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in the Appendix. 11 1 I� 1 1 C L� LEGEND : Route 7 -� C(A) Site Road River a AM(PM) - Level of Service ♦ I 1 ` •I I/ 1 I 1 1 j� NOTE: All Intersections Unsignalized 1 1 1 I. 1 I �• 1 1 ---�—� tLoad \. / ``�\ 1 / 1 I I I. I I / I / I / I I IL—___ 1 1, g .ti 1 0 1 A(A) A p(A) (p)p 4 (A)A 4 I �N CALLOW Senseny Road Figure 6. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Existing Zoning ASSOCIATES INC. 12 17 I 1 PROPOSED ZONING SCENARIO Trip Generation The Twin Lakes development is proposing to construct 690 single family dwelling units, 427 townhouse dwelling units and 35,000 square feet of retail uses. The traffic generated by the development was estimated by using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition (1987). Table 2 gives the resulting trips generated by the Twin Lakes development for the A.M. and P.M. peak periods, under the proposed zoning. Table 2 TWIN LAKES TRIP GENERATION (Proposed Zoning) Peak Hour Vehicle Trips A.M. P.M. Land Use Amount In Out In Out ADT SF DETACHED 201 DU 41 ' 111 132 78 2,010 SF DETACHED 78 DU 17 47 54 32 780 TOWNHOUSE 215 DU 16 82 80 39 1,226 SF DETACHED 53 DU 12 33 38 22 530 SF DETACHED 53 DU 12 33 38 22 530 SF DETACHED 123 DU 26 71 83 49 1,230 SF DETACHED 28 DU 7 18 21 12 280 SF DETACHED 52 DU 12 32 37 22 520 SF DETACHED 58 DU 13 36 41 24 580 TOWNHOUSE 89 DU 8 41 38 19 584 SF DETACHED 44 DU 10 28 32 19 440 TOWNHOUSE 55 DU 5 28 25 13 390 TOWNHOUSE 68 DU 6 33 30 15 466 RETAIL 35,000 SF 65 28 177 184 3,755 TOTAL 252 622 826 549 13,322 13 1 1 LJ F, 1 I I E J 1 it Trip Distribution The distribution of trips from the Twin Lakes property is shown on Figure 4, in the existing zoning section. The same assumptions for the proposed zoning trip distribution was assumed as for the existing zoning traffic flow. Refer to the previous section on trip distribution in the Existing Zoning section of the report. Trip Assignment The proposed zoning generated traffic from the Twin Lakes development was then assigned to the road network along with the total background traffic discussed earlier. Access to the water treatment plant has been assumed to occur along the development access road to Route 7. Minimal peak hour traffic from the plant has been included in the peak hour traffic assignment. This total, comprises the 'Proposed Zoning" scenario assignment, as shown on Figure 7. Peak hour volumes as well as ADT are shown. Traffic Impacts Callow Associates performed capacity analysis the three site access locations as follows: o Route 7 and Road A o Route 657 and Road C o Route 657 and Road D The analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition of proposed zoning plus background traffic for the year 1997. The resulting level of service and lane geometry are shown on Figure 8. The lane geometry reflects minimum lane requirements for acceptable conditions. The following narrative describes level of service conditions that would be observed for this analysis and assuming the lane geometry shown in Figure 8 at each intersection: 14 11 11 I.F(;ENn : Route 7 (26 ]O8 � �70(1 24p) Site ) (686)1,O93 (29 7) - Road (200)68 1 � 7 (27,840) —•— - River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes M a (YOO� - ADT j 00 ` .. * Development Only ,1 oft j 1 � Noe 1 / . 1 /I1 � 1 / 1 i 1 / ` / � 1 / / / 1 N � 1 (8,651) 114 ' (149)45 (156)111 ■ � CALLOW 1 ASSOCIATES INC. 25(83) -.*--90(121) (7,585) N v) J11-L (39)28 (172)145 �- 40(81) 330 fib) (8,118) _ �/ RTE. 657 Senseny Road Figure 7. Build 1997 Volumes - Proposed Zoning u 1 LEGEND: 1loule 7 Sibnulized Los = 13(B) -t A(13) Site L' - Road (B)B River q AM(PM) - Level of Service + r. 1 , I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I. 1 � 1 Ft o� I I 1. / II I � 1 � A(A) -4-1-hA(A) (A)A 4 (A)A 4 Senseny Road RTE. 657 N \ Figure 8. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Proposed Zoning CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 0000 16 ' o Route 7 and Road A will operate at level of service `B' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, signalized. o Route 657 and Road C will operate at level of service `A' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. o Route 657 and Road D will operate at level of service B or better for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in the Appendix. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Twin Lakes development are manageable. The Twin Lakes development would not adversely effect traffic in the study area. The three development access intersections would all operate at acceptable levels of service for the ' proposed zoning scenario with the following improvements. The intersection of Route 7 and Road A will require signalization with turn lanes. The intersection of Route 657 and Road C and the intersection of Route 657 and Road D will require only access design improvements. With these improvements the total future traffic flow analyzed, including ' that generated by Twin Lakes development, would operate at acceptable conditions. 17 i� 11 ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and ' LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is presented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The 1985 Hip hway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. 1 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS At an unsignalized intersection the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a Stop or Yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left - turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. ' The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps, is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analyses in this report, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional 1 information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor - trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for unsignalized intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The capacity of a movement is calculated (in terms of vehicles per hour - VPH) and then compared with the demand. The difference is the "reserve capacity." The level of service is then ' based on the amount of reserve capacity left over: to ections `d: n rs t a for::.ITrisi realize I Service::.Cri eri :::.::.;::;::::;;::;::;:'>::>::Level.;of :>:.:.:': _.......... ........PY e :a ;`<::::... :6 a 1 :. ....:.....::: . : rSr T ffic. n ot :eet':. ra t e '.0rn .. t1 Li . 00.-399:..v :h ;.::<::::»:::::.>:;::«:::>:<::>>>. .:>.._....:;.:.,.:.;:.:200-29.9 vera e>:::traffic Bela Y...:..:..::..:::...:... 9 : v h.. ;::>::::::::<:;::::>:::>: :.;:.;;:.::.;::.;:::...::::.::.....:.:::...:.::.:::.;:..:...... .. .......<:<::::;::;:;.;::;.;::::.::<:::. 0- 99 v:h::.:::.:::::::::.::::::::>:::<:,.>:::::=.;:;;E::::>::>: ;..::.:......:.: .. <Very>Iong traffic delays::... >::::>::::>:::::<<::<>: ::;;:;.:.>F..:::::::. capacity, ,, .... ;.:. em 1 loft x del a- Y g Y h 1 C SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis,'therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. Calculations of both capacity and delay are based on empirical data, therefore some situations may not fit the theoretical formulas. For example in signal systems with good progression, it is often possible to show a v/c ratio greater than 1.0 (demand exceeds capacity), but at the same time, correctly calculate delay values in the acceptable 'C' or 'D' range. In this report all default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optimal" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is 60 seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: :.: Ilevel.:of:Service Criteria_.. or:.Signalized` Izitersections ........... v . S : Ue ._, c e'' sec:: >' < ;:..::> ... . e hi 1 p r <, ,... . 5.1 ::..:::...::.:. . .. ..:.:....:..::;::.::::::.:::::. 1� L� LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ILevel of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although Imany still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 see per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high We ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. .Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This level is the theoretical maximum capacity of the intersection. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e.,. when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high We ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long I cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. I� I Intersection:' RME 6J7 1 M%.qlhc kCiil DR Location- WINLh61LR Coated ,y PF: Date 2-13-90 Day: 1UES -I ---ut -b-y---- --------- ----------------------------------------ie--a —t,e—r ---------------------------------------- ------------------- --iI kM;::C FRS .7 0M TE FR� : . PM I on: on: MORCIG GLORY on: ROUTE 657 on: ROVE 657 I TOTAL I '.me ---------------------- ---------------------- -- — ---------- — ------ ---------------------- I sts, ! Time LE- x ','GkT Tl.'.;L -' L.E- ' L, R:-�, I . . ;. I I � .4 I h:% i�T', - LE-7 T-R� R:Sr., T 17�, LEFT T'HRJ F,TGHj -,07 AL I - 4 ; E & Period ---------------------------- — — ------- — ----- — ----------------------------------------------------- --- — ------ Al I 6:30-6:45 a 1 0 8 1 9 2 2 0 12 8 12 0 6 1 I 7 1 I 21 1 AM 6:38-6:45 6:4,;-7:88 1 a a a a 8 a 4 4 2 13 8 li 8 7 2 9 1 28 1 6:45-7:N 7:02-7:15 ! 7:15-7:30 I 0 a 8 0 0 8 8 1, 8 8 0 3 2 4 2 3 A 14 12 8 a 17 16 0 0 8 10 4 3 112 1 13 1 33 1 3. ; 7:88-7:15 7:15-7:36 7-30-7:45 0 0 0 1 e 8 2 2 3 16 0 13 8 6 4 116 I 31 1 7:58-7:45 7:45-8:00 1 8 6 a a I a 4 5, 2 13 8 15 B S 2 11 1 38 1 7:45-a:N 8:82-8:15 1 0 0 0 0 8 9 8 1 0 Ii 0 '2 0 7 0 i 19 1 a a 0 a a 0 4 4 1 3 a le 8 8 4 26 8:115-8:38 -- --------- ---------------- — — ------- — ----------------------- 6:30-7:38 a a 0 1 0 :11 — ------------------------ 6Z — ---------------------------- 0 31 18 — --- Al 1 113 6:38-7:30 D:45-7:45 I 8 0 0 8 1 8 I1 12 112 55 9 67 0 31 13 44 123 1 -.:45-7:45 7 -5 - d 8 a 0 1 a 2, 1 1 8 8 9 9 2 ' 8 52 1 a 32 311. 13 9 15 46 1 25 Ili 7:11-1:H 7:I5-8:15 7 U - 6 3 2 a a e I a Ag it 6 so 9 56 8 23 18 39 1 A 7:30-8:51 A.I!. PUK �Ouk MMM 1 0 8 0 6 2 1 11 13 12 5Z 8 67 0 32 13 45 1 125 1 7:08-8:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I C4 : NA p4r, = O.E., PHF = 2.88 PHF : 8.87 1 0 0 0 8 0 3 2 2 1 16 8 16 0 12 2 14 1 32 1 4:38-4:4- 4 4 5e 0 i a a a a I a 4 1 19 0 Eg a 15 1 16 1 40 1 4:45-5:aa c 2 2 - S t 0 8 a 8 a a 4 4 2 214 8 23 8 116 3 19 Be- J: 1. 5 ' ::5-:: ? I a 8 a 8 a 3 8 8 a a 8 a 1 a 2 i 8 E2 14 i 8 23 14 a 8 14 11 4 1 18 12 i 41 1 28 1 5 ',:3e 5:30-J:44 0 9 8 1 a 0 2 2 8 16 2 E, 8 12 1 13 i 31 1 5:45-6:08 i 30 I 1 I e I 0 I i I 0 I 2 I 1 - 1 1 .1 i4 1 a 15 .4 1 0 11 .5 1 12 12 1 ------------------------------ — ---------------------------- — - — --------------------- — --- — ------- — — ---- t ----- — ------ 4:3a-5:3i a 1 0 8 1 e 9 A 4 78 8 82 0 57 18 67 ! 1 15 "1 1 40-5:38 4:45-5: 45 i 8 0 0 0 2 8 110 4 76 0 88 a 56 3 65 1 155 i 4:45-'S.4! 5:H-6:08 1 a @ R 0 1 0 7 8 3 73 8 76 8 53 9 62 1 146 1 J:60-0? ' c : 15-6:15 1 J:3a-6:38 f a a I 9 1 8 0 8 1 1 1 8 4 5 5, 6 2 1 78 62 9 8 72 62 8 0 47 41 8 J J5 1 46 1 132 1 M 1 5-.15-6:15 5:30-6:30 P.a. PEAK HOJQ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a a a a 9 le 4 78 0 82 a 57 18 67 i 159 1 4:38-5:38 :HF = 8.63 P-F = i. 39 PH., = 0. 88 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS yage-' I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FAC�OR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET......^ Morning (3, Dr�ve NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. mjh DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/14/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. am peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 INTERSECTION _______________________________________________________________-____- TYPE AND CONTROL U U INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIREC�ION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: ST�P �IGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES U EB WB NB SB LEFT 12 0 -- 2 THRU 55 32 -- 0 RIGHT NUMBER OF LANES | EB WB LANES 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PagR-� ------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT HIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELIRATIDu GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR ________________ ------------------ RIGHT 7QAQ.-- EASTBOUND _______ __________ 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 �0 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S ----------- VEHICLES % MOTCRC»CL0S ------------- -------------- EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS U -____________________________-______________-____________________-__- � TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FIQ� (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CR!TICA ______________ ________ ___________ MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.5!-: MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.%-*- MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6,50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Morning Glory DriYe DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 | CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE __________________________________________________________________ _ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c p _____ M _________ ____________ SH R SH � ____________ ------ MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 2 815 808 12 998 998 13 1000 1000 801]:. > 963 > 998 > 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------`- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE7.... Morning Glory Dri/e DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak nwr OTHER INFORMATION.... e:isting 1970 � 19E5 HCM: UNSISNALIZED lNTERSECTICNS y��s IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEEO, MAJOR STREET.. 3� PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...,......,.........,. 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/NEST STREET......... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... Mornirg Glory Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. mjh DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...,.. 2/14/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. pm peak Mour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 `NTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL U _______________________________________________________-_________--_- 8 INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOL]MES U ------- ________________________________________-______________--___ � EB WB NB SE, ____ ____ ____ ---- LEFT 4 0 -- 1 -HRU 78 57 -- 0 RIGHT 0 10 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES | ______________________________________-_________________________-_-_ � EB W8 NB SB _______ _______ _______ -------- LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---------- __________________________________________________________ N PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERArION LAX--� GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIOHT TJ�Q5 ------- ---------- ---------------- --------------'-- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SGUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 Al VEHICLE COMPOSITION U ____________________________________________________-___-___________- � % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ___________ _____________ -------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS | __________________________________-_________________________-______ - � TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DlST. (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT ______________ ________ ___________ FlN4L CRITICAL S��' | -------- __- � MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.20 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.0� MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 65 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Morning Glory Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 � CAPACITY AND LEVEL-CF-SERVICE ____________________________________________________________________ Pags- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI7`' MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c � _______ p -------- M _________ SH R SH N ____________ ____________ _-- � MINOR STREET 3B LEFT 1 776 774 RIGHT 10 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 4 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 774 > 773 > > 969 > 958 > 997 > 727 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Morning Glory Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 1 I I I I 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION | 0� --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 w� NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . ' . . . RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD A NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. HARTLAND N� DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION. . . . TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION ~� MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC ______________________________________-__________________________ VOLUMES EB WB NB SB N� N� ---- ---- ---- ---- � LEFT 8 6 12 -- N� THRU 1093 570 0 -- m� RIGHT 4 18 17 -- NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ N� EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ _______ LANES 2 2 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page.-2z------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERAT I GN LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 0 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 r. SOUTHBOUND ----- --- --- - VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "/. SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND i ) NORTHBOUND t_) i ) i ) SOUTHBOUND --- --- CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF::' MINOR RIGHTS NB 5. 50 5.50 0 . 0(;) 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS W B 50 MINOR LEFTS, IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ---- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 13 75 74 RIGHT 19 592 592 MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 7 294 294 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 74 > 61 > E > 152 > 120 >D > 592 > 574 > A 294 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 287 C 1/9y�(35y�WyHyCyyM{r �y:ry.y��yyU/NyS(.IGh..yy�AyLy.WIyJ7_,,E.D LLINTERSEyyCTyy..IyyONSyy yy,y+y�.yy tt �y yy..yy�.yy..yyy. y.y .y yy4.1/� yyyy yy J yy,yfir j,( yy.yPagyyeyy-yy1y e� T ,T �P TT �T T T T T Jl� :% T � � �F T .� •T M �T iA �� + .�.:ry TT '� .'T• � T T �� T �I� T .� T T TT T •P• T •7� /f` T T T T T T T /� T• T :7� � .i 'r T :� 'lM1 �p.:r T .�. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. vu 1 PEAK. HOUR FACTOR ..................... ' AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RT NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD A NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK - OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 EXISTING ZONI`•iG ' INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST ' CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND; STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 8 20 3 -- THRU 6B6 1240 i ; -- RIGHT 13 18 .12 -- NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 2 2 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paga--2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9(.) 20 1 N WESTBCUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND ----- --- --.— — VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV"S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND O 0 WESTBOUND c i i NORTHBOUND c) o SOUTHBOUND --- --- --- CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . F I NA!.- (Tab1e 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT ----------- CRITICAL 3f-F MINOR RIGHTS NB 5. 50 5.50 0. 00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.5 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 0 00 ? . 0t 1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2:% 1. 5/ 9i a ; PM PEAT:: OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES -- 1997 — EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ---- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 9 75 73 RIGHT 13 745 745 MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 22 491 491 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 73 > 64 > E > 159 > 137 >D > 745 > 732 > A 491 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 469 A UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 *��*�k%KKK*:k�K��:9�:ic�**%K��:%:�K%�.:�k �*�K K�'•��?F��k�K:k%�',K:��*;f:,�,c:��KA�:�:?K:�:�:X:�:+F:��X�:;�,yiiy -AT 11= Y I NC INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 70 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150 000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... r't 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD D NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... 2/15/9(:*j TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WD LEFT _ 123 -- 4 THRU 101 67 RIGHT 74 1 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ED WB NB SEA LANES 1 i -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (fit) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 ^r N WESTBOUND 0.00 9c i 2(i N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SORTHBOUND 0.00 9(:) 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------------------------------------------------------------------ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND Q �? WESTBOUND !=' 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL_ (Table 1 0-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 a 0 .0(i 5. 5C') MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0 . ran 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 0 . 0C.) . 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF T H.E EAST/WEST STREET ...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANAL`r'SIS.... , 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 4 749 747 RIGHT 10 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 3 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 747 > 743 > A > 904 > 889 >A > 997 > 987 > A 1000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 997 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ____________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD D NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION~... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------- __________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB LEFT 10 128 -- 3 THRU 126 101 -- 0 RIGHT 74 4 -- 6 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ -------- LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS f-'a(:: e..... , ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURL-; RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 0 9i a 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 0r 7 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 0 20 ra VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND r i r i r i WESTBOUND i t 0 C NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 � i c CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJL �STMENT -. CRITICAL BA!---' -------------- MINOR RIGHTS S B 5. 50 5.50 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5. 0 uj 5.00 0. 00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 5ii 6.50 0. 00 6. 5(: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ...... r-+ 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2/ 15 /90 ; PM PEAT OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 3 687 682 > 682 > 679 > A > 862 > 852 >A RIGHT 7 992 992 > 992 > 985 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 11 999 999 999 988 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-! IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK. HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD C NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mmJdd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB WB NB SB LEFT 19 .128 ~- 8 THRU 87 50 -- Q RIGHT 74 21 -- 18 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURL-; RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION Lri� I. *- GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9c_) 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 Cc_? N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 q(') 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS %. COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES -------------- is MOTORCYCLES ------------- ----------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 (i 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND c i U CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUE'_, ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL_ ( Table 10-2) `,VALUE ADJUSTMENT', CRITICAL GAF MINOR RIGHTS SB 5 . 5i i 5.50 0. 00 5. 5( MAJOR LEFTS FB 5.00 5.00 0 . 0(_) 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.5O 6.10 .00 6„5c_) IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE GAS T !WEST STREET...... EAST/WEST rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.— ROAD C DATE AND ..TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 q AM PEAK: OTHER INFORMATION .... -TWIN LAKES — 1997 -- EX I S-! INS ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE page-:,-,: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c -v LO: p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 9 754 744 RIGHT GHT 20 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 21 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 44 > 735 . 903 > 874 > A 997 > 977 > A 1000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STFEET.... ROAD C DATE_ AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 979 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS I �a,ge- 1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION! --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR 'STREET.. TO PEAT. HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... r-t 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ....... ROAD C NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/ddlyy)...... 2!15l90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. FM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTIOI'••1 TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: T--INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- LEFT 8 .128 -- 5 THRU 120 90 -- 0 RIGHT 74 21 -- 15 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SL; LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page--- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER CENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR: RIGHT TURN,'_, EASTBOUND 0.00 9(:) 20 WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 h•.I NORTHBOUND ----•- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 9s ? 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 i) 0 WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10--2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL OAF' MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0. 00 5 . 5c MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0. _C) 5.0(--) MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 0.00 6. 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...:,.. rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2/ 15/?0 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL —OF —SERVICE POTEN— ACTUAL FLOW-- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pc ph) c (pc ph) c (pc ph) c (pc ph) c = c v O' p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SEA LEFT 6 696 692 > 692 > 687 > A > 897 > 675 >p, RIGHT 17 994 994 > 994 > 978 > A MAJOR STREET E$ LEFT 9 998 998 998 990 i IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE:T.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2 / 15/90 ; FM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page --'- IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------------------ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 10 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15000(:i NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET.....,.... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD C NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2:/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED INTERSECTION) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------- EB WD NB SB LEFT 28 128 -- 5_. THRU 145 73 RIGHT 74 40 -- 27 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WD NB Sri LAICIES 1 1 -_ 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page..-.r] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERCEINT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS(f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 n(:) 2ij N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 2() N NORTHBOUND ----- --- ---- - SOU..ri-lB OUND 0.00 qci 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES % MJTORC`•(CLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUNE 0 c_ CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL ( Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0 . 0(i 5. 5C MAJOR LEFTS EB 5. 0� i 5.00 0. 00 5. 0i i MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION !NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 (NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ... 2! 15!` 0 4 AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES -• 1997 — PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) z (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 58 664 652 RIGHT 30 995 995 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 31 998 998 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 652 > 593 > A > 738 > 650 >A > 995 > 966 > A 998 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 967 A 1985 HCN : UNS IGNAL I ZED I NTERSECT I ONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AV'`RAGE RUNNING SPEED. MAJOR STREET.. r--'EA K HOUR IF ACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... i00 150000 NAME OF THE EAST"/WEST STREET......... rt 657 tNAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD C NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND 2/15/9(-; DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 199' — PROPOSED ' INTERSECTIONd TYPE AND CONTROL ' INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST ' CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUN.J : STOP SIGN TRAFFICVOLUMES ' E-- SB ---- ---- ----- LEFT _39 128 - — 45 THRU 172 168 RIGHT 74 81 -- 47 NUMBER OF LANES ._..-_..---------...--------------------------_ ----.------------------...---..----------..__....._........ ELF WB NB LPL{' ADJUSTMENT _____________________________________________________________________ FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND _______ __________ 0.00 90 ________________ 20 -------------------- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S ___________ _____________ VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES -------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 � CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TA8ULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIS7. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 MINOR LEFTS ' SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED | CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ------ MINOR STREET SB LEFT 50 547 532 RIGHT 52 882 882 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 43 938 938 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 532 > 482 > A > 667 > 566 >A > 882 > 830 > A 938 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN -LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 896 A 1985 HCM : UNS I GNAL I :QED INTERSECTIONS Page--'_ IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 0 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 1500� i0 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD D NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC. VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB WB ND SB LEFT 45 128 -- 62 THRU 111 90 0 RIGHT 74 25 -- 112 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB 5E5 LANES [i Ll i] ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S _____________ VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND ___________ 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTH�OUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SD 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE P ge -!-7 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FOTL• N- ACTUAL FLOW- T I AL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c v LO' p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 68 670 650 RIGHT 123 992 992 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 50 998 998 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 650 > 582 . r > 836 > 644 >A . 992 > 869 > A 998 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2i15/?0 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES - 1997 •- PROPOSED 948 f? 1935 HCM : UN`,. I GNAL- I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-.'-. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD D NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED INTERSECTION TYPE AND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 149 128 -- 55 TI-Ii;U 156 121 - RIGHT 74 83 -- 99 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pa.ON_ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCEN I- RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE' GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9C? 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 1\1 NORTHBOUND ----- ---- --- — SOUTHBOUND � i. i 0 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITIOra ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND WESTBOUND i) -, NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table .1 0-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0. 00 5. 50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 0. 00 6. 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2 / 15 / 90 R PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — PROPOSED 19G5 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT ****************************************************** 'Al ******************� N� INTERSECTION. .RT 7/ROAD A AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST, ......HARTLAND DATE .....'....2/15/90 TIME .......... AM PEAK COMMENT ....... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED N� VOLUMES : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB N� LT 0 91 153 TH 1093 570 0 0 : T 12.0 L 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 L 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 RT 68 0 224 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12'0 12.0 RR 20 0 70 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.012.0 12.0 N� GRADE HV ADJ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 0 0.90 0 0 N 11.3 N 11.3 3 3 N� NB 0.n0 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.G 3 N� m� __________________________________________________________________________ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGT� = 69.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 N� EB LT TH' X NB LT TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT N� TH X X TH RT RT N� PD GREEN 10.0 30.0 PD 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 N� LEVEL OF SERVICE U� LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.784 0.435 14.6 B 14.1 B R 0.04q 0.725 0� WB L 0.031 0.623 3.8 A 4.4 A T 0.285 0.623 4.5 A N� NB L 0.387 R 0.259 0.290 15.2 0.435 9.5 C B B INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.503 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT *************************************************************************� INTERSECTION. RT 7/ROAD A N� AREA TYPE ..... OTHER i� ANALYST ........ HARTLAND DATE ............ /15/90 TIME .......... PM PEAK N� COMMENT ....... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY N� w� EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 297 136 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 12.0 N� TH 686 1240 0 RT 200 0 198 0 : T 12.0 T 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 1271 12.0 12.O ~~ RR 60 0 60 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 N� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE -Ill Y/N PKG BUSES PHF Nm Nb PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. Y/N min T TYPE EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 3 N� WB 0.00 2.00 N NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 0 90 0. 0 0 N 11.3 N 25'8 3 3 ~� SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 -------------------- ' --------- -------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 74.0 N� w� PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X N� TH X RT X TH RT X N� PD PD WB LT X X SB LT TH X X TH N� RT RT PD PD N� GREEN 15.0 30.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N� LANE GRP. V/C LEVEL OF SERVICE G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB T 0.528 0.405 12.9 B 11.3 B R 0.152 0.676 WB L 0.173 0.649 3.9 A 5.6 B N� T 0.596 0.649 6.0 B NB L 0.369 0.270 16.9 C 12.8 B R 0'214 0'473 8.7 B N� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 8.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.531 LOS = 8 ADDENDUM TO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LAKES prepared for LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1700 Diagional Suite 200 Alexandria ,Virginia 22314 prepared by CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 160 Reston, Virginia 22091 April 4, 1990 CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (PC: ph> c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 61 514 456 RIGHT 1O9 929 929 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 164 981 981 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 456 > 395 > B > 678 > 509 >A > 929 > 820 > A 981 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 817 A u 1 u TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. iii INTRODUCTION................................................1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................ 1 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ................................... 4 EXISTING ZONING SCENARIO .................................. 6 PROPOSED ZONING SCENARIO .................................. 8 CONCLUSION ................................................ 10 APPENDIX..................................................... ll LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1. Existing Conditions 2. Background 1997 Conditions 3. Build 1997 - Existing Zoning Plus Background 4. Build 1997 - Proposed Zoning Plus Background iii Page No. 3 5 7 9 INTRODUCTION Based on comments from Frederick County, further analysis of the impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development along Senseny Road west of the site into the City of Winchester ' is required. The purpose of this addendum to the Twin Lakes Traffic Study is to quantify the traffic impacts of the proposed development further along Senseny Road. The information provided in the technical addendum is based upon the 'Traffic Impact Analysis of Twin Lakes', by Callow Associates, Inc., dated March 6, 1990. Corresponding additions to the traffic analysis are shown in this addendum. The following two locations were specified by the County as desirable locations for further study: Senseny Road and Greenwood Road, and Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road. The analysis will cover peak hour turning movements as well as link average daily traffic (ADT) along Senseny Road. It is noted here that Senseny Road is currently on the six -year major road improvement schedule for Frederick County dated 10/25/89. The existing conditions, background conditions, trip assignment and traffic impacts for the additional locations along Senseny Road are shown as follows. The methodology and study assumptions follow the same methodology and assumptions as the base traffic study dated March 6, 1990. EXISTING CONDITIONS Refer to base traffic study for methodology and assumptions. Peak hour traffic counts were taken during March 1990 at the following locations: o Route 657 (Senseny Road) and Route 656 (Greenwood Road) o Senseny Road (Cork Road) and Pleasant Valley Road These traffic volumes for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours reflecting existing conditions are shown on Figure 1. Peak hour as well as ADT volumes are shown. The Appendix contains the traffic count summary sheets for the existing conditions. 1 i Traffic operations for existing conditions at each intersection were analyzed, based upon existing counts, traffic control devices and roadway geometries. The result of this analysis provided level of service (LOS). Briefly, level of services ranges from 'A' - free flow condition to 'F' - forced flow conditions. The Appendix contains detailed descriptions of these levels taken from the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analysis was performed at the two intersections for A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Figure 1 also shows the lane geometry and level of service results for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The following is a summary of the existing capacity analysis results: The intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road is currently unsignalized. The intersection operates at level of service 'B' or better for all critical movements for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The relatively light traffic is due to the rural nature of the area. The intersection of Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road is currently signalized. The intersection operates at level of service 'B' for the A.M. peak hour and 'C' for the P.M. peak hour. 2 w 0 .� C5 — O if J Pns Q On d8�7�Z� Cxxx) — ARC i Arn(mv) - peak �)O" r D U 3� UnsIy'\Ck 1 -2cA A (f�) j�,�A(A) A (A) -4 r A (5) 5 ATE �3,813� l \ CALLOW �� c r.�� (o., , i,o✓�s ASSOCIATES INC. NoT To SCALE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ' Refer to base traffic study for methodology and assumptions. Figure 2 shows the expected background traffic, for study year 1997. These background volumes represent conditions in 1997, without the development of the Twin Lakes site. Peak hour and ADT volumes are shown. Capacity analysis was performed at the two intersections for A.M. and P.M. peak hour ' conditions. Figure 2 also shows the lane geometry and level of service results for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The following is a summary of the background 1997 capacity ' analysis results: ' The intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road is currently unsignalized, however the northbound and southbound left turns will operate at level of service 'D'. Since level of service 'D' is unacceptable in Frederick ' County the intersection will warrant signalization in order for acceptable level of service 'C' to occur. Therefore, the intersection was assumed to be signalized. This signalization improvement is warranted for the future 1997 background condition without the development of Twin Lakes. The ' intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, signalized. The intersection of Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road is currently ' signalized. The intersection will operate at level of service 'F' for this future background condition without improvements. Therefore, northbound and southbound left turn lanes were included in the analyses. With these added lanes the intersection will operate at acceptable level of service 'C' or better. rThis lane geometry improvement is warranted for the future 1997 background 11 11 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i Ln � r� ! c U -- o a >(�/- s 41 Oz9 (2V3) 40 - v CXXX� — ALT - \ CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. Sicy�a )'.1-7 eA LoJ_ L(c) -AIL IAL S PnS �n o,� J d �3) )93) D 3 n 6)zb)) +qo�, S�`:l'\QeJ A-r * 1ro-\�c<,verye\4 — see + e x 4 FiIvre gfojr,d 1`l`Ai- Cc, oc% NOT To SCALE condition without the development of Twin Lakes. The intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for the A.M. peak hour and 'C' for the P.M. peak hour. EXISTING ZONING SCENARIO Refer to base traffic study for methodology and assumptions. Callow Associates performed capacity analysis at two off -site locations as follows: o Senseny Road and Greenwood Road o Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road The analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition of existing zoning plus background traffic for the year 1997. The projected traffic volumes and resulting level of service and lane geometry are shown on Figure 3. The following narrative describes level of service conditions that would be observed for this analysis and assuming the lane geometry shown on Figure 3 at each intersection. The lane geometry reflects the intersection geometry as required in the background scenario. No new improvements are warranted by the addition of Twin Lakes development traffic. o Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will warrant signalization without Twin Lakes development traffic - see background section. For this scenario the intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, signalized. o Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road is currently signalized. The intersection will warrant lane addition improvements without Twin Lakes development traffic - see background Z J I )nck cA LE) D 3n SITE 4 Q y� L Sin N s h Z03-031) C z.y (Zs) C3,aiO(� (z3ro ) 53 (Ioy) Ci1xx) - ADT �l Jc'e CoC ,�O�rG PPgk 1-loor NOT To SCALE ACALLOW 3 ASSOCIATES INC. section. For this scenario the intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for the A.M. peak hour and 'C' for the P.M. peak hour. Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in the Appendix. PROPOSED ZONING SCENARIO Refer to base traffic study for methodology and assumptions. Callow Associates performed capacity analysis at two off -site locations as follows: o Senseny Road and Greenwood Road o Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road The analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition of proposed zoning plus background traffic for the year 1997. The projected traffic volumes and resulting level of service and lane geometry are shown on Figure 4. The following narrative describes level of service conditions that would be observed for this analysis and assuming the lane geometry shown on Figure 4 at each intersection. The lane geometry reflects the intersection geometry as required in the background only scenario. No new improvements are warranted by the addition to Twin Lakes development traffic. o Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will warrant signalization without Twin Lakes development traffic - see background section. For this scenario the intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, signalized. E:3 I %o Los = C(c) L .r r JPns o�Jls �95j Si9ha I teCA Lo = r3 (r!) ^sc w N —287 (z/&) L lD C 33(y/) he��oa w, c� x x) - AD i ice bGck�rov�d� Seci',�� F,gVfe >=� NOT 'To SCAL-e A I CALLOW F,�)vrc- 4 ?oposeol o�„nc�Ivs b�ck��dvr�d ASSOCIATES INC. o Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road is currently signalized. The intersection will warrant lane addition improvements without Twin Lakes development traffic - see background section. For this scenario the intersection will operate at level of service 'C' for both the A.M. and the P.M. peak hours. Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in the Appendix. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Twin Lakes development on the two intersections and corresponding sections of Senseny Road are minimal. At a background condition without any traffic from the Twin Lakes development, the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will require signalization, and the intersection of Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road will require additional lane capacity. Again, these improvements are not warranted by the addition of Twin Lakes development traffic to background conditions. At the proposed zoning scenario, Twin Lakes traffic is approximately 20 percent of the A.M. and 25 percent of the P.M. peak hour total intersection traffic, at Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. At the intersection of Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road, Twin Lakes development traffic is approximately 5 percent in the A.M. and 7 percent in the P.M. peak hour, of the total intersection traffic. 10 APPENDIX C I INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is presented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS At an unsignalized intersection the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a Stop or Yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left - turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps, is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analyses in this report, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor - trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for unsignalized intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The capacity of a movement is calculated (in terms of vehicles per hour - VPH) and then compared with the demand. The difference is the "reserve capacity." The level of service is then based on the amount of reserve capacity left over: 1 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Reserve Level of Expected Delay Capacity Service . to Minor Street Traffic >_ 400 vph A . Little or. no :delay. 300-399 vph B . Short traffic delays. 200-299 vph C. Average traffic delays. . 100-199 vph D Long traffic- delays.. 0- 99 vph E Very long traffic delays. negative F Demand exceeds capacity, extremely long delay. ' SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the ' signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. Calculations of both capacity and delay are based on empirical data, therefore some situations may not fit the theoretical formulas. For example in signal systems with good progression, it is often possible to show a v/c ratio greater than 1.0 (demand exceeds capacity), but at the same time, correctly calculate delay values in the acceptable 'C' or 'D' range. In this report all default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optimal" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is 60 seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Stopped Delay Service per Vehicle (sec) A <_ 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0... . F > 60.0 .. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This level is the theoretical maximum capacity of the intersection. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. 'Ll �e 57 - Joo Number; 5378 F R;.1: L^ca::cn WINCME5IER Cace 4l2/9� :av: MCN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- F;oM 5�:;?H : �: TRAFFIC FROM WEST T�:h=�li FRJM EAE -+-------+--- = E 6L.- RCU'c p57 RNT_ 657 TOTAL _---------------------- --- ---- :------------------------------ ---------------------- �5, Tire -4- {;5., _ _E� .. T 7�11 " -E;. TMn RiSh' I11 ._;T �F: E:uhT TC?A, E b M F'erioc ------- ----------------------------------------- ------- ------ --- -------------------- --------------------- ----+----------- AM r .Q` 4 36 76 6:30-6:45 7 7 a .0 is 4 23 60 6:4J-7:.. 15 ' : 0 b _ 4 Q 9 1.'` 14 6 33 J 1S 25 ' 73 ; 7:00-1:15 1 6 2 1` S 5 1 i. 1: c 'i i _C 8 29 99 7:15-7:7O l0 t'� v 34 8 42 1(3 7:30-7:45 9 9 :? i7 16- 6 1: 39 `,4 ._: 7:45-S:G0 ':15 9 1 16 = 9 :6 15 S 9 32 5 29 9 43 107 i 8:00-8:15 9 9 2 4 1 i; 15 7 1i 34 4 1 8 43 114 8:15-8:30 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-------+----------- i8 13 :» 14 43 41 4,!26 1..'7 7 B` 21 11:, 2 :4 .. : 50 4` 46 :4 115 Q 9;� :5 115 K4 6:45-7:45 29 :0 Q ° `» 45 :4 1:S il�t 31 1rf) 8t 7; ' 35 _5 6: `- 39 ;t ?- it i-� 3` :S 4 /:15 S ` = _______________________________________________________________ 37 26 5 6 :5 41 a6 -. :3 31 . 35 182 ; 446 :30-8:30 r' c _ Q 4 ------- --- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 ' .. 7 441 174 J._ cc n 11 11 IHIC-'E TURNINS MOVEMENT COUNT - SUMMAR+ CALLOW ASSOCIATES. INC. Name cork Job Number `, o ,le te•se:t' PLICASANT JI=-`- f 4i Location . ^v JJP Date 4 Div: -------«'---------------_--_-----------:---:_-----------------------------_-----------------------------f-------+----------- ' watner w:- TFF :_ :M VCRT1 TRAFFIC FRLM i:�_' - =!C =ROM EAST or,: PLE%+S " -ALLEY �;7: TOTAL 1 te,ici :h1c ---------------------- ----- ----- ----- --- ----- ---- -- --------- ---------- '4.S, ;^ T ,e 1 L �T T HR; T G1(iN, T T ,O,A. F- -cr] TaF ',T _ 1• r -cF yFt it r q c� .:.;� LEFT TNR,; niuriT TJTHL E 6 N ; Period ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------- 44 9 11 4 24 1: 12 7 i:' 6:30-6:45 =--:Ci% - sy. 6 4j " 7 i2 s .. :. :' 6 " ; 1 2 6:45-1:00 i:1-7:15 ; 15-1:30 ; 5 4' T? _� 13 6: BB 4 5 `: 63 6 10 __ ?'? 6 9 11 16 5 20 50 is 1 1 4.� 4 11 26 ; 67 173 263 ; 7:0-1:15 7:15-7:30 ..?-7:4 ; :0 49 14 73 7 6 14 83 17 22 B 47 7:2 36 1 78 281 ; 7:30-1:45 4`-2:00 ; 19 50 -)4 9: is 85 i? 106 1: 42 8 63 71 68 ;_ 16 ; 4Z" _ 1:45-8:00 -E:: 24 i a 6B B( 1° It, 44> B:0?-8:15 5: 35 6 54 37 51 9 9i.; 1 8:15-8.30 -__----+----`---i=------------------`'-----------------------'----`-'----------------------q--------------+---------------..] i- __.. `? 1'.%C __ i_] iYY O:4S-7.45 1 ,= 1.l! ± 5 li •': 5' `,3 �q L' '= ,a y, - i 2• 06 4 c. .`y+ 45 55 �fl 124 2''r i; l�l! �`- '�` L E�? 1 1415 !:ilV':.'U 7:15-9:15 .._ ._. 34 298 56 -_y ;8; = 140 29 226 214 2:`,. 50 499 1473 ;:30-6:30 1 , 14 � PMy It ------- ----------------------------- --+- --------------------------------------------------------------------------+----------- »Itdt e=' B• 16 15: �.. Py LOB 1?32 ±.45-`:45 69 ` : :�` __ L:a, 1'.{ `a? :6 162 `__ '•4 _ ,.' a4 :15 i:(9 _:? -- _ : :It 4 LL _ 'PPP 71 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4:. i-_ 12_ 1.. _ :0:-6 0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... RTE. 656 NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. DOG DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 04/03/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB ---- WB ---- NB SB ---- ---- LEFT 60 15 37 10 THRU 33 132 26 15 RIGHT 37 35 5 41 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---------------------------- LANES 2 2 2 2 LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R ADJUSTMENT --------------------------------------------------------------------- FACTORS Rage-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE ------- ---------- FOR RIGHT TURNS ---------------- FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 ----------------- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF' -------------- MINOR RIGHTS --------- ----------- ------------ NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WEB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 SB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... RTE. 656 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 04/03/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Rage-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------------------------------------------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 45 509 456 > 500 456 > 423 411 >A A THROUGH 32 615 579 > 579 > 547 > A RIGHT 6 998 998 998 992 A MINOR STREET SB LEFT 12 531 482 > 536 482 > 505 470 >A A THROUGH 18 615 578 578 > 560 > A RIGHT 50 995 995 995 945 A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 73 905 905 905 832 A WB LEFT 18 996 996 996 978 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... RTE. 656 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 04/03/90 ; AM REAP, OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... RTE. 656 NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. DRG DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 04/03/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TYPE AND ---------------------------------------------------------- CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---- ---- LEFT 52 ---- 16 ---- 55 40 THRU 151 84 29 27 RIGHT 69 24 13 16 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ---------------------------- LANES 2 2 2 2 LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R ADJUSTMENT FACTORS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- EASTBOUND 0.00 ---------- 90 ---------------- 20 ----------------- N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES X MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) -------------- VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAF, MINOR RIGHTS -------- ----------- ------------ NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 SB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... RTE. 656 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 04/03/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------------------------------------------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 67 468 422 > 454 422 > 351 355 >B B THROUGH 35 559 530 > 530 > 494 > A RIGHT 16 972 972 972 956 A MINOR STREET SB LEFT 49 452 408 > 445 408 > 363 359 >B B THROUGH 33 542 514 > 514 > 481 > A RIGHT 20 997 997 997 977 A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 64 974 974 974 910 A WB LEFT 20 846 846 846 826 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... RTE. 656 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 04/03/90 ; PM PEAT. OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAT. COMMENT....... EXISTING CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 58 214 68 34 : L 10.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 140 235 210 298 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 28 50 82 56 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.3 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.3 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD WB LT X TH RT PD GREEN 8.0 YELLOW 3.0 -------------- LANE GRP. EB L TR ' WB L TR NB LTR SB LTR ' INTERSECTION: II 11 PD X SB LT X X TH X X RT X PD 26.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 ------------------------------------------------------------ LEVEL OF SERVICE V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. L 0 S 0.052 0.411 12.1 B 17.7 C 0.372 0.289 19.6 C 0.048 0.411 12.1 B 18.3 C 0.632 0.289 23.0 C 0.241 0.522 8.9 B 8.9 B 0.335 0.400 14.3 B 14.3 B Delay = 14.9 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.34E LOS = B 11 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... EXISTING CONDITIONS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY ER WB NB SB : EH WB NB SB LT 126 128 69 73 : L 10.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 162 103 552 410 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 52 84 145 105 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.60 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.3 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.3 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X Rr X RT X PD PD GREEN 8.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY ARP. LOS EB L 0.052 0.411 12.1 B 17.5 C TR 0.479 0.289 20.7 C WB L 0.048 0.411 12.1 B 16.9 C TR 0.433 0.269 20.2 C NB LTR 0.500 0.522 10.8 B 10.8 B SB LTR 0.709 0.400 19.0 C 19.0 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.459 LOS = C I 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYRE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 90 23 56 15 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 50 198 39 23 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 56 53 8 62 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF REDS RED. BUT. ARR. TYRE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WE 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LT 0.228 0.490 5.7 B 5.6 B R 0.079 0.490 5.2 B WB LT 0.266 0.490 5.8 B 5.7 B R 0.075 0.490 5.2 B NB LT 0.154 0.392 7.6 B 7.6 B R 0.014 0.392 7.2 B SB LT 0.059 0.392 7.3 B 7.4 B R 0.110 0.392 7.5 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.216 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ' SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 78 24 83 60 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 227 126 44 41 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 104 36 20 92 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.6 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD FID WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS ARP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L1 0.384 0.490 6.4 B 6.1 B R 0.147 0.490 5.4 B WE LT 0.205 0.490 5.o B 5.5 B R 0.051 0.490 5.2 B NB LT 0.241 0.392 8.0 B 7.9 B R 0.035 0.392 7.3 B SB LT 0.178 0.392 7.7 B 7.7 B R 0.163 0.392 7.7 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.320 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SR LT 87 321 102 51 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 210 353 315 447 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 42 75 123 84 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 14.7 B TR 0.470 0.325 16.2 C WB L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 17.9 C TR 0.800 0.325 23.6 C NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 11.7 B TR 0.347 0.390 12.7 B SB L 0.051 0.566 7.3 B 12.6 B TR 0.412 0.390 13.1 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.469 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE.....OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SR : EB WB NB SB LT 189 192 104 110 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 243 155 828 615 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 78 126 218 158 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 15.1 C TR 0.606 0.325 18.0 C WB L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 14.4 B TR 0.548 0.325 17.1 C NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 17.9 C TR 0.819 0.390 18.9 C SB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 13.9 B TR 0.605 0.390 14.8 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.573 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION -ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME. .......AM PEAK COMMENT.., ..BUILD - 1997 EXISTING ZONING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 90 24 56 16 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 53 205 39 23 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 56 55 8 62 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LT 0.235 0.490 5.7 B 5.6 B R 0.079 0.490 5.2 B WB LT 0.276 0.490 5.9 B 5.7 B R 0.078 0.490 5.2 B NB LT 0.154 0.392 7.6 B 7.6 B R 0.014 0.392 7.2 B SB LT 0.061 0.392 7.3 B 7.4 B R 0.110 0.392 7.5 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.222 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 78 25 83 62 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 236 131 44 41 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 104 37 21 92 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LT 0.396 0.490 6.4 B 6.2 B R 0.147 0.490 5.4 B WB LT 0.215 0.490 5.7 B 5.6 B R 0.052 0.490 5.2 B NB LT 0.242 0.392 8.0 B 7.9 B R 0.037 0.392 7.3 B SB LT 0.182 0.392 7.7 B 7.7 B R 0.163 0.392 7.7 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.327 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD 1997 - EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 87 324 102 51 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 212 356 315 447 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 42 76 124 84 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 8 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.8 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PY.G BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 FAH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X F'D PD WB LT X X 3-B LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X F'D FID GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS AFIP. DELAY AFIP. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 14.7 B TR 0.474 0.325 16.3 r_ WB L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 18.1 C TR 0.807 0.325 24.0 C NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 11.7 B TR 0.348 0.390 12.7 B SB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 12.6 B TR 0.412 0.390 13.1 B ---------- --------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.472 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SR LT 189 194 104 112 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 247 157 828 615 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 78 127 221 158 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ VIKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 ED LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X F'D PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X F'D PD GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS ARP. DELAY APP. LOS ED L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 15.2 C TR 0.613 0.325 18.1 C WD L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 14.4 B TR 0.554 0.325 17.2 C NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 18.0 C TR 0.821 0.390 19.0 C SB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 13.9 B TR 0.605 0.390 14.8 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECiION: Delay = 15.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.576 LOS = C 11 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 90 33 56 27 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 87 287 39 23 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 56 76 14 62 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T ED 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED LT 0.322 0.490 6.1 B 5.9 B R 0.079 0.490 5.2 B WB LT 0.386 0.490 6.4 B 6.2 B R 0.108 0.490 5.3 B NB LT 0.156 0.392 7.6 B 7.6 B R 0.025 0.392 7.2 B SB LT 0.082 0.392 7.4 B 7.4 B R 0.110 0.392 7.5 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.284 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 78 41 83 96 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 360 216 44 41 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 104 61 33 92 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T ED 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED LT 0.575 0.490 7.8 B 7.3 B R 0.147 0.490 5.4 B WB LT 0.406 0.490 6.5 B 6.3 B R 0.086 0.490 5.3 B NB LT 0.261 0.392 6.0 B 7.9 B R 0.058 0.392 7.3 B SB LT 0.256 0.392 8.0 B 7.9 B R 0.163 0.392 7.7 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 7.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.435 LOS = B I 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 87 359 102 56 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 230 395 315 447 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 42 84 135 84 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 80.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 4.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.073 0.436 9.9 B 14.4 B TR 0.470 0.350 15.8 C WE L 0.068 0.438 9.9 B 18.4 C TR 0.830 0.350 24.7 C NB L 0.053 0.487 8.2 B 12.8 B TR 0.371 0.375 13.9 B SB L 0.053 0.487 8.2 B 13.7 B TR 0.428 0.375 14.3 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.501 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EH WB NB SB : ER WB NB SB LT 189 228 104 135 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 300 185 828 615 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 78 150 269 158 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARK. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY API,. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 16.9 C TR 0.710 0.325 20.2 L" WB L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 15.4 C TR 0.653 0.325 18.9 C NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 19.6 C TR 0.863 0.390 20.8 C SB L 0.235 0.506 8.2 B 13.8 B TR 0.605 0.390 14.8 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 16.8 (see/veh) V/C = 0.651 LOS = C 'Imp p act Analysis S t a t e m e n t 1 1..................................... TWIN LAKES Frederic,( County, Virginia Final ' March 6, 1990 (Revised March 27, 1990) Prepared For Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Trarssporation Planners Table of Contents Page ExecutiveSummary.............................................................................................................1 1.0 Project Background.............................................................................................................3 1.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................3 1.2 Location........................................................................................................................3 1.3 Zoning and Land Use................................................................................................4 1.4 Site Suitability ..............................................................................................................5 1.4.1 Landform........................................................................................................5 1.4.2 Vegetation.......................................................................................................5 1.4.3 Soils..................................................................................................................6 1.4.4 Views................................................................................................................6 1.4.5 Hydrology.......................................................................................................7 2.0 Development Plan................................................................................................................8 3.0 Impact Analysis..................................................................................................................10 3.1 Environmental Impacts...........................................................................................10 3.1.1 Vegetation/Wildlife....................................................................................10 3.1.2 Soils/Geology...............................................................................................11 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality ..........................................................................11 3.1.4 Air Quality ....................................................................................................12 3.1.5 Drainage........................................................................................................12 3.2 Utility Systems Impact.............................................................................................13 3.2.1 Sewage Conveyance....................................................................................13 3.2.2 Water Supply................................................................................................15 3.2.3 Solid Waste Disposal..................................................................................16 3.3 Community Facilities...............................................................................................17 3.3.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities.........................................17 3.3.2 Historic Sites................................................................................................17 3.3.3 Education Facilities.................................................................................:...18 3.3.4 Libraries . ..19 3.3.5 Emergency Services....................................................................................20 ' 4.0 Fiscal Impact......................................................................................................................21 4.1 Demographic Estimates..........................................................................................21 ' 4.2 4.3 Capital Impacts..........................................................................................................22 Revenue Projections.................................................................................................23 4.4 Capital Contributions...............................................................................................26 4.5 Short -Term Impacts.................................................................................................27 Addendum.........................................................................................................................34 1 Twin Lakes 0 Impact Analysis. .Statement List of Figures Figu re RegionalLocation Map.....................................................................................................................1.1 SurroundingProperties.....................................................................................................................1.2 Site Analysis SewerService Area.............................................................................................................................3.1 UtilitiesPlan.........................................................................................................................................3.-? Community Facilities ' O.n � I � I � I I I I I Twin Lakes Impact-Anay.sis .Statement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following Impact Analysis Statement has been prepared for the Twin Lakes development as required by Frederick County for the rezoning application of the property. The Development Plan includes a residential community proposed within the RP Residential Performance District and a small support retail center proposed within the B-2 Business General District zones. The program proposed for this development includes approximately 1200 residential units and 35,000 square feet of retail space. An open space system of approximately 115 acres provides passive and active recreational space to this community which is organized around the centrally located lakes. A major collector road serves both this new community and the surrounding areas, linking Senseny Road to Route 7. Located within the Frederick County Urban Development Area, this project is an important component of planned residential growth in the County. Assembling approximately 400 acres, the project provides an opportunity for the application of sound comprehensive planning principles and sets high standards for the future development of this area of Frederick County. This site is part of the growth area designated by Frederick County for a number of reasons, including the suitability of this land for development, current land use patterns and availability of utility services. Our analysis of environmental and physical components of this site indicates that there is great opportunity for development within a framework that respects and incorporates existing natural systems. The development of Twin Lakes provides numerous benefits to the greater Frederick County community. Some of these benefits are less easily quantified, such as the aesthetic contributions of well planned project that fits into the landscape and into the fabric of the residential community of the County. Other benefits are readily numerated. These include direct benefits in County revenue, employment and income. 1 1 Twin Lakes Impact Analysis.. -Statement At the full build -out of Twin Lakes, County revenues are projected to total approximately $1.9 million, including: $990,000 per year in Residential Real Property taxes. $743,750 per year in Residential Personal Property taxes. $169,336 per year in Frederick County's portion of state sales taxes. These revenues are estimated to be approximately 35% above the County average on a per -household basis. The additional revenues and potential capital contributions offered by the project would offset the increased demand for schools and recreational facilities that can be attributed to the proposed development. The support retail area will provide 88 permanent on -site jobs and the capital expenditures will provide 1,140 annual jobs throughout the area during the construction phase. The proposed population, having an income projected to be approximately 33% higher than the County average, will contribute nearly $17 million to the local economy in retail sales and services annually. A proposed major collector road will provide a vital transportation link to the County at a cost to the developer of at least $2 million. This connection of Senseny Road to Route 7 will eliminate the current need for the County to improve Greenwood Road. The Twin Lakes plan takes full advantage of the existing natural features of the site, develops a community of neighborhoods that are visually and physically linked by an open space network and provides services to the residents and to the greater Frederick County area. The developers, planners and designers of this project confidently submit this Impact Analysis Statement for review and look forward to the opportunity to develop this site with the approval of Frederick County. 2 I li 1 I L� Twin Lakes. 1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND 1.1 Introduction Impact An.aly;s.is Statement The Twin Lakes project is approximately a 400-acre site located in eastern Frederick County, Virginia, and falls within the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. Loggia Development Corporation is proposing to develop this property as a residential neighborhood with a neighborhood center that includes support retail, a possible school site and a park for the residential community. The purpose of this document is to provide an assessment of the impacts and benefits to Frederick County which results from development of the Twin Lakes residential community. These impacts and benefits are discussed in accordance with the Impact Analysis Statement as required by Frederick County for a rezoning application. For purposes of this analysis, impacts have been assessed for a development of 1200 dwelling units. The property is currently zoned Rural. The rezoning application for this site will request rezoning approximately 394 acres to RP -Residential Performance District and 6 acres to B-2 Business General District. The Development Plan which illustrates the rezoning intent appears in Section 3.0 of this report. 1.2 Location and Access The 400-acre Twin Lakes property is located in eastern Frederick County. It is bounded to the east by the Opequon Creek, to the south by Senseny Road, and to the north by Route 7. The City of Winchester is two miles west and can be accessed from the property by Senseny Road and Route 7. Interstate 81 runs north -south just to the east of the City of Winchester and can be accessed from Route 7 (see Figure 1.1). 3 Twi:n:.;..Lakes • Impact Analysis Statement ' Location Map Figure 1.1 TWIN LAKES Frederick CountY. Virginia Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. C; ivil Engineers John Callow Associates Tran_sporation Planners 0' 250' 750' 175010 LI I 1 Twin Lakes Ini.pac.t Aria.lys. s ,Statement 13 Zoning and Land Use Twin Lakes is located within the "Urban Development Area" as designated by Frederick County, which encompasses the City of Winchester and areas adjacent to the city to the north, south and east. This development area is intended for more intensive development based on current land use, suitability of land for development and existing and planned sewage facilities. Recently, several of the parcels within this area were rezoned for residential and commercial uses with several other parcels in the planning stages for development. The remaining parcels, including the Twin Lakes Property, are zoned Rural, but due to their inclusion in the Urban Development Area, it is anticipated these parcels will be rezoned for residential and commercial uses. The current status of the parcels surrounding Twin Lakes include two parcels to the south, Apple Ridge and Bedford Village which are being developed as residential subdivisions, and a third which has already been rezoned for residential development. The adjoining parcels directly east of the property are still zoned rural although some of the parcels along Greenwood Road (Route 656) and Valley Mill Road (Route 659) have been rezoned and being developed as residential subdivisions. (See Figure 1.2) Adjoining the property directly to the north is a sewage treatment facility operated by the Frederick County Sewage Authority. This is a new facility and will service development occurring in this part of the County. Historically, the Twin Lakes property has been used for agriculture uses including pasture and cultivated crops. A large section through the center of the property has remained wooded due to steep slopes and poor farming soils. The remainder of the site includes a large central lake and several smaller ponds and streams running through the property. 4 1 Twit Lakes 0 Impact Analysis Statentent T 1 P k y Sewage Treatm ens, <y Facility, 3s ^Y Rural ' . q, .a R O • ;�J o was 002000 Planned 10 Residential 1 i � �„r� .rrn.>•■ a lI T Eo• . . p' Planned l� Rur� " Residential ale Apple Ridge As. l$adford " Village s e n s yGr l0r nt TWIN LAKES v1 Frederick County, Virginia BU4".4-4 �$' 4 Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation #„Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. _ Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers Jolan Callow Associates Transporation Planners Surrounding Properties Figure 1.2 0' 250' 750' 1750' 0 1 � I n Twin Lakes Site Suitability 1.4.1 Landform • Impact Analysis Statement Twin Lakes is located along the western edge of the Opequon Creek. This area is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills with steep slopes along the Opequon Creek and other waterways which feed into the Opequon. The site is characteristic of the varied topography found in this region. The southern and northern section of the property are generally flat to gently rolling with steeper slopes occurring along the Opequon in the northern section. The central section of the property is characterized by gently to steeply rolling hills which define the central lake and waterways. Figure 1.3 provides a site analysis map which identifies steep slopes in two categories: slopes 15-25% and slopes 25% and greater. According to this analysis, approximately 10% the falls of site within the 15-25% category and approximately 7% of the site falls within 25% and greater category with the remainder of the property falling into 0-15% Icategory which is highly suitable for development. The varying topography in effect, provides a naturally occurring parcelization of the site into appropriately scaled neighborhood units. 1.4.2 Vegetation The Twin Lakes property contains a number of stands of mature vegetation which contribute significantly to the positive visual environment of the site. 47% of the overall Twin Lakes property is covered by mature vegetation. Because of the past agricultural uses of the property, this mature vegetation is concentrated in the central section corresponding to steeper slopes and areas less suited for agricultural use. 5 � 1 Twin Lakes •. Impact Ana.l,ys.i.s._ S.t.aitement This correlation of steeper slopes and vegetation provide the opportunity to provide naturally occurring buffer areas between the proposed development parcels (see figure 1.3). 1.4.3 Soils The following soils analysis is based on the Frederick County, Virginia Soil Survey, issued during January 1987. Frederick County is underlain by sedimentary rock with eastern Frederick characterized by shale and fine-grained sandstone. The general soil map for Frederick County indicates the Twin Lakes property falls within the Weikert- Berks-Blairton soils classification which is characterized by gentle to moderate slopes, shallow to moderate depth, and well -drained to poorly drained areas. Within the Twin Lakes property, the soils are generally moderately deep and moderately drained silt loam. A majority of the site is well suited for development with limitations for community development within a small percentage of the property. These limitations might be due to steep slopes, a seasonally high water table, and depth to bedrock. 1.4.4 Views The visual environment of Twin Lakes is a major contributor to the site's character and attractiveness. Views into the site occur mainly along the northern and southern sections of the site. These views indicate a gently rolling site with masses of vegetation along the edges. The central portion of the site provides interior views which are characterized by steep, heavily vegetated hillsides which define a lake and creek bed. Views off the site also occur along the northern and southern sections of the property. The views from the northern section include views to the west of surrounding residential properties and views northeast to Clarke County. The sewage treatment facility is only partially visible during winter months.. The views from the southern section of the site include views of the surrounding residential properties to the south, east and west (see figure 1.3). t � 6 Twin Lakes 1.4.5 Hydrology Impa.vt Ana _vsis Statement The property is located within two drainage areas of the Opequon Creek basin. The northwestern portion of the property drains into the Abrams Creek sub -basin and the southeastern portion drains into the Senseny area sub -basin. There is one stream which flows east to west on the property. It has been damed to form a 14 acre pond in the center of the site. Two other small ponds exist on the site along with several intermittent streams. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the Federal Insurance Administration have mapped the 100-year floodplain associated with the Opequon Creek. The floodplain only effects 3% of the Twin Lakes property as illustrated in Figure 1.3. 7 awrtx X. a es::I • lm act Analysis ,�tat�tnent L e g e n d Steep Slopes (15-25%) I Steep Slopes (>25%) Mature Vegetation Water Feature t F I o o d p I a i n View Point J" l Site Analysis Figure 1.3 It. o v T E 7 FO'r4/Wl l♦L i� SE.WAGS IVkZXTr+CNT / FAe I&.)-ry v1 I� feT 6 �4T(AL R•UTe 57 4ef'.Ar-1 vn(L TWIN LAKES Frederick County, Virginia Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Tramporation Planners 7L=Mmr� 1 0 0' 250' 750' 1750' <x ; 1 7 Twin Lakes Impact An.aly';si.s . S.t.ate.ment 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Twin Lakes development proposes a new residential community in the Senseny and Red Bud Run neighborhoods. This community is comprised of smaller residential neighborhoods which are defined by and follow the natural flow and form of the land. These residential neighborhoods are visually and physically linked by an open space system of lakes and greenways. A major collector road links the neighborhoods and provides connection from Senseny Road to Route 7. Attached at the back of this document is an illustration of the Development Plan and the intent of the design concept. A small Neighborhood Center is located along the major collector road within the northern quarter of the property. This area is characterized by an open landscape, flat topography and proximity to Route 7. The Neighborhood Center consists of a support retail component, residential areas, open space components and a potential school site, which collectively will provide a focus for the community. The park area within the neighborhood center provides a center green and also links into the overall open space network. The central section of the property contains several of the significant natural features of the property including the existing 14 acre pond, stands of mature hardwood trees, topographic variety and views of the pond and surrounding hillsides. The focus of residential neighborhoods in this portion of the development is the unique waterfront environment afforded by the expansion of the existing lake. Each neighborhood is sited to take advantage of views to the water bodies and the rolling topography. The southern section of the site, which is relatively level and open, will be developed into several residential neighborhoods. The open space network will link these parcels to the central amenity area. Entrances into the project and into each neighborhood will be identified as gateways by special landscape features, including walls or fences and more intensive planting. Twin Lakes fmp:a::ct Analysis Statement The suitability of the site affords the opportunity for developing between 1,200 and 1,400 housing units. The Twin Lakes community is expected to include approximately 60% single-family detached units and 40% townhomes, eventually reaching a population of approximately 2,800. A summary of the Land Account for the plan is presented along with the development plan attached at the back of this report. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ILI Twin Lakes 4 Impact Ana.l,y.sis Statement 3.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS This section evaluates the impacts of'fhe proposed Twin Lakes community relative to environmental concerns, public utility and community facility issues, and fiscal impacts. These impacts have been assessed for a development consisting of 1200 dwelling units. Mitigation measures related to the project's impact on the site and surrounding environment have also been identified. 3.1 Environmental Impacts 3.1.1 Vegetation/ Vildlife Impacts to vegetation will result from clearing required for road right-of-ways and construction of buildings. As required by the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, no more than 25% of the mature woodlands on the site will be disturbed. Vegetation on steep slopes and along waterways will be protected through sensitive site planning to help minimize erosion and impacts to water quality. (See Sections 3.1.2 Soil/Geology and 3.1.3 Hydrology/Water Quality for more information). Selective clearing practices will also be used to help mitigate loss of vegetation on the site. Wildlife potentially can be affected by the development of a residential community in the following ways: through the loss of or disturbance to a specific vegetative habitat; • through creation of a habitat; and • through the loss of aquatic species due to sedimentation or water pollution. As noted above, the proposed Twin Lakes development will result in clearing of vegetation for road right-of-way and buildings, and alteration of waterways through Ll 10 1 � I � I I 1 n Train Lakes 6 fmpaet A.nalps:i:s. .St..atement dams to create two new ponds and enlarge the existing one. Removal of the vegetation will cause relocation of wildlife until construction is complete. The impact will not be significant as long as the habitat of any sensitive or endangered species are not involved. No endangered species are presently known to exist in this portion of Frederick County. However, the disruption of existing habitat for aquatic species duc to alteration of waterways is considered a slight impact for the development. 3.1.2 Soils/Geology Impacts as a result of soil erosion will be minimized through proper construction specifications and right-of-way preparation techniques. Most notably, these include the installation of soil erosion barriers prior to construction, prompt revegetation of the affected areas immediately after construction and protection of existing vegetation on steep slopes. Since these techniques will be employed during and after construction of the Twin Lakes Development, the potential for soil erosion should be minimized and any adverse impacts resulting from the project will be neither long-term nor significant. 3.13 Hydrology/Water Quality The greatest potential for impacts to water quality would occur during the construction phases of Twin Lakes. Construction adjacent to the Opequon Creek and its tributaries will potentially increase turbidity levels (or levels of suspended particles) as eroded soil particles are carried into these water bodies by surface drainage. Specific erosion control measures during construction (e.g., sediment traps and fences, straw bales, etc.) will be required to minimize impacts to these streams. If these measures are used, and all cleared areas are revegetated with lawn, groundcover or landscape materials after construction, impacts to the Opequon Creek should be short-term construction - related effects only. 11 I 7 Twin Lakes 46. Imp.ac.t Analps:ss;: �Slatement 3.1.4 Air Quality The ambient quality in eastern Frederick County is typical of rural areas in Virginia. There are no point sources of pollution in vicinity of the site and the ambient air quality is excellent. Construction activities, including construction of foundations, roadways, and erection of structures, could have slight effects on local air quality, especially in regard to particulate (dust) concentrations. Measures can be taken, such as sprinkling construction roads with water or reducing vehicular traveling speeds along these roads to reduce dust levels at or near construction sites. Vehicular exhaust pollutants will be increased due to increased traffic caused by the development, but this impact is considered negligible given the natural dispersion capabilities of local and regional air currents. 3.1.5 Drainage The drainage region of which the site is part involves an unnamed tributary of the Opequon Creek and drains at its confluence with Opequon Creek approximately 900 acres of urban development area land. At present about 20% of this service area is developed. After the Twin Lakes project is built out approximately 65% of the drainage area would be developed if no other land is converted during that period of time. ' The drainage system is simplified by the fact that all property of the development is included in the storm water channel involved with the unnamed tributary. By ' discharging to the Opequon, a stream of much larger drainage area (approx. 57 sq. miles at this point), the effects on down stream flooding are minimal. Another factor reducing the impact of this development on hydrologic events in Frederick County ' involves the storage of peak discharge due to the major dam facility located on site. J 12 I T wi.n Lakes Imp.a.:cr Analy.si.s Statement During final design this structure will be augmented and improved as necessary to handle increase flow amounts and to provide for peak flow detention as required to properly mitigate downstream impacts. Another major use of this embankment is to capture discharge of sediment ladent runoff prior to reaching the Opequon. While this does not eliminate the need for good erosion control techniques in accordance with Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control manual, it does provide a "safety net" to handle major events and mitigate downstream problems due to stream sediment. The stormwater management plan for the Twin Lakes development will include detailed calculations regarding the detention capabilities of the existing ponds, design of new ponds and stormwater impacts on the Opequon downstream water shed. With the Twin Lakes project wholly within the urban development area specified by Frederick County Planning, it is understood that appropriate erosion control techniques can and will be used to mitigate environmental and quality of life issues due to impacts from this development. 3.2 Utility Systems Impact 1 3.2.1 Sewage Collection and Treatment Certain sewage disposal services are offered to this site by the Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA). The FCSA purchases wholesale sewage treatment ' services from the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority (FWSA) at their Opequon Regional Wastewater Treatment facility immediately north of the project site. The principal route of sewage collection in areas through and adjacent to this project is by pump to the west and north and entering the Service Authority trunk main in the ' vicinity of the intersection of Greenwood Road (Rte. 656) and Valley Mill Road (Rte. 659), Figure 3.1. Although this has been an adequate route for sewage delivery over 13 /n ,\I�\LY t �, i . ,• �" i� ' Ei(10PEQUO1 ' �* a ` REGION e • �►�.j 1. PLAINT i'� ��it�- , aMITS OF 'GRAVITY' ;. EBV ICED AREA r _ ! "Yj •.. It i �' � • � � I j / � w, Ire ,r../ i ♦ > � �• ► i ••.�•'••e it • - , � � ,��, ' „* 1y �/ � , r 'yid► � f � -,� 7V � '. EX. APP4 RJMG5- -.v'• �..: �., "`1 �. y LIFT SiAT I ON s � EX. GWNWOM T � fit. , • 1l �� F LIFT STAT iON 3 1111 f Z d31 431e7N/M 1•-- _, _._._.__. _: a.: M31 S3HJIVIM/ — L9fS SCilO: 1 " w 2 .0 00 " • - Figure 3.1 ' ss n siaVics AssA gilbert w. cliffor asa4ciatea, inc. Enga..�, Land�. - TWIN L A"S PR0J4CT s, eo,erie...rserw. 1 - :��...ee."31W Z1n ::Fr•dai.l county , Virginia s�"rn3� e+, » �w.wr. �rr.r:»M m�i cap n � I r H 11 H Twin Lakes Impact Analysis.: Statement the past 12 years, its capability to handle substantial increases in sewage delivery is small and can not be assumed to be the favored alternative for handling the long term sewage collection needs of the servicd area. The existing Apple Ridge pump station is projected to produce 100 gpd of sewage while the existing Greenwood sewage lift station can handle 250 gpm in addition to the discharge from Apple Ridge. Using a peak factor of 2.5 and a 12 hour max. cycle per day the capacity of the stations are 100,800 gpd for the Greenwood station and 28,800 gpd for the Apple Ridge Station. At present the sewage flows are 20 gpm at Apple Ridge and 40 gpm at Greenwood lift station. This flow is projected to become 40 at Apple Ridge and 260 at Greenwood due to already -zoned parcels of land being planned for development at this time. It is anticipated that the sewage lift stations involved will be taken off line systematicallyas the development of the Twin Lakes project proceeds. These facilities do, however, have certain ability and value in the initial phase of the development of Twin Lakes by handling the initial sewage flows as available within Health Department directives and guidelines. The proposed project has a mixed use sewage flow generation of: 1) Singe family use - 720 units at 200 gpd = 144,000 gpd. 2) Townhouse use - 480 units at 150 gpd = 72,000. 3) Commercial use - 35,000 sf. at 200 gpd/1000 sf. = 7,000. Total flow at project build -out = 223,000 gpd The sewage produced can be assumed to be normal strength domestic waste only, not requiring industrial pretreatment. Figure 3.2 shows a feasible alternative to sewering the Twin Lakes project. The system involves a series of collection mains ending in a major regional sewage wastewater pumping station which should deliver flow to another gravity main connecting with the main sewage lift station at the Opequon Regional Plant. A metering facility would be 14 i r r r ■� r r r i r� r r r i r r r r Figure 3.2 11iTILIT193 PLAAI FUTURE CONNECTION TO ry �o PROJECT RTE. 7 & VALLET MILL rIMPI LA(►1E �"ROJE a — N — ROAD WATER. Fra6orlat County Virginia :I ydbert v Cwfor w aaaociates, inc �y l <. bglw�r! L-d In — FUTURE CONNECTION PER ADJACENT APPROVED M.D.P. Y FUTURE CONNECTOR To LING GREENWOOD TANG j f EX. GREENWOOD LIFT STAT1gN, ' i� �` `• tic ��: 1 (TAKE OFF LINE) _ ` f REGIONAL r f.. LIFT STATION EX. SEWER L.IN J r t i w EX. APPLE RIDGE LIFT ST %QN / ('FAKE OFF LINE) -ta +�,.�� Location leap tir R40 ' Scale: 1 "-800' _� V Twin Lakes 6 Ianpa.:et An:aly:sis..S.i.atement provided in route to the Opequon plant. The total area in addition to Twin Lakes that would be served by this sewage pumping station is about 1200 acres, yielding an estimated total flow to the lift station of about 400,000 gpd at build -out. Plans for sewage collection and pumping must be approved by the Virginia Department of Health -Bureau of Sanitarian Engineering as well as the Frederick County Sanitation Authority. Utilizing a peak factor of 2.5, a peak delivery rate of this lift station should be 700 gpm. Flows of this magnitude can be adequately handled by the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority main pump station which is sized for a 16,000 gpm delivery rate to the plant. Investigation of design sequencing of the pump station are necessary in order to optimize the variable speed pumping capabilities of the Opequon Regional plant. At present the County of Frederick has 900,000 gpd established for use at the regional facility by the County. Present flows leave approximately 4,500,000 gpd available for capacity. This project will not over stress the existing available capacity of the regional facility at 100% development and will provide a substantially improved sewage delivery system meeting the requirements of a regionalized solution to sewer throughout the service area involved. 3.2.2 Water Supply and Distribution System Water distribution to this area is provided through the FCSA who purchases water from the City of Winchester at master meters located throughout the service area. Principal water line facilities serving this area involve a eight inch distribution main along Senseny Road. Recent hydrant testing and hydrologic evaluations have indicated that this main has minimal service capability for fire fighting in the 15 � I � I I 17 I n Twin Lakes Im.Pa.c.t : An:a.l.,ys.i.s:..Statement general vicinity of Twin Lakes. This line is fed from a elevated water storage tank at the Greenwood Fire Hall which stabilizes the water pressure during fire events in this general area. The addition of water mains adjacent to this site will offer the ability to loop major portions of the Twin Lakes project into the main distribution grid of FCSA. A hydrologic analysis attached as an appendix assumes an integrated Abrams Creek water system with loop established and shows that pressures in such a case are adequate for project use. The water mains required to serve the Twin Lakes project will provide the necessary looping assumed by this hydraulic analysis and will additionally serve the area of the Opequon Regional Wastewater Plant with fire flow meeting municipal requirements. Water demand for purposes of this analysis can be assumed to be equal to sewage flow. The sewage flow from previous analysis was 223,000 gpd. The present agreement between the City of Winchester and Frederick County provides for 2 million of water supply of which the County presently utilizes 750,000 gpd. The County will not experience a problem providing domestic water service and fire flow to this project under the conditions presented above. 3.23 Solid Waste Disposal Solid waste disposal for the area is provided by the Winchester -Frederick County Landfill which is located approximately 2 miles south of the project. The landfill originally consisted of approximately 50 acres. It has now been expanded through the acquisition of approximately 200 acres of adjacent land. The newer portion of the landfill is currently undergoing preparations to serve the future disposal needs of the County. According to the Landfill Superintendent, the current portion of the landfill is expected to remain usable for approximately two years and the expansion area is expected to provide 10-12 years of capacity. The proposed development is not expected to impact on solid waste disposal in the County. 16 Twin Lakes Impact Anal,.sis kSt.atem.ent 3.3 Community Facilities 3.3.1 Community Parks and Recreation Facilities ' Frederick County is currently developing two regional parks to serve unmet County- wide recreational needs. Clearbrook Park consists of 57 acres and serves the northern 1 part of the County with active and passive recreation programs. Sherando Park is approximately 330 acres and serves the southern part of the County. In the central part of the County, many residents use the Winchester Recreation Park, which is ' maintained by the City. As a result, there is projected to be adequate County -wide recreation capacity available prior to development of the proposed project that would satisfy project -generated demand for regional recreation facilities.. ' In regards to local recreational needs, there are five neighborhood parks in the County which typically provide picnic areas, playground equipment and athletic fields for local recreational use. In response to a growing demand for recreation and parks, County zoning regulations require that open space and recreational facilities be provided in most new developments. According to County standards for local recreational activities, the projected ' population of Twin Lakes would generate a need for local recreational facilities. The majority of the necessary athletic fields and courts would be included as part of the ' proposed elementary school site. In addition, the proposed Twin Lakes development would provide a variety of recreational and leisure opportunities for community residents. As a result, the proposed development would have a near net zero -impact ' on County parks and recreation facilities. 1 33.2 Historic Sites ' The subject property does not contain any registered historic features. The Winchester -Frederick County Historical Society has undertaken an architectural survey 17 � I L 1 Twin Lakes mpax t...An:a.I i::s S.tatemen.t: of all structures at least 50 years old within the County. One such building was identified and surveyed on the property. Known as the Haggerty House (#34-398), this rural farmhouse is an example of the American 4-Square building style that was popular in the period between World War I and World War II (1920-1940). Howevcr, the house was not found to be eligible for national, state or local historic registers. The nearest structure of historic significance to the proposed development is Mill Bank, located approximately 1/2 mile from the northern edge of the property. However, the mill has lost its architectural integrity, according to representatives of the County Historical Society, due to disrepair and the theft of all its architectural details. According to members of the Frederick County Historic Resources Advisory Committee, the site does not contain any recognized historic concerns (battlefields fortifications, entrenchments, etc.) related to the Civil War. The majority of activity from that period occurred to the north of the property. Given that there are no recognized historic or archeological resources on the property, the proposed development would not have an.impact on historic or archeologic resources in the County. 3.33 Educational Facilities There were 8,238 students enrolled in Frederick County schools in 1989. These students included 4,024 elementary, 1,833 middle and 2,381 high school pupils. In response to capacity needs, Frederick County is constructing an elementary school in Middletown for 650 students, with another elementary school committed for the western part of the County and a third elementary school under consideration for the eastern part of the County. In addition, the County has recognized a capacity shortage at its existing high school facilities. �I Li Train fakes Impact 'A.na1. y.s:i:;s- Statement r Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a total of 661 new students upon final build -out as shown in the summary table below. These figures are based on ' County demographic figures and ratios for students per household according to dwelling unit types. Summary of Student Population Total ES MS HS Single Family 476 222 108 146 Townhouse 185 101 38 46 Total 661 323 146 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development; EDAW, Inc. The proposed project's impact on educational facilities represents approximately one- half of the capacity of an elementary school and about fifteen percent of a typical high school. 33.4 Libraries Library resources in Frederick County are currently provided by Handley Regional Library, which also serves the City of Winchester and Clark County. The total population of the serving area is estimated to be 71,000 persons. Virginia resource guidelines suggest that libraries should maintain two volumes for in each persons their serving area. Handley Library currently contains approximately 86,000 volumes, approximately 56,000 fewer volumes than recommended. r At current funding levels, the library has been adding 6,000 volumes a year. However, ' there is not enough shelving space to accommodate an additional 60,000 volumes. According to the Library Director, approximately 20,000 square feet of building area is needed to provide the necessary expansion space, including shelving and staff offices. r 19 r Twin .Lakes Impaet Analy:3ss: Statement The proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to include 2,784 residents. Given State guidelines, the project would generate the need for approximately 5,570 volumes or 3,372 volumes based on the current County ratio. With an average book cost of S15, the 5,568 volumes translates to $83,520 and the 3,372 volumes translates to $50,580. In addition, the development would contribute to the existing demand for new library shelving space. However, no projections have been made by the County concerning new library space. 33.5 Emergency Services There are currently 10 volunteer fire companies (one of which has fire and rescue capabilities) and one rescue squad facility in Frederick County. There are approximately 200 voluntary fire company members capable of emergency response in the County, which translates to approximately 20 members per company. However, some rural companies are experiencing personnel shortages and have less than the average number. Ideally, the County would prefer to hire two career firefighters at each station to satisfy daytime staffing needs. Under the County's First Responder Program, the County is divided into 10 fire/rescue response districts so that each fire company has a designated First Due area. Twin Lakes lies within the Greenwood Volunteer Fire Company First Response Area, which has a population of approximately 7,800. The fire station is located approximately 2 miles from the subject property on existing roadways. A central feature of the proposed development is its contribution to the local transportation system. By improving the roadway network of the area, particularly by providing connections to existing roadways, the project would have a positive impact on the response time for emergency services in Frederick County. According to the Frederick County Department of Emergency Services, the projected population of Twin Lakes should not generate a need for new facilities or firefighting apparatus. However, additional firefighting personnel may be required at the Greenwood Fire Company as a result of development in the response area. These personnel are expected to be provided by new residents moving to the County. 20 Twin / , a k c t • James Wood Ridge High School(II -I • Impact Analysis St tit cnlcnt Opequw,. Regional WWTP nwod Volunteft v Company x ��,-�Ix •- -1 Fredericks( .. County = l s Landfill — i ;ter r� [ al • Parkins Mill WWTP • • Sherando Park Robert Aylor Middle School Community Facilites Figure 3.3 TWIN LAKES Frederick County, Virginia Prepared For: Loggia Development Corporation Prepared By: EDAW, Inc. Landscape Architects and Land Planners Gilbert W. Clifford R Associates, Inc. Civil Engineers John Callow Associates Transporation Planners 0' 250' 750' Mole 11 11 T red isn L a.k. e.s 4.0 FISCAL IMPACT 4.1 Demographic Estimates To determine population estimates and characteristics for the Twin Lakes community, this analysis utilized demographic projections and household data provided by the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. The overall population of the community is a direct result of the proposed development program and expected average household sizes. It is assumed that the development will eventually consist of 1200 dwelling units for purposes of this analysis. Based on County figures, the proposed development could reach a population of 2,784 at final build -out, as shown at the end of this section in Table 1. To calculate the student population, estimated ratios of school -age children per dwelling unit obtained from the County were utilized. As shown in Table 2, the project is expected to generate 0.661 students per single-family household and 0.385 per townhome unit. As a result, the total number of students at Twin Lakes could reach 661 at final build -out. The pupil yields for each grade level are also shown at the end of this section in Table 2. Average household incomes have been estimated for the proposed development by determining the minimum qualifying incomes for home purchases. At approximately $44,142, the average household income at Twin Lakes is projected to be 32.7% greater than the estimated 1990 County average, as shown in Table 3 at the end of this section. The income differential is significant since higher income households traditionally demand fewer County services relative to their tax contributions. Twin Lakes is also expected to create new employment opportunities. Planned to consist of 35,000 square feet at final build -out, the commercial portion of the community would employ approximately 88 persons based on the industry standard of one employee for every 400 square feet of retail space. The employment projections for the proposed development are displayed at the end of this section in Table 4. r 21 1 1 1 Twin _ Lr ak e sAi d: s:> : `t�;ix;t e:m e.n>t: . 4.2 Capital Impacts Fiscal impacts of the proposed development have been measured for capital costs that relate to the improvements necessary for the County to increase the capacity of public facilities. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) facility costs relative to the County population have been used to determine gross capital impacts on a per capita basis. The projected demographic profile of the proposed development has been used to determine the project's share of capital costs. Potential capital contributions provided by the development were subtracted to derive net capital impacts. The primary capital impacts of the proposed development are a result of an increased demand for capacity related to educational facilities. Given that state funds are borrowed for school construction projects, capital costs have been amoritized to a 20- year annual basis to determine the operational affects of debt service. As shown in the summary table below, the proposed Twin Lakes development is projected to generate a potential annual net capital impact of $377 per unit, or $452,111 for the entire project, due to increased demand for school capacity. The net impact is a result of a potential $672,000 school site contribution provided by the Twin Lakes development. Summary of Impacts Average Total Costs Cost Per D.U. Twin Lakes Gross Capital Impact $5,369,993 $4,475 Less Potential Twin Lakes School Site Contribution $ 672,000 $ 560 Equals Twin Lakes Net Capital Impact $4,697,993 $3,915 Twin Lakes Annual Capital Impact $ 452,M $ 377 Source: Fredrick County Department of Planning and Development; Frederick County School Board; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. 22 Lj w in... a.k*.e In addition to school capacity, the proposed development would generate additional demand for recreational facilities. Given that a number of recreational facilities would be located*as part of the elementary school site, the project would generate a one-time recreation impact of approximately $97 per person or $226 per dwelling unit. This translates to an annual amount of approximately $26,100 for the entire development or about $22 per dwelling unit. Fiscal impacts related to recreational and educational facilities are presented in further detail at the end of this section in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. ' 4.3 Revenue Projections The primary sources of local revenues in Frederick County are property taxes, particularly those for real and personal property. As such, this analysis primarily addresses local revenues derived from property levies that can be directly attributed to the Twin Lakes development. Based on an estimated market value of $95,000 per townhome and $145,000 per single-family detached unit and a real property tax rate of $0.66 per $100 of assessed value, the completed residential component of the Twin Lakes community is projected to contribute $990,000 per year to Frederick County in 1990 constant dollars, an average of $825 per unit. These annual contributions are detailed at the end of this section in Figure 8. At project build -out, it can be expected that Twin Lakes' residents will own a total of approximately 2000 motor vehicles with an average value of $8,750. Given the personal property tax rate of $4.25 per $100 of assessed value, the annual tax yield in 1990 dollars is projected to equal $743,750 for the entire development, or $620 per dwelling unit, as detailed in Table 9 at the end of this section. I I 1 23 Twin La..k e s . •:.. . Lmr:a<c a A:n:i>w IThe proposed development is also projected to generate indirect revenues for Fairfax County. Studies conducted by the Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning found that households with annual incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 spend approximately 32% of their income on retail purchases. Thus, from the aggregate incomes shown in Table 3, the proposed project would annually contribute $16,950,374 to the local economy in retail sales and services upon final build -out (in 1990 dollars). Based on the current tax rate of 4.5%, the state would receive $762,767 from Twin Lakes each year expenditures. Given that Frederick County currently receives a 22.2% share of state sales taxes collected in the County, the proposed development would indirectly contribute $169,334 in annual revenues to the County. This translates to approximately $141 per dwelling unit. These figures are presented at the end of this section in Table 10. As shown in the following summary table, Twin Lakes is projected to generate more than $1.9 million in annual County revenues, or about $1,586.per household. Given that a limited number of revenue sources were addressed for purposes of this analysis, these figures should be considered conservative. Summary of Revenues Total Costs Revenues Per D.U. Residential Real Estate Taxes $ 990,000 $ 825 Personal Property Taxes $ 672,000 $ 620 Retail Sales Tax Share $ 169,336 $ 141 Total Twin Lakes Annual Revenues $1,903,086 $1,586 Source: Fredrick County Commissioner of Revenue; Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning; Twin Lakes Development Program; EDAW, Inc. IJ r24 5 L Based on an analysis of County revenues derived from property taxes, the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual revenues approximately 35% greater than the County average on a per -unit basis. As shown in the summary table below, a typic:ll household in the Twin Lakes community is projected to generate annual County revenues that are approximately $375 above the current average County household. This figure represents a $450,000 yearly contribution for the entire Twin Lakes development. Summary of Revenue Differential Aggregate County Average 'Twin Lakes Difference Difference Real Property $600* $825 $225 $270,000 Personal Property $470* $620 $150 $180,000 Total Property Revenues $1,070* $1,445 $375 $450,000 *Note: Average County revenues have been adjusted upward to assure integrity of the comparison. Source: Frederick County Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer's Office; Twin Lakes Development Program; GDA%V, Inc. It should be noted that the per -household average County revenues used to determine the revenue differential reflects a 50% increase to the actual figures reported in the 1989-90 County Fiscal Plan. The intent of this adjustment was to compensate for the discrepancy between property values based on older assessments and current market conditions. According to the Frederick County Treasurer's Office, the average County real property tax assessment is expected to increase 40- 50% as a result of the current re -assessment effort. 25 iI �J if 11 1 1.1 J r� L [i Ll . ...:.....: . ..........:: Assuming that Twin Lakes residents demand services at a level that approximates the County average, this revenue differential suggests that the Twin Lakes development may contribute up to $450,000 each year in potentially surplus County funds (in 1990 dollars). These excess funds could be made available for a wide variety of programs, including debt service. Should the entire amount of surplus funds be directed towards new school construction costs, it would essentially offset the share of debt service that was generated by the project resulting in a near net zero fiscal impact for Twin Lakes. 4.4 Capital Contributions In addition to annual revenues, the Twin Lakes community may offer significant capital contributions to Frederick County that would be of substantial benefit to the entire County. These contributions may include such items as regional transportation improvements and, possibly, a site for an elementary school. As shown in the summary table below, these potential, one-time capital contributions may be valued at more than $3.4 million. Summary of Potential Development Contributions Elementary School Site Senseny Rd - Route 7 Connector Rd ROW for Additional Connector Rd. Capacity ROW for Future By -Pass Route (Rte. 37) Total Capital Contributions Source: Twin Lakes Development Plan. 26 Value Total Value Per D.U. $ 677,000 $ 560 $2,000,000 $1,667 $ 308,540 $ 257 $ 443,526 $ 370 $3,424,066 $2,354 ■ 4.5 Short -Term Impacts The proposed development is projected to"generate significant positive impacts during the construction phase. According to the United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, every million dollars in new construction expenditures generates 45.6 new jobs throughout Virginia. Thus, the $150 million, 6-year project would create 1,140 new jobs annually, primarily in the Frederick County area. Table 5 at the end of this section displays the construction phase employment projections for Twin Lakes. 27 4:�;t;::>::>��:;�.�:?�:<3;ash.:>;:;:.�.;t::�x;.t.�::m:�:n: Table 1 COMMUNITY POPULATION Households and Population at Final Build -Out # Units Pop/Unit \1 Population Single -Family 720 2.60 1872 Townhomes 480 1.90 912 Total 1200 2.32 2784 Table 2 STUDENT POPULATION Number of Students By Dwelling Type, at Final Build -Out # Units Ratio \2 Students Single -Family 720 0.661 476 Townhomes 480 0.385 185 Total 1200 0.551 661 Elementary Middle School High School Ratio Students Ratio Students Ratio Students Single -Family 0.308 222 0.15 108 0.203 146 Townhomes 0.210 101 0.08 38 0.095 46 Total 0.269 323 0.122 146 0.160 192 Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. Notes: 1/ Background Report: Residential Development Projections in Frederick County - 1989 2/ Background Report: Impacts of Development on Community Facilities Table 3 INCOME PROJECTIONS Average Household Incomes for Project and County in 1990 Dollars # Units Aver. Inc. Aggregate Inc. Single -Family 720 $51,356 $36,976,320 Townhomes 480 $33,320 $15,993,600 Total 1200 $44,142 $52,969,920 County Aver. $32,180 Differential +32.7% Source: Lord Fairfax Regional Planning Commission Table 4 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS On -Site Jobs Generated By Project, at Final Build -Out Gross S.F. Jobs Per S.F. # Jobs Commercial Space 35000 1/400 s.f. 88 Source: Urban Land Institute: Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers 5� 4.0: Table 5 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS Total Jobs Created by Project During Construction Phase Const. Expend. Job Multiplier # Jobs Per Year Annual Impacts 25 mill. 45.6/mill. 1140 Total Annual Jobs 1228 (6 Years) Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis: Regional Multipliers Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Park Facilities Gross CIP Cost $1,294,000 Average Capacity 13,300 Cost/Person \l $97.28 Population/D.U. 2.32 2.60 1.90 Gross Impact Per Unit $270,828 $252.93 $184.83 (All Units) Annual Capital Impact $25,988 $21.66 (Aver.) $21.66 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) (All Units) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Note: 1/Background Report:Impacts of Development on Community Facilities Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 Capacity 650 Cost/Student $10,207.69 - - Students/D.U. 0.269 0.308 0.210 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 $3,143.97 $2,143.62 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 Capacity $1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 - _ Students/D.U. 0.160 0.203 0.095 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 $2,199.17 $1,029.17 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $5,369,993 $5,343 $3,173 (All Units, Aver.=$4,475) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 $560 $560 Net Impact Per Unit $4,697,993 $4,783 $2,613 (All Units, Aver.=$3,915) Annual Capital Impact $452,111 $376.76 (Aver.) $376.76 (Aver.) (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Real Property Value (720 DU's @ $145,000 per unit) (480 DU's @ $95,000 per unit) Tax Rate Tax Yield Aggregate Aver. Per unit $150,000,000 $125,000 Table 9 $0.66/100 $0.66/100 $990,000 $825 PERSONAL PROPERTY REVENUES Annual Contributions to Frederick County Generated By Project Aggregate Aver. Per Unit Personal Property Value $17,500,000 $8,750 (2000 vehicles @ $8,750 each) Tax Rate $4.25/100 $4.25/100 Tax Yield $743,750 $620 Table 10 RETAIL SALES REVENUES Annual State Contributions to Frederick County From Twin Lakes' Retail Expenditures Total Retail Sales (32% of $52,969,920 aggregate income) State Tax Rate State Tax Yield County Share of Yield (22.2%, Aggregate Aver. Per Unit $16,950,374 $14,125 4.5% 4.5% $762,767 $636 $169,336 $141 Source: Frederick County Department of Finance, Fairfax County Office of Comprehensive Planning 1 I Addendum ........ . ..... . ...... . I ............ ...... ........... .. ll� exe A::.n ADDENDUM During the period of review for this Impact Analysis Statement, the Frederick County Department of Planning and Development returned comments to the applicant concerning the projected impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on County educational facilities, particularly in regard to secondary school facilities. This Addendum section has been prepared in response to those comments. A new high school facility is currently being planned for Frederick County in response to a County -wide demand for secondary school capacity. According to the County School Board, construction of a new high school would allow the James Wood High School -Amherst campus to be converted to a middle school. Thus, a new high school facility would provide the County with both new middle and high school capacity. In addressing the capacity of educational facilities in previous sections of this document (3.3.3 and 4.2), the approach was taken that new middle school capacity would be provided at no extra cost to the County as part of the cost of constructing a new high school. As a result, the impact of the proposed development on secondary school facilities was derived from the number of high school students only (see Table 7). However, since the proposed high school is under consideration due to a capacity shortage in both the middle and high school levels, and not just as a result of a high school capacity shortage, it is the interpretation of the Department of Planning and Development that each new middle school student in the County displaces a high school student thus requiring additional high school capacity. The Department has determined that the total number of both middle and high school students generated by a proposed development should be used to identify that development's impact of secondary school facilities. As a result, the Department requests that projections of Twin Lakes' share of the cost of the planned high school be derived from a total of 338 students, not 192 as used previously in this analysis. The additional 146 students represents the total middle school population of Twin Lakes at full build -out. The requested revisions are provided in Amended Table 7 on the following page. As presented in the table, the adjusted net annual impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development on educational facilities would be approximately $504 per unit, or $605,000 overall, upon final build -out. 34 Combined Single -Family Townhome Number of Units 1200 720 480 Elem. School Gross CIP Cost $6,635,000 Capacity 650 Cost/Student $10,207.69 Students/D.U. 0.269 Gross Costs/D.U. $3,295,043 High School Gross CIP Cost $13,000,000 Capacity 1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 Students/D.U. 0.160 Gross Costs/D.U. $2,080,000 Middle School /HS Gross CIP Cost (HS)* $13,000,000 Capacity (HS)* 1,200 Cost/Student $10,833.33 Students/D.U. 0.122 Gross Costs/D.U. $1,586,000 Total Education Gross Impact Per Unit $6,955,993 (All Units, Aver.=$5,797) Less Capital Contribution $672,000 Net Impact Per Unit $6,283,993 (All Units, Aver.=$5,237) Annual Capital Impact $604,739 (20-Year, 7.25% Bond) 0.308 $3,143.97 0.203 $2,199.17 0.150 $1,625.00 $6,968 $560 $6,408 0.210 $2,143.62 0.095 $1,029.17 0.080 $866.67 $4,039 $560 $3,479 $503.94 (Aver.) $503.94 (Aver.) * Note: Proposed Twin Lakes' middle school students are included as part of the high school capacity. Source: Frederick County Department of Planning and Development ADDENDUM TO TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LAKES prepared for LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1700 Diagional Suite 200 Alexandria ,Virginia 22314 prepared by CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 160 Reston, Virginia 22091 April 4, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. iii INTRODUCTION................................................1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ........................................ 1 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ................................... 4 EXISTING ZONING SCENARIO .................................. 6 PROPOSED ZONING SCENARIO .................................. 8 CONCLUSION................................................ 10 APPENDIX..................................................... 0 ll LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1. Existing Conditions 2. Background 1997 Conditions 3. Build 1997 - Existing Zoning Plus Background 4. Build 1997 - Proposed Zoning Plus Background iii Page No. 3 5 7 9 ' INTRODUCTION ' Based on comments from Frederick County, further analysis of the impact of the proposed Twin Lakes development along Senseny Road west of the site into the City of Winchester ' is required. The purpose of this addendum to the Twin Lakes Traffic Study is to quantify the traffic impacts of the proposed development further along Senseny Road. The ' information provided in the technical addendum is based upon the 'Traffic Impact Analysis of Twin Lakes', by Callow Associates, Inc., dated March 6, 1990. Corresponding additions ' to the traffic analysis are shown in this addendum. The following two locations were specified by the County as desirable locations for further study: Senseny Road and ' Greenwood Road, and Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road. The analysis will cover peak hour turning movements as well as link average daily traffic (ADT) along Senseny ' Road. It is noted here that Senseny Road is currently on the six -year major road improvement schedule for Frederick County dated 10/25/89. The existing conditions, background conditions, trip assignment and traffic impacts for the additional locations along Senseny Road are shown as follows. The methodology and study assumptions follow the same methodology and assumptions as the base traffic study dated March 6, 1990. EXISTING CONDITIONS Refer to base traffic study for methodology and assumptions. Peak hour traffic counts were taken during March 1990 at the following locations: o Route 657 (Senseny Road) and Route 656 (Greenwood Road) o Senseny Road (Cork Road) and Pleasant Valley Road These traffic volumes for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours reflecting existing conditions are shown on Figure 1. Peak hour as well as ADT volumes are shown. The Appendix contains the traffic count summary sheets for the existing conditions. 1 Traffic operations for existing conditions at each intersection were analyzed, based upon existing counts, traffic control devices and roadway geometries. The result of this analysis provided level of service (LOS). Briefly, level of services ranges from 'A' - free flow condition to 'F' - forced flow conditions. The Appendix contains detailed descriptions of these levels taken from the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Capacity analysis was performed at the two intersections for A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Figure 1 also shows the lane geometry and level of service results for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The following is a summary of the existing capacity analysis results: The intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road is currently unsignalized. The intersection operates at level of service 'B' or better for all critical movements for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The relatively light traffic is due to the rural nature of the area. The intersection of Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road is currently signalized. The intersection operates at level of service 'B' for the A.M. peak hour and 'C' for the P.M. peak hour. 2 w (42 p 2g> M) Los = B(c) 7* J Pns �n 0,4 J 7C Z7 Cxxx) - AID i Am(vm) - Peak 00' r l \ CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 1 ` r 15 OG) �5z�� a 4,1� • A (r,) J��A(A) A (A) NOT To SCALE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Refer to base traffic study for methodology and assumptions. Figure 2 shows the expected background traffic, for study year 1997. These background volumes represent conditions in 1997, without the development of the Twin Lakes site. Peak hour and ADT volumes are shown. Capacity analysis was performed at the two intersections for A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Figure 2 also shows the lane geometry and level of service results for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The following is a summary of the background 1997 capacity analysis results: The intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road is currently unsignalized, however the northbound and southbound left turns will operate ' at level of service 'D'. Since level of service 'D' is unacceptable in Frederick ' County the intersection will warrant signalization in order for acceptable level of service 'C' to occur. Therefore, the intersection was assumed to be ' signalized. This signalization improvement is warranted for the future 1997 background condition without the development of Twin Lakes. The ' intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, signalized. The intersection of Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road is currently ' signalized. The intersection will operate at level of service 'F' for this future background condition without improvements. Therefore, northbound and ' southbound left turn lanes were included in the analyses. With these added lanes the intersection will operate at acceptable level of service 'C' or better. ' This lane geometry improvement is warranted for the future 1997 background 11 11 I tr <7- 3- i 0 04" CXXx) - ADT 1►^n � - see +ex4 NOT To SCALE N CALLOW F;�v�e � Lac�C4<o.�Y�d 1`l`)-)' conJ•i\onS ASSOCIATES INC. 1 condition without the development of Twin Lakes. The intersection will operate at level of service '13' for the A.M. peak hour and 'C' for the P.M. peak hour. EXISTING ZONING SCENARIO Refer to base traffic study for methodology and assumptions. Callow Associates performed capacity analysis at two off -site locations as follows: o Senseny Road and Greenwood Road o Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road The analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition of existing zoning plus background traffic for the year 1997. The projected traffic volumes and resulting level of service and lane geometry are shown. on Figure 3. The following narrative describes level of service conditions that would be observed for this analysis and assuming the lane geometry shown on Figure 3 at each intersection. The lane geometry reflects the intersection geometry as required in the background scenario. No new improvements are warranted by the addition of Twin Lakes development traffic. o Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will warrant signalization without Twin Lakes development traffic - see background section. For this scenario the intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, signalized. o Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road is currently signalized. The intersection will warrant lane addition improvements without Twin Lakes development traffic - see background T i -) ncj, I -� - e A Los = R CE) 1 D 0 3n SITE J0 Q se N 70s(131) C'3,53� rXxx� - ADT WPM) Na-ir J`,e Job. c�<0•�� PC_1 �pf} � �,_�J�e NOT To SCALE L� CALLOW e 3 A I ASSOCIATES INC. section. For this scenario the intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for the A.M. peak hour and 'C' for the P.M. peak hour. 1 ' Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in the Appendix. PROPOSED ZONING SCENARIO ' Refer to base traffic study for methodology and assumptions. Callow Associates performed capacity analysis at two off -site locations as follows: ' o Senseny Road and Greenwood Road o Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road The analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition ' of proposed zoning plus background traffic for the year 1997. The projected traffic volumes and resulting level of service and lane geometry are shown on Figure 4. The following narrative describes level of service conditions that would be observed for ' this analysis and assuming the lane geometry shown on Figure 4 at each intersection. The lane geometry reflects the intersection geometry as required in the background only ' scenario. No _new .improvements are warranted by the addition to Twin Lakes developtnenl.,iraffic. o Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will warrant signalization without Twin Lakes development traffic - see background section. For this scenario the intersection will operate at level of service 'B' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, signalized. m m mmmmmm mm m mmm mmmm � n7 �igr\Ck CA Lc 47 + I 0= cs — o off � �\ `ten JIIE o v a., nS�n L �y 33(yl) oi4 oo)40 a C c� xx) - ADI - C2 ��CK`5roJyj 0041) NOT To SCALE N CALLOW - 1 ��•1�h 1`1'1 � 'Proposed b �o�,f�� IvS qck-y-dor\ol ASSOCIATES INC. r o Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road is currently signalized. The intersection will warrant lane addition improvements without Twin Lakes development traffic - see background section. For this scenario the intersection will operate at level of service 'C' for both the A.M. and the P.M. peak hours. Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in the Appendix. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Twin Lakes development on the two intersections and corresponding sections of Senseny Road are minimal. At a background condition without any traffic from the Twin Lakes development, the intersection of Senseny Road and Greenwood Road will require signalization, and the intersection of Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road will require additional lane capacity. Again, these improvements are not warranted by the addition of Twin Lakes development traffic to background conditions. At the proposed zoning scenario, Twin Lakes traffic is approximately 20 percent of the A.M. and 25 percent of the P.M. peak hour total intersection traffic, at Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. At the intersection of Senseny Road and Pleasant Valley Road, Twin Lakes development traffic is approximately 5 percent in the A.M. and 7 percent in the P.M. peak hour, of the total intersection traffic. Iul FAVOUVON-byr.1 I I I I I INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is presented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS At an unsignalized intersection the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a Stop or Yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left - turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps, is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analyses in this report, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor - trailer), buses and motorcycles. The level of service for unsignalized intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The capacity of a movement is calculated (in terms of vehicles per hour - VPH) and then compared with the demand. The difference is the "reserve capacity." The level of service is then based on the amount of reserve capacity left over: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Reserve Level of Expected Delay Capacity Service to Minor Street Traffic >_ 400 vph A- Little or .no delay. 300-399 vph B Short traffic delays. 200-299 vph C Average. traffic delays. 100-199 vph D Long traffic delays. 0- 99 vph E Very .long traffic delays. negative F Demand exceeds capacity, extremely long delay. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). ' The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. Calculations of both capacity and delay are based on empirical data, therefore some situations may not fit the theoretical formulas. For example in signal systems with good progression, it is often possible to show a We ratio greater than 1.0 (demand exceeds capacity), ' but at the same time, correctly calculate delay values in the acceptable 'C' or 'D' range. In this report all default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is ' available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optimal" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. ' The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is 60 seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the ' possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Stopped Delay Service per Vehicle (sec) A <_ 5.0 B 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F > 60.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 scc per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level of Service C describes operations Arith delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures arc frequent occurrences. This level is the theoretical maximum capacity of the intersection. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. I WET '_..---------------------------- --------------------------,------------------------------------------4-------r----------- : 5,=?� = _ h: .. TR.F=IC FROM MEET ;;]M EAET .-_------------------- -. ---------..-' -.'r- ---------------------- ' Thy RiOh- T-T4L ,---'F-"F_;,NT TiTA- .`w�+� per ec ----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' _ 8 r- ` t T ' s 23 50 - ... 4 d 9 75 7 3" ; 7 7;15 :41 1C i :4 :' c 4 9 42 !l'' :;` 9 9 is 17 1: 5 r 3A `4 7:4�-E:.. '15 9 0 ! !e = 9 :5 15 c 9 3? 5 29 9 4; ; 107 ; 8:00-8:15 4 11 1 7 11 4 4 1 8 4, 114 8:15-8:11 '-`------- `---- ---- - - -- -- ------- ------- ------ --------- ------------------'------------A------1-------------- ---:--- 225 119 ; _» 6:45-7:4` r b- 4 { 1. z iv9 C, 41 35 182 44 i` »- �a ar s - a� __y - •_ __ .. _ .. _ .. _ _ ..._ ..-...0 ---- -------------- ---------------------------------------- --------------------- ----------------------------------------- 14 ti' I I Nve I AD N,;mt,er: ocatior. 7 JF Date wzatmer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------- I I - - , -- - .I ;, - -.1 C : . TRAFFIC FR[M �E:' Jf-L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 �r:i... ECT J .EFT -EF' 74- R*3r "k i E & W Period - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' ' ., _ 1- 7 4 1 4 26 17.3 7 -0-7 .15 7' 11 263 7:15-7:30 67 o 49 14 77 14 E, 17 p 4 36 1 78 281 7,310-7:45 :9 7:451:00 41 7 16' 4 ' -_.' 4 9." 8: Oi)-s: 15 i --------------- 1 -:7 --------------------------------- ------ -----------------17-! -- ------------------------------------------- ----' ' =,•c c' ::B __. c` .:+ `'S - 1 '.4 4 45 V 415 '7: 15-9. 5 Q A c 3 214 7 :'7v .1 140 41Q 1473 4 7 4c; a !4' c r F; M. 4 54 -4 4. % -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- 1 1: 41 PP. 27Z i:0"-6:100 4: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 RRRifRRRRRRRRRiERRRRRRRRRRRRRififif�RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRiERRRRRRY.ifRifiE* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... RTE. 656 NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. DRG DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm dd/yy)...... 04/03/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LE(-- MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC .=Luh& --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB ---- WB ---- NB SB ---- LEFT 60 15 ---- 37 10 THRU 33 132 26 15 RIGHT 37 35 5 41 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- LANES 2 2 2 2 LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PLRCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NURIHbOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED _TIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE QJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 :?B 5.0 5. J0 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.0 5.50 0.00 5.50 Wh 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 SE 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... RTE. 656 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 04/03/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Rage-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------------------------------------------------- --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 45 509 456 > 500 456 > 423 411 >A A THROUGH 32 615 579 > 579 ) 547 > A RIGHT 6 998 998 998 992 A MINOR STREET SB LEFT 12 531 482 > 536 482 > 505 470 >A A THROUGH 18 610 578 578 ) 560 > A RIGHT 50 995 995 995 945 A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 73 905 905 905 832 A WB LEFT 18 996 996 996 978 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... RTE. 656 DPTE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS,..... 04/03/ 90 ; AM PEAT. _THER INFORiMAT10N.... Ex:.._ ING CONDITIONS 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR :STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... .9 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... RTE. 656 NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. DRG DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm,'dd/yy)...... 04/03/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION TYPE AND --------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SE ---- LEFT 52 ---- 16 ---- 55 ---- 40 THRU 151 84 29 27 RIGHT 69 24 13 16 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SE ------- ------- ------- -------- LANES 2 2 2 2 LANE USAGE LT + R LT + R ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND ------- 0.00 ---------- 90 ---------------- 20 ------------------ N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS X COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 SE 5.50 5.50 0.00 S.50 EB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 SE 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 SB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.N0 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RTE. 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... RTE. 656 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 04/03/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING CONDITIONS CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------------------------------------------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 67 468 422 > 454 422 > 351 355 >B B THROUGH 35 559 530 > 530 ) 494 > A RIGHT 16 972 972 972 956 A MINOR STREET SB LEFT 49 452 406 > 445 408 > 363 359 >B B THROUGH 33 542 514 > 514 > 481 > A RIGHT 20 997 997 997 977 A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 64 974 974 974 910 A WB LEFT 20 846 846 846 826 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RTE. 657 NAME: OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... RTE. 656 DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 04/03/90 q PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... EXISTING C.INDITIONS 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE ..... ..... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... EXISTING CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 58 214 68 34 : L 10.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 140 235 210 298 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 28 50 82 56 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARK. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.3 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.3 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GRLLN 8.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 tREEN 8.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 S.0 0.v 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 6.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.052 0.411 12.1 B 17.7 C TR 0.372 0.289 19.6 C WB L 0.048 0.411 12.1 B 18.3 C TR 0.632 0.289 23.0 C NB LTR 0.241 0.522 8.9 B 8.9 B SB LTR 0.33t 0.400 14.3 B 14.3 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.9 (see_/veh) V/C = 0.346 LOS = B ' 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK. STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ' ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK. COMMENT.......EXISTING CONDITIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY ED WB NB SB : ED WB NB SB ' LT 126 128 69 73 : L 10.0 L 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 162 103 552 4.10 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RT 52 84 145 105 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ' RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PK.G BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T ' ED 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 19.3 3 SR ---- ----N----O-----0----0_90------0----N113.3 3 ------------ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 90.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 ' EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X X RT X RT X X ' F' D F' D WB LT X X SB LT X TH X TH X ' RT X RT X PI) PD GREEN 8.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 8.0 36.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1------------------------------ - ---- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOOS ' ED L 0.052 0.411 12.1 B 17.5 C TR 0.479 0.289 20.7 C WB L 0.048 0.411 12.i B 16.9 C ' TR 0.433 0.289 20.2 C NB LTR 0.500 0.522 10.6 B 10.8 B SB LTR 0.709 0.400 19.0 C 19.0 C -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ' INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.3 (sec/veh) V!C = 0.459 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 VOLUMES GEOMETRY ED WB NB SB : ED WB NB SB LT 90 23 56 15 : LT 12.0 LT 12.6 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 50 198 39 23 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 56 53 8 62 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T ED 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 6 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 ED LT X ND LT X TH x TH x RT x RT x. PD PD WB LT X SB LT x TH X TH X RT X RT x PD PD GREEN H .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS ED LT 0.228 0.490 5.7 B 5.6 B R 0.079 0.490 5.2 B WB LT 0. 26 6 0.490 5.6 B 5.7 B R 0.075 0.490 5.2 B NB LT 0.154 0.392 7.6 E 7.6 B R 0.014 0.392 7.2 B SB LT 0.059 0.392 7.3 B 7.4 B R 0.110 0.392 7.5 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.216 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZLD INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT lKILRSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 ALL& TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 78 24 83 60 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 -T 12.0 TH 227 126 44 41 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 104 36 20 92 : 1.2.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1.2.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.6 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.6 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X 5B LT X TH X TH x RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 01.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LT 0.384 0.490 6.4 B 6.1. B R 0.147 0.4'j0 5.4 B WE LT 0.205 0.490 5.6 B 5.5 B R 0.051 0.490 5.2 B NB LT 0.241 0.392 8.0 B 7.9 B R 0.035 0.392 7.3 B SE LT 0.178 0.392 7.7 B -;.-, B R 0.163 0.392 7.7 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.320 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSLC'TIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION -CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALL.FY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEPK COMMENT....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 87 321 102 51 : L. 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 210 353 315 447 : FR' 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 42 75 123 84 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 6 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV AllJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nni Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 11H-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB L T x. X TH ?: l H X RT X RT X F'D PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.'_ YELLOW 3.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE 61P. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 14.7 B TR 0.470 0.325 16.2 f WB L 0.065 0.41E 10.3 B 17.9 C R 0. 800 0. •325 �. b t NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 11.7 B TR 0.347 0.390 12.7 B B L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 12.6 B T1: 0.412 0.390 13.1 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.5 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.469 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BACKGROUND VOLUMES - 1997 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WE NB SB : EB WE NB SB LT 189 192 104 110 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 243 155 828 615 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 78 126 218 158 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.6 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS CRADL HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WE 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WE LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GRERN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS ARP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.676 0.416 10.3 B 15.1 C TR 0.606 0.325 16.0 C WB L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 14.4 B TR 0.548 0.325 17.1 C NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 17.9 C TR 0.619 0.390 18.9 C SB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 13.9 B. TR 0.605 0.390 14.8 B --------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.573 LDS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT.., ..BUILD - 1997 EXISTING ZONING ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 90 24 56 16 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 53 205 39 23 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 56 55 8 62 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 6.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WD LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ALLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 E.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVILE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LT 0.235 0.490 5.7 F 5.6 B R 0.079 0.490 5.2 B WB LT 0.276 0.490 5.9 B 5.7 B R 0.078 0.490 !.2 B NB LT 0.154 0.392 7.6 B 7.6 B R 0.014 0.392 7.2 B SB LT 0.061 0.392 7.3 B 7.4 B R 0.110 0.392 7.5 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.2 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.222 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 EXISTING ZONING ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY ER WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 78 25 83 62 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 236 131 44 41 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 104 37 21 92 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB LT 0.396 0.490 6.4 B 6.2 B R 0.147 0.490 5.4 B WB LT 0.215 0.490 5.7 B 5.6 B R 0.052 0.490 5.2 B NB LT 0.242 0.392 8.0 B 7.9 B R 0.037 0.392 7.3 B SB LT 0.182 0.392 7.7 B 7.7 B R 0.163 0.392 7.7 B --------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.327 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD 1997 - EXISTING ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 87 324 102 51 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 212 356 315 447 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 42 76 124 84 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X 3B LT X X TH x TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY ARR. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 14.7 B TR 0.474 0.325 16.3 C WB L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 18.1 C TR 0.807 0.325 24.0 C NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 11.7 B TR 0.348 0.390 12.7 B SB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 12.6 B TR 0.412 0.390 13.1 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 14.6 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.472 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORY. STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 EXISTING ZONING ------------------------------------------------------------------.--------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB 5B L1 189 194 104 112 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 247 157 628 615 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 78 127 221 158 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE Hv' ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T ED 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PI) PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 4.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE G!-"P. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.070 0.416 10.3 B 15.2 C TR 0.613 0.325 16.1 C WD L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 14.4 B TR 0.554 0.325 17.2 C NB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 18.0 C TR 0.821 0.390 19.0 C SB L 0.051 0.506 7.3 B 13.9 B TR 0.605 0.390 14.8 B --------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.7 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.576 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALTSI....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING -------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 9E1' 33 56 27 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 87 287 39 23 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 56 76 14 62 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0: 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADL HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NS LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APR. LOS EB LT 0.322 0.490 6.1 B 5.9 B R 0.079 0.490 5.2 B WD LT 0.386 0.490 6.4 B 6.2 B R 0.108 0.490 5.3 B NB LT 0.156 0.392 7.6 B 7.6 B R 0.025 0.392 7.2 B SB LT 0.082 0.392 7.4 B 7.4 B I: 0.110 0.392 7.5 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 6.4 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.284 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..ROUTE 657/ROUTE 656 AREA TYPE..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... PM PEAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- VOLUMES GEOMETRY EH WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 78 41 83 96 : LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 LT 12.0 TH 360 216 44 41 : R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 R 12.0 RT 104 61 33 92 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.8 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 51.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X NB LT X TH X TH X RT y RT X PD PD WB LT X SB LT z TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD GREEN 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 &.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APR. LOS EB LT 0.575 0.490 7.8 B 7.3 B R 0.147 0.490 5.4 B WB LT 0.406 0.490 6.5 B 6.3 B R 0.086 0.490 5.3 B NB LT 0.261 0.392 8.0 B 7.9 B R 0.058 0.392 7.3 f SB LT 0.256 0.392 8.0 B 7.9 B R 0.163 0.392 7.7 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 7.2 (sec%veh) 1/C = 0.435 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE .......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... AM PEAK COMMENT....... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUILD - 1997 PROPOSED ZONING VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 87 359 102 5E : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 230 395 315 447 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 42 84 135 84 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 3 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 80.0 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT X X NB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X PD PD WB LT X X SB LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT x PD PD GREEN 4.0 28.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN E.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELA'T LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOS EB L 0.073 0.436 9.9 B 14.4 B TR 0.470 0.350 15.8 C WE L 0.068 8.438 9.9 B 18.4 C TR 0.830 0.350 24.7 C ND L 0.053 0.487 8.2 B 12.8 B TR 0.371 0.375 13.9 B SB L 0.053 0.467 8.2 B 13.7 B TR 0.428 0.375 14.3 B -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 15.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.501 LOS = C 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT INTERSECTION..CORK STREET/PLEASANT VALLEY AREA 1YF'E..... 01HER ANALYST ....... DRG DATE_.......... 04/03/90 TIME.......... 'M F'EAK COMMENT....... BUILD - 1997 F'ROF'OSED ZONING VOLUMES GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 189 228 104 135 : L 10.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 TH 300 185 828 615 : TR 12.0 TR 12.0 T 12.0 T 12.0 RT 78 lio 269 158 : 12.0 12.0 TR 12.0 TR 12.0 RR 0 0 0 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE HV ADJ F'KG BUSES PHF F'EDS F'ED. BUT. ARR. TYPE (%) (%) Y/N Nm Nb Y./'N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.` WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.5 NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.95 0 N 14.0 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 77.0 F'H-1 P,H-2 F'H-3 Fm'H-4 F'H-1 F'H-2 PH-3 F'H-4 EB LT X X NE' LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X F'D WB LT X X SE LT X X TH X TH X RT X RT X F'D F'll GREEN ;. 41 2'-.0 0. F 0. 0 GRCEN 6.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 IEi-LOW 0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE LANE GRF'. V/C G/ C DELAY LOS AF'F'. DELAY AF'I,. LOS LB L 0.070 0.A16 10.3 B 16.9 C TR 0.710 0.32`�j 20.2 C WB L 0.065 0.416 10.3 B 15.4 C TR 0.653 0.32c-S 18.9 C NL, L 0.051 0.:,06 7.3 B 19.6 C TR 0.86.3 0.390 20.8 C SB L 0.235E+.506 8.2 B 13.8 B T1: 0.605 0.390 14.8 B ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTEEtSI:=CTION: Delay = 1:.3 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.651 LOS = C � I � I A Traffic Impact Analysis of TWIN LAKES ' A Proposed Residential Development In Fredrick County, Virginia Prepared for: ' Loggia Development Company Callow Associates, Inc. ' Transportation Planning & Design Consultants FINAL TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR TWIN LAKES prepared for LOGGIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 1700 Diagonal Road Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 prepared by CALLOW ASSOCIATES, INC. 12007 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 160 Reston, Virginia 22091 March 6, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. LIST OF FIGURES ............................................. iii LIST OF TABLES .............................:............... iv INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................... 2 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ................................... 5 EXISTING ZONING SCENARIO ................................... 8 Trip Generation ........................................... 8 Trip Distribution .......................................... 8 Trio Assignment .......................................... 8 Traffic Impacts ........................................... 11 PROPOSED ZONING SCENARIO ................................. 13 Trip Generation ........................................... 13 Trip Distribution .......................................... 14 Trip Assignment .......................................... 14 Traffic Impacts ........................................... 14 CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 17 APPENDIX..................................................... ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page No. 1. Site Map 3 2. Existing Conditions 4 3. Background 1997 Conditions 7 4. Trip Distribution 9 5. Build 1997 Volumes - Existing Zoning 10 6. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Existing Zoning 12 7. Build 1997 Volumes - Proposed Zoning 15 8. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Proposed Zoning 16 iii LIST OF TABLES Table No. 1. Twin Lakes Trip Generation - Existing Zoning 2. Twin Lakes Trip Generation - Proposed Zoning IV Page No. 9 13 1 INTRODUCTION ' The Twin Lakes development is located on approximately 400 acres in Frederick County, Virginia. The site is located south of Route 7 in the eastern part of the county. The site is adjacent to Senseny Road to the south and Openquon Creek to the east. The Twin Lakes development plan calls for rezoning of the site to allow for increased residential dwelling units, an elementary school site and small commercial retail site. The analysis of traffic impacts, performed by Callow Associates, utilizes projections of traffic volumes for the year 1997. The traffic impacts of the development on the surrounding roadways are measured through the following sequence of activities. 1. Establishing the existing base condition traffic volumes through field count surveys. 2. Forecasting future traffic volumes by applying growth factors to the base conditions and adding the expected traffic volumes associated with the Twin ' Lakes development, under the existing and proposed zoning. 3. Analyzing the future conditions with standard capacity analysis methods and ' recommending mitigation measures, if any, to accommodate Twin Lakes development traffic. The purpose of this report is to document these analytical steps and to present conclusions and recommendations. 1 IEXISTING CONDITIONS The site is currently isolated from any major collector roadway. Route 7 is located approximately 1,400 feet to the north. Route 657 (Senseny Road) is adjacent to the i southern portion of the site. Route 7 is the major east -west link between the Winchester ■ area and Leesburg. Route 7 also provides direct access to I-81. Route 657 is currently a local collector serving as a parallel route for the local area between Route 7 and Route 50 in the eastern part of the county. The existing road network is also shown on Figure Peak hour traffic counts were taken during February 1990 at the following locations: o Route 657 (Senseny Road) and Morning Glory Drive (Road C) ' o Route 7 east of Route 659 These traffic volumes for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours reflecting existing conditions are ' shown on Figure 2. Peak hour as well as ADT volumes are shown. ADT was produced from counts conducted by VDOT for Route 7 and Frederick County for Sensemy Road. 1 The appendix contains the traffic count summary sheets for the existing conditions. ' Traffic operations for existing conditions at the intersection of Route 657 and Morning Glory Drive were analyzed, based upon existing counts, traffic control devices and roadway geometries. The result of this analysis provided level of service (LOS.). Briefly, level of services ranges from 'A' - free flow condition to 'F' - forced flow conditions. The appendix contains detailed descriptions of these levels taken from the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. ' Capacity analysis was performed at the intersection for A.M. and P.M. peak hour conditions. Figure 2 also shows the lane geometry and level of service results for the A.M. ' and P.M. peak hours. 1 F� 1 J LEGEND: Route 7 -- (15,326) - Site (456) 727 (8_5) - Road River AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes (3,813) i N LL CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. (4)12 .,4 (78)55 Figure 2. Eadsting Conditions Senseny Road RTF-. 657 IThe following is a summary of the existing capacity analysis results: The intersection of ' Route 657 and Morning Glory Drive is currently unsignalized. The intersection operates at level of service 'A' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The relatively light traffic ' on Route 657 is due to the rural nature of the area. ' BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Due to the fact that the build -out date for the Twin Lakes development is not far into the future, the local road network will mainly remain unchanged from the existing network. The Frederick County six -year road improvement plan calls for improvements of Route t657 from the Winchester city line to Clark County. The county is also proposing an eastern bypass loop (Route 37) through this area of the county. There is no specific time frame or corridor established for this roadway and it was not assumed for this study. Route 37 is proposed as a four lane divided roadway, connecting the existing Route 37 at I-81 north and south of the city of Winchester. IAccess for the Twin Lakes development is being proposed via three intersections. The ' first access roadway would be proposed from the site northward to Route 7. A proposed at -grade intersection is proposed at Route 7. It is not known at this time however, how ' this roadway will function at the time Route 37 is built. The second and third access points are located at the south end of the property. Access is being proposed directly onto 1 Route 657 (Senseny Road), one from the Twin Lakes development and the other through inter -parcel access from the AppleRidge development. The AppleRidge development is ' located adjacent to the Twin Lakes development to the east. ' The existing counts were increased at a rate of 6.0 percent peLv= This percent growth was established from Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) counts conducted between 1986 and 1988 along Route 7 in the vicinity of the site. These background volumes represent conditions in 1997, without the development of the Twin Lakes site. Fig P g Figure 3 shows the expected background traffic, for study year - 1997, on the access locations as shown in the existing conditions analysis. Peak hour and ADT volumes are shown. Capacity analysis was performed at the intersection for A.M. and P.M. peak hour ' conditions. Figure 3 also shows the lane geometry and level of service results for the A.M. and P.M. peak hours. The following is a summary of the background only capacity analysis results: The intersection of Route 657 and Morning Glory Drive would operate at level of service 'A' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. rel I LEGEND : Route 7 -- - Site Road River AM(PM) - peak Hour Volumes (XXXX) - ADT •. 1 ��• / `�• i 1 / 1 /I1 � 1 , � 1 MA / 1 0 < / IU A(A) —_—_ (A)A Unsignalized 20(15) 48(86) Senseny Road (5,720) (6)18 RTE. 657 (117)83 'N CALLOW Figure 3. Background 1997 Conditions ASSOCIATES INC. 1 F EXISTING ZONING SCENARIO Trip Generation According to the existing zoning, the Twin Lakes development is permitted to construct up to 80 residential dwelling units. The traffic generated by the development was estimated by using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition (1987). Table 1 gives the resulting trips generated by the Twin Lakes development for the A.M. and P.M. peak periods, under the existing zoning. Table 1 TWIN LAKES TRIP GENERATION (Existing Zoning) Peak Hour Vehicle Trips A.M. P.M. Land Use Amount In Out In Out ADT Single Family Detached 80 DU 18 48 56 33 800 Trip Distribution The distribution of trips from the Twin Lakes property is shown on Figure 4. The percentages are based upon a logical split, considering the existing pattern of traffic flow and the regional highway system. Specifically, a greater percentage of traffic will be destined to Route 7 verses the access points onto Route 657. I Trip Assignment The existing zoning generated traffic from the Twin Lakes development was then assigned to the proposed road network along with the total background traffic discussed earlier. This assignment has been conducted as a base comparison of the existing land use to the proposed land use. Therefore the proposed road network has been assumed for this scenario. This total, comprises the "Existing Zoning" scenario assignment, as shown on Figure 5. Peak hour as well as ADT are shown. 1 11 Fil L PI aOt,(C LEGEND Aftm- -- - Site - Road River R7 g. 657 _ 22 % 18 % / N , CALLOW Figure 4. Trip Distribution 3�� I I ASSOCIATES INC. F, LEGEND: Soule 7 (23,236) (686)1,093r6(20j1,24n) �— - Sic _ ■� - Road (13)4 T (23,332) River N 00 ^ AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes OCXXX) - ADT * - Development Only �I fto 1 I 1 / . 1 /I 1 � 1 / 1 ' 1 � I I40,00. � 1 / r / / / I / O ' / v (5,896) (10)3 (126)101 ZN\ 1 CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. 1 1 1 P 1 1 0 0CID o � cz v,�-L- 1(4) 21(21) -.*--67(101) —50(90) Senseny Road (5,816) (8)1y.--7 (5,864) Rom• 657 (120)87 y Figure 5. Build 1997 Volumes - Existing Zoning 10 ' Traffic Impacts Callow Associates performed capacity analysis the three site access locations as follows: o Route 7 and Road A o Route 657 and Road C o Route 657 and Road D The analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition of existing zoning plus background traffic for the year 1997. The resulting level of service and lane geometry are shown on Figure 6. The following narrative describes level of service conditions that would be observed for this analysis and assuming the lane geometry shown in Figure 6 at each intersection The lane geometry reflects minimum lane requirements for acceptable conditions. o Route 7 and Road A will operate at level of service `D'or better in both the A.M. P.M. peak hours, unsignlaized. Level of service `D' is unacceptable, according to VDOT standards ' for Frederick County. It is however acceptable according to the Federal Transportation Research Board's 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). o Route 657 and Road C will operate at level of service `A' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. o Route 657 and Road D will operate at level of service `A' for ' both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. Capacity analysis output from the 1985. Highway Capacity software is included in the ' Appendix. 1 11 1 1 11 LEGEND : Route7 -- - Site (A)A - Road '+ p River Ga AM(PM) - Level of Service • 1 / l 1 i NOTE: All Intersections Unsignalized 1 I 1 1 � . 1 P % • — — goad �\ . 1, / 1 I 1 o L 1 A o .ti o A(A) A(A) (A)A 4 (A)A 4 CALLOW ASSOCIATES INC. Senseny Road R-M. 657 Figure 6. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Existing Zoning P 12 IPROPOSED ZONING SCENARIO Trip Generation The Twin Lakes development is proposing to construct 690 single family dwelling units, 427 townhouse dwelling units and 35,000 square feet of retail uses. The traffic generated by the development was estimated by using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 4th Edition (1987). Table 2 gives the resulting trips generated by the Twin Lakes development for the A.M. and P.M. peak periods, under the proposed zoning. Table 2 TWIN LAKES TRIP GENERATION (Proposed Zoning) Peak Hour Vehicle Trips A.M. P.M. Land Use Amount In Out In Out ADT SF DETACHED 201 DU 41 111 132 78 2,010 ' SF DETACHED 78 DU .17 47 54 32 780 TOWNHOUSE 215 DU 16 82 80 39 1,226 SF DETACHED 53 DU 12 33 38 22 530 SF DETACHED 53 DU 12 33 38 22 530 SF DETACHED 123 DU 26 71 83 49 1,230 SF DETACHED 28 DU 7 18 21 12 280 SF DETACHED 52 DU 12 32 37 22 520 SF DETACHED 58 DU 13 36 41 24 580 TOWNHOUSE SF DETACHED 89 DU 8 41 38 19 44 DU 10 28 32 19 584 440 TOWNHOUSE 55 DU 5 28 25 13 390 TOWNHOUSE 68 DU 6 33 30 15 466 RETAIL 35,000 SF 65 28 177 184 3,755 TOTAL 252 622 826 549 135322 rl L 13 1 I Trip Distribution The distribution of trips from the Twin Lakes property is shown on Figure 4, in the existing zoning section. The same assumptions for the proposed zoning trip distribution was assumed as for the existing zoning traffic flow. Refer to the previous section on trip distribution in the Existing Zoning section of the report. Trip Assignment The proposed zoning generated traffic from the Twin Lakes development was then assigned to the road network along with the total background traffic discussed earlier. Access to the water treatment plant has been assumed to occur along the development access road to Route 7. Minimal peak hour traffic from the plant has been included in the peak hour traffic assignment. This total, comprises the "Proposed Zoning" scenario assignment, as shown on Figure 7. Peak hour volumes as well as ADT are shown. Traffic Impacts Callow Associates performed capacity analysis the three site access locations as follows: o Route 7 and Road A o Route 657 and Road C o Route 657 and Road D The analysis was performed for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours for the condition of proposed zoning plus background traffic for the year 1997. The resulting level of service and lane geometry are shown on Figure 8. The lane geometry reflects minimum lane requirements for acceptable conditions. The following narrative describes level of service conditions that would be observed for this analysis and assuming the lane geometry shown in Figure 8 at each intersection: 14 Site (26,10g ) � 1(297)40) 297) (686)1,093 - Road (200)681_� (27,840) - River v —•— N AM(PM) - Peak Hour Volumes M (XXX) - ADT `I `��♦ ```�� * - Development Only j 1 � 1 � i 1 �I 1 ,% d P 1 'N q 1 1 0 >1 �•---- ��L'' r 40(81) (8,651) —90021) �--73(lfi8) Senseny Road (149)45,,, V (7,585) (39)28 (8,118) IZT -. 657 (156)111 (172)145 N �� L—� CALLOW Figure 7. Build 1997 Volumes - Proposed Zoning ASSOCIATES INC. 1 15 Ll :l C' �LoT � \ ----00 i 1 t---- a , p �< Q A(A) I A(A) Senseny Road RTE. 657 (A)A (A)A I r� / N \ Figure 8. Level of Service & Lane Geometry - Proposed Zoning ' CALLOW i ASSOCIATES INC. 16 ' o Route 7 and Road A will operate at level of service `B' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, signalized. o Route 657 and Road C will operate at level of service `A' for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. o Route 657 and Road D will operate at level of service `B' or better for both the A.M. and P.M. peak hours, unsignalized. Capacity analysis output from the 1985 Highway Capacity software is included in the Appendix. CONCLUSION The traffic impacts associated with the Twin Lakes development are manageable. The Twin Lakes development would not adversely effect traffic in the study area. The three development access intersections would all operate at acceptable levels of service for the proposed zoning scenario with the following improvements. The intersection of Route 7 and Road A will require signalization with turn lanes. The intersection of Route 657 and Road C and, the intersection of Route 657 and Road D will require only access design improvements. With these improvements the total future traffic flow analyzed, including that generated by Twin Lakes development, would operate at acceptable conditions. 1 17 1 L� n 11 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS and LEVEL OF SERVICE The most current analysis methodologies used for evaluating the capacity of intersections were developed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other members of the transportation profession. This methodology is presented in TRB Special Report Number 209, The 1985 Hi!hwav Capacity Manual (HCM). Computerized methods for conducting these analyses were developed by FHWA; and are the methods used in this report. The following brief explanations of the methodologies are adapted from the HCM. IUNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS At an unsignalized intersection the major street has continuous right of way while the side street is controlled by a Stop or Yield sign. In operation, vehicles exiting the side street and crossing or turning into the main street flow must wait for "acceptable gaps" in the main street flow. The same is true of left - turning traffic from the main street that must cross the opposing flow. The analysis takes into account the probability of a gap in the main street traffic. The probability and number of acceptable gaps, is lower in higher volume flows. The acceptability of a gap is modified by physical factors (sight distance, turning radius, etc.) and by characteristics of the traffic flow (percentage trucks, buses, etc.). In the analyses in this report, all default values suggested by the HCM were used unless additional information was available. These defaults include the estimated percentage of trucks (single unit and tractor - trailer), buses and motorcycles. ' The level of service for unsignalized intersections is determined only for individual movements - not for the intersection as a whole. The capacity of a movement is calculated (in terms of vehicles per hour - VPH) and then compared with the demand. The difference is the "reserve capacity." The level of service is then based on the amount of reserve capacity left over: Level: of:;Service:::.Chteria: for . nsi nalized.Intersections g ......... . . e Level:>of:: ected Delay �affic SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The operation (and therefore the capacity) of a signalized intersection is complicated by the fact that the signal is allocating time between conflicting traffic movements - movements that must use the same physical space. The analysis, therefore, must not only look at the physical geometry of the intersection, but the signal timing aspects as well. In the analysis of signalized intersections, two terms are important: volume to capacity ratio (v/c) and; average stopped delay (seconds per vehicle). The theoretical capacity is based on the physical geometry, the available green time (often expressed as G/C), and the traffic mix (e.g. trucks use more capacity than cars). The average stopped delay may be calculated from the v/c ratio, cycle length, quality of progression on the arterial and available green time on each approach. Calculations of both capacity and delay are based on empirical data, therefore some situations may not fit the theoretical formulas. For example in signal systems with good progression, it is often possible to show a v/c ratio greater than 1.0 (demand exceeds capacity), but at the same time, correctly calculate delay values in the acceptable 'C' or 'D' range. In this report all default values recommended by the HCM are used unless other specific information is available (percentage of trucks, pedestrians, etc.). Existing signal timings are observed and used whenever possible. When future signals are being evaluated, an "optimal" signal timing is calculated based on projected volumes. The level of service is based on the calculated average delay per vehicle for each approach and for the intersection as a whole. Based on extensive research studies, the maximum delay acceptable by the average driver is 60 seconds per vehicle at a signalized intersection. This is defined as the upper limit on the possible range of delay/level of service criteria. The following criteria describe the full range of level of service: X. -. I;evel'of Service°Criteria::_for.>::Sig Mind Intersections : Level::.o£ :> : <>>:;:::>:::, ; ::::::::::::: ````:.''; Sto ed::Dela Nl p er hi .....::... ;...;::.:..; :.::..:;;:.:::::.: .... 51::;:to :25i0.; ;:.:.:.... .. ::W. LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Level of Service A describes operations with very low delay, i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at ' all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B Level of Service B describes operations with delay in the range of 5.1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C Level of Service C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. D Level of Service D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. ' E Level of Service E describes operations with delay in the range of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This level is the theoretical maximum capacity of the intersection. F Level of Service F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. L 'I 1 Intersection: Rir TE 657 3 MONK- GLORY Dk location YINCF61 ER Co;,,ted y PF: Date : 2-13-90 Day: TUES Input Cy :� Yeat^er DF1 ---------------------- --__------- -----:--.'.�. --V--=-------»-:y------ ---------------- ------_-----4------------------- I==iC F4G" - ::L RA V. ROM N^r.' .GAFF r FRC" 6E:- TWFFIC Fr;M EP.:- 1 AORM:46 GLORY on: ROUTE 657 on: ROUTE 657 ! TOTAL I At? ---------------------- ;'e-,co ;-F7 ----- ira R:GMT T:';L -------------------- Li.--7 ThnJ R: �' i;%4, -:—---- —---- ------- Lc -F. n:ari TOi�L ---------------------- LEFT TNnu R:GMi i0;AL I I HIS, ! 3 Y Time Perim --------------------------- -- ------- ------- — ----------------------------------------------------------- *-------+-------- AA I I I AA 6:38-6:4J 8 8 8 8 8 a 2 2 8 12 8 12 8 6 1 7 1 21 1 6:38-6:45 6: Be 1 2 8 8 8 8 8 4 4 2 13 8 1J 8 7 2 9 1 28 1 6:4J-7:88 7:0e-7:15 ! 8 8 8 8 1 8 3 4 3 14 8 11 8 8 4 12 1 33 1 7:88-7:15 7:15-7:38 ! 8 a a 8 8 8 2 2 4 12 a 16 8 18 3 13 1 3. 17:15-7:38 ' 7:3e-7;45 1 8 8 8 6 e 8 2 2 3 16 8 13 6 6 4 3! 31 1 7:38-7:45 7:45-8:0e 1 8 8 8 8 1 8 4 5 2 13 8 15 8 8 2 16 1 38 1 7:45-8:38 ' 8:0e-8:15 I 3::J-8:32 8 8 8 a e e 8 a 8 a e e 8 4 8 4 a 1 :2 9 8 8 :2 18 8 8 i E 8 4 ;! 12 I i9 18:a8-8:1J 26 ! 8:1J-8:38 I I -----------+--------------------------- —----------------------- --------------------------- ----------------------+----------- ' 6:3e-7;38 2 a 8 8 1 8 :1 lc 2 6e 8 31 18 41 1 113 1 6:38-7:38 :45-1;4J b 8 e 8 1 8 1' 12 12 VI `5 E 67 8 3i 13 44 ! 123 I a:4J-7:45 r.C�-_:eE e r, ✓ , 2 .: 1 _ :_ :% a 32 1 2`. 7:02-8:H 7::J-e::J 1 a a 8 8 1 8 8 9 9 J3 a 62 8 31 9 46 i ill, ! 7:1J-8:1E 7:3a- :.2 ; 8 a a 8 1 8 18 :1 6 5e a E6 8 29 18 39 1 186 ! 7;38-8:3a i I 7:ee-8:88 I -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 8 8 8 2 8 11 13 12 5! 8 67 8 32 13 45 1 125 1 7:88-8:80 i F 4 = NA P1�7 = 8.6E PHF = 0.58 FHF = 8.87 1 1 P" ! 4:aE-5:ea I 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 2 4 8 1 16 :: 8 B 16 2a 8 a 12 15 2 1 14 1 IE I 32 1 4a 1 4:38-4:4: 4:45-5:42 J 4 2 21 9 23 8 16 3 19 1 46 a i4 4 18 1 41 1 5::J-5:3e ' J:38-5: 8 8 8 8 8 1 2 8 14 8 14 8 11 1 12 1 28 1 5:38-5:45 E:+E-6:ee e 8 8 8 a 8 2 2 8 16 2 ., a 12 1 151 3115:45-6:88 6:e8-6:iJ i a 8 8 e a 2 1 i i :8 8 1'i a 18 2 12 32 1 6:1J-�.38 e e e G a e i 1 e 14 a .4 8 8 19 1 1 24 1 i 6:;5-5:38 ------------------------------ — ----------------------------- ----------------------- —------------ ------ -------+--------- ' 4:3a-5:3d 4:45-5:45 1 8 8 e 8 8 8 8 8 1 2 e 2 9 8 18 18 4 4 78 76 8 8 82 88 8 8 E7 56 le 9 57 ! 65 1 159 14:3e-5:36 1JJ 14:45-5:1J J:eB-6:88 I 8 8 8 8 1 6 7 8 3 73 8 76 8 53 9 62 1 146 i J:88-6:0a J:15-6:15 ; 8 8 8 8 1 8 4 5 2 78 8 72 8 47 8 55 1 132 1 5:15-6:15 5:38-6:38 i a 6 8 8 1 8 E 6 1 62 8 63 a 41 5 46 1 I 11J 1 I 5:38-6:32 ! P.!. PEAK 40J4 1 1 4:38-5:38 i -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- a 8 a 8 1 8 9 18 4 78 8 82 8 57 18 67 i 1E9 1 4:38-5:38 ------------------------------------ F4 = MA ------------------------------------------------ TPF = 8.63 P-F = a.0 ----------- --------------------------------- PH-' = 8.88 L985 HUM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ******************************�**�*��` IDENTIFYING INFORMATION N AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUFACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME Of AST/WEST 5TREET,........ Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... Morning Glory Drive NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. mjh DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/14/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. am peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL U .... ... ..... .... ... .... .... .... .... ..... __- � INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBO�ND: STOP SISN TRAFFIC VOLUMES U EB WB NB SB --- ___ LEFT 12 0 -- 2 THRU 55 32 -- 0 RIGHT 0 13 NUMBER OF LANES | EB WB NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS ------------------------------------------------------------------- Pawn-' PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS <ft> ACCELERATION LA:i.- GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT 7UPN.--- ------------------- _______ EASTBOUND __________ 0.00 90 ________________ 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 �0 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES _____________ % MOTCRC«CLES -------------- EASTBOUND ___________ 0 0 (> WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTNBOUND --- ' --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINN (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CR!TICAL 60-` -------------- ______________ MINOR RIGHTS ________ ___________ SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.�0 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Morning Glory Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 | CAPAC17Y AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Fag- -------- --- ---------------- _ N MOVEMENT MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT MAJOR STREET EB LEFT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CA?ACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c p M SH R S� U ____ ____________ ____________ -_ U 2 815 308 12 998 998 13 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 96f > 998 > PSI ' NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 617 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREE7.... Morning Glory Driv� DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; am peak hmur OTHER INFORMATION.... e:isting 1990 ] 19S5 HCM: UNSISNALTZED I�TERSECTICNS *****��**�******�**�*��*******��` IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ----------------------- AVERAGE RUNN�NG SPEED, MAJOR ST�EET PEAK HOUR �ACTCR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION.........,,........... 150000 NAME CF THE EAST/NEST STREET.....-... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... Mornirg Glory Drive N��E OF THE ANALYST.................. mjh DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/14/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED..........^...... pm peak �our O�HER INFORMATION.... existino 1990 U INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------- -NTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTICON MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SCl! THBOUND: STOP SlGN T�AFFIC VOL]MES U EB WB NB SB LEFT 4 0 -- 1 �HRU 78 57 -- 0 RIGHT NUMBER OF LANES EB WB NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS page—� N ________ N PERCENT r RB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERA7IONa LA�� GRADE ANGLE FOR RlGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SGUTHBOUND �.00 90 20 N VE}|ICLEl' [OMPOS[TION U U------------------------------------------------..... ---- - ---------------- ^ % SU TRUCKS % C01,181NATION A%D RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 � NORTHBO�ND --- --- --- U SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 U CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DlST. (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUST�ENT C�ITICAL 3�' | MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.�0 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.5O IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... Mor�jng Glory Drive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 � CAPACITY ____________________________________________________________________ AND LEVEL-OF-SERV= &ago- PCTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED TESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACUY CAPACI7`' MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c _______ p -------- M _________ SH R SH � ____________ ____________ ----- MINOR STREE-7 3B LEFT l 776 774 RIGHT 10 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 4 1000 1000 > 774 > > 969 > 997 > IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... Route 657 m*nE Uk !NE muK/|*luu111 W|ILL:.... Morning wory wrive DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/14/90 ; pm peak hour OTHER INFORMATION.... existing 1990 | 1` 85 HCM: UNSlGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS !"'age- l IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................. — 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 � NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD A NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/.15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES - 19? 7 - EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFI=IC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ELF WB 1"IB SB LEFT 8 6 12 -- RIGHT 4 .15 17 -- NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES 2 2 1 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS _____________________________________________________________________ Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT ________________ _________________ TURNS _______ __________ EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND ----- --- --- - VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES _____________ % MOTORCYCLES _____________ ___________ EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND --- --- --- CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIET. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ________ ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ___________ ------------- MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.00 7.00 0.00 7.00 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING � CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 13 75 74 > 74 > 61 > E > 152 > 120 >D RIGHT 19 592 592 > 592 > 574 > A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 7 294 294 294 287 C IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 1985 HCM: UN'SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. :=c PEAK. HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION .......... . ........... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... RT NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD A NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (,mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 8 20 8 -- RIGHT 1' 13 .12 -- NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 2 2 i -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 X.) 20 04 WESTBOUND 0.00 9i? 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 9c_? 20 N SOUTHBOUND ----- --- --- - VETiICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS AND RV'S EASTBOUND t? WESTBOUND �? NORTHBOUND 0 SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS ------------- MINOR RIGHTS NB MAJOR LEFTS WB MINOR LEFTS COMBINATION VEHICLES ------------- 0 i? MOTORCYCLES ------------- i? 0 i? -------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FiNA'._- ( Tab 1 e 10-2 ) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP 5 . 5i? 5.50 0.00 5.50 5. 50 5.50 0. „ 00 5. 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ...,. ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2/ 15/90 : PM PEAS:'. OTHER INFORMATION..... TWIN LAKES -- 1997 - EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ---- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 9 75 73 > 73 > 64 > E > 159 > 137 >D RIGHT 13 745 745 > 745 > 732 > A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 22 491 491 491 469 Al. IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... RT 7 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD A DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 1385 HCM s !_INS, I GNAL I Z ED INTERSECTIONS 'age-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 70 PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD D NAME OF THE ANALYST................... HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/94 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 199:' — EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTF_RSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WBaB SB LEFT _ 128 -- 4 THRU 101 67 RIGHT 74 1 -- 9 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS _'.age ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.� 0 9() 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 I`•_I NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBO ND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S `JEHICLES MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 c WESTBOUND r i 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL_ (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR: RIGHTS SLR 5. 50 5.50 0.0 5. tit, MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0 .0(,:) L . 0c i MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 0 . c it_, 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STRE.ET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ....:, 2/ 15?0 q AM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LDS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ---- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 4 749 747 RIGHT 10 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 3 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 747 > 743 > A > 904 > 889 >A > 997 > 987 > A 1000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 997 A 1Y�y'85 HCLyM : WWUNSy ILL(..y;NAyyL..IyyllWED INTERSECTIONS N_IERSEc:TII Ody.N1+S LL y yY yy .Ly LL yy �kk 4 L W L J y `yy WLPL.ge— Tm T T:�:� T ��'rm T,r mT ii!.i*iXT •1�T�� ?.T T. •P�T+I�•T •T T �+P.:P F T �TT •T iM1T�;X�?•�.� i�lii :�•T �.'�:V ,r 4.Y�•;k •'. }�.T m IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. TO PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREAPOPULATION...................... 15000) NAME: OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD D NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1Q97 — EXISTING.ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB ND SB LEFT 1123 -- THRU 126 101 -- 0 RIGHT 74 4 -- 6 NUMBER OF LANES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- L- L W B 1111B S B ------- LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FACTORS Page—.--. Pr=RCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f''_ ) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 CC? hl NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 ^c:? N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES °! MOTORCYCLES EASTBO AND 0 0 ? WESTBOUND 0 C i (-? NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND i? 0 i? CRITICAL GAPS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . FINAL_ (Table 10--2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL r A::' MINOR RIGHTS MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... r-} 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES -- 19?7 — EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 3 687 682 RIGHT 7 992 992 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 11 999 999 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 682 > 679 > 4 > 862 > 852 >A > 992 > 985 > A 999 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 988 A 1985 HCM o UNS I GNAL_ I ZED INTERSECTIONS Page—! IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. (i PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST /WEST STREET ......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD C NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (min/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PE^:IOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE. T—INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET- DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELF WB NB SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT 1'3 123 -- S THRU 57 50 -- 0 RIGHT 74 21 —_ 1O' NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- LANES 1 1 -- 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pane-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT EIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9(=) 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 9c_! C() N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS l COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 WESTBOUND o ( i i ! NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND o 0 (_! CRITICAL GAPS -------------------------------------------------------------•--------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL_ ( Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT -------- CRITICAL I-Ar::' MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0.0 i 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0. ,, 00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME O1= THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/1.5/90 ; AM PEAK: OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- `I" I AL MOVEMENT S1 HARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c -v LO` p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 9 754 744 RIGHT 20 997 997 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 21 1000 1000 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 744 > 735 > A 9i � = > 874 >A 997 > 977 > A 1000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2!15 90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATI'ON.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONIN ,79 y 1985 HCM : UNS I (_ANAL I LED INTERSECTIONS Page—! :'��ik�K%Kdt�K:%%F*�>k*��:��%"•' �%��*�r.'.��*:%.Pik%K�%i��%KKK;k>k%K,�%K;k%K�*#:X%k:k�:��K:'�:k�K%K:�'dc;k:��X:X;�`�:k.:?X'k� IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. =1:? PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15t i0i r0 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD C NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) ...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 — EXISTING ZONING INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I NTERSECT I ON TYPE: T-- I NTERSECT I ON MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC: VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB ND SB ---- ---- ---- ---- LEFT S 123 -- 5 THRL � 120 90 -- G RIGHT 74 21 -- 15 NUMBER OF LANES ------------------------------------ EB WB NB SL; LANES 1 1 - - 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE* GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 rN WESTBOUND 0.00 90 C� i N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- — SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 r\1 VEHICLE COMPOSITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0 s i WESTBOUND 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- ---- SOUTHBOUND { CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10_.-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ------------ MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.5C-,j MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0. 00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.10 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2 / 15 / ? ! ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES — 19?7 — EXISTING ZONING CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p _______ ________ M _________ SH ____________ R SH ____________ ------- MINOR STREET SB LEFT 6 696 692 RIGHT 17 994 994 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 9 998 998 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 692 > 687 > A > 897 > 875 >A > 994 > 978 > A 998 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - EXISTING ZONING 990 A 1985 H C M : UNS I GNAT- I ZED I N TI:.:S 'REi-I" I0;`JS r a KX:X K 3,%X IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AVEF:";AGE RUNNING SPEED , MAJOR STREET. c_� PEAK HOUR FACTOR ..................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 15t NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET .......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ....... R&AD C NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. 1-1ARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM-'EAk:: OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED INTERSECTION TYPE AND -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE.: T-INTERSECTIoN MAJOR; STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOU"!'HI,'OL'ND : STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 28 1y8 THI U 145 RIGHT 74 40 7 NUMBER OF LANES E.B WB NB SB I._ANIS 1 .1 ••-- 1 ADJUSTMENT _____________________________________________________________________ FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS _________________ EASTBOUND _______ __________ 0.00 90 ________________ 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION _____________________________________________________________________ % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES _____________ % M3TORCYCLES _____________ EASTBOUND ___________ 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS _____________________________________________________________________ TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) ______________ VALUE ________ ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP ___________ ------------- MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 � MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF --SERVICE Pa, e-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- T I AL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT" v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = = - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 58 664 652 RIGHT 30 995 995 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 11 998 998 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 65'2 > 593 > A > 7=8 > 650 :>A > 995 > 966 > 953 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...,.. rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATA AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2 / 15 /90 ; AM PEAK. OTHER INFORMATION .. . . TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 967 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR.....'.'.'.'...'.'... 1 AREA POPULATION......,............... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET'........ rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD C NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB ____ ____ ____ LEFT 39 128 -- 45 THRU 172 168 -- 0 RIGHT 74 81 -- 47 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB _______ _______ _______ ------- LANES 1 1 -- 1 -1L%JUt, ; I`1ENl FACTORS Cl1=ice Page-2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PEF CENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (f t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EAST BOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 9c) 2 N NORTHBOUND ----- _-._ .--- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 n(:) 2t i N VEHICLE COME'OSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND 0-� WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 C' '•-� CRITICAL OAF'S --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D137. FINAL ; Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CR 171 CAL_ GOP --------------- MINOR RIGHTS SLR 5.50 5.50 0. ( )I_? 5 . 5!.l MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 i 0. . 00 6. 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2/ 15/90 q PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION .... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL--OF-SERVICE page------------------------------------------------------------------------ - POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- T I AL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v (pc ph) c (pc ph) c (pc ph) c (pc ph) c = c- v p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SD LEFT 50 547 532 RIGHT 52 882 882 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 43 938 938 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION 531 482 h-1 667 > 566 it 9=8 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD C DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 8'96 1935 HCM : UNSI GNAL I :ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. _i PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................... 1 AREA POPULATION ...................... 150000 NAME: OF THE EAST/WEST STREET..,:...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD D NAME OF THE ANALYST .................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ................. AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SCUTHDOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- LEFT 45 1'2�, -- e2 THRU i i i 90 -- i i RIGHT 74 25 -- 112 NUMBER OF LANES ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ELF 41 B NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pa PERCFENT R' I GHT TURIN CURB F;AD I US (f t) ACCEI.-El" AT I OI':I LAt IE GF ADE f=)I\3GLE FOIE R 16 F U R N S- 1= LIR R I (:?-.il- UT1 N _ EASTBOUND t) . c )c) 9f) Wit:) N WESTBOUND C-) , i is) 9i) Ci) N NORTHBOUND ----- --- -- — - SOUTHBOUND i) . i )i) C? i 7T N VEHICLE COMPOSITION SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV ' S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND C-) i) 0 WESTBOUND !:) i) i ) NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SO! )THBOUND c) C.) i ) CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT D I ST . 1:7 I N A L ( Table 1 t i2� 1 VALUE ADJUSTMENT CR I Ti I CAL GA1=' MINOR RIGHTS MAJOR LEFTS EB 5. 00 5. )O O . )O 5. Ot ) MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 U . 00 6.50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET..... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF TIIE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 q AM PEAk. OTI•-IER INFORMATION .... TWIN LA k:ES — 1997 — PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ ------ MINOR STREET SB LEFT 68 b/U bno RIGHT 123 992 992 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 50 998 998 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 650 > 582 > A > 836 > 644 >A > 992 > 869 > A 998 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; AM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED ' 948 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION _____________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... ROAD D NAME OF THE ANALYST.................. HARTLAND DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 2/15/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED................. PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL _____________________________________________________________________ INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB LEFT 149 128 -- 55 THRU 156 121 -- 0 RIGHT 74 83 -- 99 NUMBER OF LANES _____________________________________________________________________ EB WB NB SB LANES ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PagF'-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERCEN i RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (Y. F) ACCELERATION LANE' GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS S FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 9(") 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 Oi? !,I NORTHBOUND ----- --- --- - SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS COMBINATION AND RV'S `:%EHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND ? c ? WESTBOUND 0 NORTHBOUND --- --- --- SOUTHBOUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table .1 0--'2) -------------- VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL lr.'JAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5. 50 5.50 0. 00 5. =n MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 � i . 00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6. 50 6.50 0. 00 6. 50 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET .... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS ..... 2l 15 i 90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES — 1997 -- PROPOSED CAPACITY AND LEVEL -OF -SERVICE Page-3 _____________________________________________________________________ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH _______ ________ _________ ____________ ____________ --- MINOR STREET BB LEFT 61 514 456 RIGHT 109 929 929 MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 164 981 981 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION > 456 > 395 > B > 678 > 509 >A > 929 > 820 > A 981 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... rt 657 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... ROAD D DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS..... 2/15/90 ; PM PEAK OTHER INFORMATION.... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED 817 A 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS SUMMARY REPORT **************************************************************'All *********** N� w� INTERSECTION..RT 7/ROAD A AREA TYPE ..... OTHER ANALYST, ......HARTLAND DATE ..........2/15/90 TIME .......... AM PEAK COMMENT ....... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED N� VOLUMES ______________________________________________ : GEOMETRY EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB @� LT 0 91 153 TH 1093 570 0 0 : T 12.0 L 0 : T 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 L 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 Q� RT 68 0 224 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 20 0 70 0 : 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12'0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 &� __________________________________________________________________________ GRADE HV ADJ ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PKG BUSES PHF PEDS PEE . BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T N� EB 0.00 2.00 N WB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 0 0.90 0 0 N N 11.3 3 NB 0.00 2.VO N O 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.G _ 3 SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGT1- = 69.0 PH PH-2 PH-3 1:'-"1-1-4 PH PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 N� EB LT TH X NB LT TH X RT X RT X N� PD WB LT X X SB PD LT m� TH X X TH RT RT PD PD GREEN 10.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 YELLOW0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LEVEL OF SERVICE N� LANE GRP. V/C G/C DELAY LOS APP. DELAY APP. LOIS` EB T 0.784 0.435 14.6 B 14.1 B R 0.049 0.725 2.1 A N� WB L 0.031 0.623 3.8 A 4.4 A T 0.285 0.623 4.5 A N� NB L 0.387 R 0.259 0.290 15.2 0.435 9. 5 C B 12.3 B INTERSECTION: Delay = 10.8 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.503 LOS = B 1985 HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS N� SUMMARY REPORT ************************************************************************** INTERSECTION..RT 7/ROAD A N� AREA TYPE ..... OTHER �= ANALYST ....... HARTLAND N� DOTE ..........2/15/90 TIME .......... PM PEAK N� COMMENT ....... TWIN LAKES - 1997 - PROPOSED __________________________________________________________________________ VOLUMES : GEOMETRY N� EB WB NB SB : EB WB NB SB LT 0 297 136 0 : T 12.0 L 12.0 L 12.0 12.0 N� TH 686 1240 0 RT 200 0 198 0 : T 12.0 T 0 : R 12.0 T 12.0 12.0 R 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 RR 60 0 60 0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 : 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 w� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS GRADE I.T. ADJ PKG BUSES PI -IF PEDS PED. BUT. ARR. TYPE Y/N Nm Nb Y/N min T EB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 11.3 3 Q� WB 0.00 2.00 N NB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 0 0.90 0 0 N 11.3 N 25.8 3 3 -~ SB 0.00 2.00 N 0 0 0.90 0 N 25.8 3 __________________________________________________________________________ SIGNAL SETTINGS CYCLE LENGTH = 74'0 &� PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH PH-1 PH-2 PH-3 PH-4 EB LT NB LT X N� TH X RT X TH RT X PD PD N� WB LT X X TH X X SB LT TH �� RT RT PD PD GREEN 15.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 GREEN 20.0 YELLOW 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 YELLOW 3.0 0.0 N� LANE GRP. V/C LEVEL OF SERVICE G/C DELAY LOS APPP . DELAY AP. LOS �� EB T 0.528 0'405 12.9 B 11.3 B R 0.152 WB L 0.173 0.676 0.649 3.9 A 5.6 B N� T 0.596 0.649 6 .0 B NB L 0.369 0.270 16.9 C 12.8 B R 0.214 0.473 B.7 B N� -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION: Delay = 8.1 (sec/veh) V/C = 0.531 LOS = B ��